Relevant
books
available at Amazon
Amidon Philip R., S.J (1997), The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books
10 and 11 (Bks.10 & 11) (Oxford)
---------------
Kelly, J. N. D. (1978), Rufinus: A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Ancient
Christian Writers -20)
---------------
Scheck, Thomas P. (2010), Apology for Origen: with On the Falsification of the
Books of Origen by Rufinus (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series - 120)
---------------
Clark E. A. (1992), The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an
Early Christian Debate (Princeton Legacy Library)
- pages 159 - 193
|
Letter LXXX.
From Rufinus to Macarius.
1. Large numbers of the brethren have, I know, in their zeal for the knowledge
of the scriptures begged learned men skilled in Greek literature to make Origen
a Roman by bringing home his teaching to Latin ears. One of these scholars, a
dear brother and associate, at the request of bishop Damasus translated from
Greek into Latin his two homilies on the Song of Songs and prefaced the work
with an eloquent and eulogistic introduction such as could not fail to arouse in
all an ardent desire to read and to study Origen. To the soul of that just
man—so he declared—the words of the Song were applicable: “the king hath brought
me into his chambers;” and he went on to speak thus: “while in his other books
Origen surpasses all former writers, in dealing with the Song of Songs he
surpasses himself.” In his preface he pledges himself to give to Roman ears
these homilies of Origen and as many of his other works as he can. His style is
certainly attractive but I can see that he aims at a more ambitious task than
that of a mere translator. Not content with rendering the words of Origen he
desires to be himself the teacher. I for my part do but follow up an enterprise
which he has sanctioned and commenced, but I lack his vigorous eloquence with
which to adorn the sayings of this great man. I am even afraid lest my
deficiencies and inadequate command of Latin may detract seriously from the
reputation of one whom this writer has deservedly termed second only to the
apostles as a teacher of the Church in knowledge and in wisdom.
2. Often turning this over in my mind I held my peace and refused to listen to
the brethren when—as frequently happened—they urged me to undertake the work.
But your persistence, most faithful brother Macarius, is so great that even want
of ability cannot resist it. Thus, to escape the constant importunings to which
you subject me, I have given way contrary to my resolution; yet only on these
terms that, so far as is possible, I am to be free to follow the rules of
translation laid down by my predecessors, and particularly those acted upon by
the writer whom I have just mentioned. He has rendered into Latin more than
seventy of Origen’s homiletical treatises and a few also of his commentaries
upon the apostle; and in these wherever the Greek text presents a stumbling
block, he has smoothed it down in his version and has so emended the language
used that a Latin writer can find no word that is at variance with our faith. In
his steps, therefore, I propose to walk, if not displaying the same vigorous
eloquence at least observing the same rules. I shall not reproduce passages in
Origen’s books which disagree with or contradict his own statements elsewhere.
The reason of these inconsistencies I have put more fully before you in the
defence of Origen’s writings composed by Pamphilianus which I have supplemented
by a short treatise of my own. I have given what I consider plain proofs that
his books have been corrupted in numbers of places by heretics and ill-disposed
persons, and particularly those which you now urge me to translate. The books
περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, that is of Principles or of Powers, are in fact in other respects
extremely obscure and difficult. For they treat of subjects on which the
philosophers have spent all their days and yet have been able to discover
nothing. In dealing with these themes Origen has done his best to make belief in
a Creator and a rational account of things created subservient to religion and
not, as with the philosophers, to irreligion. Wherever then in his books I have
found a statement concerning the Trinity contrary to those which in other places
he has faithfully made on the same subject, I have either omitted the passage as
garbled and misleading or have substituted that view of the matter which I find
him to have frequently asserted. Again, wherever—in haste to get on with his
theme—he is brief or obscure relying on the skill and intelligence of his
readers, I, to make the passage clearer, have sought to explain it by adding any
plainer statements that I have read on the point in his other books. But I have
added nothing of my own. The words used may be found in other parts of his
writings: they are his, not mine. I mention this here to take from cavillers all
pretext for once more finding fault. But let such perverse and contentious
persons look well to what they are themselves doing.
3. Meantime I have taken up this great task—if so be that God will grant your
prayers—not to stop the mouths of slanderers (an impossible feat except perhaps
to God) but to give to those who desire it the means of making progress in
knowledge.
In the sight of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I adjure and
require everyone who shall either read or copy these books of mine, by his
belief in a kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from the dead,
by the eternal fire which is “prepared for the devil and his angels;” as he
hopes not to inherit eternally that place where “there is weeping and gnashing
of teeth,” and where “their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” let
him add nothing to what is written, let him subtract nothing, let him insert
nothing, let him alter nothing, but let him compare his transcript with the
copies from which it is made, let him correct it to the letter, and let him
punctuate it aright. Every manuscript that is not properly corrected and
punctuated he must reject: for otherwise the difficulties in the text arising
from the want of punctuation will make obscure arguments still more obscure to
those who read them.
|
