In the course of my work on the Greek Psalter, I came across a detail that seems worth sharing in this brief post. I have been examining Ra 111 (early tenth century), a manuscript with striking hexaplaric marginal notes. Ra 1798 (fourteenth century) is a copy of Ra 111. That it is indeed a copy becomes apparent at once if one compares the unusual, identical title of the Psalter in both manuscripts, which incorporates a liturgical rubric:

ψαλτήριον α′ β′ ἁλληλούϊα.¹

Ra 111, f. 11r

Ra 1798, f. 18r

Beyond this, both manuscripts preserve the same hexaplaric marginal scholia.² The very first scholion on Ps 7:10–11 illustrates the point and raises the questions that follow. The scholion looks as follows:

Ps 7:10f.
Ra 111, f. 15r	Ra 1798, f. 20r

The scholion comments on δικαίως in Ps 7:10–11 (I return below to the—debatable—wording and colometry of the passage). In Ra 111 the biblical text reads:

The scholion reads: α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ β′ δ′ δίκαιος, ο′ θ′ δικαία.

What is startling is the length of the hexaplaric sigla. The groups α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ and ο′ θ′ are familiar; but what are β′ and δ′? This scholion therefore prompts several questions.

1. Field, Montfaucon, and Δ versus Λ

Frederick Field (following Montfaucon) discusses, in connection with Ps 37:21, a scholion in Ra 190, f. 29r that appears to use the siglum Delta (δ′). He cites it as:

‘Ὠριγένης καὶ Ο′. Θ. Ε′. S′. ἀγαθοσύνην. Εὐσέβιος καὶ Δ. δικαιοσύνην’ (sic; Field I, p. xciv).

A look at the manuscript shows that the inner margin is not fully legible in the available images (both the colour photographs on Gallica and the older microfilm). What I can see is only:

	[Ὠριγένης] καὶ οἱ ο′ θ′ ε′ ϛ′ [ἀ]γαθωσύ νην· [Εὐ]σέβιος καὶ [δ′] δικαιοσύνην:
Ra 190, f. 29r

We must, then, rely on Montfaucon that the manuscript indeed reads ‘Εὐσέβιος καὶ δ′ δικαιοσύνην’. Field evaluates this as follows (in Norton’s translation): ‘However in this place, as also in the preceding places, we have easily accepted that Δ is nothing other than a badly written Λ (Λουκιανὸς)’ (sic; Norton, p. 175).

As for the witnesses at the locus, the overwhelming majority read ἀγαθωσύνην (or the orthographic variant ἀγαθοσύνην), and only three witnesses read δικαιοσύνην, i.e. the reading attributed in Ra 190 to Eusebius and the enigmatic Delta (or, if Field is right, Lambda): Ra B (4th c.), Ra 1219 (4th/5th c.), Ra 27 (8th c.). Is this truly the Eusebian reading and also the Lucianic reading? In my view, the patristic tradition answers ‘yes’ rather clearly:

1. In the Eusebian tradition the variant δικαιοσύνην for ἀγαθωσύνην is in fact attested, namely in Cod. Vaticanus gr. 2053, ff. 135–140 (s. IX ex.–X in.; siglum “h85”). In the BBAW preliminary edition (ed. Barbara Villani) the lemma is ἀγαθωσύνην, but this likely reflects the fact that the biblical text so far simply follows Rahlfs, i.e. it has not yet been critically reconstructed.³

2. There are good reasons to regard δικαιοσύνην as a Lucianic–Antiochene reading (the L‑Text).⁴ As for Diodore of Tarsus, one may question Olivier’s choice of ἀγαθωσύνην as lemma and instead elevate the variant δικαιοσύνην (Ra 769) to lemma.⁵ Diodore’s biblical text is a problem of its own, however. Theodore of Mopsuestia unequivocally reads δικαιοσύνην.⁶ Finally, Theodoret originally also reads δικαιοσύνην (MSS Ra 9002, 9026, 9050, 9078).⁷

Field’s explanation is thus plausible: in the scholion of Ra 190 on Ps 37:21, we should read Εὐσέβιος καὶ Λ′ δικαιοσύνην, with Λ standing for Λουκιανός, i.e. the Lucianic text (L‑Text in modern nomenclature).

2. A Glance at Ps 24:14a (Ra 190)

Regrettably Ra 190 begins only at Ps 17:36d, so it cannot be used for Ps 7:10–11. It does, however, seem to belong to the same tradition as Ra 111. This is clear from a helpful side‑glance at Ps 24:14a, where Ra 190 (f. 10r) notes: α′ σ′ ε′ αὐτοῖς: θ′ β′ αὐτῶν:

Ra 190, f. 10r

Field cites Montfaucon’s remark: ‘Quid autem sibi velit illud Β. ignoramus.’⁸ Indeed β′ remains puzzling. Other hexaplaric witnesses read, according to Field, θ′ϛ′ αὐτῶν. For Ps 24:14a, then, β′ may well be a misreading of ϛ′ (stigma). For Ps 7:10–11, however, this explanation is unlikely, because ϛ′ (for the Sexta) already precedes β′ in the sequence α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ β′ δ′. A double citation of the Sexta would be odd.

Another possibility is that, as in Ra 190 at Ps 37:21, we have here a reference to Eusebius and Lucian: β′ would again be a corruption, and this would best explain the juxtaposition β′ δ′. In other words, we might have a deformed Εὐσέβιος καὶ Λουκιανός. Can this be corroborated from Eusebius’ commentary on the Psalms and from the Lucianic–Antiochene text of the Psalter?

3. Back to Ps 7:10–11

Rahlfs (4th ed. 2025)⁹ and NETS present the text as follows:

The manuscript tradition generally differs in colometry, and the wording is often that found in Ra 111 above: ἐτάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφροὺς ὁ θεὸς δικαίως. ἡ βοήθειά μου παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ […]. Three notable variants are attested overall:¹⁰

The reading δικαίως has the strongest support. From it one can readily explain δίκαιος as the lectio facilior, a case‑number‑gender alignment with ὁ θεός, facilitated by the common quantity interchange ω ⟷ ο.

According to the hexaplaric note on Ps 7:10–11, the distribution is:

δίκαιος α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ β′ δ′

δικαία ο′ θ′

Is there an analogy with the case at Ps 37:21? Put differently: where do Eusebius and Lucian stand at this passage? From Eusebius’ commentary (Fragment 5 on Ps 7), it is, in my view, clear that Eusebius read δίκαιος, as he comments:

αὐτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ καὶ νῦν λέλεκται ἐτάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφροὺς ὁ θεὸς δίκαιος.¹¹

This would allow β′ to point to Eusebius.

What, then, of δ′? Is this again a miswriting of Λ? Here the Lucianic–Antiochene text must decide:

There are good reasons, in my view, to regard δικαία as the Lucianic–Antiochene reading (L‑Text).¹² Regarding Diodore of Tarsus, one may again question Olivier’s choice of δικαίως (Ra 1131 and Cod. Messanensis Bibl. Univ. S. Salvatoris gr. 38) as lemma and instead elevate δικαία (Ra 9055), since Diodore comments:

ἐπίστασαι ὅτι δικαίαν αἰτῶ τὴν βοήθειαν παρὰ σοῦ […],

which presupposes δικαία.¹³ What Theodore of Mopsuestia read is unfortunately unclear, as his biblical text is abbreviated.¹⁴ Theodoret, however, originally reads δικαία (MSS Ra 9026, 9044, 9049, 9051).¹⁵ Theodoret’s wording makes this plain:

Ὁ τοίνυν, φησὶ, τοὺς κεκρυμμένους τῆς διανοίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων λογισμοὺς ἐπιστάμενος, δικαίαν μοι παρέξει βοήθειαν, ἅτε δὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν εἰωθώς.

The L‑Text thus reads δικαία and moves it to the beginning of v. 11.

Consequently, in the hexaplaric note on Ps 7:10–11, Δ′ cannot be a mere miswriting of Λ′ denoting the Lucianic recension or the others (οἱ λοιποί). The riddle of α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ β′ δ′ alongside ο′ θ′ is therefore not so easily resolved.

4. A Working Hypothesis—and Its Limits

Scholarship has considered other possibilities. One is to treat δ′ as a group siglum for four Hexaplaric columns (οἱ δ′ = ‘the four’). On this view, two notes may have been conflated: α′ σ′ ε′ ς′ on the one hand and β′ δ′ on the other. β′ would, as suggested above, point to Eusebius, while δ′ would indicate a set of four witnesses (α′ σ′ ε′ ς′). This solution is, however, not wholly satisfying. ¹⁶

Thoughtful suggestions are most welcome.

Summary

In Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint Psalter, the Lucianic–Antiochene text is not easy to discern. One reason is the unfortunate siglum L which—following Field and Lagarde—denotes one of the principal LXX recensions, the so‑called Lucianic recension.¹⁷ Already a millennium ago this tradition was sometimes cited in the Psalter catenae under the siglum Λ (Λουκιανός), which was at times misread as Δ. In that sense Λ was as ill starred a choice as L is in Rahlfs’ edition. There remain cases, however, where Δ cannot be securely resolved. One such instance is the tradition in Ra 111 at Ps 7:10–11, presented here.