Sara Contini: Judging the Judges: Exaltation and Humiliation in Origen’s Homilies on Judges

Origen’s nine Homilies
on the Book of Judges were delivered in Caesarea of Palestine most likely during the peaceful reign of Philip the Arab (245-249) and were translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia between 401 and 403. Origen deals with the biblical narrative of the cyclical abandonment and renewal of the covenant between God and his people: the Israelites neglect their pact with the God who led them out of Egypt and start to worship idols. God hands them over to their enemies; this punishment serves an educational purpose, as it prompts them to pray to God to raise a new leader amongst them. The wars, kings, and heroes of the Book of Judges are interpreted by Origen in the context of his notion of the journey of the human soul from the slavery of sin back to the triumph in Christ. The paper intends to investigate passages from the homilies where Origen, in Rufinus’ translation, reflects on the relationship between God and his children and on the role of the mediators who facilitate this connection, by employing an effective communication style based on powerful oppositions, such as high versus low or light versus dark

Mary Jett: The Interpretation of Leviticus through the Fourth Century and Origen's Homilies on Leviticus.

Within the Early Church and Patristic writings, Leviticus plays at best, a minor role. However, in Rufinus’ conclusion to Origen’s Commentary on Romans, he notes a demand to see Leviticus translated for a Roman audience. In turn, he translates Origen’s interpretation of Leviticus at the same time that Rabbinic interpretations were flourishing. Throughout Latin Church Fathers, authors from Tertullian onward drew on and struggled with the priestly commands and legal demands of Leviticus, but Rufinus’ translations on Origen bring forth the first significant interpretations of the text ascribed to a Greek author. In the Latin First Principles (4.1.24), Moses receives Leviticus, and the people receive Deuteronomy. This second law brings the first to an end. The Homilies on Leviticus, however, draw together how that first law to Moses endures, applies, and reveals a message to those who demanded to know how Origen applied the text to the past and present as well as the priest and peasant. This paper will consider the Homilies on Leviticus in comparison to Origen's other Levitical references, the growing Jewish body of textual interpretation, and the broader role of the Levitical law in the midst of early Christian thought.

Stephen Carlson: Rufinus's Origenization of Eusebius in his Translation of the Historia ecclesiastica

Relatively little attention has been given to the translation technique of Rufinus of Aquileia in his production of a Latin version of the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. This paper contributes to a further understanding of Rufinus's approach to translation by studying his rendering of Book 3, chapter 39, of the Ecclesiastical History into Latin. At times, Rufinus will gloss obscurities in his source material. For example, scholars have long known of his identification of the "woman accused of many sin before the Lord" mentioned by Papias (HE 3.39.17) as the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:12), but there are other cases in this chapter that have been overlooked. Particularly striking is Rufinus's identification of allusions to Origen's thought and exegesis underlying Eusebius's presentation of the material in this chapter and making them more explicit. This paper details two cases where Rufinus adds phraseology that Origenizes Eusebius's text and considers the role and importance of Origen's thought in Rufinus's works, including his translations.

Benjamin Edsall: A Liturgical Update in Rufinus' translation of Origen's Romans Commentary?

At Comm. in Rom. 5.8.8, Rufinus presents Origen as being concerned with proper baptismal instruction, reading Paul’s comments in Rom 7:1 in relation to “what we see happening now” (nunc fieri uidemus). The question which arises from this is whether the appeal to contemporary praxis originates with Origen’s comments or represents Rufinus’ editorial hand. Elsewhere in his translational work, Rufinus makes reference to differences between Greek and Latin translations (e.g. Comm. in Cant. 3.8. ), thereby signaling his willingness to update Origen for his readers. In the present case, I argue that the comments at Comm. in Rom. 5.8.8 represent just such an updating, in which Rufinus appropriates Origen’s work for his own baptismal context in the late fourth-century. The complaint that some are initiated without knowing the “power and reason” for baptism is directed, then, toward the practice of delaying mystagogical catechesis, which arose as a specific part of Christian initiation in the middle of the fourth-century (e.g., in Cyril of Jerusalem and his successor).