2 [Here, and frequently elsewhere (some two hundred times in all), Origen, in his extant works, ascribes the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) quotes Origen as saying, "My opinion is this: the thoughts are the apostle's; but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who has recorded what the apostle said, and as one who noted down what his master dictated. If, then, any Church considers this Epistle as coming from Paul, let if be commended for this; for neither did those ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that committed the Epistle to writing, is known only to God." S.]
9 Innatus. The words which Rufinus has rendered "natus an innatus" are rendered by Jerome in his Epistle to Avitus (94 alias 59), "factus an infectus." Criticising the errors in the first book of the Principles, he says: "Origen declares the Holy Spirit to be third in dignity and honour after the Father and the Son; and although professing ignorance whether he were created or not (factus an infectus), he indicated afterwards his opinion regarding him, maintaining that nothing was uncreated except God the Father." Jerome, no doubt, read genhtoj h agenhtoj, and Rufinus gennhtoj h agennhtoj. - R.
14 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., iii. c. 36), treating of Itgantius, quotes from his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna as follows: "Writing to the Smyraeans, he (Ignatius) has employed words respecting Jesus, I know not whence they are taken, to the following effect: `But I know and believe that He was seen after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his companions, He said to them, Take and handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.0'" Jerome, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, says the words are a quotation from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, a work which he had recently translated. Origen here quotes them, however, from The Doctrine of Peter, on which Ruaeus remarks that the words might be contained in both of these apocryphal works.
17 [See note, infra, at end of cap. vi. S.]
18 Hos. x. 12. The words in the text are not the rendering of the Authorized Version, but that of the Septuagint, which has fwtisate eautoij fwj gnwsewj. Where the Masoretic text has t(w
(et tempus) Origen evidently read t(r@
(scientia), the similarity of Vau and Daleth accounting for the error of the transcriber.
13 "Simplex intellectualis natura."
14 "Natura illa simplex et tota mens."
16 "Substantia quaedam sensibilis propria."
19 "Constat inter Patrem et Filium."
23 Prov. viii. 22-25. The reading in the text differs considerably from that of the Vulgate.
28 Ad punctum alicujus momenti.
29 Omnis virtus ac deformatio futurae creaturae.
30 This work is mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii. c. 3 and 25, as among the spurious writings current in the Church. The Acts of Paul and Thecla was a different work from the Acts of Paul. The words quoted, "Hic est verbum animal vivens," seem to be a corruption from Heb. iv. 12, awn gar o logoj tou Qeou. [Jones on the Canon, vol. ii. pp. 353-411, as to Paul and Thecla. As to this quotation of our author, see Lardner, Credib., ii. p. 539.]
31 Or, "and the Word was God."
32 "Quoniam hi qui videntur apud nos hominum filii, vel ceterorum animalium, semini eorum a quibus seminati sunt respondent, vel earum quarum in utero formantur ac nutriuntur, habent ex his quidquid illud est quod in lucem hanc assumunt, ac deferunt processuri." Probably the last two words shour be "deferunt processuris" - "and hand it over to those who are destined to come forth from them," i.e., to their descendants.
33 Subsistentia. Some would read here, "substantia."
34 Per adoptionem Spiritus. The original words here were probably eispoihsij tou pneumatoj, and Rufinus seems to have mistaken the allusion to Gen. ii. 7. To "adoption," in the technical theological sense, the words in the text cannot have any reference. - Schnitzer.