Notes
Notes Introduction 1. Lubac (1998), p. 157. 2. Most of these calculations are found in Hammond (1977), pp. 428–29, who points out that these are very rough estimates owing to the nonuniform length of the additional material found in the footnotes of Migne. (For example, the figures for On First Principles are too generous.) Sometimes my independent estimates have differed significantly from Hammond’s. 3. Crouzel (1988), p. 506. Recently, a prominent Pauline scholar admitted his own and his guild’s ignorance of the history of Pauline exegesis: “Like too many New Testament scholars, I am largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the Fathers and Reformers. The Middle Ages, and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had plenty to say about Paul, but I have not read it.” N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 13. Revealingly , the index of Wright’s book lists “Gollum,” but not “Origen.” The recent 1140-page Hermeneia commentary Romans, by R. Jewett, refers to Origen’s CRm a single time. Drawing his reference from a secondary work, on p. 5 Jewett mistranslates a text-critical remark of Origen, CRm 10.43 (caput means “chapter” or “section” here, not “person”). The modern NT guild’s ignorance of Origen’s Pauline exegesis seems to be nearly invincible. 4. In Blowers, ed. (2002), p. 147. On the other hand, the recent appearance of two works is a very encouraging sign. Reasoner (2005) gives a full and sympathetic treatment to Origen. Maureen Beyer Moser (2005) has studied an important single theme from Origen’s CRm. 5. Wagner (1945), pp. 2–3. 6. Cf. A. Harnack (1958), vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 41. 7. See Hammond Bammel (1981). 8. For a brief discussion of this reference, see Scheck (2001–2), vol. 1, p. 17. 9. Cf. J.A. Robinson, ed., The Philocalia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893). 10. See A. Ramsbotham (1912, 1913). Vol. 6 (1999) of Heither’s edition has the Greek Fragmenta. 225 11. Cf. Scherer (1957), Chadwick (1959). 12. Cf. Bennett (1997), pp. 128, 154. Cf. ibid., “The Soiling of Sinful Flesh: Primordial Sin, Inherited Corruption and Moral Responsibility in Didymus the Blind and Origen,” Adamantius 11 (2005), pp. 77–92. 13. Cf. Frede (1973, 1974). See also de Bruyn (1988). 14. On the other hand, this subject might be worth an investigation. For example, a recent glance at the Commentary on Romans by Theodoret of Cyrus suggested to me that it might have been influenced by Origen’s. Cf. Cocchini (1996), pp. 313–36. 15. For a general survey of Origen’s legacy in the West, see Schär (1979). 16. Heither (1990), p. 292. I will return briefly to this statement in the conclusion. 17. All citations from Origen’s CRm are from the critical edition, C.P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, 3 vols. (1990–98). Migne (PG 14) column numbers appear in parentheses. All English translations are my own (FOTC 103, 104). 18. In Heither (1990). 19. Völker (1930), p. 274: “Von Rechtfertigung aus Glauben spricht Origenes nie, denn die Ausführungen im Römer-Co. sind schwerlich echt.” 20. The Origen fragments from the Tura papyrus were published by Scherer (1957) and Heither (1999). See also the article by Chadwick (1959), who discusses and defends Rufinus’s reliability. 21. Cf. Heither (1999) (Origenes, Römerbriefkommentar 6 [Fragmente]), p. 104: “e[comen gou`n parasth`sai to;n ejk movnh~ pivstew~ cwri;~ e[rgwn dikaiouvmenon, . . .” This is followed by the reference to the good thief and the sinful woman of Lk 7, just as in Rufinus’s translation. 22. Lubac (1998), p. 146. 23. Cf. Völker (1931), p. 11. Molland (1938), p. 172n1 criticizes Verfaillie in these words: “Verfaillie makes this doctrine [justification] far too central and also shows too great confidence in Rufinus’s translation of In Rom.” 24. Roukema (1988), p. 86n40. 25. Oddly enough, Eno (1984), pp. 4–5, claims that the exact reverse of my preceding argument is true. Citing Nautin and Scherer for support, he writes, “The traditional view has been that Rufinus’ translation ‘abbreviated and adapted’ the original but was basically faithful. But in recent decades a section of the Greek original was found among the Tura manuscripts, showing that the traditional view was overly optimistic.” Contrast such a conclusion with Grech (1996), p. 337, who also...
OR
Buy This Book in Print