Searching for Origen’s Hexapla

Meade, John D.

doi:10.13109/9783666500725.13

Cited by 1Biblical Studies and InterpretationClassical Studies and PhilologyAugustinian Studies and Theology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Searching for Origen’s Hexapla

Open access

Meade, John D.·2024·The Forerunners and Heirs of Origen's Hexapla

DOI 10.13109/9783666500725.13

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Although not a status quaestionis, this essay traces several key issues, old and new, in reconstructing the history of the Hexapla, Origen's textual criticism, and the later philological work of the Caesarean library.Mainly, this essay pulls together diverse pieces of evidence to provide an integrated picture of the whole and situates the essays in this volume within the larger reconstruction of the Hexapla and early Christian philology.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This essay reconstructs Origen’s philological work by distinguishing the columnar Hexapla from his later ekdosis/Tetrapla and by tracing the Caesarean library’s reception and innovation of his textual work. It argues that the critical signs likely belonged to the non-columnar Tetrapla rather than to the Fifth Column of the Hexapla.

Key findings

Origen worked as an Alexandrian philologist: he collected and compared ekdoseis, judged variants, and used obeloi and asteriskoi; Eusebius says he gathered the texts, divided them into cola, and set the Hebrew and Greek texts in corresponding positions (*Hist. eccl.* 6.16.4).
The Hexapla was arranged in six parallel columns: Hebrew in Hebrew letters, Hebrew in Greek letters, Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion, with additional Quinta, Sexta, and perhaps Septima for some books such as Psalms.
The Tetrapla is best understood not as a four-column synopsis but as Origen’s non-columnar ekdosis of the Seventy with critical signs and marginal scholia/readings of the Three; the earliest evidence for this later ekdosis is asteriskoi in P.Grenf.1.5 (ca. 250–350) containing Ezek 5:12–6:3.
Extant synopsis remains include Ra 86, Ra 113, Ra 1098 (about 150 verses from Psalms), Ra 2005 (some 13 verses), and Ra 271 (Ps 1:1–2a); none preserve the first Hebrew column in current form or the critical signs in their fifth columns. The Caesarean library under Pamphilus and Eusebius promulgated and innovated Origen’s ekdoseis, as shown by colophons and scholia.

Methods

This is a synthetic, argumentative essay rather than a status quaestionis; it integrates patristic testimonia, manuscript colophons and scholia, papyrological evidence, and recent scholarship on late ancient columnar translation.
It analyzes Origen’s own statements (*Ep. Afr.*, *Comm. Matt.* 15.14) alongside Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and others, and examines manuscripts including Ra 86, Ra 113, Ra 1098, Ra 2005, Ra 271, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Marchalianus, Ra G, and P.Grenf.1.5.
It situates the essays in the volume within a larger reconstruction of the Hexapla, Origen’s ekdosis, and early Christian philology; no new quantitative analysis is presented.

Limitations

The paper states it is “not a status quaestionis,” that “more work needs to be done” on manuscript terminology, that dating the Hexapla “remains difficult,” that the evidence for Origen’s ekdosis “does not permit us to say more,” and that it is “not always possible to discern which source came from whom.”
Evident from the text: as an introductory/synthetic essay, many specific arguments depend on other essays in the volume and prior scholarship; no complete manuscript of the Hexapla survives, and extant remains lack the first Hebrew column and fifth-column signs, limiting direct reconstruction.
Evident from the text: several claims are probabilistic (“probably,” “almost certainly”) because the evidence consists of indirect testimonia and an unstable manuscript tradition.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13109/9783666500725.13

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 31 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Findingnone given
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
Origen describes his modus operandi in the guise of a late ancient philologist making an ekdosis of the books of the Old Testament.
“(2) he describes his modus operandi in the guise of a late ancient philologist making an ekdosis of the books of the Old Testament.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingnone given
§ 2. The Hexapla
None of these manuscripts preserve the first Hebrew column in their current form.
“None of these mss preserve the first Hebrew column in their current form.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingnone given
§ 2. The Hexapla
Ra 113 preserves supplements and scholia in a twelfth-century hand which contain excerpts from the Hexapla.
“Ra 113 preserves supplements and scholia in a twelfth-century hand which contain excerpts from the Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingcitation
§ 2. The Hexapla
Ra 1098 preserves about 150 verses from the Psalms.
“Ra 1098 preserves about 150 verses from the Psalms”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
§ 1.
Origen often categorized manuscript copies and translations before offering a potential solution to a textual problem.
“Third, once Origen had collected his manuscript copies and translations, he often categorized these manuscripts before offering a potential solution to a problem.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

Findingreasoning
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen did not entitle his ekdosis.
“As with the Hexapla, Origen did not entitle his ekdosis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
§ 1.
Origen learned to evaluate the translations and copies that he found.
“Second, Origen's own statements reveal that he had learned to evaluate the translations and copies that he found.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingnone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Many manuscript colophons and scholia attribute the source of their text to the Tetrapla.
“Many manuscript colophons and scholia attribute the source of their text to the Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingcitation
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen makes limited use of the Three in Sel.Pss. and Comm.Lam.
“Origen makes limited use of the Three in Sel.Pss. and Comm.Lam.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Salvesen's essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Findingnone given
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The fourth- or fifth-century Codex Colbertinus-Sarravianus (Ra G), originally containing the Octateuch, only a century or so after Origen, shows application of the critical signs to a corrected copy of the Seventy.
“The fourth-or fifth-century Codex Colbertinus-Sarravianus (Ra G), originally containing the Octateuch, only a century or so after Origen, shows application of the critical signs to a corrected copy of the Seventy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingreasoning
§ 5.2.1 Early Christian Terms
The second part of the scholion in Q says that Origen did not mention this line when he exegeted the passage.
“The second part of the scholion in Q says that Origen did not mention this line when he exegeted the passage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingnone given
§ 4.2 O MSS
For Isaiah (oI), Jeremiah+Bar+Lam, and Ezekiel, Ra 88 (10th century) preserves the critical signs without marginal notes.
“For Isaiah (oI), Jeremiah+Bar+Lam, and Ezekiel, Ra 88 (10th century) preserves the critical signs without marginal notes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
G included readings from the Three under the asteriskos and readings not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy under the obelos-the ekdosis that Origen describes, the later entitled Tetrapla.
“On the one hand, it included readings from the Three under the asteriskos and readings not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy under the obelos-the ekdosis that Origen describes, the later entitled Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 1.
Origen's textual and exegetical oeuvre conforms to the Greek disciplines he learned.
“Therefore, we should expect that his textual and exegetical oeuvre conform to the Greek disciplines he learned and that is exactly what we observe.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationnone given
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Recent analyses and reconstructions of the Hexapla do not depend on Origen's descriptions of the critical signs as earlier analyses did.
“An important observation from these more recent analyses and reconstructions of the Hexapla is that they do not depend on Origen's descriptions of the critical signs as earlier analyses did.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
Syh's colophons that refer to the Tetrapla indicate that the base text for the Syriac translation was Origen's separate ekdosis with signs, not a direct translation of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla.
“Thus, Syh's colophons that refer to the Tetrapla (e. g., Syh-Job) indicate that the base text for the Syriac translation was Origen's separate ekdosis with signs and not a direct translation of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationnone given
§ 2. The Hexapla
Patristic testimonia fill crucial gaps in our knowledge of the Hexapla's appearance.
“But patristic testimonia fill crucial gaps in our knowledge of the Hexapla's appearance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
The Pre-Secunda text would have functioned as the crucial precedent and model for the ordering of the texts in the remaining columns.
“The main point is that this text would have functioned as the crucial precedent and model for the ordering of the texts in the remaining columns.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Eusebius' description of this ekdosis does not entitle it but only mentions that it was in tetrassa or four volumes (Hist.eccl.6.16).
“Eusebius' description of this ekdosis does not entitle it but only mentions that it was in tetrassa or four volumes (Hist.eccl.6.16).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 1.
The synopsis (Hexapla) probably served the more important purpose of creating the Tetrapla.
“The synopsis probably served the more important purpose of creating the second.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 1.
Origen's philological work can be observed in his commentaries and homilies.
“Thus, we can observe Origen's philological work in his commentaries and homilies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 1.
Origen performed the work of an Alexandrian philologist, especially as he innovated upon previous methods and approaches.
“Thus, Origen performed the work of an Alexandrian philologist especially as he innovated upon previous methods and approaches.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 1.
Origen's terminology and methods indicate that he operated as a philologist within the Alexandrian tradition.
“Thus, Origen's terminology and methods (use of critical signs, creation of ekdoseis with comments on textual problems in his homilies and commentaries) indicate that he operated as a philologist within the Alexandrian tradition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationcitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
In the Preface to Chronicles, Jerome juxtaposes two descriptions: his description of the Hexapla with a focus on the four Greek editions in parallel, and his description of Origen's ekdosis of the Seventy mixed with readings of Theodotion sub asteriskoi and marking superfluous passages in the Seventy with obeloi.
“In this preface, Jerome juxtaposes two descriptions: (1) his description of the Hexapla with a focus on the four Greek editions in parallel and (2) his description of Origen's ekdosis of the Seventy mixed with readings of Theodotion sub asteriskoi and marking superfluous passages in the Seventy with obeloi.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationcitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
The Hexapla would have fit the late ancient genre of columnar translation as a bilingual text containing a transcription column.
“Thus, the Hexapla would have fit the late ancient genre of columnar translation as a bilingual text containing a transcription column.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationown data
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen describes the diorthosis as the product of gathering and searching the copies of the Jews and Christians.
“as the product of (1) gathering and searching the copies of the Jews and Christians”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
G's, albeit unsystematic, use and form of metobelos suggest a middle link or development from the earlier, non-use of metobelos in P.Grenf. and its later standard use and form in Syrohexapla.
“But G's, albeit unsystematic, use and form of metobelos suggest a middle link or development from the earlier, non-use of metobelos in P.Grenf.(see above) and its later standard use and form in Syrohexapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisereasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Ambrose amply supplied Origen with a staff to accomplish these tasks.
“Ambrose amply supplied Origen with a staff to accomplish these tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Heine, Origen, 89-90
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
A better interpretation of the Hosea 11:1 text is that the scribe found a copy of the Tetrapla or the Caesarean ekdosis, created and promulgated by Eusebius, and copied the scholia of that text into his own copy as commentary on this verse.
“But a better interpretation of this text is that the scribe found a copy of the Tetrapla or the Caesarean ekdosis, created and promulgated by Eusebius, and copied the scholia of that text into his own copy as commentary on this verse.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Probably little diorthosis occurred in the Hexapla itself apart from proper names and word order.
“probably little diorthosis occurred in the Hexapla itself apart from proper names and word order.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- The authors state this as an assumption: Origen's Comm.Matt. and Ep.Afr. are describing a later ekdosis with critical signs and not the constitution of the fifth column of the Hexapla.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Eusebius' brief description of the separate work in tetrassa reveals a singular ekdosis of the Three combined with the ekdosis of the Seventy, not a text consisting of four editions each in their own columns.
“Eusebius does not mention the critical signs in Eccl.hist.6.16, but a close reading of his brief description of the separate work in tetrassa reveals a singular ekdosis of the Three combined with the ekdosis of the Seventy-not a text con-”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationnone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
There is evidence that the Caesarean library took the final step of innovating and perfecting their teacher's ekdosis.
“In any case, there is evidence that the Caesarean library took this final step of innovating and perfecting their teacher's ekdosis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
Origen's Hexapla was still used as the base text for producing a new ekdosis leading to further diorthosis.
“Thus, Origen's Hexapla was still used as the base text for producing a new ekdosis leading to further diorthosis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
In 404, in a letter to Augustine, Jerome commented that scarcely do the libraries of the churches have any books that do not contain the asteriskoi.
“In 404, in a letter to Augustine, hyperbolically he commented that scarcely do the libraries of the churches have any books that do not contain the asteriskoi.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Gallagher's essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Premisecitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
As Eusebius narrates (Hist.eccl.6.16), the copies of Origen's Hexapla and his Tetrapla remained for him, his followers, and later scholars (e.g., Jerome) to consult in Caesarea.
“As Eusebius narrates (Hist.eccl.6.16), the copies of Origen's Hexapla and his Tetrapla remained for him, his followers, and later scholars (e. g., Jerome) to consult in Caesarea.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The ekdoseis originating in Caesarea continued to influence Greek interpreters up to at least the fifth century.
“The ekdoseis originating in Caesarea continued to influence Greek interpreters up to till at least the fifth century as explicit testimony reveals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Meade's essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Interpretationnone given
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The testimonia show continued philology by Pamphilus, Eusebius, and even Euzoias.
“But the testimonia also show continued philology by Pamphilus, Eusebius, and even Euzoias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The Caesarean library's philology had proliferated and promulgated its copies of the scriptures such that by the beginning of the fifth century the churches' copies could be traced back to there.
“Thus, the Caesarean library's philology had proliferated and promulgated its copies of the scriptures that by the beginning of the fifth century, the churches' copies could be traced back to there.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisenone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
The earliest evidence for Origen's Tetrapla is the appearance of asteriskoi in P. Grenf.1.5 (ca.250-350) containing a fragmentary text of Ezek 5:12-6:3.
“The earliest evidence for Origen's Tetrapla is the appearance of asteriskoi in P. Grenf.1.5 (ca.250-350) containing a fragmentary text of Ezek 5:12-6:3.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
Rather than locating G as a direct copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla, it is better to view it as evidence of later philologists innovating earlier, traditional, monolingual ekdoseis where critical signs were indigenous to the genre.
“Rather than locating G as a direct copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla, it is better to view it as evidence of later philologists innovating earlier, traditional, monolingual ekdoseis where critical signs were indigenous to the genre.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
Eusebius added readings in Greek translation from the Samaritan Pentateuch in the margins of his ekdosis.
“Beyond adding scholia of the Three in the margins, Eusebius also added readings in Greek translation from the Samaritan Pentateuch in the margins of his ekdosis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Marsh's essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Interpretationown data
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen describes the diorthosis as the product of comparing the copies to determine differences and agreements.
“(2) comparing (συγκρίνειν/συνεξετάζειν) them to determine differences (διαφορά/διαφωνία) and agreements (συμφωνία)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Sometime in the middle to late 240s, Origen probably turned his attention to creating the new ekdosis or Tetrapla.
“Sometime in the middle to late 240s, he probably turned his attention to creating the new ekdosis or Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 5.2 Terminology
Epiphanius says Origen entitled his work 'hexapla'.
“Epiphanius says Origen entitled his work”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- cites Epiphanius, Mens.517
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' Hist.eccl.6.16.14
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Interpretationown data
§ 5.2.1 Early Christian Terms
The interpretation of the Q scholion as evidence of a Pentapla (by Field and Marcos) is almost certainly incorrect.
“This is almost certainly incorrect.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.2 O MSS
The manuscripts of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta can be expected to have differing levels of agreement with O because an ekdosis was not a standard text but a working edition that the scholar would update and his followers would innovate.
“Given the historical context for Origen's and his followers' ekdoseis presented above, we can now expect the mss of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta to have differing levels of agreement with O because an ekdosis was not a standard text but a working edition that the scholar would update, and his followers would innovate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationcitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
The proclivity for bilingual, columnar texts in Late Antiquity strongly suggests that the monolingual Tetrapla would not have been a columnar synopsis.
“Hence, the proclivity for bilingual, columnar texts in Late Antiquity strongly suggests that the monolingual Tetrapla would not have been a columnar synopsis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationnone given
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The mss favor that in this early phase of ekdosis development, the primary type of scholion populating the margins would be the readings of the Three connected to the corrected text of the Seventy marked with critical signs.
“The colophon does not specify what kind of scholia these are, but the mss favor that in this early phase of ekdosis development, the primary type of scholion populating the margins would be the readings of the Three connected to the corrected text of the Seventy marked with critical signs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.2.1 Early Christian Terms
Πεντασελίδον probably means 'fifth column' in this context, not some otherwise undocumented five columned synopsis.
“Πεντασελίδον probably means”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
Many of these readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch have entered the text of Greek and Syriac Bible manuscripts from around 700 to the fourteenth century.
“Marsh traces how many of these readings of SP have now entered the text of Greek and Syriac Bible mss from around 700 to the fourteenth century.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Marsh
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
Jerome mentions the Hexapla and the work of Origen and Pamphilus in Caesarea on numerous occasions in his Prefaces and Letters.
“Furthermore, Jerome mentions the Hexapla and the work of Origen and Pamphilus in Caesarea on numerous occasions in his Prefaces and Letters.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Graves' essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Premisecitation
§ 4. The Caesarean Ekdoseis
Following Origen, Pamphilus created and curated a collection of texts which centered on Origen's works.
“Following him, Pamphilus created and curated a collection of texts which centered on Origen's works.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationown data
§ 4.2 O MSS
Other manuscripts of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta provide evidence of the material layout of the ekdosis with critical signs and marginal notes.
“Other mss of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta provide evidence of the material layout of the ekdosis with critical signs and marginal notes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen's team could work to fill in the matrix of the Hexapla with very little assistance.
“Thus, his team could work to fill in the matrix with very little assistance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationown data
§ 4.2 O MSS
Some manuscripts of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta provide evidence of the material layout for Origen's and the Caesarean library's later ekdoseis, both with and without the marginal scholia of the Three.
“Some mss of the O group in the Göttingen Septuaginta provide evidence of the material layout for Origen's and the Caesarean library's later ekdoseis, both with and without the marginal scholia of the Three.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationnone given
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
There is no direct evidence of what Origen was doing during the time between his return to Alexandria from Rome and 222-225.
“But there is no direct evidence of what Origen was doing during this time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationown data
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen describes the diorthosis as the product of making a judgement on dubious passages in the copies of the Seventy vis-à-vis the rest of the editions.
“(3) making a judgement (τὴν κρίσιν ποιέω) on dubious passages in the copies of the Seventy vis-à-vis the rest of the editions”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

Not yet classified. 8
It may state two separate claims as one. 40
Probably not a substantial claim. 33
The quote only partly states this claim. 2

Not yet classified.
Finding
§ 2. The Hexapla
None of these manuscripts preserve the critical signs in their fifth columns.
“As part of the analysis below, none of them preserve the critical signs in their fifth columns.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Finding
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
There is an absence of signs from the extant synopses and early Christian descriptions of it (Eusebius, Hist.eccl.6.16.4; Jerome, Comm.Tit.3.9).
“(1) the absence of signs from the extant synopses and early Christian descriptions of it (Eusebius, Hist.eccl.6.16.4;Jerome, Comm.Tit.3.9)”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingreasoning
§ 1.
Origen, as a philologist, collated and compared disagreements and agreements within his manuscript copies and editions, often providing explanations for how different readings arose.
“Throughout these examples, we observe Origen, the philologist, collating and comparing the disagreements and agreements within his manuscript copies and editions often providing explanations for how different readings arose.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone given
§ 2. The Hexapla
Ra 2005 preserves some 13 verses.
“while Ra 2005 preserves some 13 verses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone given
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
Origen nowhere mentions the Hexapla or any other synopsis.
“(1) Origen nowhere mentions the Hexapla or any other synopsis”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone given
§ 2. The Hexapla
Ra 271 preserves Ps 1:1-2a only in the Secunda and Septuagint columns.
“Although of interest, but perhaps less relevant for a reconstruction of the Hexapla, is Ra 271, which preserves Ps 1:1-2a only in the Secunda and Septuagint columns.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
§ 4.2 O MSS
In Ezekiel, Codex Marchalianus (Q) is a member of the O group preserving the text with signs and preserving scholia in its margins, with its colophon also tracing its text to the Tetrapla.
“In Ezekiel, Codex Marchalianus (Q) is a member of the O group preserving the text with signs and preserving scholia in its margins with its colophon also tracing its text to the Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone given
§ 4.2 O MSS
Both Syh and 88 preserve the critical signs and the same colophon, but 88 preserves no marginal notes, while Syh preserves many.
“Both Syh and 88 preserve the critical signs and the same colophon, but 88 preserves no marginal notes, while Syh preserves many.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
In the few remains of the synopsis, there is no evidence of the signs, nor do the earliest descriptions of the synopsis ever mention the critical signs as part of it.
“As addressed above, in the few remains of the synopsis, there is no evidence of the signs nor do the earliest descriptions of the synopsis ever mention the critical signs as part of it.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation
§ 4.2 O MSS
88 in many places better represents the text of O in agreeing uniquely with the Masoretic Text, while Syh's text agrees with the vulgar text.
“Further differences appear in the text, since 88 in many places better represents the text of O in agreeing uniquely with the Masoretic Text, while Syh's text agrees with the vulgar text.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Ziegler, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957)
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone given
§ 4.2 O MSS
Syh-Job preserves readings under asteriskoi and obeloi (and antisigma too) and marginal notes to the Three, and its colophon traces its text to 'the Old Tetrapla.'
“For example, Syh-Job preserves readings under asteriskoi and obeloi (and antisigma too) and marginal notes to the Three, and its colophon traces its text to”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone given
§ 4.2 O MSS
In Codex Venetus (8th century), Daniel contains few critical signs with no marginal notes.
“In Codex Venetus (8th century), Daniel contains few critical signs with no marginal notes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Not yet classified.
Interpretation
§ 2. The Hexapla
Probably the Hebrew text was only required for constructing the grid or matrix for laying out the rest of the columns of the original Hexapla.
“Probably, the Hebrew text was only required for constructing the grid or matrix for laying out the rest of the columns of the original Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Interpretation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Proponents of these views have not paused to ponder the late ancient columnar genre upon which Origen settled to construct his Hexapla.
“For the most part, proponents of these views have not paused to ponder the late ancient columnar genre upon which Origen settled to construct his Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Interpretation
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
Whether it was a Pre-Secunda text Origen received or Origen had expert help in producing this text does not amount to a significant difference for our reconstruction of the Hexapla.
“Whether it was a Pre-Secunda text Origen received or Origen had expert help in producing this text does not amount to a significant difference for our reconstruction of the Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Interpretation
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
The parallel-columned Hexapla enabled Christian philologists at a glance to compare and contrast the important editions of the Old Testament collected therein.
“Therefore, the parallel-columned Hexapla enabled Christian philologists at a glance to compare and contrast the important editions of the Old Testament collected therein.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Premise
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Riggsby observed that the late ancient columnar translations, uncovered by Dickey's research, required a bilingual component.
“In his article, Riggsby observed that the late ancient columnar translations, uncovered by Dickey's research, required a bilingual component.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Not yet classified.
Interpretation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
If we remove Ep.Afr. and Comm.Matt.15.14 from descriptions of the Hexapla, that will allow for further theories about the Hexapla's functionality and about Origen's ekdosis, the Tetrapla.
“If we remove Ep.Afr. and Comm.Matt.15.14 from descriptions of the Hexapla, not only will that allow for further theories about the Hexapla's functionality but also for theories about Origen's ekdosis, the Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisecitation
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
Salvesen redresses how Origen acquired the ekdosis of Symmachus and its consequences for dating the Hexapla and Origen's modus operandi.
“Finally, Salvesen thoroughly redresses the matter of how Origen acquired the ekdosis of Symmachus and its consequences for the dating of the Hexapla and Origen's modus operandi.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Salvesen
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
The type or genre of the Hexapla, according to Riggsby, would have been well known among the educated classes.
“Thus, the type or genre of the Hexapla, according to Riggsby, would have been well known among the educated classes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Riggsby
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
The earliest examples of the columnar format are glossaries dated to the first or second century, and this elementary use probably developed into continuous texts of Virgil and Cicero as evidenced from third- and fourth-century manuscripts.
“The earliest examples of the format are glossaries dated to the first or second century, and this elementary use of the columnar form probably developed into continuous texts of Virgil and Cicero as evidenced from third-and fourth-century mss.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Dickey
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone given
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
These views assume that Origen is describing the Hexapla in his brief comments in Ep.Afr. and Comm.Matt.15.14.
“These views assume that Origen is describing the Hexapla in his brief comments in Ep.Afr. and Comm.Matt.15.14.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationcitation
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
The Tetrapla with signs and scholia originated with Origen, as attested in early Christian sources, colophons, and P.Grenf.
“(3) the Tetrapla with signs and scholia originating with Origen as attested in early Christian sources, colophons, and now P.Grenf.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
In his commentaries and other writings, Eusebius refers to a text containing the critical signs, employed exactly how Origen said he used them, and he never attributes these readings to the Hexapla or any other synopsis.
“but in his commentaries and other writings, he does refer to a text containing the critical signs, employed exactly how Origen said he used them, and he never attributes these readings to the Hexapla or any other synopsis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Due to the tabular form and an aim to construct knowledge, specifically knowledge of textual comparison, the Hexapla yields many intentions.
“Therefore, due to the tabular form and an aim to construct knowledge, specifically, knowledge of textual comparison, the Hexapla yields many intentions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Common explanations among scholars analyze Origen's statements in Ep.Afr. 9 and Comm.Matt.15.14 to discern a two-fold intention for the Hexapla: apologetics and textual criticism.
“Common explanations among Septuagint and patristic scholars analyze Origen's own statements in Ep.Afr. 9 and Comm.Matt.15.14 to discern a two-fold intention for the Hexapla: apologetics and textual criticism.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
- cites Jobes and Silva
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Dines
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Harl, Dorival, Munnich
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
Albrecht has identified the source for the Psalms in certain catenae manuscripts as the base text for the Seventy in the Fifth Column; this text must be described as the pre-ekdosis.
“Regarding the base text for the Seventy that occupied the Fifth Column, for the first time, Albrecht has identified that source for the Psalms in certain catenae mss.This text must be described as the pre-ekdosis; that is, the text used in the synopsis before Origen performed diorthosis and added the critical signs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Albrecht
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2. The Hexapla
The basic six-columned structure of the Hexapla should be a settled question.
“Thus, the basic sixcolumned structure of the Hexapla should be a settled question.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Jerome probably describes the Hexapla in the first instance and then Origen's ekdosis of the Seventy mixed with Theodotion containing the critical signs.
“Jerome probably describes the Hexapla in the first instance and then Origen's ekdosis of the Seventy mixed with Theodotion containing the critical signs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Columnar translations were designed for Greek speakers learning Latin and how to read original Latin texts.
“Eleanor Dickey has shown that columnar translations were designed for Greek speakers learning Latin and how to read the original Latin texts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Dickey
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
As a philologist, Origen created an ekdosis of the Seventy mixed with Theodotion containing the critical signs.
“As a philologist, Origen created such a text.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
By 392, Epiphanius calls it the Tetrapla, but he does not claim to have invented the title (Mens.19).
“By 392, Epiphanius calls it the Tetrapla, but he does not claim to have invented the title (Mens.19).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Origen and his followers had a very limited knowledge of the Hebrew language, its vocalization, and its syntax.
“This was necessary since Origen and his followers had a very limited knowledge of the Hebrew language, the text's vocalization, and its syntax.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Epiphanius, Mens.179-180
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 1.
After Origen's death ca.254, his followers in Caesarea continued to curate the Hexapla, but they were more interested in improving Origen's ekdosis or Tetrapla as most evidence indicates.
“After Origen's death ca.254, his followers in Caesarea continued to curate the Hexapla (perhaps they copied sections of it like Psalms), but they were more interested in improving Origen's ekdosis or Tetrapla as most of the evidence indicates.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
Eusebius describes a separate edition prepared by Origen, one that Epiphanius, several colophons, and scholia refer to as the Tetrapla.
“The problem for Orlinsky's and Neuschäfer's view, of course, is that Eusebius does describe a separate edition prepared by Origen, one that Epiphanius, several colophons, and scholia refer to as the Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisecitation
§ 2.1 Origen's Intention(s) for the Hexapla
Others suggest the Hexapla was composed for multiple intentions including exegesis and interpretation of Scripture.
“Thus, they suggest the Hexapla was composed for multiple intentions including exegesis and interpretation of Scripture.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- cites Katsos
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Law
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 2.2 Origen's Method for Creating the Hexapla
Origen, according to Eusebius, gathered all the texts into the same copy, divided them into cola, and set the Hebrew and Greek texts in corresponding positions.
“Thus, Origen, according to Eusebius, (1) gathered (συναγαγών) all the texts into the same [copy], (2) divided them into cola (i.e. units; διελών τε πρὸς κῶλον), and (3) set (ἀντιπαρατίθημι) the Hebrew and Greek texts in corresponding positions (i.e. parallel fashion; Hist.eccl.6.16.4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Eusebius, Hist.eccl.6.16.4
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen's followers must have entitled this work the Tetrapla, even though they also must have failed in attempts to standardize the title.
“But Origen's followers must have entitled this work the Tetrapla, even though they also must have failed in attempts to standardize the title.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationcitation
§ 1.
Origen's biographers, both followers and detractors, noted his learning of the Greek disciplines including philology, although he was known chiefly as a philosopher and theologian.
“Although Origen was and is known as a polymath and probably chiefly as a philosopher and theologian, his biographers, both followers and detractors, did note his learning of the Greek disciplines including philology.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
- cites Hist.eccl.6.2.15
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Ep.Serap.4.9
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Vir.ill.54
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
The signs in the Hexapla would be superfluous and out of alignment with the synopsis as a late ancient table intended to be read by scanning in both directions.
“(2) the internal probability that the signs in the Hexapla would be superfluous and out of alignment with the synopsis as a late ancient table intended to be read by scanning in both directions”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 2.3 The Question of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla
The codices (Mercati palimpsest and Codex Sarravianus) probably descend from two different sources: the first from the Hexapla, and the second from Origen's ekdosis with signs.
“The first of these begs the question since these codices probably descend from two different sources, the first from the Hexapla, and the second from Origen's ekdosis with signs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Premisenone given
§ 6. Conclusion
Several doctoral dissertations on the remaining sources and fragments of the Hexapla were completed at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the University of Oxford, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from 2007-2022.
“Several doctoral dissertations on the remaining sources and fragments of the Hexapla were completed at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the University of Oxford, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from 2007-2022.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisenone given
§ 6. Conclusion
In 1994, the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla held in Oxford led to establishing the Hexapla Institute with its strategic goal to publish 'a Field for the Twenty-First Century.'
“In 1994, the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla held in Oxford led to establishing the Hexapla Institute with its strategic goal to publish”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Premisenone given
§ 5.2 Terminology
Origen never entitled his philological works.
“Origen never entitled his philological works.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.2 O MSS
The text and layout of Ra 88 represent the version closer to the original ekdosis, while the Greek Vorlage of Syh represented a further corrected and innovated ekdosis.
“Perhaps, the text and layout of Ra 88 represent the version closer to the original ekdosis, while the Greek Vorlage of Syh represented a further corrected and innovated ekdosis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
Premisecitation
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen refers to this team in Comm.Jo. 6.9 and implies that either his old stenographers from Alexandria had arrived or new ones had been installed.
“Origen refers to this team in Comm.Jo. 6.9 when he tells Ambrose,”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Comm.Jo. 6.9
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationnone given
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Coogan's suggestion that Origen might have relied on his team for the Tetrapla is less probable.
“Coogan also suggests Origen might have relied on his team for the Tetrapla, but this conclusion is less probable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Coogan
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Consideration of the Secunda's role in the synopsis and the probable tabular collaboration to produce the Hexapla might assuage some scholars' skepticism about how Origen could produce both his magnum opus and his ekdosis during the Caesarean period.
“Rather, consideration of the Secunda's role in the synopsis and the probable tabular collaboration to produce the Hexapla might assuage some scholars' skepticism for how Origen could produce both his magnum opus and his ekdosis during the Caesarean period.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone given
§ 6. Conclusion
Today, the search for Origen's Hexapla is an interdisciplinary endeavor.
“Today, the search for Origen's Hexapla is an interdisciplinary endeavor.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown data
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen describes the diorthosis as employing an innovative use of the critical signs: obelos marked text not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy, and asteriskos marked text not present with the Seventy but added from the rest of the editions.
“(4) employing an innovative use of the critical signs: obelos (÷/-) marked text not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy and asteriskos (※) marked text not present with the Seventy but was added from the rest of the edi-”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Ambrose supplied Origen with more than seven shorthand writers, copyists no fewer in number, and girls trained in beautiful penmanship.
“For, as he [Origen] dictated, he had at hand more than seven shorthand writers, who relieved one another at appointed times, and copyists no fewer in number, as well as girls trained in beautiful penmanship.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Eusebius, Hist.eccl.6.23.1-2
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisenone given
§ 6. Conclusion
In 2020, the first edition of 'the New Field' was published by Peeters.
“In 2020, the first edition of”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone given
§ 4. The Caesarean Ekdoseis
After Pamphilus met a martyr's death in 309, Eusebius, Pamphilus' student, must have taken up the work and built a rather large library, which included Origen's and Pamphilus' works as part of the bishop's library in Caesarea.
“After Pamphilus met a martyr's death in 309, Eusebius, Pamphilus' student, must have taken up the work and built a rather large library, which included Origen's and Pamphilus' works as part of the bishop's library in Caesarea.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
A tabular collaboration seems like an appropriate mechanism to explain the production of the Hexapla in an efficient and timely manner, while the Tetrapla as a traditional ekdosis probably required the philologist's special attention.
“Thus, a tabular collaboration seems like an appropriate mechanism to explain the production of the Hexapla in an efficient and timely manner, while the Tetrapla as a traditional ekdosis probably required the philologist's special attention.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationcitation
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
The Hexapla helped Origen read, compile, and compare the texts as preparatory to the production of the Tetrapla, his ekdosis of the Seventy, that enabled him to study/teach the interpretation of the Seventy more accurately (Ep.Afr.9).
“The Hexapla helped him read, compile, and compare the texts as preparatory to the production of the Tetrapla, his ekdosis of the Seventy, that enabled him to study/teach (ἀσκέω) the interpretation of the Seventy more accurately (Ep.Afr.9).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Premisenone given
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Most scholars now discard the columnar Tetrapla.
“Thus, most scholars now discard the columnar Tetrapla.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen did not work alone; Ambrose had provided stenographers for him.
“It is important to remember that Origen did not work alone, for Ambrose had provided stenographers for him.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Eusebius, Hist.eccl.6.23.1-2
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone given
§ 5.2 Terminology
The terminology used for Origen's philological works was not standard.
“As the following articles in this volume will show, the terminology was not standard.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
The chief sources combined with new information from ancient columnar translations show that the Tetrapla or Origen's ekdosis was probably not columnar but rather the text of the Seventy mixed with readings of the Three under asteriskoi and readings not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy under obeloi.
“The chief sources combined with new information from ancient columnar translations show that the Tetrapla or Origen's ekdosis was probably not columnar but rather the text of the Seventy mixed with readings of the Three under asteriskoi and readings not in the Hebrew but in the Seventy under obeloi.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisenone given
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The Caesarean library held the collections of Origen and Pamphilus.
“The Caesarean library held the collections of Origen and Pamphilus.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
In addition to noting Pamphilus' and Eusebius' diorthosis, the Ezekiel colophon says Eusebius added scholia to the margins of a text (i.e., the Tetrapla) that Origen himself had corrected and written scholia, which had ultimately descended from the Hexapla.
“In addition to noting Pamphilus' and Eusebius' diorthosis, this colophon says Eusebius added scholia (τὰ σχόλια παρέθηκα) to the margins of a text (i.e., the Tetrapla) that Origen himself had corrected and written scholia (ἐσχολιογράφητο), which had ultimately descended from the Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone given
§ 5.2.2 Modern Terminology
It is not always possible to discern which source came from whom.
“But it is not always possible to discern which source came from whom.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationown data
§ 5.2.1 Early Christian Terms
The first part of the note in Q says that this line was not in the fifth column of the Hexapla.
“The first part of the note simply says that this line was not in the fifth column of the Hexapla.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Without any prior work on the synopsis except collecting the sources and generally surveying them, Origen could have completed the Hexapla in the early 240s or before, and he would have been amply prepared to comment on grammatical matters in his commentaries and homilies during that decade.
“Without any prior work on the synopsis except collecting the sources and generally surveying them, Origen could have completed the Hexapla in the early 240s or before and he would have been amply prepared to comment on grammatical matters in his commentaries and homilies during that decade.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisenone given
§ 4. The Caesarean Ekdoseis
Origen died ca.254 leaving his work in Caesarea.
“He died ca.254 leaving his work in Caesarea.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen obtained the sources (the Three) during the Alexandrian period (by 217?) and perhaps made initial investigations and comparisons between them.
“His limited use of the Three combined with these comments suggests that he obtained the sources during the Alexandrian period (by 217?) and perhaps made initial investigations and comparisons between them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 3. Origen's Ekdosis: The Tetrapla
Origen may be soon finishing his Tetrapla and not at all commenting on the synopsis in Ep.Afr.4-7 and Comm.Matt.15.14.
“Thus, he may be soon finishing his Tetrapla and not at all commenting on the synopsis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The colophons reveal a complex history of transmission often beginning with Origen, Pamphilus or Eusebius, but once these texts were copied and disseminated by the library, later philologists continued to innovate them.
“The colophons reveal a complex history of transmission often beginning with Origen, Pamphilus or Eusebius, but once these texts were copied and disseminated by the library, later philologists continued to innovate them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 5.1 Date of the Hexapla
Origen had a team of skilled workers on whom to rely for the compilation of the Hexapla, and the tabular form of the Hexapla naturally enabled collaboration.
“Origen, thus, had a team of skilled workers on whom to rely for the compilation of the Hexapla, and the tabular form of the Hexapla naturally enabled collaboration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Coogan, "Tabular," 66-7
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.2 O MSS
Some changes can be attributed to the copying process, but other changes can now be attributed to the making and innovating of ekdoseis in late ancient Caesarea.
“Some changes, of course, can be attributed to the copying process, but other changes can now be attributed to the making and innovating of ekdoseis in late ancient Caesarea.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Kharanauli's essay in this volume
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Premisenone given
§ 6. Conclusion
In 2021, the Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary hosted its inaugural colloquium, Origen as Philologist, with the goal of bringing together scholars with different backgrounds but related fields of expertise to reignite the search for the Hexapla with a new and fresh interdisciplinary approach.
“In 2021, the Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary hosted its inaugural colloquium, Origen as Philologist, with the goal of bringing together scholars with different backgrounds but related fields of expertise to reignite the search for the Hexapla with a new and fresh interdisciplinary approach.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
§ 4.1 Promulgating and Innovating Origen's Ekdosis
The same scribe also copied the original colophon that Pamphilus had appended to his copy, which reveals that his text was copied from and corrected against the Hexapla of Origen, as corrected by him.
“The same scribe also copied the original colophon that Pamphilus had appended to his copy, which reveals that his text was copied from and corrected against the Hexapla of Origen, as corrected by him.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

72 of 72

The paper relies on this without support.
The manuscript colophons and scholia accurately reflect the provenance and contents of the texts they describe.
“Many manuscript colophons and scholia attribute the source of their text to the Tetrapla.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Origen's Comm.Matt. and Ep.Afr. are describing a later ekdosis with critical signs and not the constitution of the fifth column of the Hexapla.
“On the assumption that Origen's Comm.Matt.and Ep.Afr. are describing a later ekdosis with critical signs and not the constitution of the fifth column of the Hexapla”

2 of 2

Bilingualism and the Latin Language
Adams, J. Ν. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511482960 · Cited by 1,447
The Journal of Theological Studies
S., H. B. (1899) · The Journal of Theological Studies · doi:10.1093/jts/os-i.1.1 · Cited by 686
Books and readers in the early church: a history of early Christian texts
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-3260 · Cited by 451
Christianity and the Transformation of the Book
Grafton, A. T. (2006) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674037861 · Cited by 421
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek
Swete, H. B. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511706776 · Cited by 249
Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine
van Winden, J. C. M., & LANGE, N. D. (1978) · Vigiliae Christianae · doi:10.2307/1583414 · Cited by 201
The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad
Schironi, F. (2018) · University of Michigan Press · doi:10.3998/mpub.8769399 · Cited by 195
The Septuagint in Context
Marcos, N. F., & Watson (2000) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004498082 · Cited by 191
The Septuagint and Modern Study
O’Connell, K. G., & Jellicoe, S. (1969) · Journal of Biblical Literature · doi:10.2307/3262897 · Cited by 170
Origen and Scripture
Martens, P. W. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639557.001.0001 · Cited by 103
Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship
Crawford, M. R. (2014) · New Testament Studies · doi:10.1017/s0028688514000216 · Cited by 92
Corpus papyrorum latinarum
Cavenaile, R. (1958) · Cited by 77
Christianity and the transformation of the book: Origen, Eusebius, and the library of Caesarea
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-0413 · Cited by 73
The Hand of the Slave and the Hand of the Martyr: Pamphilus of Caesarea, Autography, and the Rise of Textual Relics
Inowlocki, S. (2023) · Journal of late antiquity · doi:10.1353/jla.2023.a906771 · Cited by 69
Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea
Wise, M. O. (2015) · Yale University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvggx429 · Cited by 67
COLUMNAR TRANSLATION: AN ANCIENT INTERPRETIVE TOOL THAT THE ROMANS GAVE THE GREEKS
Dickey, E. (2015) · The Classical Quarterly · doi:10.1017/s0009838815000087 · Cited by 61
Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period
Revell, E. J. (1976) · Journal for the Study of Judaism · doi:10.1163/157006376x00311 · Cited by 57
The oldest evidence for the Hebrew accent system
Revell, E. J. (1971) · Bulletin of the John Rylands Library · doi:10.7227/bjrl.54.1.10 · Cited by 45
Learning the Language of God: Tables in Early Christian Texts
Riggsby, A. M. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108883559.013 · Cited by 41
An Index to Aquila
Reider, J., & Turner, N. (1966) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004275355 · Cited by 34
On the margins of culture: the practice of transcription in the ancient world
Price, J. J., & Naéh, S. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511641992.012 · Cited by 32
Glossaria Bilinguia in Papyris et Membranis Reperta
Thomas, J. D., & Krämer, J. (1987) · The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology · doi:10.2307/3821555 · Cited by 31
Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity
Amsler, M., & SNF (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111010311 · Cited by 31
Tabular Thinking in Late Ancient Palestine: Instrumentality, Work, and the Construction of Knowledge
Coogan, J. (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111010311-003 · Cited by 30
On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (☼Ḫ > Ḥ and ☼Ġ > ˓) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith)
Steiner, R. C. (2005) · Journal of Biblical Literature · doi:10.2307/30041012 · Cited by 26
SOME PARALLELS IN LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN BIBLICAL HEBREW AND NEO-ARAMAIC
Khan, G. A. (2005) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789047415756_009 · Cited by 25
The Ambiguity of Signs: Critical σημεῖα from Zenodotus to Origen
Schironi, F. (2012) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004226111_006 · Cited by 23
A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 22-42
Meade, J. D. (2020) · Peeters Publishers eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1q26x9r · Cited by 14
Self-citation
Invitation to the Septuagint
Collins, N. L. (2004) · Journal of Semitic Studies · doi:10.1093/jss/49.1.167 · Cited by 13
The Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen
Kahle, P. E. (1960) · Journal of Biblical Literature · doi:10.2307/3264461 · Cited by 13
The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek
Marsh, B. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.29 · Cited by 12
VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989
Cox, C. E. (1991) · Scholars' Press eBooks · Cited by 10
Origen's Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?
Law, T. M. (2008) · The Journal of Theological Studies · doi:10.1093/jts/flm148 · Cited by 8
The Septuagint and Origen’s Hexapla
Gentry, P. J. (2020) · doi:10.5040/9780567680280.ch-013 · Cited by 3
A Letter that Killeth: Gregory of Nyssa on How (Not) to Read Scripture, Platonically
Katsos, I. (2023) · Modern Theology · doi:10.1111/moth.12879 · Cited by 3
Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta
Wevers, J. W., & Johnson, B. (1964) · Journal of Biblical Literature · doi:10.2307/3264929 · Cited by 2
Origen’s Hexapla
Gentry, P. J. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.33 · Cited by 2
Quinta, Sexta, and Septima
Marsh, B. J. (2021) · The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.28

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 137

For, 2007, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 40, 30
2018, philologist
Bernard Neuschäfer, 1987, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18
Anna Kharanauli, Origen and Lucian in the Light of Ancient Editor
Drew Longacre Natia Mirotadze, 2020, DSI 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Franco Montanari, 2002, Epea Pteroenta: Beiträge zur Homerforschung, ed. Antonios Rengakos and Michael Reichel
Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians, 35, 44
Neuschäfer Origenes, hosanna
Elsewhere, some are reckless due to a pretext (πρόφασις) of correcting the text, transforming to alter (ἀλλοιόω) the inherent meaning concerning the words seemingly being written incoherently
Neuschäfer Kharanauli, Origen and Lucian
Signs, 2012, Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren R. Niehoff
Kharanauli, Origen and Lucian
Kharanauli, Origen and Lucian
Alfred Rahlfs, 1914, Weidmann, 126
1958, see the editio princeps
1977, see Pierre Nautin
Norton, 1994, Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla
Katsos, 2023, Modern Theology Month
As, 1979, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 20, 69
Dickey, Columnar Translation
Riggsby, Learning
Riggsby, Learning
Coogan, Tabular
Coogan, Tabular
Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians, 122, 101
The Best of the Grammarians, 97-100
de Field Origenis, 1959, lilii
Origenes, 1.96-8. 45 Nautin, Origène, 456-7
Neuschäfer Origenes, Origène
Kharanauli, Origen and Lucian
Septuagint, 2021, Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dominique Barthélemy, 1972, Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou, ed. Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser
Tetrapla, 1902, if it existed at all, as a work in columns
Traditionally, The Best of the Grammarians, 49-52
For, 2023, Journal of Late Antiquity, 16, 289, 10.1353/jla.2023.a906771 · DOI
Pamphilus, Pamphilus corrected (διώρθωσα) the, 69
New Haven, 1995, Yale University Press, 71
Although Inowlocki, The Hand
Matthew Ross Miller, 2019, The Aristarchian Signs in Codex Colbertinus-Sarravianus
epistle
Joseph Ziegler Ieremias, 1957, Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Nautin Origène, 2010, Heine
Nautin Origène, Nautin believes that Origen completed the totality of his textual work in four to five years
Aejmelaeus, 2021, Dionisio Candido, Joshua Alfaro, Kristin De Troyer
Field Origenis, xi
Joseph Ziegler, Isaias
Ziegler Isaias, Hexaplaric Recension
Aejmelaeus Anneli, 2021, Pages 13-38 in On Hexaplaric and Lucianic Readings and Recensions
Barthélemy Dominique, 1972, Pages 247-61 in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou. Edited by Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser.
Alison Salvesen, 1994, Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla
Brock S. P., 1970, Studia Patristica, 10, 215
Brock Sebastian, 1979, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 20, 69
Brock Sebastian P, 1996, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel
Clements Ruth A, 2000, Pages 303-329 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Terrence L. Donaldson. Waterloo
Companioni, 2022, PhD diss.
Devreesse Robert, 1954, Introduction à l'histoire des manuscrits grecs
10.1017/s0009838815000087 · DOI
Dines Jennifer M, 2004, The Septuagint
Field Frederick, 1875, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 Volumes
Gentry Peter J, 2013, Pages 133-47 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Harl Marguerite, 1988, La Bible Grecque des Septante
Heine, 2010, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church
Jenkins R. G., 1994, Pages 88-102 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla
Jenkins R. G., 1998, Pages 73-87 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers Presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla
Jenkins R. G., 1989, Pages 261-77 in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven
Jobes Karen H, 2015, Invitation to the Septuagint
Kharanauli Anna, 2020, Origen and Lucian in the Light of Ancient Editor
Law T. M., 2007, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 40, 30
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639557.001.0001 · DOI
Meade, John D. "The Dream for a `New Field' Comes True: A Description and Defense of the New Critical Edition of Job 22-42." Pages 131-153 in Editing the Septuagint: The Unfinished Task: Papers presented at the 50th anniversary of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Felix Albrecht and Frank Feder. De Septuaginta Investigationes 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022.
10.2307/j.ctv1q26x9r · DOI
Mercati Giovanni, 1958, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae. Pars prima. Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 Sup. phototypice expressus et transcriptus
Miller Matthew Ross, 2019, PhD diss.
Montanari Franco, 2002, Pages 119-40 in Epea Pteroenta: Beiträge zur Homerforschung. Edited by Antonios Rengakos and Michael Reichel.
Munnich Olivier, 1993, Pages 167-85 in Origeniana sexta: Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible: Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum Chantilly, 30 août-3 septembre
Nautin Pierre, 1977, Origène: Sa vie et son oeuvre
Neuschäfer Bernard, 1987, Origenes als Philologe. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18. 1-2 Volumes
Norton Gerard J, 1994, Pages 103-124 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla
Orlinsky H. M., 1952, Pages 173-82 in Proceedings of the First World Congress of Jewish Studies
Rahlfs Alfred, 1914, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, fur das Septuaginta-Unternehmen. Aus den Nachrichten der K
10.1017/9781108883559.013 · DOI
Schironi, Francesca. "P.Grenf. 1.5, Origen, and the Scriptorium of Caesarea." Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 52 (2015): 181-223.
Soisalon-Soininen Ilmari, 1959, Der Charakter der Asterisierten Zusätze in der Septuaginta
Ziegler Joseph, 1984, Duodecim prophetae
Ziegler Joseph, 1967, Isaias
Ziegler Joseph, 1957, Epistula Ieremiae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum
columnar
Greek Pronunciation, 2017, (Ph.D. diss
1877, see Kantor, "Second Column
Note, however, that ΟΥΝΚΗΒΑ is a restoration of the editor
1977, see Pierre Nautin
10.2307/30041012 · DOI
Secunda, the parallel to vocalic shewa is normally represented by α, ε, or (in rarer cases) ο: e. g., λαχολ (Secunda | BHS ׀ לל Ps 18:31 `to.PREP=all.QNT')
however, the "shewa-slot
Secunda, see Benjamin Kantor, 10.1017/9781108883559.013 · DOI
Pre-Secunda
Catherine Hezser, 2001, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Megan Williams, 2006, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea
triads
1976, no. 1 (1971)
See Robert Cavenaile Corpus Papyrorum, 1958, Otto Harrassowitz, 20
Nevertheless, the fact that these multi-word lines exist at all is strong evidence that it was not necessarily Origen's decision to divide the text so
Kantor, Second Column
Distribution of Pair and Triad Lines in the Mercati Fragments of the Secunda Although individual authors sometimes exhibit internal inconsistency, the fact that this phenomenon is roughly eight times more common in the later psalms than it is in the earlier psalms strongly suggests that they are the product of a different author or derived from a different textual source. The complete absence of any multi-word lines in the Psalm 22 fragment in Cambridge University Library T-S 12. 182 (Rahlfs 2005) fits with this distribution. While there may be different ways to explain the specific canonical distribution in relation to the book of Psalms,36the general phenomenon most likely points to distinct authors or sources.
Pre-Secunda
one might suggest that perhaps the scribal work (or sources) for the Book of Psalms in the Secunda was divided according to the five books of the Psalter (1-41
Reinach Inv Nr., 3rd c. ce), some including Greek transcription of Latin
1st c. ce), and others with Greek in Greek letters alongside
1st/2nd c. ce
ce
3rd c. ce).41 Neither the Graeco-Babyloniaca nor the Graeco-Latin glossa
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 87 (1): 47. For the date, see Aage Westenholz, "The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again
see Kantor, "Second Column
Glossaria bilinguia in papyris et membranis reperta
the first objection would seem to cut against the second. If Greek transcription of a parallel text was a "novel
Pre-Secunda
Pre-Secunda
10.1017/cbo9780511482960 · DOI
Bardy G., 1925, Revue Biblique, 34, 217
Coogan Jeremiah, Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity
10.1017/s0009838815000087 · DOI
Elliott C. J., 1877, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, 10.1515/9783111010311-003 · DOI
Emerton J. A., 1956, Journal of Theological Studies, 7, 79
Field F., 1875, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Vol. 1-2), 10.1017/s0009838815000087 · DOI
Geller M. J., Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, 87, 43
Grafton, 2006, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, 10.4159/9780674037861 · DOI
Hanson R. P. C., 1959, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press
Heine, 2010, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.33 · DOI
Hezser Catherine, 2001, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 10.5040/9780567680280.ch-013 · DOI
Kantor Benjamin, 2017, Ph.D. diss.
Kantor Benjamin, 2021, The Septuagint within the History of Greek, 10.4159/9780674037861 · DOI
Kantor Benjamin, 2022, The Pronunciation of New Testament Greek: Judeo-Palestinian Greek Phonology and Orthography from Alexander to Islam
Marcos Natalio Fernández, 2001, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers
Nautin Pierre, 1977, Origène: Sa vie et son oeuvre
10.2307/30041012 · DOI
Westenholz Aage, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, 97, 262
Wevers J. W., 1974, Genesis. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht., 1, 10.1093/jts/flm148 · DOI

Sorted by citations

Origen’s Aristarchean Signs: Scholia from Ra 1175 Reconsidered
Gentry, P. J. (2025) · Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht eBooks · doi:10.13109/9783666565649.599

Authors: Meade, J. D.
Corresponding author: Meade, John D.
Venue: The Forerunners and Heirs of Origen's Hexapla
Publisher: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Published: 2024-07-15
Pages: 13-46
DOI: 10.13109/9783666500725.13
OpenAlex: W4400954834
Cited by: 1
References: 38
Citations by year: 2025: 1
FWCI: 16.85
Type: book chapter
Language: en
Open access: hybrid
doi.org
Licence: cc-by-nc-nd
Locations: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics: Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Classical Studies and Philology
Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Augustinian Studies and Theology
Keywords: Origen, Hexapla, textual criticism, history of the Bible, Septuagint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-26, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-26 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Searching for Origen’s Hexapla

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks