{"id":35437,"date":"2015-05-28T15:32:16","date_gmt":"2015-05-28T19:32:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=35437"},"modified":"2015-05-28T19:14:06","modified_gmt":"2015-05-28T23:14:06","slug":"rufinuss-corruption-of-origens-on-first-principles-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/rufinuss-corruption-of-origens-on-first-principles-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Rufinus\u2019s corruption of Origen\u2019s On First Principles \u2013 Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this follow-up post<\/a>, three\u00a0factors<\/strong> that make Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s On First Principles<\/em> all the more egregious.<\/p>\n

First, after recklessly changing anything he doesn’t like in translating Origen’s book, absurdly claiming that anything Origen says that doesn’t comport with the (then) new Nicene orthodoxy must have been changed by\u00a0heretics,\u00a0and lyingly (or idiotically)\u00a0claiming to have filled things in only with Origen’s other words or ideas (“I have said nothing of my own, simply giving back to him his own statements found in other places”),\u00a0Rufinus has the staggering chutzpah to say:\"censor<\/p>\n

One request<\/strong>… I solemnly make of every one who shall either transcribe or read these books, in the sight of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…that… he shall neither add anything to this writing, nor take anything away, nor interpolate anything, nor change anything, but shall compare his copy with the originals from which it was made… (“Preface of Rufinus” in Butterworth translation<\/a>, p. lxiv)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You’ve got to be kidding me!<\/strong> He highhandedly filters and distorts\u00a0your<\/em> access to this great scholar’s book, so that you see only what he wants you to, but don’t you dare<\/em> do the same to his precious book, the translation.\u00a0What a scumbag!<\/p>\n

\"soSecond, before his version of Origen’s Book III, Rufinus again confesses, or rather, brags about his crimes in another “Preface.” (Butterworth trans. pp. 155-66) After again mentioning his noble edits, he says,<\/p>\n

Anyone who reads these books\u00a0with a desire to advance in knowledge and not to raise objections will do better to have them explained to him by skilled teachers<\/strong>. (p. 156)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Get it? Skilled\u00a0teachers… like Rufinus!<\/em>\u00a0What a guy.<\/p>\n

Third, a poet has said, “the evil that men do lives on and on<\/a>.” People misunderstood Origen for centuries in part because of Rufinus’s corruptions. When they come to the passage I quoted last time<\/a>, the translator for the Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em> series (Vol. IV) in 1885 translates and punctuates Rufinus’s Latin version to make it less obviously a distortion<\/strong> of Origen’s meaning.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit<\/strong>, that these men, filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat; then the mysteries relating to the Son of God… (p. 363)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Latin says Igitur de Deo, id est de Patre et Filio et Spiritus sancto<\/em>. Thus Butterworth has “about God, that is, about the\u00a0Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” He’s sticking to what Rufinus says, it seems to me, rather than saying something that Rufinus should have<\/em> said when conveying the thought of a third-century catholic book. In Rufinus’s<\/em> context, this Latin phrase, I think, would be understood as assuming the identity of God with the Trinity.<\/p>\n

More surprisingly, this 1979 edition<\/strong> of some of Origen’s writings<\/a> by an Episcopalian scholar passes on this particular corruption. He gives us only book IV of On First Principles<\/em> – nothing wrong with that, of course. And he’s aware of the Greek text, and promises to note places where it significantly differs from Rufinus’ version. (p. 171, fn. 57) But when he gets to this passage, Greer gives us this:\"unforced<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is chiefly the doctrine of God, that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit<\/strong>, that is described by those men filled with the divine Spirit. (p. 186<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Evidently, he doesn’t consider this a “significant” difference!\u00a0But seriously, why not just go with the Greek where it’s available, or give both the Latin and the Greek, instead deciding for us<\/em> which differences are significant, and reproducing unflagged\u00a0Rufinus’s corruptions?<\/p>\n

In closing, Lesson Time<\/strong>:<\/p>\n