So Jerome (in Catal. Script. Eccl. vol. iv, pt. ii, p. 116) : "Qnis ignorat, quod tantum in Scriptnris divinis habu- erit studii, ut etiam hebraeam linguam contra ietatis gen- tisqne sure naturam edisceret ; et acceptis LXX iuterpreti- bus, alias qiioqueeditiones in nnum volumen congregaret: Aquilse scilicet Ponticiproselyli,etTheodotionis^EbToniei, et Symmachi ejnsdem dograatis. . . . Prreterea quintam et sextain et septimam editionem, quas etiam nos de ejus bibliotheca habemus, miro labore reperit, et cum cseteris editionibus coniparavit."
From another passage of Jerome (in Episf. ad Titum, vol. iv, pt. i, p. 437) we learn that in the Hexapla the Hebrew text was placed in one column in Hebrew let- ters, in the next column in Greek letters :
(A., 2., B.), using them as his criterion. If he had known Hebrew at this time, would he have confined himself to the Greek versions? Would he have appealed to the Hebrew, as represented by Aquila, etc.? It seems very evident that he must have learned Hebrew at a later time, and therefore that the Hexapla, which rests on a comparison with the Hebrew, must have followed the Tetrapla, which was formed by the help of Greek ver- sions only. The words of Eusebius also {Hist. Eccl. vi, IG) appear to distinguish very clearly between the Hex- apla and Tetrapla as separate works, and to imply that tlie Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla. The order of pre- cedence is not a mere literary question ; the view above stated, which is supported by Montfaucon, Usher, etc., strengthens the force of Origen's example as a diligent student of Scripture, showing his increasing desire iiite- yros accederefontt's.
The labors of Origen, pursued through a long course of years, first in procuring by personal travel the mate- rials for his great work, and then in comparing and ar- ranging them, made him worthy of the name Adaman- tius. But what was the result of all this toil? Where is now his great work, the Hexapla, prepared with so much care, and written by so many skilful hands? Too large for transcription, too early by centuries for print- ing (which alone could have saved it), it was destined to a short existence. It was brought from Tyre and laid up in the library at Cajsarea, and there probably perished by the flames, A.D. 653. One copy, however, had been made, by Pamphilus and Eusebius, of the col- umn containing the corrected text of the Sept., with Origen's asterisks and obeli, and the letters denoting from which of the other translators each addition was taken. This copy is probably the ancestor of those codices which now approach most nearly to the Hebrew, and are entitled Hexaplar ; but in the course of tran- scription the distinguishing marks have disappeared or become confused; and we have thus a text composed partly of the old Sept. text, partly of insertions from the three other cliief Greek versions, especially that of Theodotion.
The facts above related agree well with the phenom- ena of the MSS. before stated. As we have codices de- rived from the Hexaplar text (e. g. 72, 59, 58), and at the other extreme the Codex Vaticanns (II), probably representing nearly the ancient uncorrected text, koii'/'/ ; so between these we find texts of intermediate charac- ter in the Codex Alexandrinus (HI), and others, which may perhaps be derived from the text of the Tetrapla.
To these main sources of our existing MSS. must be added the recensions of the Sept. mentioned by Jerome and others, viz. those of Lucian of Antioch and Hesych- ius of Egypt, not long after the time of Origen. We have seen above that each of these had a wide range — that of Lucian (supposed to be corrected by the He- brew) in the churches from Constantinople to Antioch;
Hexapla (Hos. xi, 1).
To EBPAIKON.
To EBP. EAAHNIKOIS rP.
AKTAA2.
XTMMAXOZ.
0: 0.
eEOAOTION.
X' vep \(Tpat]\ ot)6a/3>|ov
oiz/itjueffpai/x Kapaii \e/3(ivt.
OT( Trair IcrparjX, Kat riya7rt)ara avToy, Kat OTTO Ai7i'7rTou €Ka\caa TOV vtov /nov.
OTt TrafC \apat}\ Kat r)7a7rn/iei'o9 6f Atjv^rov KcxXriTai vtor fiov.
OTI v>]Trioi \apar\K Kai e-/u> nyairnaa av- TOV Kat ef AijvirTov KeK\>iTai wof nov.
OTI vrfiTio! Iapar)\ Kat rtyavtitra avTov Kat €KaXto-a viov /low cf AfyviTTOV.
It should here be mentioned that some take the Tet- rapla as denoting, not a separate work, but only that portion of the Hexapla which contains the four columns filled by the four principal (ireek versions. "Valesius (Xotes on Eusebius, p. 106) thinks that the Tetrapla was formed by taking those four columns out of the Hexapla. and making them into a separate book. But the testimony of Origen himself (i, 381 ; ii, 131), above cited, is clear that he formed one corrected text of the Sept. by comparison of the three other Greek versions
that of Hesj^chius in Alexandria and Egypt; while the churches lying between these two regions used the Hex- aplar text copied by Eusebius and Pamphilus (Jerome, vol. i, col. 1022). The great variety of text in the ex- isting MSS. is thus accounted for by the variety of sources from which they have descended.
IX. Modern Edition.'!. — 1. This version appears at the present day in five p7-incipal editions :
1. Biblia Polvglotta C'omplutensis (1514-lT).
2. The Aldiue edition (Venice, 151S).
SEPTUAGINT
549
SEPTUAGINT
3. The Roman edition, edited niider pope Sixtns V (1587).