Introduction: Why the Hexapla Matters for Textual Criticism

Any serious discussion of Old Testament textual criticism must account for the reality that God’s Word moved through multiple languages, communities, and manuscript traditions while remaining accessible, transmissible, and examinable. Scripture itself assumes public reading, copying, and careful handling of the written Word. Moses commanded that the law be written and read (Deuteronomy 31:9–13). Kings were required to make a personal copy and read it continually (Deuteronomy 17:18–19). In the postexilic period, the text was read distinctly and explained so that the people understood the meaning (Nehemiah 8:8). Centuries later, Jesus treated the written text as authoritative and stable, declaring, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and holding His hearers accountable for what “is written” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). This biblical posture toward the written Word creates a framework in which textual criticism is not an act of skepticism but a disciplined, evidence-based means of identifying what the text is and how it was transmitted.

Origen’s Hexapla stands as one of the most ambitious textual projects of antiquity. It was not an attempt to overthrow the Hebrew Scriptures or to invent a new Bible. It was a massive collation designed to display and evaluate competing Greek forms of the Old Testament against the Hebrew text, book by book and line by line. In the history of textual criticism, the Hexapla matters because it pioneered a transparent comparative method. It forced disagreements into the open, preserved readings that would otherwise be lost, and provided later generations with a documented trail of editorial decisions. It also illustrates an important principle: the existence of variants does not destroy textual confidence; it supplies the raw material for responsible restoration and careful translation.

The Textual Situation in Origen’s Day

By the third century C.E., Jewish communities continued to preserve the Hebrew text with reverence, while Christian communities widely used Greek Scriptures in preaching and instruction. The Greek Old Testament commonly associated with the Septuagint had circulated for centuries and existed in multiple forms. Some differences were minor, such as word order or synonyms. Others were substantial, including expansions, omissions, rearrangements, and interpretive renderings. In certain books, Greek manuscripts included material not present in the Hebrew tradition. In other cases, Greek witnesses reflected a shorter form than what later became standard in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts.

This complex environment created practical problems for churches. When Christians debated Jews, disagreements often centered on whether a given Greek reading accurately represented the Hebrew. When Christians debated other Christians, competing Greek copies could produce conflicting readings. The need was not theoretical. It was pastoral and apologetic. If believers proclaimed that the prophets spoke by God’s Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) and that the sacred writings were inspired and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then the community required a reliable textual foundation. Origen’s Hexapla must be understood as a response to that concrete need: to compare, to clarify, and to correct misunderstandings caused by unstable or divergent Greek forms.

Origen’s Aim: Comparison, Not Replacement

The central aim of the Hexapla was comparative: to place the Hebrew text alongside multiple Greek translations in parallel columns so that differences could be seen immediately. This is the essence of textual criticism: evidence presented side by side, differences assessed with method, and judgments made openly rather than by concealment.

Origen’s goal was not to “correct” the Hebrew text. The Hebrew textual tradition had its own internal controls and scribal discipline that long predated Origen. His project instead targeted the Greek tradition. The practical issue was that many Christians treated one Greek form as though it were the only form, and critics could exploit those differences. Origen’s solution was to demonstrate where Greek witnesses diverged from the Hebrew and from one another, and to mark those divergences so readers could understand the state of the evidence.

This posture aligns with Scripture’s own expectation that God’s people handle His Word with care. Proverbs 25:2 states, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter.” The text is not endorsing doubt; it is commending careful inquiry. Likewise, faithful teaching requires accuracy and integrity with the written Word (Nehemiah 8:8; 2 Timothy 2:15). Origen’s work, at its best, functioned as a searching out of the textual evidence, especially where Greek copies had drifted or multiplied into competing streams.

What the Hexapla Was: A Multi-Column Synopsis of Hebrew and Greek

The term “Hexapla” refers to the “sixfold” arrangement. In its basic form, it presented six columns for each biblical book. The first column contained the Hebrew text, written in Hebrew characters. The second column offered a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, enabling readers who knew Greek but not Hebrew script to sound out the Hebrew text. The remaining columns displayed Greek versions associated with different translators: commonly Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion.

The significance of this layout cannot be overstated. Origen did not simply prefer one Greek copy and discard the others. He preserved the evidence. He documented where one Greek translator adhered closely to Hebrew word order and where another rendered more idiomatically. He placed before the reader competing readings rather than hiding them. Even when he made judgments, he left markers that later scholars could identify and evaluate.

Beyond the core “sixfold” arrangement, evidence indicates that Origen also worked with additional Greek versions in some contexts, producing expanded arrangements sometimes described with terms like Tetrapla (fourfold) or Octapla (eightfold). The exact scope varied by book and availability of witnesses. The central point remains stable: Origen created a systematic apparatus of comparison. In modern terms, he produced a parallel-text critical edition of the Old Testament in multiple languages and versions.

The Critical Signs: Asterisks, Obeli, and Editorial Transparency

One of Origen’s most consequential contributions was his use of critical signs to mark differences. Two signs became especially associated with his editorial practice. The obelus marked words or lines present in the Greek but lacking in the Hebrew. The asterisk marked additions supplied into the Greek column to align it with the Hebrew, often drawn from another Greek translator when the Septuagint form lacked corresponding material.

These signs matter because they embody an ethical principle of textual work: editorial intervention must be visible. Origen did not want readers to mistake his aligned Greek column for an untouched ancient witness. He signaled where he acted. That transparency is a hallmark of responsible criticism. It parallels the biblical demand for honesty in handling sacred things. “We have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2). While that statement addresses ministry broadly, it captures the kind of integrity that textual work requires: no manipulation, no concealment, no quiet rewriting under the cover of authority.

Origen’s signs also reveal his basic judgment about the direction of correction. When the Septuagint column diverged from the Hebrew, he did not treat the Greek as automatically superior. He treated the Hebrew as a controlling reference point for alignment. That does not mean he believed every Hebrew manuscript available to him was perfect in every detail. It does mean that, as a matter of method, he regarded the Hebrew text as the baseline for judging what the Greek should contain if it claimed to be a translation of that Hebrew.

The Translations in View: Different Greek Approaches to the Hebrew

The presence of multiple Greek versions in the Hexapla demonstrates a truth that remains important for textual criticism today: translation is interpretation to some degree, and different translators display different philosophies.

Some Greek translations were highly literal, attempting to follow Hebrew words and syntax closely, sometimes producing Greek that reads awkwardly. Other translations sought clarity, smoothing idioms and reshaping clauses. Still others reflected interpretive tendencies, choosing wording that reflected theological or explanatory preferences. By placing these side by side with the Hebrew, Origen made it possible to distinguish between a difference caused by manuscript variation and a difference caused by translation technique.

This distinction is critical. Not every divergence between a Greek text and a Hebrew text indicates that the Hebrew underlying the Greek was different. In many cases, the translator simply rendered the same Hebrew in a different way. The Hexapla, by preserving multiple translation styles, helped later scholars identify when a reading reflects the translator and when it reflects a different Vorlage, an underlying Hebrew form.

What the Hexapla Was Not: A New Canon or a Rival Hebrew Text

The Hexapla was not a rival Hebrew Bible. It did not replace the Hebrew tradition, and it did not function as a canonical authority over it. It was a tool. It was also not designed to create uncertainty about Scripture. Properly understood, it created clarity about the evidence. In a world where people could claim, “The Greek says this,” Origen could respond, “Which Greek, and compared with what Hebrew?” That is not skepticism; it is disciplined accountability.

Scripture’s own pattern supports this. Jesus and the apostles regularly appealed to the written text as an objective authority, even while recognizing that people could misunderstand or mishandle it (Matthew 22:29; 2 Corinthians 3:14–15). Correcting misuse often required returning to what was written and what it meant in context. Origen’s project operated at an earlier stage of that same principle: return to the textual data, compare witnesses, and identify what is actually present in the manuscripts.

How the Hexapla Advanced Textual Criticism as a Discipline

Origen’s most enduring contribution was methodological. He advanced textual criticism in at least four major ways, each with lasting significance.

First, he institutionalized collation as a large-scale practice. Collation is the systematic comparison of witnesses to record agreements and disagreements. Origen did this across an entire corpus, not merely in isolated passages.

Second, he elevated the importance of the Hebrew text in evaluating Greek Old Testament witnesses. By placing Hebrew first and marking Greek divergences, he implicitly affirmed that translation traditions must be tested against the source language when the goal is fidelity to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Third, he introduced a critical apparatus, using signs to convey textual status. This is a conceptual ancestor of modern critical notes that mark additions, omissions, and variant readings.

Fourth, he preserved readings. Even where he judged one reading preferable, he still displayed alternatives in parallel. Many fragments of ancient Greek versions survive precisely because they were copied, excerpted, or remembered in relation to Hexaplaric work.

The Hexapla’s Influence on the Greek Old Testament Tradition

Origen’s work influenced the later transmission of the Greek Old Testament in complex ways. On the positive side, it gave later copyists and scholars access to comparative data and to a Greek form more closely aligned with Hebrew content, at least in the books where Origen applied his method thoroughly. On the negative side, the very success of his aligned Greek column contributed to later mixture. Copyists sometimes incorporated Hexaplaric additions into the running text without preserving the critical signs, which could blur the distinction between an earlier Greek witness and Origen’s edited form.

This outcome is not unique to Origen. Any influential edition can shape subsequent copying. The key is to recognize the nature of the evidence. When a Greek manuscript reflects Hexaplaric influence, that does not invalidate it. It identifies it. It becomes a witness not only to earlier Greek forms but also to Origen’s editorial impact. Responsible criticism accounts for that layered history.

Here the discipline of textual criticism demonstrates its value. It does not treat all manuscripts as equal in every respect, but it does treat all manuscripts as evidence. The goal is not to pretend that scribes never made changes. The goal is to track those changes, classify them, and weigh them. This is fully compatible with confidence in Scripture because confidence rests on the abundance of evidence and the recoverability of the text, not on the fantasy of a manuscript tradition untouched by human hands.

The Hexapla and the Masoretic Text as the Textual Base

While the Hexapla predates the Masoretes by centuries, it still has relevance for understanding why the Masoretic Text functions as the stable base text for the Old Testament. The Masoretic tradition reflects rigorous scribal practices and an intense concern for precision in copying and preserving consonantal text, along with a standardized vocalization tradition. The Hexapla, by contrast, primarily addresses Greek diversity and the challenge of aligning Greek to Hebrew.

When the medieval Masoretic manuscripts are compared with earlier Hebrew evidence, including pre-Masoretic witnesses, the overall stability of the Hebrew consonantal tradition stands out. The Hexapla contributes indirectly by showing that, already in the third century, the Hebrew text served as the point of reference in disputes over Greek renderings. Origen did not place a Greek text over the Hebrew as a corrective authority. He placed Greek under the scrutiny of Hebrew.

This does not mean the Hebrew tradition had no variants in Origen’s day. It means that the Hebrew text was the anchor for evaluating whether a Greek text legitimately represented Scripture. That anchoring principle remains sound. Ancient versions, including Greek translations, are valuable witnesses that can illuminate difficult Hebrew readings, preserve interpretive trajectories, and sometimes reflect earlier Hebrew forms. But the Hebrew text itself remains primary for establishing the Old Testament text, with versions functioning as supporting evidence rather than a governing authority over the Hebrew.

A Focused Example: Daniel and the Use of Alternate Greek Traditions

One instructive case is the book of Daniel. In Christian usage, a Greek form associated with Theodotion came to dominate, often preferred over an earlier Septuagint form that circulated as well. Origen’s Hexapla preserved the reality that more than one Greek Daniel existed in circulation and placed these materials into a framework of comparison. This is exactly the kind of problem textual criticism must solve: identifying which witness is being used, what its relationship is to Hebrew and Aramaic source text, and how transmission history shaped the form received by later communities.

A broader lesson follows. The existence of multiple Greek forms does not imply the Hebrew and Aramaic originals were lost or unknowable. It demonstrates that translation traditions can multiply and diverge while the source-language text remains sufficiently stable to serve as a reference point. Scripture itself highlights the enduring authority of what is written, even across time and community change (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35). The Hexapla functions historically as a practical outworking of that principle in the realm of versional evidence.

Answering Common Pushbacks About Origen and the Hexapla

Some claim that Origen “corrupted” the Old Testament by introducing changes into the Greek text. The accurate statement is that Origen documented, marked, and in some cases aligned a Greek column to the Hebrew while openly signaling his interventions. Corruption is concealed alteration. Origen’s practice was sign-posted. His method is closer to what modern editors do when they provide a critically informed text accompanied by notes. The danger entered later when copyists removed or ignored the signs, not when Origen created them.

Others argue that the Hexapla proves the Old Testament text was hopelessly unstable. The evidence proves the opposite. It proves that differences were observable, describable, and manageable. A text that cannot be stabilized cannot be collated meaningfully. The Hexapla presupposes that real comparison can be done line by line. That presupposition holds only if the underlying texts are sufficiently continuous and coherent. The scriptural worldview assumes this coherence: “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) and therefore suitable for instruction and correction, not a shifting fog of competing messages.

Another pushback insists that the Septuagint must be superior simply because it is older than medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Age alone does not determine textual quality. A translation can be early and still reflect interpretive renderings, paraphrase, or the translator’s stylistic choices. Moreover, the Hebrew text underlying the Masoretic tradition did not originate in the Middle Ages; it represents a much earlier consonantal tradition transmitted with exceptional care. The correct approach is to weigh evidence: Hebrew manuscripts, ancient versions, and internal considerations, always recognizing that the Old Testament is a Hebrew-Aramaic corpus and that translations are derivative witnesses.

Some claim Origen’s work undermines confidence because it exposes disagreement. In reality, confidence grounded in evidence is stronger than confidence grounded in ignorance. Scripture calls God’s people to love truth and to reject deception (Proverbs 12:22). When differences exist, the faithful response is not denial. The faithful response is careful evaluation. The Hexapla exemplifies that spirit of evaluation within the limits of its era.

The Hexapla’s Value for Modern Old Testament Textual Work

Although the Hexapla itself does not survive in complete form, its influence and fragments remain valuable. Later excerpts, marginal notes, and versional traditions shaped by Hexaplaric work provide data points for reconstructing ancient readings. Even when Hexaplaric material is layered and complex, it still supplies evidence that can be analyzed. This helps modern scholars trace how Greek forms developed, identify where translators differed, and sometimes see how certain Greek readings correspond to Hebrew patterns.

At the same time, the Hexapla’s limitations teach caution. An edited Greek column aligned to Hebrew is not identical to an untouched early translation witness. Origen’s signs, where preserved, allow scholars to separate earlier Greek material from later editorial supplementation. Where the signs are lost, extra care is required. The guiding principle remains straightforward: identify the nature of each witness, classify its relationship to the source text, and weigh its testimony accordingly.

This disciplined approach strengthens confidence in the Old Testament. Confidence does not require pretending that every copyist produced identical manuscripts. Confidence requires that the textual history is recoverable, that the variants are measurable, and that the original wording is attainable with high fidelity through the comparison of witnesses. The abundance of manuscript evidence, combined with transparent critical method, supports that conclusion.

Theological and Scriptural Reflections on Careful Textual Work

Because Scripture is inspired, it demands careful transmission and careful reading. The biblical writers assume that God’s Word can be read publicly, understood, and applied responsibly (Deuteronomy 31:11–13; Nehemiah 8:8). Jesus and the apostles treated the written text as binding and capable of deciding disputes (Matthew 22:31–32; Romans 15:4). They did not present Scripture as a moving target but as a stable authority that confronts human tradition and error (Mark 7:7–13).

That perspective does not eliminate the need for textual work; it establishes the necessity of it. If God gave His Word in writing, then those entrusted with it must handle the textual evidence honestly. Origen’s Hexapla, despite its limitations and the later complications it introduced into the Greek tradition, represents an early and monumental attempt to handle that evidence in the open. Its greatest legacy is not the creation of a single “best” Greek text. Its greatest legacy is the model of comparison, documentation, and transparent marking of differences.

Conclusion: Origen’s Lasting Place in Old Testament Textual Criticism

Origen’s Hexapla stands as a landmark in the history of Old Testament textual criticism because it combined breadth of scope with methodological clarity. It displayed the Hebrew text alongside multiple Greek translations, illuminated where Greek forms diverged, and used critical signs to mark editorial decisions. It preserved evidence and made textual discussion accountable to data. It also demonstrates that the existence of variants, especially in translation traditions, is not a threat to Scripture but an invitation to careful scholarship grounded in reverence for what God caused to be written.

When the Old Testament is approached with the Hebrew text as the base, and with ancient versions weighed as supporting witnesses rather than master texts, the results are stable and defensible. Origen’s Hexapla, rightly interpreted, supports that approach. It shows that already in antiquity serious readers recognized the importance of the Hebrew text, the complexity of the Greek tradition, and the necessity of careful comparison. In that sense, the Hexapla is not a monument to uncertainty. It is a monument to disciplined restoration and to the conviction that the Scriptures are knowable, transmissible, and worthy of the most careful handling.

Origen’s Hexapla: Its Nature, Purpose, and Significance in Old Testament Textual History

See more

You May Also Enjoy

Beyond the Canon: Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Writings in Old Testament Studies

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS