As in the case of Aquila, our knowledge of the works of Theodotion and
Symmachus is practically limited to the fragments that have been
preserved through the labours of Origen. This writer (see ORIGEN)
conceived the idea of collecting all the existing Greek versions of
the Old Testament with a view to recovering the original text of the
Septuagint, partly by their aid and partly by means of the current
Hebrew text. He accordingly arranged the texts to be compared in
six[16] parallel columns in the following order:--(1) the Hebrew text;
(2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4)
Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotion. In the Septuagint
column he drew attention to those passages for which there was no
Hebrew equivalent by prefixing an obelus; but where the Septuagint had
nothing corresponding to the Hebrew text he supplied the omissions,
chiefly but not entirely from the translation of Theodotion, placing
an asterisk at the beginning of the interpolation; the close of the
passage to which the obelus or the asterisk was prefixed was denoted
by the metobelus. That Origen did not succeed in his object of
recovering the original Septuagint is due to the fact that he started
with the false conception that the original text of the Septuagint
must be that which coincided most nearly with the current Hebrew text.
Indeed, the result of his monumental labours has been to impede rather
than to promote the restoration of the genuine Septuagint. For the
Hexaplar text which he thus produced not only effaced many of the most
characteristic features of the old version, but also exercised a
prejudicial influence on the MSS. of that version.
Hesychius, Lucian.
The _Hexapla_ as a whole was far too large to be copied, but the
revised Septuagint text was published separately by Eusebius and
Pamphilus, and was extensively used in Palestine during the 4th
century. During the same period two other recensions made their
appearance, that of Hesychius which was current in Egypt, and that of
Lucian which became the accepted text of the Antiochene Church. Of
Hesychius little is known. Traces of his revision are to be found in
the Egyptian MSS., especially the Codex Marchalianus, and in the
quotations of Cyril of Alexandria. Lucian was a priest of Antioch who
was martyred at Nicomedia in A.D. 311 or 312. His revision (to quote
Dr Swete) "was doubtless an attempt to revise the [Greek: koinae] (or
'common text' of the Septuagint) in accordance with the principles of
criticism which were accepted at Antioch." To Ceriani is due the
discovery that the text preserved by codices 19, 82, 93, 108, really
represents Lucian's recension; the same conclusion was reached
independently by Lagarde, who combined codex 118 with the four
mentioned above.[17] As Field (_Hexapla_, p. 87) has shown, this
discovery is confirmed by the marginal readings of the _Syro-Hexapla_.
The recension (see Driver, _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel_, p. 52) is characterized by the substitution of synonyms for
the words originally used by the Septuagint, and by the frequent
occurrence of double renderings, but its chief claim to critical
importance rests on the fact that "it embodies renderings not found in
other MSS. of the Septuagint which presuppose a Hebrew original
self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing
Massoretic text."
Vulgate.
_Latin Versions._--Of even greater importance in this respect is the
Old Latin version, which undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior
to the _Hexapla_. "The earliest form of the version" (to quote Dr
Kennedy[18]) "to which we can assign a definite date, namely, that
used by Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa." In the view of many
authorities this version was first produced at Carthage, but recent
writers are inclined to regard Antioch as its birthplace, a view which
is supported by the remarkable agreement of its readings with the
Lucianic recension and with the early Syriac MSS. Unfortunately the
version is only extant in a fragmentary form, being preserved partly
in MSS., partly in quotations of the Fathers. The non-canonical books
of the Vulgate, however, which do not appear to have been revised by
Jerome, still represent the older version. It was not until after the
6th century that the Old Latin was finally superseded by the Vulgate
or Latin translation of the Old Testament made by Jerome during the
last quarter of the 4th century. This new version was translated from
the Hebrew, but Jerome also made use of the Greek versions, more
especially of Symmachus. His original intention was to revise the Old
Latin, and his two revisions of the Psalter, the Roman and the
Gallican, the latter modelled on the _Hexapla_, still survive. Of the
other books which he revised according to the Hexaplar text, that of
Job has alone come down to us. For textual purposes the Vulgate
possesses but little value, since it presupposes a Hebrew original
practically identical with the text stereotyped by the Massoretes.
_Syriac Versions._--The Peshito (P'shitta) or "simple" revision of the
Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew, though certain books
appear to have been influenced by the Septuagint. Its date is unknown,
but it is usually assigned to the 2nd century A.D. Its value for
textual purposes is not great, partly because the underlying text is
the same as the Massoretic, partly because the Syriac text has at
different times been harmonized with that of the Septuagint.
Syro-Hexaplar.
The Syro-Hexaplar version, on the other hand, is extremely valuable
for critical purposes. This Syriac translation of the Septuagint
column of the _Hexapla_ was made by Paul, bishop of Tella, at
Alexandria in A.D. 616-617. Its value consists in the extreme
literalness of the translation, which renders it possible to recover
the Greek original with considerable certainty. It has further
preserved the critical signs employed by Origen as well as many
readings from the other Greek versions; hence it forms our chief
authority for reconstructing the _Hexapla_. The greater part of this
work is still extant; the poetical and prophetical books have been
preserved in the _Codex Ambrosianus_ at Milan (published in
photolithography by Ceriani, _Mon. Sacr. et Prof._), and the remaining
portions of the other books have been collected by Lagarde in his
_Bibliothecae Syriacae_, &c.
Of the remaining versions of the Old Testament the most important are
the Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic and Armenian, all of which,
except a part of the Arabic, appear to have been made through the
medium of the Septuagint.
AUTHORITIES.--Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_
(4th ed., Berlin, 1878, pp. 571 ff., or 5th ed., Berlin, 1886, pp. 523
ff.); S.R. Driver, _Notes on Samuel_ (Oxford, 1890), Introd. Sec.Sec.3 f.;
W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd ed.,
1895); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient MSS._ (London, 1896);
T.H. Weir, _A Short History of the Hebrew Text_ (London, 1896); H B.
Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (Cambridge, 1900);
F. Buhl, _Kanon u. Text des A.T._ (English trans., Edinburgh, 1892);
E. Schuerer, _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes_ (3rd ed., 1902), vol.
iii. Sec. 33; C.H. Cornill, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_ (4th ed.,
1896), and _Prolegomena to Ezechiel_ (Leipzig, 1886); H.L. Strack,
_Einleitung in das alte Testament, Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Test._
(Leipzig, 1873); A. Loisy, _Histoire critique du texte et des versions
de la bible_ (Amiens, 1892); E. Nestle, _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der
Bibel (Leipzig, 1897); Ed. Koenig, _Einleitung in das alte Testament
(Bonn, 1893); F. Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt_, &c.; A.
Dillmann and F. Buhl, article on "Bibel-text des A.T." in _P.R.E._ cubed
vol. ii.; Ch. D. Ginsburg, _Introduction to the Massoretico-critical
edition of the Bible_ (London, 1897) and _The Massorah_ (London,
1880-1885). (J. F. St.)