ORIGEN'S TETRAPLA — A SCHOLARLY FICTION?

Author(s): ‫ אורלינסקי‬.‫ מ‬.‫ צ‬and H. M. Orlinsky

Source: Report (World Congress of Jewish Studies) / ‫ הקונגרס העולמי‬- ‫דין וחשבון‬
‫ קיץ תש"ז‬,‫למדעי היהדות‬, Vol. ‫&א‬lrm;' (‫)קיץ תש"ז‬, pp. 173-182
Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / ‫האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות‬

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/23513682

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Report (World Congress
of Jewish Studies) / ‫ הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות‬- ‫דין וחשבון‬

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
H. M. Orlinsky, New York ‫צ‬. ‫מ‬. ‫יקסנילרוא‬, ‫קדויידינ‬

ORIGEN'S TETRAPLA - A SCHOLARLY FICTION ?

About 240 C. E. the Christian scholar Origen, living in

Caesarea, Palestine, compiled a Bible which consisted usually
of six columns, occasionally of seven or eight or nine columns.
In the days of the well-known Church Father, Eusebius (3rd —
4th cent.), this Bible came to be known popularly as the Hexapla
("six-columned Bible").
In 1934, at a meeting of the American Oriental Society,
I discussed the columnar order of the Hexapla, and suggested
that Origen had in mind a pedagogic motive when he arranged
the first six columns as he did : The first column supplied the
consonantal text in Hebrew characters; the second column,
consisting of the transliteration of the Hebrew consonantal
text in Greek characters (consonants and vowels), taught the
Christian reader, who knew little or no Hebrew, how to read
the Hebrew of column I ; Aquila's version in column III gave
the reader not only a slavish word-for-word and sometimes
even a letter-for-letter Greek, or quasi-Greek, equivalent for
every fragment of the original Hebrew in columns I and II,
but quite often also its etymology ; Symmachus' Greek version
could be used, and indeed was often indispensable as a trans
lation in normal Greek for the otherwise often unintelligible
Aquilanic Greek; and equipped with the knowledge gained
from the first four columns, the reader was ready for the most
important column of them all, the Septuagint in column V;
Theodotion in column VI was not placed before the Septuagint
simply because it was not necessary there for Origen's text
book purposes. (See my paper on "The Columnar Order of
173[I]

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 174 ‫ ר ו א ט 'י צ‬b ‫[ י ק ס נ י‬2]

the Hexapla," Jewish Ouarterly

137-149.)
It is commonly asserted hat in addition to the Hexapla,
Origen compiled also a Tetraj a, that is, a four-columned Bible,
consisting of the four Greek tianslations of the Hexapla: Aquila,
Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion. In the course of
time, it came to be asserted almost as commonly that Origen
compiled the Tetrapla after he had compiled the Hexapla —
merely deleting the Hebrew texts of columns I and II to produce
the four Greek columns which constituted the Tetrapla. In a
paper read before the Society of Biblical Literature in 1936,
I argued, contrary to this widely accepted opinion, for the
priority of the Tetrapla to the Hexapla. However, this paper
was never published, because while I believed that the Tetrapla
could not possibly have come into being later than the Hexapla,
1 was not so certain of the nature and scope of the Tetrapla:
again and again I was struck by the vagueness and lack of
first-hand knowledge in regard to the Tetrapla, even in the
source material, a situation which does not exist at all in regard
to the Hexapla. In 1937, while reviewing the primary and
secondary literature on the subject, it occurred to me that there
never did exist a Tetrapla as a separate work; and this is what
the present paper will try to demonstrate.
It goes without saying that Eusebius and Jerome, in the
fourth and fifth centuries, both of whom tell us that they saw
and used Origen's Hexapla in Caesarea, would have made
every effort to make use of the Tetrapla. The Tetrapla would
have been a very bulky work, not much smaller than the
Hexapla; thus Nestle has conservatively estimated the latter's
size to have been anywhere from about 2,000 to 3,500 leaves.
Eusebius and Jerome, in working on the Hexapla in Pamphilus'
library, could hardly have avoided bumping into such a gigan
tic work. It would seem not unreasonable to infer from this that

already in the days of Eusebius and Jerome the Tetrapla was

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
175 ORIGEN'S TETRAPLA - A SCHOLARLY FICTION ? [3]

not to be found along with Origen's Hexapla in the Caes

library.
Neither was the Tetrapla apparently to be found anywhere
else. Already one such as Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia
(Salamis) in Cyprus (367 — 402), whose uncritical imagination
is responsible for so many curious embellishments to the Letter
of Aristeas, the origin of the LXX, the origin of the Hexapla,
and even the reasoning for its columnar order, the nature and
significance of Origen's aristarchian signs, and the like, not
even Epiphanius has anything more to say about the Tetrapla,.
its origin aud purpose, and its temporal relationship to the
Hexapla, than this extremely vague sentence: "For the Greek is
a Tetrapla when the translations of Aquila and Symmachus and
the Seventy-two and Theodotion are drawn up together." I shall
have to content myself here with the bare statement that actually
Epiphanius knew nothing whatever concerning the Tetrapla
except what he read in Eusebius.
As one reads what Origen himself, Eusebius, Jerome, and
Epiphanius have to say about Origen's many-columned Bible(s),
he notices at once a decided lack of precision and consistency
as regards their names. So far as Origen himself is concerned,
nowhere in any of his extant writings, including his more than
100 letters which Eusebius used in his Church History,
do we find any name at all for his many-columned Bible.
Eusebius' reference to Origen's columned work is to be found
in his Church History (VI, 16), "...Thus, too, Origen
traced the editions of the other translators of the Sacred Wri
tings besides the Seventy; and besides the beaten track of
translations, that of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion,
he discovered certain others which ...in the Hexapla of the
Psalms, after the well-known editions, he placed besides them
not only a fifth but also a sixth and a seventh translation... and
so he has left us the copies of the Hexapla, as it is called...".
Thus it is clear that when referring to Origen's nine-columned

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 176 ‫ט"צ‬ ‫יקסני^רוא‬ [4]

Bible in the Psalms, Eusebiu

like, but of a Hexapla; suc
are not used by him.
As to Jerome, it is signif
extensive writings do we
columned Bible, or Bibles, o
refers to what came to be c
namely, the Heptapla, Oc
widely separated occasions
than eleven occasions in his Epistle to Sunn i a and
Fretela, in discussing the Hebrew text and the numerous
Oreek translations of tha book of Psalms, he makes mention
of the "four well-known translations" [namely, Aquila, Symma
chus, LXX, Theodotion] along with Quinta, Sexta, and Septima,
and again only the term Hexapla is employed by him.
Of great importance, hitherto overlooked, is Rufinus, the
younger contemporary of Eusebius and the translator into Latin
of his Church History. For one thing, Rufinus leaves
untranslated and skips over completely the vague statement in
Eusebius about the Tetrapla. But of greater significance is this
fact: Whereas Eusebius writes "...[Origen] has left us copies
of the so-called Hexapla," Rufinus' Latin translation (made about
402) reads, "...and on account of which he [Origen] named it
the Hexapla." In other words, Rufinus, without any basis and
authority whatever, created a fictitious tradition that Origen
himself named his columned Bible the Hexapla.
It should come as no great surprise to learn that it is none
other than Epiphanius who is responsible for Origen's many
columned Bible acquiring a name in addition to that of Hexapla.
Here is what Epiphanius has to say in his sort of Introduction
to the Bible, popularly known as De Mensuris et Pon
deribus ("Concerning Measures and Weights"): "For when
[Origen] had placed the six translations and the Hebrew writing,
in Hebrew letters and words, in one column, he placed another

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
177 ORIOEN'S TETRAPLA—A SCHOLARLY EICTION ? [5]

column over against the latter, in Greek letters but in Hebrew

words... and so, in the Hexapla or Octopla..." (§7); "And Orige
set forth the Scripture, placing the six columns [of the Greek
and the two columns of the Hebrew side by side... calling th
books the Hexapla..." (§18); "When people happen upon the
Hexapla or Octopla — for the Greek [columns] are a Tetrapl
when the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy-two
and Theodotion are placed together; but when these four column
are joined to the two Hebrew columns they are called the
Hexapla, and when the fifth and sixth also are joined succè
sively to these, they are called the Octopla..." (§ 14). It is clear
then, that Octopla, not found in the writings of Epiphanius
predecessors and contemporaries, was just coming into use a
an alternative term for Hexapla.
It was asserted above that nowhere in any of Origen's
writings is there found any name for his columned Bible (o
Bibles). 1 think that we can go even farther than that, and mak
this, perhaps startling statement: there is no evidence that
Origen made reference to any columned Bible! It is true tha
all scholars in the field have stated that in Origen's writing
reference is made to a columned Bible; but let us go back to
the original record.
Origen touches on our general subject in three extant
works; in his Epistle to Africanus (§2), in his com men
tary on Matthew (Book XV, §14), and in some of his more
than one hundred letters preserved and used in Eusebius'
Church History. Now in both the Epistle and the
Commentary Origen states merely that he compared the
Septuagint translation of the Holy Scriptures with the Hebrew,
noting the differences between them, marking the plus-es and
the minus-es with special symbols, and paying special attention
to the readings in the other Greek translations. If Origen had
had in mind a columned Bible, he would surely have in some
way indicated the fact that he had arranged in parallel columns

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 178 ‫יקסגילרואמ"צ‬ [6]

the various Hebrew and Gr

justified, it seems to me,
popularly accepted assump
drawn conclusion, that Origen,s Epistle and Co m m en
tary refer to a columned Bible. But we have more than
this feeling of scepticism to go by.
In his Epistle, Origen refers twice to Aquila and Theo
dotion (§§2,3), and refers frequently to the Hebrew and Septu
agint texts. Not once, however, does Origen make mention of
Symmachus. Thus, with regard to a passage in Daniel (§2),
Origen gives the Hebrew reading, points out that Aquilo agrees
with it, and remarks that one Septuagint manuscript in his
possession follows the Septuagint, while another follows Theo
dotion. Or again (§3), in dealing with Job, Origen points out
that the Hebrew and Aquila lack a certain passage, but that it
is to be found both in the Septuagint and in Theodotion.
Surely Origen would have made mention in connection with
these two passages of such an important Greek translation as
Symmachus, if the latter were available to him at the time.
It seems to me not unreasonable to infer that Origen did not
have Symmachus' translation before him when he wrote the
Epistle to Africanus.
Let us delve a bit into the history of Symmachus' tra
station. Already about 180 C. E., in his work Against the
Heresies (Book III, 24), Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, in dis
cussing the prophecy in Isa. 7: 14, mentions and attacks the
renderings of Theodotion and Aquila; he makes no reference
to Symmachus. It is scarcely possible to believe that Irenaeus
knew and ignored Symmachus, for this simple and sufficient
reason, among others, namely, in discussing Isa. 7: 14 Irenaeus
makes a violent attack on the Ebionite sect. Symmachus was
an Ebionite. Had Irenaeus known Symmachus, he would surely
have cited his "Ebionite" rendering and attacked it.
The clue to the problem of Symmachus is provided clearly

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
179 ORIOEN'S TETRAPLA —A SCHOLARLY FICTION? [7]

in Eusebius' Church History (VI, 17). Eusebius tells us

that Symmachus was an Ebionite, and follows with this state
ment: "And memoirs too of Symmachus are still extant, in
which by his opposition to the Gospel according to Matthew,
he seems to hold the above-mentioned heresy. These, along
with other interpretations of the Scriptures by Symmachus,
Origen indicates that he had received from a certain Juliana,
who, he says, inherited in her turn the books from Symmachus
himself." Now we know from Palladius (Historia Lausiaca,
Ch. 147), who quotes an entry allegedly made by Origen himself,
that Juliana was a wealthy widow of Caesareas in Cappadocia
who sheltered Origen in her house during the three years
between 235 and 238 C.E. when Origen had to flee from his
workshop in Caesarea in Palestine from before Emperor Maxi
minius who persecuted the Christians. It is clear beyond all
doubt, therefore, that Origen could not have begun to compile
any columned Bible before 238 C.E., for such a Bible could
not have come into being without Symmachus, and Symmachus
was not available before that time. (And it might be added
here, neither were Quinta, Sexta, and Septima available before
the same date). For lack of space, the date of the Epistle
to Africanus cannot be analysed here; the bare assertion
will have to suffice that no columnar Bible and no Hexaplaric
text are involved (cf. §11 of the Epistle where I Kings
3: 16-28 is cited).
Three questions now ask themselves, and they require an
answer: (1) If there never did exist a Tetrapla, how then did
such a notion come into being already, as we saw above, in
the Church History of Eusebius? (2) When Origen wrote
in his Epistle and Commetary about his revision of the
current Septuagint text, with the use of such aristarchian signs
as the obelus, metobelus, and asterisk, if he did not have in
mind any columned Bible, be it the Tetrapla or the Hexapla,
what then did he have in mind? (3) When numerous marginal

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 180 ‫יקסנילרואט"צ‬ [8]

notes and scholia in Septua

a reading as deriving from
As to (1), it will be recalled
of any such term as Tetrap
of Eusebius, by whom Orig
"the Hexapla of the Psalter
into being. Jerome, too, w
columns, speaks usually of
Eusebius and Jerome, as t
who came after them, e.g
columns by far were not
text, but columns I1I-VI wit
both Eusebius and Jerom
editions," i.e., the Greek c
were these four Greek co
Greek translations which O
and ninth columns of his columned Bible came to be called

not "Seventh," "Eighth," and "Ninth," but "Fifth," "Sixth," and

"Seventh" (Quinta, Sexta, and Septima). Jerome frequently talks
not only of the four Greek columns of Aquila, Symmachus,
the Septuagint, and Theodotion and calls them Hexapla, but
also makes mention of Origen's six-columned Bible and calls
it simply "the four editions" (quatuor editionum; e.g.,
in his Prologue to the Book of Chronicles). Interesting too is
the passage in his Book Concerning Illustrious Men
(§ LIV), where Jerome describes the importance and character
of Origen's nine-columned Bible, and while he mentions colum
ns III-IX specfically, he does not make mention of the Hebrew
columns I and II. In short, the idea of a four-columned Bible
had its origin in the loose terminology commonly used for
Origen's six-columned Bible, when it was the all-important
four Greek columns ("Tetrapla") which were stressed rather
than all six (Hexapla). Eusebius saw and used the six-fold
Bible, and tells us about it in detail. He was acquainted with

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
181 ORIGEN'S TETRAPLA - A SCHOLARLY FICTION ? [9]

the term "Four-fold Bible" (Tetrapla); he never saw or used

such a Bible; he assumed it to be a separate work of Origen's
consisting of the six-columned Bible without the first tw
Hebrew columns, and describes it as such in the briefest and
vaguest manner. Rufinus skipped over this sentence altogether
in his Latin translation, and Jerome knows the term "four
editions" as only another term for the Hexapla. It is thanks to
Epiphanius, who took up the sentence in Eusebius, that we owe
the fiction that Origen compiled a Tetrapla as well as the Hexapla
As to the second question (2): What Origen described in hi
Epistle to Africanus and Commentary on Matthew
was his first attempt to revise the current Septuagint text to
conform to the current Hebrew text. He indicated the correction
and revisions in Septuagint text by the use of the obelus,
metobelus, and asterisk. What Books and how much of the
Bible Origen revised in this fashion, we shall probably never
know. After his return from Caesarea in Cappadocia to Cae
sarea in Palestine, during or shortly after 238, in possession
for the first time of Symmachus and some, if not all, of Quinta,
Sexta, and Septima, he set about compiling his many-columned
Bible. In this new Bible of his, Origen revised the Septuagint
text more thoroughly than he did the first time. Since the
many-columned Bible was too bulky for popular use, the fifth
column alone, the revised Septuagint with all the symbols, was
copied by itself and soon became the only column of the nine
to remain effective and alive. And, to go on to question (3),
once it came to be believed, even if erroneously, that Origen
had compiled a Tetrapla apart from and later than the Hexapla,
what was more natural than that this first and incomplete
revision, consisting of only one column and with the same
sort of symbols, should have become known as from the Tet
rapla, just as the Septuagint column which circulated apart
from the other columns came to be known as Hexaplaric. And
because the Tetrapla was considered the later and more

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[10] ‫ י ק ס נ י‬b 182 ‫ר ו א ם " צ‬

authoritative work of Origen, this earl

regarded as the later and more matu
the scribes and scholia cite the "corr
Septuagint manuscripts as from the
cite the Minor Versions (Aquila, Symma
Sexta, Septima), they naturally cite the
neither they nor anyone else ever saw,
any columns on both sides of the
Septuagint text.

This content downloaded from

82.191.49.154 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:12:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms