Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VI/Chapter 16

Origen&#8217;s Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.

1. earnest and assiduous was Origen&#8217;s research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language, and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. And in addition to the well-known translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a Christian. Jerome (de vir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an Ebionite; in his ''Ep. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne&#8217;s ed. Ep.'' 112), a Jew; while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some called him an Ebionite, qui altero genere Jud&#230;us est. Iren&#230;us (Adv. H&#230;r. III. 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 17) say that he was a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in regard to his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he lived is disputed. The ''Chron. paschale'' assigns him to the reign of Commodus, and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he commits a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led into great confusion. But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned by Iren&#230;us, and hence must be pushed back well into the second century. It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version (see Hort&#8217;s article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884), which obliges us to throw it back still further, and Sch&#252;rer has adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older than Aquila&#8217;s version (see Sch&#252;rer&#8217;s Gesch. d. Juden im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 709). Theodotion&#8217;s version, like Aquila&#8217;s, was intended to reproduce the Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did. It is based upon the LXX, however, which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore resembles the former much more closely than Theodotion&#8217;s does. We have no notices of the use of this version by the Jews. Aquila&#8217;s version (supposing it younger than Theodotion&#8217;s) seems to have superseded it entirely. Theodotion&#8217;s translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by the Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in all the of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from this we have only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that saw and used the Hexapla. It will be seen that the order in which Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not chronological. He simply follows the order in which they stand in Origen&#8217;s Hexapla (see below, note 8). Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion&#8217;s version later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been seen.

For further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Sch&#252;rer, ibid. p. 704 sq. he discovered certain others which had been concealed from remote times,&#8212;in what out-of-the-way corners I know not,&#8212;and by his search he brought them to light. We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the Old Testament. Eusebius&#8217; words (&#8220;which had been concealed from remote times,&#8221; &#964;&#8056;&#957; &#960;&#8364;&#955;&#945;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#957;&#952;&#945;&#957;&#959;&#8059;&#963;&#945;&#962; &#967;&#961;&#8057;&#957;&#959;&#957;) would lead us to think them older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. One of them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopolis near Actium, another in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not know. Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Cant. Cant. sec. Originem; Origen&#8217;s works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV. 235) reports that the &#8220;fifth edition&#8221; (quinta editio) was found in Actio litore; but Epiphanius, who seems to be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says that the &#8220;fifth&#8221; was discovered at Jericho and the &#8220;sixth&#8221; in Nicopolis, near Actium (De mens. et pond. 18). Jerome calls the authors of the &#8220;fifth&#8221; and &#8220;sixth&#8221; Juda&#239;cos translatores, which according to his own usage might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians (see Redepenning, p. 165), and at any rate the author of the &#8220;sixth&#8221; was a Christian, as is clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13: &#7952;&#958;&#8134;&#955;&#952;&#949;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#963;&#8182;&#963;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#8056;&#957; &#955;&#945;&#8056;&#957; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#948;&#953;&#8048; &#8125;&#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#8166;. The &#8220;fifth&#8221; is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets, Kings, &amp;c.; the &#8220;sixth,&#8221; on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla. Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these particular passages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the &#8220;seventh&#8221; no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this chapter. As to the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to assign the discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander (222&#8211;235). The other one, which Epiphanius calls the &#8220;fifth,&#8221; was found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla&#8217;s reign (217) &#8220;in jars at Jericho.&#8221; We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius&#8217; report may well be correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the &#8220;fifth,&#8221; and the former the &#8220;sixth.&#8221; The place and time of the discovery of the &#8220;seventh&#8221; are alike unknown. For further particulars in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field&#8217;s edition of the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the ''Dict. of Christ. Biog.,'' and Redepenning, II. 164 sq.

2. Since he did not know the authors, he simply stated that he had found this one in Nicopolis near Actium and that one in some other place.

3. In the Hexapla Origen&#8217;s Hexapla (&#964;&#8048; &#7953;&#958;&#945;&#960;&#955;&#8118;, &#964;&#8056; &#7953;&#958;&#945;&#960;&#955;&#959;&#8166;&#957;, &#964;&#8056; &#7953;&#958;&#945;&#963;&#8051;&#955;&#953;&#948;&#959;&#957;, the first form being used by Eusebius in this chapter) was a polyglot Old Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion, arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition in certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version (see Jerome&#8217;s description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap. 3, ver. 9). The parts which contained these latter versions were sometimes called Octapla (they seem never to have borne the name nonapla.) The order of the columns was determined by the fact that Aquila&#8217;s version most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it, followed by Symmachus&#8217; version, which was based directly upon the Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed to it; while Theodotion&#8217;s version, which was based not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX, naturally followed the latter. Origen&#8217;s object in undertaking this great work was not scientific, but polemic; it was not for the sake of securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the purpose of furnishing adequate means for the reconstruction of the original text of the LXX, which in his day was exceedingly corrupt. It was Origen&#8217;s belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin Martyr&#8217;s Dial. with Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired translation, as it was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true form of Scripture. For two centuries before and more than a century after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original tongue. Early in the second century (as Sch&#252;rer points out) various causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even before the second century, that the various versions already mentioned took their rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the Greek-speaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the LXX. It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original; and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with the original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians, on the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifyng their Scriptures, which should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX. Under these circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of great advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Jews, to know more accurately than they did the true form of the LXX text, and the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew. As the matter stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face of the numerous variant texts, the precise form of the LXX itself (cf. Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew text given by Origen seems to have been the vulgar text, and to have differed little from that in use to-day. With the LXX it was different. Here Origen made a special effort to ascertain the most correct text, and did not content himself with giving simply one of the numerous texts extant, for he well knew that all were more or less corrupt. But his method was not to throw out of the text all passages not well supported by the various witnesses, but rather to enrich the text from all available sources, thus making it as full as possible. Wherever, therefore, the Hebrew contained a passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in the latter the translation of the passage, taken from one of the other versions, marking the addition with &#8220;obeli&#8221;; and wherever, on the other hand, the fullest LXX text which he had contained more than the Hebrew and the other versions combined, he allowed the redundant passage to stand, but marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla as a whole seems never to have been reproduced, but the LXX text as contained in the fifth column was multiplied many times, especially under the direction of Pamphilus and Eusebius (who had the original at C&#230;sarea), and this recension came into common use. It will be seen that Origen&#8217;s process must have wrought great confusion in the text of the LXX; for future copyists, in reproducing the text given by Origen, would be prone to neglect the critical signs, and give the whole as the correct form of the LXX; and critical editors to-day find it very difficult to reach even the form of the LXX text used by Origen. The Hexapla is no longer extant. When the C&#230;sarean of it perished we do not know. Jerome saw it, and made large use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of it, and it probably perished with the rest of the C&#230;sarean library before the end of the seventh century, perhaps considerably earlier. Numerous editions have been published of the fragments of the Hexapla, taken from the works of the Fathers, from Scholia in of the LXX, and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar LXX, which is still in large part extant. The best edition is that of Field, in two vols., Oxford, 1875. His prolegomena contain the fullest and most accurate information in regard to the Hexapla. Comp. also Taylor&#8217;s article in the ''Dict. of Christ. Biog.,'' and Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq. Origen seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria. This is implied by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly by Epiphanius (H&#230;r. LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first work which he undertook at the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18). We may accept this as in itself quite probable, for there could be no better foundation for his exegetical labors than just such a piece of critical work, and the numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose (see chap. 18) may well have devoted themselves largely to this very work, as Redepenning remarks. But the work was by no means completed at once. The time of his discovery of the other versions of the Old Testament (see above, note 6) in itself shows that he continued his labor upon the great edition for many years (the late discovery of these versions may perhaps explain the fact that he did not use them in connection with all the books of the Old Testament?); and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 18) says that he was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and completed it at Tyre. This is quite likely, and will explain the fact that the of the work remained in the C&#230;sarean library. Field, however, maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or place either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with any degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.). of the Psalms, after the four prominent translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh. He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.

4. Having collected all of these, he divided them into sections, and placed them opposite each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He thus left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla. He arranged also separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the Septuagint, in the Tetrapla.