Origen’s Hexapla and the Layered Greek Tradition

“Origen’s Septuagint” can become an all-purpose label.

One writer applies it to Codex Vaticanus. Another applies it to the text printed in a modern Septuagint. A third uses Hexaplaric as though it meant merely “a Greek reading I distrust.” The historical Origen disappears, and his enormous critical project becomes a solvent capable of dissolving nearly any inconvenient evidence.

The opposite mistake is to mention the Hexapla as an antiquarian curiosity with no consequences for the history of the Greek Old Testament.

Origen’s work matters because it displays a Greek biblical tradition that was already multiple. Greek translations differed from one another. Greek copies differed from the Hebrew available to Origen. Readers revised, marked, compared, and transmitted those differences. Later manuscripts could inherit more than one layer.

The proposition of this article is:

Origen’s Hexapla demonstrates that Greek Scripture was already plural, revised, and critically compared; it does not prove that every later Greek Old Testament manuscript is a copy of Origen’s fifth column.

That conclusion neither canonizes the Hexapla nor dismisses it. It asks the evidence to bear its own weight.

A Library on a Page

Origen undertook the project at Caesarea in the third century. Modern accounts commonly place its production approximately between AD 235 and 245, but that is a historical reconstruction rather than a date written in the work.¹

The name Hexapla means “sixfold.” In its basic form, the work placed six texts in parallel columns:

For some books, especially the Psalms, Origen gathered still other Greek versions. Ancient references call these the Quinta, Sexta, and sometimes Septima: a fifth, sixth, and seventh Greek rendering in addition to the better-known versions.²

The point of the layout was comparison.

Eusebius reports that Origen learned Hebrew and acquired copies of the translations circulating under the names of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He placed the versions opposite one another and also produced a four-column arrangement of the Greek translations, called the Tetrapla.³

Even this ancient report must be read carefully. It tells us what Eusebius in the early fourth century believed about Origen’s undertaking. It does not give us the lost master copy, a complete inventory of every exemplar, or an unbroken history of each column. Yet the report agrees with surviving fragments and later citations: Origen constructed a comparative work, not a new apostolic autograph.

What Origen Did to the Fifth Column

The fifth column is the source of much confusion.

Origen did not simply place an untouched Greek manuscript beside the Hebrew. He marked its relation to the Hebrew available to him. In broad terms:

• an asterisk marked material supplied from another Greek version where Origen’s Hebrew contained words not represented in the Greek text before him;
• an obelus marked Greek material for which Origen found no counterpart in his Hebrew text.

These signs attempted to preserve visible distinctions. Origen did not want every supplied word to masquerade as though it had always stood in the old Greek translation. Nor did he simply delete every Greek surplus. His critical marks turned the page into an argument about textual relation.⁴

Origen’s surviving Letter to Africanus confirms that such comparison was not imaginary. Discussing additions in the Greek form of Daniel, he distinguishes Greek and Hebrew evidence and speaks of the critical signs used in comparing them.⁵

The fifth column, therefore, was both a received Greek text and an edited presentation of that text. The official Göttingen Hexapla project usefully distinguishes two ideas that are often blurred:

1. The Origenic text, sometimes called the O-text, is the Greek text Origen received and placed in the fifth column, with limited revision.
2. The Hexaplaric recension is the edited and subsequently transmitted form associated with Origen’s critical work and the work of his successors.⁶

That distinction prevents a circular argument. If a later manuscript resembles the Greek base Origen used, the resemblance need not have originated with Origen. The reading may be older than his edition. If a later witness contains a distinctive supplement, critical sign, or reading traceable through Hexaplaric sources, Origenic transmission becomes more plausible.

“It agrees with Origen” and “Origen created it” are different claims.

The Full Hexapla Is Lost

No complete copy of the six-column work survives.

That fact controls every reconstruction. Frederick Field’s nineteenth-century Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt was explicitly an edition of “what remains” of the Hexapla. Current projects continue the work by collecting fragments, marginal readings, quotations, catena material, translations derived from Hexaplaric sources, and the evidence of manuscripts preserving portions of columns.⁷

Two surviving artifacts make the limitation concrete:

• Ra 2005, assigned palaeographically to the seventh century, preserves trimmed palimpsest fragments of Psalms with portions of columns II through V.
• Ra 1098, assigned to the tenth century, preserves excerpts associated with the Hexapla in palimpsest form.

These are precious physical witnesses. They are not the complete fifth column, much less the entire Hexapla.⁸

Other evidence is indirect. A biblical manuscript may preserve an asterisk or obelus. A church father may cite “Aquila” or “Symmachus.” A marginal note may attribute a wording to “the Seventy.” The Syro-Hexaplar version may preserve a rendering of a Hexaplaric Greek text. Each item has to be identified, dated, and evaluated.

The reconstruction is therefore a mosaic whose pieces have unequal provenance. It is not a photograph of Origen’s desk.

What “Hexaplaric” Can Properly Mean

A recension is an intentional editorial revision of an existing text. “Hexaplaric” properly identifies readings, signs, or transmissional features credibly related to Origen’s comparative edition and its later use.

That relation can appear in several ways:

• a reading supplied from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion under an asterisk;
• a Greek passage marked as lacking a Hebrew counterpart;
• marginal labels naming one of the columns;
• agreements with recognized Hexaplaric daughter witnesses;
• mixtures produced when critical additions lost their signs and entered a manuscript’s running text.

The last process is especially important. A critical apparatus can become ordinary text if later copyists omit or misunderstand its symbols. Conversely, a copyist can preserve an old Greek reading that Origen also happened to inherit. Later Greek manuscripts may consequently contain Old Greek, Hexaplaric, and other recensional elements within the same book.

But possibility is not identification.

No reading should be called Hexaplaric merely because it agrees with the Hebrew, disagrees with the received Hebrew, appears in a Christian codex, or is absent from a preferred Greek witness. The label requires a historical and textual argument.

The Ruckman–Williams Reduction

Peter Ruckman presents the modern Septuagint as “Origen’s Septuagint” and describes the fifth column as something Origen made up. H. D. Williams similarly identifies Codex Vaticanus with Origen’s fifth column or “Origen’s Greek text.”⁹

These statements contain a true warning inside a false reduction.

The true warning is that the surviving Greek tradition contains editorial layers, including Hexaplaric influence. A modern critical text must not be imagined as one untouched manuscript translated before Christ.

The false reduction is the claim that this history turns Vaticanus, or the entire extant Greek Old Testament, into a simple copy of Origen’s fifth column.

That claim would require proof:

1. the exact fifth-column text would have to be reconstructed for the book under discussion;
2. the later codex’s reading would have to be compared with it;
3. shared readings inherited from a pre-Origenic Greek base would have to be distinguished from Origen’s actual interventions;
4. later non-Hexaplaric revision and ordinary scribal change would have to be excluded;
5. the conclusion would have to be established book by book.

Neither a polemical label nor the existence of Origen can perform those steps.

The error is methodological as well as historical. It replaces the vague phrase “the Septuagint” with another vague phrase, “Origen’s text,” while leaving the actual manuscript, hand, book, and reading unidentified.

The Strongest Objections

One objection comes from those who emphasize Origenic influence:

If later Greek copies repeatedly contain Hexaplaric readings, is it not reasonable to regard the whole tradition as contaminated?

---

1. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms”. The project gives Caesarea and approximately AD 235–245 as the historical setting. This is an assigned range, not a colophon date. ↩
2. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” The additional Greek versions are particularly associated with the Psalter and should not be projected indiscriminately across every biblical book. ↩
3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.16, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1. Eusebius describes Origen’s acquisition and parallel arrangement of the Greek versions. ↩
4. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” For the surviving evidence in a standard older collection, see Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). ↩
5. Origen, Letter to Africanus, especially the discussion of the Greek additions to Daniel and comparison with Hebrew copies. The letter is direct evidence of Origen’s comparative practice, though modern projects should control the exact description of the signs. ↩
6. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Origenic Recension of the Greek Psalter”. The distinction is especially important in Psalms, where the Greek text Origen inherited must not be confused with every later result of Hexaplaric editing. ↩
7. Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, “The Hexapla Project”. The project’s object is the fragmentary remains, not a surviving complete manuscript. ↩
8. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, catalogue entries for <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra2005/”>Ra 2005 and <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra1098/”>Ra 1098. Their dates are palaeographical assignments. ↩
9. Peter S. Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1994), 50–52; H. D. Williams, The Septuagint (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 2015), 42–43. These works are cited as contrary polemical claims, not as independent authorities for the history of the Hexapla. ↩

It is reasonable to investigate mixture. It is not reasonable to make a demonstrated influence explain every reading without further evidence. “Contamination” is itself a relational term: contaminated with what, in which book, through which identifiable reading, and compared with which earlier form? A manuscript can preserve an early reading at one place and a later editorial reading at another.

The opposite objection says:

If the full Hexapla is lost, nothing definite can be said about it.

---

1. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms”. The project gives Caesarea and approximately AD 235–245 as the historical setting. This is an assigned range, not a colophon date. ↩
2. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” The additional Greek versions are particularly associated with the Psalter and should not be projected indiscriminately across every biblical book. ↩
3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.16, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1. Eusebius describes Origen’s acquisition and parallel arrangement of the Greek versions. ↩
4. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” For the surviving evidence in a standard older collection, see Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). ↩
5. Origen, Letter to Africanus, especially the discussion of the Greek additions to Daniel and comparison with Hebrew copies. The letter is direct evidence of Origen’s comparative practice, though modern projects should control the exact description of the signs. ↩
6. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Origenic Recension of the Greek Psalter”. The distinction is especially important in Psalms, where the Greek text Origen inherited must not be confused with every later result of Hexaplaric editing. ↩
7. Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, “The Hexapla Project”. The project’s object is the fragmentary remains, not a surviving complete manuscript. ↩
8. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, catalogue entries for <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra2005/”>Ra 2005 and <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra1098/”>Ra 1098. Their dates are palaeographical assignments. ↩
9. Peter S. Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1994), 50–52; H. D. Williams, The Septuagint (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 2015), 42–43. These works are cited as contrary polemical claims, not as independent authorities for the history of the Hexapla. ↩

That also goes too far. Ancient descriptions, physical fragments, critical signs, attributed readings, and daughter witnesses are real evidence. They allow responsible reconstruction within stated limits. Loss does not create ignorance of everything; it prohibits the pretense of possessing everything.

A final objection is confessional:

If Origen compared Greek copies with Hebrew and corrected the Greek toward Hebrew, does this not prove that his Hebrew text was the authoritative standard?

---

1. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms”. The project gives Caesarea and approximately AD 235–245 as the historical setting. This is an assigned range, not a colophon date. ↩
2. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” The additional Greek versions are particularly associated with the Psalter and should not be projected indiscriminately across every biblical book. ↩
3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.16, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1. Eusebius describes Origen’s acquisition and parallel arrangement of the Greek versions. ↩
4. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” For the surviving evidence in a standard older collection, see Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). ↩
5. Origen, Letter to Africanus, especially the discussion of the Greek additions to Daniel and comparison with Hebrew copies. The letter is direct evidence of Origen’s comparative practice, though modern projects should control the exact description of the signs. ↩
6. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Origenic Recension of the Greek Psalter”. The distinction is especially important in Psalms, where the Greek text Origen inherited must not be confused with every later result of Hexaplaric editing. ↩
7. Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, “The Hexapla Project”. The project’s object is the fragmentary remains, not a surviving complete manuscript. ↩
8. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, catalogue entries for <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra2005/”>Ra 2005 and <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra1098/”>Ra 1098. Their dates are palaeographical assignments. ↩
9. Peter S. Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1994), 50–52; H. D. Williams, The Septuagint (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 2015), 42–43. These works are cited as contrary polemical claims, not as independent authorities for the history of the Hexapla. ↩

Historically, it proves that Origen used Hebrew as a controlling point of comparison. Theologically, Origen’s practice neither establishes every reading of his Hebrew exemplar nor determines the doctrine of preservation. It does, however, expose the inversion involved in making a later Greek translation the unquestioned judge of Hebrew. Even the Hexapla’s architecture placed Hebrew first and displayed versions as versions.

The Confessional Boundary

The Hexapla is evidence about the history of texts. It is not the rule of faith.

Its fragments can help identify Greek revisions. Its columns can show how ancient readers understood Hebrew. Its signs can preserve evidence of agreement and difference. Its history can warn against treating a composite modern edition as a pristine pre-Christian Bible.

None of those uses grants a reconstructed fifth column authority over the authentic Hebrew Old Testament.

The correct response to a layered tradition is neither credulity nor erasure. It is identification:

Name the Greek book, the witness, the hand, the reading, and the proposed layer. Then state what is physically present and what has been historically reconstructed.

---

1. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms”. The project gives Caesarea and approximately AD 235–245 as the historical setting. This is an assigned range, not a colophon date. ↩
2. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” The additional Greek versions are particularly associated with the Psalter and should not be projected indiscriminately across every biblical book. ↩
3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.16, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1. Eusebius describes Origen’s acquisition and parallel arrangement of the Greek versions. ↩
4. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Hexapla of Psalms.” For the surviving evidence in a standard older collection, see Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). ↩
5. Origen, Letter to Africanus, especially the discussion of the Greek additions to Daniel and comparison with Hebrew copies. The letter is direct evidence of Origen’s comparative practice, though modern projects should control the exact description of the signs. ↩
6. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, “The Origenic Recension of the Greek Psalter”. The distinction is especially important in Psalms, where the Greek text Origen inherited must not be confused with every later result of Hexaplaric editing. ↩
7. Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, “The Hexapla Project”. The project’s object is the fragmentary remains, not a surviving complete manuscript. ↩
8. Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen, catalogue entries for <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra2005/”>Ra 2005 and <a href="https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra1098/”>Ra 1098. Their dates are palaeographical assignments. ↩
9. Peter S. Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1994), 50–52; H. D. Williams, The Septuagint (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 2015), 42–43. These works are cited as contrary polemical claims, not as independent authorities for the history of the Hexapla. ↩

Origen’s fountain of columns did not cause all later Greek water. He gathered streams already flowing, compared them, marked them, and inevitably affected some channels downstream. Article 17 turns to three of those streams—Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion—and to the Jewish revision now called kaige.

Notes and Further Reading

For the broader history of Jewish Greek revisions, see Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963), and Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

Source-control note: Eusebius’s report, Origen’s letter, and the extant palimpsest fragments are direct literary or artifact evidence (E1). The approximate date and detailed reconstruction of the columns’ textual relations are historical assignments and reconstructions (E3/E5). Claims that a particular later reading descends from Origen require a transmissional argument (E5); using “Origenic” as a universal explanation is unproved (E6). The subordination of every Greek version to the authentic Hebrew is a confessional judgment (E7).

Previous in the series: “Codex Sinaiticus: Assigned Date, Documented History.”

Next in the series: “Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the kaige Revisions.”