It only remains to test by the evidence of the Greek texts, fragmentary though they are, the relation of Rufinus to his original. It has already been calculated that more than a third of the Greek must have been omitted to bring the Latin within its present compass; and Dr. Robinson says of the passages preserved in the Philocalia (p. xxxix) that in the translation they ‘are so abbreviated that without the explanation of Rufinus we could scarcely have believed that they were intended to represent the corresponding sections in the Philocalia at all.’ With regard also to the Latin text of St. Paul as given in Rufinus, bishop Westcott points out (Dict. Chr. Biogr. iv. 116) that it makes no attempt to repre- sent the Greek of Origen, but is rather an Old Latin text pure and simple—presumably, one may suppose, that of Aquileia.
Scholia on Romans.—The third book of Origen’s Stromateis, or Stromata,t appears to have con- tained brief notes or ‘scholia’ on the Roman epistle, as the fourth book did on 1 Corinthians and the tenth book certainly on Galatians: see below, p. 493%. It is quoted in the Athos MS (von der Goltz, pp. 58, 59) for the readings of Ro 92% 23,
(li.) 2 Corinthians.
The list of Eusebius-Jerome makes no mention of any work of Origen on 1 Corinthians; but Jerome mentions him as one of those who had commented on the epistle ‘at great length,’ and Cramer’s Catena (Oxford, 1841; taken from MS Paris gr. 227, sec. xvi.) gives an even larger mass of quotations from Origen than the same editor’s first Catena on Romans does for that epistle. The number, in fact, is over 80, and they are in this case—with the exception of a single allusion by Origen himself, Hom. xvii. in Luce. (de la Rue, iii, 953), ‘Memini cum interpretarer illud quod ad Corinthios scribitur Ecclesie Dei
* For which, however, they give a text independent of, and in some points better than, the extant Philocalia MSS; see Robinson, p. xxxi.
+ The proper Greek name was no doubt Urpapereis, ‘bags for hbedclothes,’ ‘carpet bags,’ and so ‘receptacles for miscel- laneous odds and ends’: Srpéuere would be the bedclothes themselves, and the form Stromata, whether in connexion with Clement or with Origen, seems to be found only in Jerome, and to be due probably to the difficulty of declining
the word stromateus in Latin. See Hort and Mayor, Clement of Alexandria, pp. xi, xii.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 493
que est Corinthi cum omnibus qui invocant eum [1 Co 1°] dixisse me diversitatem ecclesiw et corwm qui invocant nomen Domini’ *—the only authority of any sort for the book from which they are ex- tracted. That this was not in the form of com- mentary but of homilies is shown (as Westcott points out) by the phrases used on 3! rep) wy Kal mpdny éhéyouev (Cramer, 51. 6), and on 6° rapaxa- Aodmev oby Kar vuds, & matdes (Cramer, 107. 19). The following is a list of the passages commented on : 1 Co ]2a- 2b, 4. 7. 4-8. 9. 10, 11-12. 17a. 17b (bis). 18. 20a. 20b, 19-21. 22-25. 26. 27. 19-21, 26-31. 30_92 93. 6. 7-8, 9-10a. 9b-10, 11-15. 13-15 gl-sa. 3b-4. 6. 9-12. 16-20. 21-23 qi-da. 5. 6-7. 7-8. 9-10. 15-18. 19b-20. 21_52 53-5. 7-8. 9-13 62-3] 4-9a. 9b-10, 12. 18a, 13b-14. 15a. 18. 19-20a 71-4. 5b. 5a-7. 8-12a. 12b-ld4a. 18-24, 25-28a Q7-9a. 9b-11, 16-18, 19-22. 23, 24a 10!-5- 6 122-1 3a. 10, 28, 31. 34 131-2. 8. 4-5. 8b-11. 12 ] 431. 34-35. 36. 37. 38 152. 12, 20-22. 36-37. 42-44 1610-12. 13-14. The Vatican MS gr. 762, from which Cramer’s Paris MS was copied, will probably not yield any fresh matter, but perhaps an improved text.
The Athos MS contains traces of erasure opposite 1 Co 26 3% 416 6! 71 10! 11! 12) 131 14) 151-5, which may possibly have marked the beginning of homilies. But however this may be, it preserves also clear indications that the fourth book of the Stromateis contained notes on this epistle ; év 7@ 5 rév =rpwuaréwy is appealed to for the readings of 731.34 920.21 and 10%, and in each case several lines of the ‘exposition’® are quoted in support of the appeal. There can be little doubt that in the similar quotation on 6" (ééjyecpev for éfeyepet) we ought also to read not, with von der Goltz, é& Tg a’ tov Strpwparéwv, but év 7@ 5’ (A for a).
(iii.) 2 Corinthians.
The list mentions 11 homilies; but nothing is otherwise known of them, and published Catenze on this epistle contain nothing from Origen: even Vatic. gr. 762, which is unpublished, can hardly contain any Origen, or cardinal Mai might have been expected to have put it before the world. Preuschen ingeniously proposes to read ‘in ep. ad Cor. i.’ (instead of ii.) in the list, and to identify these homilies with those from which the Catena on 1 Cor. is drawn. Yet the Origen quotations in that Catena are so full that it may be questioned whether so small a number of homilies as 11 could have provided so much matter. And though the marginalia in the Athos MS are scanty for this epistle, there is a long gloss on 17-19 of which the first words have escaped erasure, olrws kal ards ényeira Aéyow . . .: and this is enough to make highly probable the employment of a defi- nite exposition, whether commentary, homilies, or notes.