Now it is clear that if we were to succeed, by a comparison of tliose docunionts which go back directly or indirectly to the Hexapla, in restoring its i5 (-olumn, we sliould have a Septnagintal text, but not the original one ; for, as indicated above, the principles on which Origen chose his text are not the true ones ; moreover, it would appear that he even further introduced little changes, so as to make his text correspond to the Hebrew, for instance in the matter of proper names, writing Tyipauv (Ex 6") for VtSauv, etc.§ We must therefore look for
• Origen took this whole system of notation from the Alexan- drian critii.*» of Homer, especially Aristarchus ; see the passages qiiMt«d by Swete, p. ,1, and the enumeration of the passages ''f Proverbs which varied in order from the Patmos codex, in Tischendorf's Holitia, p. 76. How inconvenient this was before the invention of numbering the verses and chapterv may be seen there.
I On other po-isages (On 48 IS" etc.) for which « :U/^puriiUp is ipi'.ted, see Field, i. p. Ixxxii ft., and S. Knbn, 'Samareitikon u?ul S<ptuaginta' in Monatsschri/t /iiT M'txtifiinchajt df« Jtiden- tliums, N. F. 1. (1804) 1-7, 4'J-07 ; ZDMU, 1»«3, 060. Kohu iM-lieves that there was originally a complete Greek translation of the Samaritan Targum.
! See above, p. 440'', on the Moscow and Athens reprints of Orube 8 edition of the Codex Alexandrinus ; and ct., (or ItJi dis- astrous results, e.g. Olkonomos, ii. 2£l,on the reading $if and X<ip*' In Ps 131".
I Cf. Ps 11*, where lit w, wit^ra has nothing answering to It In Hebrew ; a scholion remarks that it ttuirt it nr rix<ii r«* #' ««•» »)A^Mm ; Up, 184, sah., Theodoret have for It •,'> n:. •;«<i^ p^t^t.
other sources. These have been found in the re- censions which Jerome mentions as being circulated in his times, besides the copies produced by Eusebius and I'ampliilus. Jerome, who was almost the only one who opposed the popular views about (5, had also the right insight into the consequences of Origen's labours in textual criticism, when he wrote to Augustine —
' Et miror quomodo LXX interpretum libros legaa non puros ut ab els editi sunt, sed ab Origene emendatos sive corruptos per obelos et asteriscos. . , . Vis amator esse verus Septuaginta mterpretum, non legas ea, qua) sub asteriscis sunt, imo rade de voluminibus, ut veteruni te fauturem probes. Ouod si feceris, omnes ecclcsiarum bibliothecas damnare cogens. Vix enio. unus aat alter invenietur liber qui ista non haneat.'
He mentions several times three sets of Bible texts as used in his time (PrcBf. in Paralip., adv. Ruf. u. 27)—
' Alexandria et ^E^ypt"' •" Septuaginta suis Betychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani {var. lee. Juliani) martyris exemplaria probat. medije inter has provinciffl Paleostinos (par. Uc. -nai) codices legunt quos ab Origene elabor- ates Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; tosusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.'
The Gothic priests, Sunnja and Fretela, who had addressed him about questions in textual criticism, he instructed in the year 403 —
* Aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Cajsariensis Eusebius omnesque Gneciffl tractatores xpittit, i.e. comniunem appellant atque vulgatom, et a plerisque nunc Apvjux^ct ' dicitur, aliam Septuaginta intei-pretum ijuaj in iixvke'it codicibus reperitur et a nobis in latinuni semionem fideliter versa est et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiis decantatur . . . xpitr, autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa estqua) et Septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter utramque quod *o/»>: pro locis et teniporibus et pro voluu- tate scriptorum vetuscorrupta editio est, ea autem qua) babetur in icaa-Aoff et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est qua) in cruditorum libris incorrupta et iuiuiaculata Septuaginta interpretum trans- latio reservatur.'
About the person and the work of Hesy chilis we know very little. He may have been (not the lexicograplier of the second half of the 4th cent., who was a pagan, but) the martyr-bishop mentioned by Eusebius, HE viii. 13, together wiMi Phileas of Ihmuis (Sw. 79: 'It is pleasant to think of the two episcopal confessors employing their enforced leisure in their Egyptian prison by revising the Scrii)tures for tlie use of their flocks, neany at the same time that Pamphilus and Eusebius and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Cxsarea '). The fruit of his work is now .sought for the Octateuch in the MSS 44, 74, 76, 84, lOli, 134, etc. (see N. McLean, J'J'hSt, ii., Jan. 19U1, p. 306) ; for the Prophets, at least for Isaiah ami the XII, in Q and its supporters, 20, 106, 1!>>S, 306 (see A. Ceriani, de codice Marchaliano, Uonui', 1800, pp. 48ff., 105 If.).
More clearly defined is onr information about Lucian and his work (see on him Sw. p. 8011'.). Westcott-Hort came to tlie conclusion, that for the NT the growing diversity and confusion of Greek texts led to an authoritative revision at Antioch, which was at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision, carrying out more coni])letely the purposes of the first. Of known names, they wrote, Lucian's has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision. These revisers of the NT 'evi- dently wished their text to be as far as possible eas}', smooth, and complete, and for this purpose borrowed freely from all quarters, and as freely used the file to remove surviving asperities ' (ed. inin. p. 557). This description agrees fully with our information about the Lucianic revision of the or, and with tlie observations we can gather from the existing documents, in which it is found to sur- vive, for the Octateuch in 19, 82, 108, 118; in the Historical books 93 is to be added ; in the Prophets 22, .36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308.