What was the Hexapla?

What was the Hexapla? There is the question of what were the readings that were at one time in the Hexapla as presented here, here, and here. Then, there is the question of what was the Hexapla? We have to ask this question because it was not transmitted much (if at all), and there is no manuscript to date that we can point to and say, “that’s the Hexapla.” This is one of the saddest truths of literary history. Furthermore, these questions do not answer “Why the Hexapla?” or “How the Hexapla“, which are also interesting questions.

Quick Description

Now, the quick answer is that the Hexapla was Origen’s (ca. 185-254) six-columned synopsis containing the following versions of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: (1) the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, (2) the Hebrew text in Greek letters, i.e., in Greek transliteration, (3) the Greek version of Aquila, (4) the Greek version of Symmachus, (5) the Greek version of the Seventy, and (6) the Greek version of Theodotion. So far this description matches the early patristic descriptions of Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis (who also say that for some books like Psalms, Origen had a Fifth and a Sixth edition; read about them here). Eusebius says:

Having collected all of these [Greek versions], he divided them into sections, and placed them opposite each other, with the indication (σημείωσις) itself of Hebrew [Ἑβραίων pl.] [versions?]. He thus left us the copies (ἀντίγραφον) of the so-called Hexapla, having arranged separately the edition (ἔκδοσις) of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the edition of the Seventy in the Tetrapla (Hist. eccl. 6.16.4; ANFP [adapted]).

The term σημείωσις “indication, inference from a sign” is an interesting way to describe a “text,” but perhaps this term indicates the Hebrew versions in Columns 1 and 2; that is, the Hebrew and its inference, meaning its sense or meaning in transliteration. Since he calls this work “the Hexapla“ and there are four Greek versions, he must envision the very “inference” of Hebrews as two texts. Now, there are two problems we should address.

Article: Crawford on Ammonius and Eusebius

Interesting new article in NTS: Matthew R. Crawford, ‘Ammonius of Alexandria,Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship’ New Testament Studies 61 (2014), 1-29.

Abstract: In the early third and fourth centuries respectively, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea engaged in cutting-edge research on the relationships among the four canonical gospels. Indeed, these two figures stand at the head of the entire tradition of comparative literary analysis of the gospels. This article provides a more precise account of their contributions, as well as the relationship between the two figures. It argues that Ammonius, who was likely the teacher of Origen, composed the first gospel synopsis by placing similar passages in parallel columns. He gave this work the title Diatessaron-Gospel, referring thereby to the four columns in which his text was laid out. This pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen’s more famous Hexapla. A little over a century later, Eusebius of Caesarea picked up where Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his ‘raw data’, Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or ‘canons’, standing at the beginning of a gospel book. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four.

PMH Notes:

The main purpose of the article is to remind NT scholars about the importance of Ammonius and Eusebius and outline their work which resulted in the Eusebian canon system of tracing parallel passages in the four canonical gospels - a system which succeeded in enabling cross-referencing across the four gospels while maintaining their individual integrity. The article is generally helpful, and well worth a read; although on a range of issues I found it a little speculative (especially on the proposed title of Ammonius’ work and its supposed relation to Origen’s hexapla, even on the question of whether the material without Matthean parallel had any part in Ammonius’ work). Reflection on the actual use of the Eusebian system is limited to two or three admittedly interesting examples at the end of the article. One still doesn’t get a full picture of the use of the system, its assumptions and implications. Students would still be well advised to read Eusebius’ letter to Carpianus (in the NA, or in H. H. Oliver, ‘The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus: Textual Tradition and Translation’, Novum Testamentum 3 (1959), 138-145) and explore the system themselves for a day or two.

[One should also remember that the system in NA is an ideal system, and the actual system as deployed in a manuscript may have numerous errors, e.g. in Sinaiticus, see D.J. Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (T&S III.5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007), 109-120 (in general), and with specific reference to Mark: P.M. Head, ‘The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations’ TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism  13 (2008), 20-22]