THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
Hebrew.
Hebrew
Transliterated.
Aquila.
Symmachus.
LXX.
Theodotion.
Variants.
n-sjsS
\afJLava(T(T7}a
Ttp VLKOTTOltZ
€7T(.l/lKlO$
ets to Te'Ao?
T(*> J*lK07T0la>
eis to Te'Aoy
rnp iiih
f$V7) Kopa
ruiv vliov Kope
rav vrwy Kope
vwep Tutv vliov /cope (rot? uioi?)
TOl? viois /cope
^l -Sy_
aA aAap.o)i?
€ttl veavt.OTrJTUii'
virhp ruiv aXoivimv
VTrep Tair Kpv<f>(t»ii>
V7rep Ttor Kpvtfriuiv
"VC*
(Tip
S.o~fJia
tpSrj '
uVa.Ap.ds
oJSt}
i/'a,Ap.d«
jS D^ri1?!?
eAcoeip. Aa^ou
<6 #ebs jjp,ii>>
6 tJebs T7/i.ic
6 i>ebs rjfjLtav
O #€0? 7}fJi(OV
ij!i npnn
ju-aatre * ouo£
eAiri? /ecu /cpaTOs
7T€7rOt#T7<TlS /cat
Ka.Ta<j>vyr) *cat ctvrap-i?
Kararfyvyr) koX SvVa-
fLLS
n?!>'-
^p
/Soiji^-eta
|3o»J^eta
/30T]1^0J
/Joijdbs
nnw
/3a*apwt9-
ey &\i\ft€<rt,v
ey d-\i\pe<riv
eV t9Ai'i//ecri
ey i^Ai^eo'iP
«d n«:
V€fj.<ra ' fxuiS
eupeiS-ets crc/xJSpa.
evpicrKOfxevos cr^>65pa
rats evpovcrais Tfp-ds <r(f)6&pa
(€Vp€&7}<T€Ta.L T/pUf)
evpet^rj <r<p68pa tTais evpovo-ats ^p-ds)
1=-^
aX • \ev
€7Tt TOVTOJ
6"id TOVTO
6td TOVTO
Sid TOUTO
nyi v^
Aw vtpa
ov ^)0/3iji>rjiT6ju.et?a
ov (pojSjj^T/adju.eiJa
ov <po^Tjt?T]o*dp.et?a
ov <poj377#Tjo-dp.e#a
i"?^?
fiaa.fj.Lp
er tu dcTaAAacriTeo"-
e^ rep avyxeun^ai
ee tuJ TapdcrtrecriJcu
er to! Tapdcrcredai
H?
[a]apa-
y^r
7^
TTjr yrjv
ttj»> yrjv
B.D3-1
OV floLfAUiT
Kat ee to! o~<f>dAAeo"-
icai «AiVao~#ai
kcu ju€Tarii>eo"i^at
ko\ craAevecrtJai (p.eraTt^eo-t?ai)
Dnn
apifx
6pi7
op-ij
5p7J
opr;
aVa
)3Aej3
ey KapSCa
ey KapSia
eV KapSia
ev KapSia
:D^:
lafAifj,
■&aXa.(T<jidV
■&a.\atro,£iv
d-akaacuyv
$akaV(TUiV
Of the fate of the Hexapla nothing is known. The Milan discovery (see for this Bible Versions, A, I., 1, § 4) proves that at least some individual parts existed much longer than was supposed up to that time. The references to the Hexapla by later manuscripts and authors obtain therefore a greater significance than hitherto. The Tetrapla was an abbreviation of the former in which Origen placed only the translations (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Septuagint) in parallels. He was likewise keenly conscious of the textual difficulties in the manuscripts of the New Testament, although he never wrote definitely on this subject. In his exegetical writings he frequently alludes to the variant readings, but his habit of making rough citations in his dictation, the verification being left to the scribes, renders it impossible to deduce his text from his commentaries. The exegetical writings of Origen fall into three classes: scholia, or brief summaries of the meaning of difficult passages; homilies; and " books," or commentaries in the strict sense of the term. Jerome (ut sup.) states that there were scholia on Leviticus, Psalms i.-xv., Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and part of John. The Stromateis were of a similar character, and the margin of Codex Athous, Laura, 184, contains citations from this work on Rom. ix. 23; I Cor. vi. 14, vii. 31, 34, ix. 20-21, x. 9, besides a few other fragments. Homilies on almost the entire Bible were prepared by Origen, these being taken down after his sixtieth year as he preached. It is not improbable that Origen gave no attention to supervising the publication of his homilies, for only by such a hypothesis can the numerous evidences of carelessness in diction be explained. The exegesis
of the homilies was simpler than that of the scientific commentaries, but nevertheless demanded no mean degree of intelligence from the auditor. Origen 's chief aim was the practical exposition of the text, verse by verse; and while in such barren books as Leviticus and Numbers he sought to allegorize, the wealth of material in the prophets seldom rendered it necessary for him to seek meanings deeper than the surface afforded. Whether the sermons were delivered in series, or the homilies on a single book were collected from various series, is unknown. The homilies preserved are on Genesis (17), Exodus (13), Leviticus (16), Numbers (28), Joshua (16), Judges (9), I Sam. (2), Psalms xxxvixxxviii. (9), Canticles (2), Isaiah (9), Jeremiah (7 Greek, 2 Latin, 12 Greek and Latin), Ezekiel (14), and Luke (39).
The object of Origen's commentaries was to give an exegesis that discriminated strictly against the incidental, unimportant historical significance, in favor of the deeper, hidden, spiritual truth. At the same time, he neglected neither philo- 2. Extant logical nor geographical, historical Commen- nor antiquarian material, to all of taries of which he devoted numerous excursuses. Origen. In his commentary on John he constantly considered the exegesis of the Valentinian Heracleon (probably at the instance of Ambrose), and in many other places he implied or expressly cited Gnostic views and refuted them. Unfortunately, only meager fragments of the commentaries have survived. Besides the citations in the Philocalia, which include fragments of the third book of the commentary on Genesis, Ps. i., iv. 1, the small commentary on Canticles, and the second