(ix.) 2 Thessalonians.
The list—not in the older form, repeated by Preuschen-Harnack, but as printed from further MSS by E. Klostermann in the Berlin Sitzwngs- berichte der k. preussischen Akad. der Wissen- schaften, 1897, p. 855—names a commentary in one book. The Athos MS several times refers to the ‘exposition’—in three cases, 2-17 31, for the readings it implies, on 2" as establishing Origen’s orthodoxy, éfnyovmevos rofro rd pyrdv cagpis piay THs Tpiddos Né-yer evépyeav. Nothing is otherwise known of it.
(x.) Philemon.
The list mentions a commentary in one book: but Greek authority almost wholly fails us. The Athos MS only notes on v.22 that ‘he too does not mention the word rpoc\aZod’—presumably in his commentary. Cramer’s Catena is again drawn from Chrysostom, Severian, and Theodore of Mop- suestia. Latin writers, however, again to some extent supply the defect. (a) Rufinus-Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene (dela Rue, iv., App. p. 38), ‘Re- sponsio ad sextam criminationem. Guba ea quae in scripturis referuntur etiam secundum litteram gesta sint,’ cites under the heading ‘de epistola Pauli apostoli ad Philemonem’ a passage taken from the comment on y.°, concerning faith in the Lord Jesus and ‘in all the saints,’ which Origen interprets as meaning belief in the Old Testament histories. (8) Rufinus, Apologia, i. 40 (Vallarsi, ii. 625), quotes as Origen’s an allegorical interpreta- tion of v.”* ‘Epaphras my fellow-captive,’ “quod capti pariter et vincti in vallem hance deducti sunt lacrimarum.’ The passage quoted comes from Jerome’s commentary on Philemon (Vallarsi, vii. 763), and strengthens the conclusion that Jerome in this, as in his other expository labours on St. Paul, wrote with the commentaries of Origen before him. It is true that in the preface to this particular commentary, unlike those to the Gala- tian and Ephesian epistles, he makes no mention of the debt due to his predecessors. But this may have been either because it seemed un- necessary to repeat information he was giving in the more or less contemporary commentaries on the two longer epistles, or perhaps because in the case of the Epistle to Philemon, which had so
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
often been either rejected or passed over, he had had fewer predecessors, and so there was not the same need as elsewhere to distinguish the different writers to whom he lay under obligation. But that at least he made extensive use of Origen all the indications converge to show. The com- ment on v.°, translated in Rufinus -Pamphilus, occurs in an independent and abbreviated version also in Jerome (vii. 752).
(xi.) Titus.
There is no evidence to show that Origen wrote anything on either of the epistles to Timothy, but for the epistle to Titus the list names a commentary in one book, and also a single homily. Of the latter nothing is known. For the former we have one reference in a Greek writer, several quotations in Rufinus-Pamphilus, and St. Jerome’s commentary. (a) In an interesting little 6th cent. tract of questions put to a Palestinian abbot, Bar- sanuphius (Gallandi, xi. 592; Migne, Patr. Gr. 86, c. 891), the questioner — the whole interest lies rather in the questions than in the answers— mentions having found the doctrine of the pre- existence of souls in Origen, Didymus, and Eva- grius; and yet Origen himself asserts év 7@ a’rov e&nynTiK@ THs mpds TVlrov émioroNs wh elvar TOV dmrocTé- Awy unde THS exkAnolas mapddoow 7d mpecBurépay etvar Thy Wuxnv THs TOD cwhuaros KaTacKeuys, ws aipereKdv Xapaxrnplifwy rov Tadra Aéyovra. The assertion would be a strange one in the mouth of Origen.. The ex- planation, as will appear in a moment, lies in the form of the passage alluded to, which is happily preserved in Rufinus. (8) Rufinus - Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene, ec. i. (de la Rue, iv., App. 21-23), quotes three passages (which are con- nected together by the phrases, ‘post hee paucis quibusdam per medium insertis adiecit’ and ‘ post pauca addidit heec’) ‘ex eo libro quem in epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Titum scripsit,’ on the passage ‘a man that is an heretic’ (Tit 3!). The whole contains a valuable catalogue of the opinions which to Origen seemed to deserve the name of heresy. Again ine. ix. (ib. 43), ‘ Responsio ad octa- vam criminationem. De anima,’ two further brief quotations are given from the same context, where Origen raises the question whether those who treat on matters not contained in the Rule of the Church —such as the origin of souls—ought to be treated as heretics, even if their opinion seems new and strange. Itis clear that this is the passage referred to by the monastic questioner of Barsanuphius, and clear, too, that Origen, though his indirect manner of approaching the point may have de- ceived the monk, is really urging that, between what is of faith and what is heresy, there is a middle ground of debatable matter on such sub- jects as the pre-existence of souls. (y) With re- gard to the relation of Jerome’s commentary on this epistle to Origen’s, what was said of the Epistle to Philemon holds here. Here, too, the long com- ment on Tit 3°, quoted by Rufinus from Origen, has been reproduced by Jerome; but on this occa- sion in a form so abbreviated as to deprive it of all its interest (Vallarsi, vii. 736).
In accordance with the plan of this article, the Epistle to the Hebrews is not separately dealt with: but those who wish for further details may refer to Preuschen-Harnack, p. 376.