The Hexapla vs Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJVonlyism

The Hexapla (Greek for "sixfold") was a monumental scholarly work compiled by Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD). It was one of the most ambitious textual projects in early Christian history, designed to compare different versions of the Old Testament. Its importance lies in several key areas:

1. Purpose: Resolving Textual Discrepancies

   - Early Christians (who mostly used the Greek Septuagint/LXX) debated with Jews (who used the Hebrew Masoretic text) over scriptural accuracy.

   - Origen noticed differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek LXX, leading to disputes over prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 7:14’s "virgin" vs. "young woman").

   - The Hexapla was created to compare multiple versions side-by-side, helping scholars determine the most reliable readings.

2. Structure: A Comparative Bible in Six Columns

   The Hexapla arranged the Old Testament in six parallel columns:

   1. Hebrew Text (original consonantal Hebrew)  

   2. Hebrew Transliterated into Greek Letters (for Greek-speaking readers)  

   3. Aquila’s Greek Translation (ultra-literal Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   4. Symmachus’ Greek Translation (more readable Jewish-Greek version, 2nd century AD)  

   5. Septuagint (LXX) (the standard Greek OT, with Origen’s editorial marks)  

   6. Theodotion’s Greek Translation (a revised LXX-like Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   - Later, Origen reportedly added three more columns (Quinta, Sexta, Septima) for other Greek versions, making some sections Tetrapla (4-column) or Octapla (8-column).

3. Key Contributions and Importance

A. Textual Criticism & Preservation

   - The Hexapla was the first major comparative Bible, predating modern critical editions by over a millennium.

   - Origen marked differences between the LXX and Hebrew with symbols (e.g., asterisks [※] for LXX additions, obeli [÷] for Hebrew omissions).

   - This helped scholars track variations, influencing later translations like Jerome’s Vulgate.

B. Bridge Between Jewish & Christian Scholarship

   - Since Jews had largely abandoned the LXX (due to its Christian use), Origen’s inclusion of Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) preserved alternative translations.

   - It became a key resource for Christian-Jewish debates over Messianic prophecies.

C. Influence on Later Bible Translations

   - Jerome used the Hexapla for his Latin Vulgate, especially for the Psalms (leading to the Gallican Psalter).

   - Early Syriac and Coptic translations also referenced it.

   - Modern critical editions (e.g., Göttingen Septuagint) still rely on Hexaplaric readings.

D. Insights into Lost Texts

   - Some columns (e.g., Aquila, Symmachus) survive only through the Hexapla’s fragments.

   - It provides clues about pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts, since the Dead Sea Scrolls later confirmed some LXX readings over the Masoretic text.

4. Limitations & Challenges

   - No complete copy survives—only fragments in later writings (e.g., Eusebius, Jerome) and palimpsests.

   - Origen’s editorial marks sometimes corrupted the LXX by forcing it to align with the Hebrew.

   - The sheer size (likely 50+ volumes) made copying impractical, leading to its eventual disappearance.

5. Legacy

   - The Hexapla was a pioneering work of biblical scholarship, setting the stage for textual criticism.

   - It remains a crucial resource for understanding the transmission of the Old Testament in antiquity.

   - Modern scholars still study its remnants to reconstruct early Bible versions.

Observations:

The Hexapla, compiled by Origen in the 3rd century, serves as a critical tool for understanding the textual history of the Old Testament. By juxtaposing six versions (Hebrew text, Greek transliteration, Septuagint, and translations by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), it highlights textual variations and the early church’s acknowledgment of discrepancies. This comparative work undermines claims of a singular, “perfect” biblical text, as it demonstrates that early Christians actively engaged with multiple textual traditions. Here’s how this contrasts with Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV Onlyism:

1. The Hexapla reflects a commitment to textual criticism, not an assumption of flawless preservation.
2. The Hexapla’s documented variations challenge VPP’s claim of perfect textual continuity. If God providentially preserved every word, the need for Origen’s comparative analysis—or the existence of divergent traditions like the LXX and MT—becomes difficult to reconcile.
3. Origen’s inclusion of non-MT texts undermines the idea that one tradition (e.g., the MT/Textus Receptus) is exclusively “perfect.”
4. The Hexapla’s use of diverse sources—including those rejected by KJV Onlyists (e.g., LXX)—shows the early church valued multiple textual streams. KJV Onlyism’s reliance on the MT/Textus Receptus ignores the textual pluriformity evident in early Christianity.

Conclusion

Hexapla’s Legacy: It illustrates the early church’s recognition of textual complexity, contradicting claims of a static, “perfect” Bible. Variants were not seen as threats but as subjects for study.

VPP’s Challenge: If every word were perfectly preserved, the Hexapla’s meticulous comparisons would be unnecessary. The existence of divergent traditions (LXX vs. MT) weakens VPP’s premise.

KJV Onlyism’s Anachronism: The Hexapla predates the MT’s standardization (9th century CE) and the Textus Receptus (16th century CE). Its inclusion of pre-MT texts (e.g., LXX) invalidates KJV Onlyism’s exclusive reliance on later textual traditions.

In essence, the Hexapla supports a dynamic view of textual transmission, where preservation involves ongoing engagement with variants—a stark contrast to VPP’s static perfection or KJV Onlyism’s dogmatic exclusivity.