with the Hebrew in respect of additions or omissions),
may help to bring these results more clearly into view.
The base-line R. T. represents the Roman text.
Eh — — — — — — — — — — 72. Venetiis.
— — — • — — — — — — 50. Ghisgueiisis.
— — — — — — — 5S. Vaticanus (No. x).
— — — — — — X. CoiSl.INIANUS.
— — — — — — 16. Mediceus.
— — — — — — VII. Amurosianus.
— — — — Ed. Complutensis Codd. 19, 108, 118.
— — III. Alexandkinus.
. — — S4. Vaticanus (1901). « — Edit. Aldiua.
The above can only be taken as an approximation, the range of comparison being limited. A more extended comparison might enable us to discriminate the several MSS. more accurately, but the result would perhaps hardly repay the labor.
2. But whence these varieties of text ? Was the ver- sion at first more in accordance with the Hebrew, as in (72) and (oS)), and did it afterwards degenerate into the less accurate state of the Codex Vaticanus? (Jr was the version at first less accurate, like the Vatican text, and afterwards brought, b}' critical labors, into the more accurate form of the MSS. which stand highest iu the scale V
History supplies the answer. .Terotne (£]p. ad Su- niam et Fretelam, ii, 627) speaks of two copies, one older and less accurate, Koiin), fragments of which are believed to be represented by the still extant remains of the old Latin version; the other more faithful to the Hebrew, which he took as the basis of his own new Latin ver- sion. In another place {F^rcefat. in Pitralip. vol. i, col. 1022) he speaks of the corruption of the ancient trans- lation, and the great variety of copies used in different countries :
"Cum germana ilia antiquaque translatio corrupfa sit. . . . Alexandria et .^gyptus in Sept. suis Hesycliiuni laudaut auctorem ; Coustantiuopolis usque Antiixhiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat; mediae inter has provincije Palsestiuos codices ieguut : quos ah Oriiieiie elaboratos Eusehins et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se coutraria varietate compngnal."
The labors of Origen, designed to remedy the conflict of discordant copies, are best described in his own words {Comment, in Matt, i, 381, ed. Huet.) :
"Now there is plainly a great difference in the copies, either from the carelessness of scribes, or the rash aud mischievous correction of the text by others, or from the additions or omissions made by others at tlieir own dis- cretion. This discrepance in the copies of the Old Cove- nant we have found means to remedy, l)y the help ofCJod, vsing as our criterion Die other versions. In all passages of tlie Sept. rendered doubtful by the discordance <if the copies, forming a jiKhnnent from the otiier versions, we have pieserved what agreed with them ; and some words we have marked with au obelos as not found in the He- brew, not venturing to omit them entirely; and some we have added with asterisks aflixed, to show that tliey are not found iu the Sept., I)nt added by us from tlie other versions, in accordance with tlie Hebrew."
Tlie other tKoixTtiQ, or versions, are those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Sj'mmachus. Origen (Comm.inJoann. ii, 131, ed. Huet.) says, "The same errors in names may frequenth' be observed in the law and the proph- ets, as we have learned by diligent iiupiiry of the He- brews, and by comparing our copies with their copies, as represented in the still uncorrupted versions of Aqui- la, Theodotion, and Symmachus."
SEPTUAGINT
548
SEPTUAGINT
It appears from these and other passages that Ori- gen, finding great discordance in the several copies of the Sept., laid this version side by side with the other three translations, and, taking their accordance with each other as the test of their atjreement with the Hebrew, marked the copy of the Sept. with an ubelos, -^, where he found superfiuous words, and supplied the deficiencies of the Se]3t. by words taken from the other versions with an asterisk, *, prefixed. The additions to the Sept. were chiefly made from Theodotion (Jerome, Prolog, in Genesin, vol. i; see also Preef. in Job, p. 795). From Eusebius, as quoted below, we learn that this work of Origen was called TtrpaizXa, the foiu-fold Bible. The following specimen is given by Moutfaucou: Geu. i, 1.
AKTAAS.
irMMAXOS.
Oi 0.
SEOAOTIDN.
©eor aw ruv
€KTicrei' 6 Qeof Ton
ev upxrj t7roit)<rei/ 6 Geo? Tov
Beds Toi/
oupavov Kai
ovpavuv Kal
oupavov Kat
ovpavov Kal
But this was only the earlier and the smaller portion of Origen's labors : he rested not till he had acquired the knowledge of Hebrew, and compared the Sept. di- rectly with the Hebrew copies. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi, 16, p. 217, ed. Vales.) thus describes the laboro which led to the greater work, the Hexapla ; the last clause of the passage refers to the Tetrapla :
"So careful was Origeu'a investigation of the sacred oracles that he learned the Hebiew tongue, and made himself master of the oi-iginal Scriptures received among the Jews in the Hebrew letters ; and reviewed the versions of the other interpreters of the Sacred Scriptures, besides the Sept. ; and discovered some translations varying from the well-known versions of Aquila, Symmachus,'and The- odotion, which he searched out, and brought to light from their long concealment in neglected corners; . . . and in his Hexapla, after the four principal versions of the Psalms, added a fifth, yea, a sixth and seventh translation, stating that one of these was found in a cask at Jericho, in the time of Antoninus, son of Severus: and bringing these all into one view, and dividing them in columns'over against one another, together with the Hebrew text, he left to us the work called Hexapla; having arranged separatelv, in the Tetrapla, the versions of Aquila, Symniachns. and The- odotion, together with the version of" the Seventy."