Steven Avery
Administrator
Esther
By Lewis Bayles Paton
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EySmXMiCmQC&pg=PA34
Copies of Origen’s revised text in the fifth column of the Hexapla have, however, survived. Pamphilus and his friend Eusebius excerpted this from the Hexapla and gave it wide currency. Codex 93 (=British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2) contains two recensions of Esther; one, 93a, is that of Lucian; the other, 936, has the asterisks, obeli, and other critical signs which mark it as belonging to Origen. Both texts are given by
J. Ussher,
De Graca Septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma cum libri Estherae editione Origenica et vetere Graca altera (1655, 1695).
==========================================
De Graeca septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma
James Ussher
https://books.google.com/books?id=UYFCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA178
and in
Swete (search)
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek
https://archive.org/stream/introductiontool00swet#page/74/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=R-U7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77
============================================
In the Hexaplaric text the editor has taken great liberties in the insertion of the critical signs. The readings of this codex are also given in Holmes and Parsons. The form in 93b corresponds
If the corrections are so close, then it does seem like two major possibilities should be considered:
1: Use of Hexapla text c. AD 500
2: Use of Ussher's text c. 1840
93b and Sinaiticus corrector
collected by F. Field, Origenis Hexaplontm qua supersunt (1875), i • pp. 793 ff.
Here is the section:
Origenis Hexaplontm quae supersunt (1875)
Frederick Field
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMdKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA793
By Lewis Bayles Paton
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EySmXMiCmQC&pg=PA34
Copies of Origen’s revised text in the fifth column of the Hexapla have, however, survived. Pamphilus and his friend Eusebius excerpted this from the Hexapla and gave it wide currency. Codex 93 (=British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2) contains two recensions of Esther; one, 93a, is that of Lucian; the other, 936, has the asterisks, obeli, and other critical signs which mark it as belonging to Origen. Both texts are given by
J. Ussher,
De Graca Septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma cum libri Estherae editione Origenica et vetere Graca altera (1655, 1695).
==========================================
De Graeca septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma
James Ussher
https://books.google.com/books?id=UYFCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA178
and in
Swete (search)
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek
https://archive.org/stream/introductiontool00swet#page/74/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=R-U7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77
============================================
In the Hexaplaric text the editor has taken great liberties in the insertion of the critical signs. The readings of this codex are also given in Holmes and Parsons. The form in 93b corresponds
From this it appears that this corrector of ℵ made use of Pamphilus’ copy of Origen’s revised text in the fifth column of the Hexapla. His readings agree everywhere with those of 93b and thus confirm its Hexaplaric character.
If the corrections are so close, then it does seem like two major possibilities should be considered:
1: Use of Hexapla text c. AD 500
2: Use of Ussher's text c. 1840
93b and Sinaiticus corrector
collected by F. Field, Origenis Hexaplontm qua supersunt (1875), i • pp. 793 ff.
Here is the section:
Origenis Hexaplontm quae supersunt (1875)
Frederick Field
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMdKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA793
Last edited: