Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
Origen of Alexandria (185-254), one of the most prolific authors of antiquity and arguably the most important and influential pre-Nicene Christian theologian, was a man of deep learning and holiness of life. Regrettably, many of his works are no longer extant, in part due to the condemnation of his ideas by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. The condemnation, however, took little account of his historical circumstances and the tentative nature of his speculations. The anathemas were more likely directed toward sixth-century Origenist views than to the views of Origen himself, though clearly he expounded some views that would be judged unacceptable today. Origen's numerous homilies provide the oldest surviving corpus of Christian sermons and shaped exegesis for succeeding centuries. With Jerome he was one of the early church's great critical and literal exegetes. Devoutly he sought to develop a spiritual exegesis of the Old Testament grounded in the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Homilies on Numbers presented here offer a splendid example of his spiritual interpretation of Old Testament texts. He asks, What foreshadowing, what warning, what instruction, what encouragement, reproof, correction or exhortation, do we find in the narratives of Numbers for our benefit as Christians? Here, based on Baehren's critical Latin text, is the first English edition of these homilies, ably translated with explanatory notes by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Texts are new English translations of full-length commentaries or sermon series from ancient Christian authors that allow you to study key writings of the early church fathers in a fresh way.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 817
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
This translation is dedicated to the sacred memoryof Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536),in whose mighty company I shall not now be ashamed
Contents
General Introduction
The Ancient Christian Texts series (hereafter ACT) presents the full text of ancient Christian commentaries on Scripture that have remained so unnoticed that they have not yet been translated into English.
The patristic period (A.D. 95-750) is the time of the fathers of the church, when the exegesis of Scripture texts was in its primitive formation. This period spans from Clement of Rome to John of Damascus, embracing seven centuries of biblical interpretation, from the end of the New Testament to the mid-eighth century, including the Venerable Bede.
This series extends but does not reduplicate texts of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS). It presents full-length translations of texts that appear only as brief extracts in the ACCS. The ACCS began years ago authorizing full-length translations of key patristic texts on Scripture in order to provide fresh sources of valuable commentary that previously was not available in English. It is from these translations that the ACT Series has emerged.
A multiyear project such as this requires a well-defined objective. The task is straightforward: to introduce full-length translations of key texts of early Christian teaching homilies and commentaries on a particular book of Scripture. These are seminal documents that have decisively shaped the entire subsequent history of biblical exegesis, but in our time have been largely ignored.
To carry out this mission the Ancient Christian Texts series has four aspirations:
1. To show the approach of one of the early Christian writers in dealing with the problems of understanding, reading and conveying the meaning of a particular book of Scripture.
2. To make more fully available the whole argument of the ancient Christian interpreter of Scripture to all who wish to think with the early church about a particular canonical text.
3. To broaden the base of biblical studies, Christian teaching and preaching to include classical Christian exegesis.
4. To stimulate Christian historical, biblical, theological, and pastoral scholarship toward deeper inquiry into early classic practitioners of scriptural interpretation.
For Whom Is This Series Designed?
We have selected and translated these texts primarily for general and nonprofessional use by an audience of persons who study the Bible regularly.
In varied cultural settings around the world, contemporary readers are asking how they might grasp the meaning of sacred texts under the instruction of the great minds of the ancient church. They often study books of the Bible, verse by verse, book by book, in groups and workshops, sometimes with a modern commentary in hand. But many who study the Bible intensively hunger to have available to them as well the thoughts of some reliable classic Christian commentator on this same text. This series will give the modern commentators a classical text for comparison and amplification. Readers will judge for themselves as to how valuable or complementary are their insights and guidance.
The classic texts we are translating were originally written for anyone (lay or clergy, believers and seekers) who would wish to reflect and meditate with the great minds of the early church. They sought to illuminate the plain sense, theological wisdom, and moral and spiritual meaning of an individual book of Scripture. They were not written for an academic audience, but for a community of faith shaped by the sacred text.
Yet in serving this general audience, the editors remain determined not to neglect the rigorous requirements and needs of academic readers who until recently have had few full translations available to them in the history of exegesis. So this series is designed also to serve public libraries, universities, academic classes, homiletic preparation and historical interests worldwide in Christian scholarship and interpretation.
Hence our expected audience is not limited to the highly technical and specialized scholarly field of patristic studies, with its strong bent toward detailed word studies and explorations of cultural contexts. Though all of our editors and translators are patristic and linguistic scholars, they also are scholars who search for the meanings and implications of the texts. The audience is not primarily the university scholar concentrating on the study of the history of the transmission of the text or those with highly focused interests in textual morphology or historical critical issues. If we succeed in serving our wider readers practically and well, we hope to serve as well college and seminary courses in Bible, church history, historical theology, hermeneutics and homiletics. These texts have not until now been available to these classes.
Readiness for Classic Spiritual Formation
Today global Christians are being steadily drawn toward these biblical and patristic sources for daily meditation and spiritual formation. They are on the outlook for primary classic sources of spiritual formation and biblical interpretation, presented in accessible form and grounded in reliable scholarship.
These crucial texts have had an extended epoch of sustained influence on Scripture interpretation, but virtually no influence in the modern period. They also deserve a hearing among modern readers and scholars. There is a growing awareness of the speculative excesses and spiritual and homiletic limitations of much post-Enlightenment criticism. Meanwhile the motifs, methods and approaches of ancient exegetes have remained unfamiliar not only to historians but to otherwise highly literate biblical scholars, trained exhaustively in the methods of historical and scientific criticism.
It is ironic that our times, which claim to be so fully furnished with historical insight and research methods, have neglected these texts more than scholars in previous centuries who could read them in their original languages.
This series provides indisputable evidence of the modern neglect of classic Christian exegesis: it remains a fact that extensive and once authoritative classic commentaries on Scripture still remain untranslated into any modern language. Even in China such a high level of neglect has not befallen classic Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian commentaries.
Ecumenical Scholarship
This series, like its two companion series, the ACCS and Ancient Christian Doctrine (ACD), are expressions of unceasing ecumenical efforts that have enjoyed the wide cooperation of distinguished scholars of many differing academic communities. Under this classic textual umbrella, it has brought together in common spirit Christians who have long distanced themselves from each other by competing church memories. But all of these traditions have an equal right to appeal to the early history of Christian exegesis. All of these traditions can, without a sacrifice of principle or intellect, come together to study texts common to them all. This is its ecumenical significance.
This series of translations is respectful of a distinctively theological reading of Scripture that cannot be reduced to historical, philosophical, scientific or sociological insights or methods alone. It takes seriously the venerable tradition of ecumenical reflection concerning the premises of revelation, providence, apostolicity, canon and consensuality. A high respect is here granted, despite modern assumptions, to uniquely Christian theological forms of reasoning, such as classical consensual christological and triune reasoning, as distinguishing premises of classic Christian textual interpretation. These cannot be acquired by empirical methods alone. This approach does not pit theology against critical theory; instead, it incorporates critical historical methods and brings them into coordinate accountability within its larger purpose of listening to Scripture.
The internationally diverse character of our editors and translators corresponds with the global range of our audience, which bridges many major communions of Christianity. We have sought to bring together a distinguished international network of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox scholars, editors, translators of the highest quality and reputation to accomplish this design.
But why just now at this historical moment is this need for patristic wisdom felt particularly by so many readers of Scripture? Part of the reason is that these readers have been long deprived of significant contact with many of these vital sources of classic Christian exegesis.
The Ancient Commentary Tradition
This series focuses on texts that comment on Scripture and teach its meaning. We define a commentary in its plain sense definition as a series of illustrative or explanatory notes on any work of enduring significance. The word “commentary” is an Anglicized form of the Latin commentarius (or “annotation” or “memoranda” on a subject or text or series of events). In its theological meaning it is a work that explains, analyzes or expounds a biblical book or portion of Scripture. Tertullian, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine and Clement of Alexandria all revealed their familiarity with both the secular and religious commentators available to them as they unpacked the meanings of the sacred text at hand.
The commentary in ancient times typically began with a general introduction covering such questions as authorship, date, purpose and audience. It commented as needed on grammatical or lexical problems in the text and provided explanations of difficulties in the text. It typically moved verse by verse through a Scripture text, seeking to make its meaning clear and its import understood.
The general western literary genre of commentary has been definitively shaped by the history of early Christian commentaries on Scripture. It is from Origen, Hilary, the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria that we learn what a commentary is—far more so than in the case of classic medical or philosophical or poetic commentaries. It leaves too much unsaid simply to assume that the Christian biblical commentary took a previously extant literary genre and reshaped it for Christian texts. Rather it is more accurate to say that the Western literary genre of the commentary (and especially the biblical commentary) has patristic commentaries as its decisive pattern and prototype.
It is only in the last two centuries, since the development of modern historicist methods of criticism, that modern writers have sought more strictly to delimit the definition of a commentary so as to include only certain limited interests focusing largely on historical critical method, philological and grammatical observations, literary analysis, and socio-political or economic circumstances impinging on the text. While respecting all these approaches, the ACT editors do not hesitate to use the classic word commentary to define more broadly the genre of this series. These are commentaries in their classic sense.
The ACT editors freely take the assumption that the Christian canon is to be respected as the church’s sacred text. The reading and preaching of Scripture are vital to religious life. The central hope of this endeavor is that it might contribute in some small way to the revitalization of religious faith and community through a renewed discovery of the earliest readings of the church’s Scriptures.
An Appeal to Allow the Text to Speak for Itself
This prompts two appeals:
1. For those who begin by assuming as normative for a commentary only the norms considered typical for modern expressions of what a commentary is, we ask: Please allow the ancient commentators to define commentarius according to their own lights. Those who assume the preemptive authority and truthfulness of modern critical methods alone will always tend to view the classic Christian exegetes as dated, quaint, premodern, hence inadequate, and in some instances comic or even mean-spirited, prejudiced, unjust and oppressive. So in the interest of hermeneutical fairness, it is recommended that the modern reader not impose on ancient Christian exegetes modern assumptions about valid readings of Scripture. The ancient Christian writers constantly challenge these unspoken, hidden and indeed often camouflaged assumptions that have become commonplace in our time.
We leave it to others to discuss the merits of ancient versus modern methods of exegesis. But even this cannot be done honestly without a serious examination of the texts of ancient exegesis. Ancient commentaries may disqualify as commentaries by modern standards. But they remain commentaries by the standards of those who anteceded and formed the basis of the modern commentary.
The attempt to read a Scripture text while ruling out all theological and moral assumptions—as well as ecclesial, sacramental and dogmatic assumptions that have prevailed generally in the community of faith out of which it emerged—is a very thin enterprise indeed. Those who tendentiously may read a single page of patristic exegesis, gasp and toss it away because it does not conform adequately to the canons of modern exegesis and historicist commentary, are surely not exhibiting a valid model for critical inquiry today.
2. In ancient Christian exegesis, chains of biblical references were often very important in thinking about the text in relation to the whole testimony of sacred Scripture, by the analogy of faith, comparing text with text, on the premise that scripturam ex scriptura explicandam esse. When ancient exegesis weaves many Scriptures together, it does not limit its focus to a single text as much modern exegesis prefers, but constantly relates it to other texts, by analogy, intensively using typological reasoning, as did the rabbinic tradition.
Since the principle prevails in ancient Christian exegesis that each text is illumined by other texts and by the whole narrative of the history of revelation, we find in patristic comments on a given text many other subtexts interwoven in order to illumine that text. In these ways the models of exegesis often do not correspond with modern commentary assumptions, which tend to resist or rule out chains of scriptural reference. We implore the reader not to force the assumptions of twentieth-century hermeneutics on the ancient Christian writers, who themselves knew nothing of what we now call hermeneutics.
The Complementarity of Research Methods in this Series
The Ancient Christian Texts series will employ several interrelated methods of research, which the editors and translators seek to bring together in a working integration. Principal among these methods are the following:
1. The editors, translators and annotators will bring to bear the best resources of textual criticism in preparation for their volumes. This series is not intended to produce a new critical edition of the original language text. The best Urtext in the original language will be used. Significant variants in the earliest manuscript sources of the text may be commented on as needed in the annotations. But it will be assumed that the editors and translators will be familiar with the textual ambiguities of a particular text, and be able to state their conclusions about significant differences among scholars. Since we are working with ancient texts that have, in some cases, problematic or ambiguous passages, we are obliged to employ all methods of historical, philological and textual inquiry appropriate to the study of ancient texts. To that end, we will appeal to the most reliable text-critical scholarship of both biblical and patristic studies. We will assume that our editors and translators have reviewed the international literature of textual critics regarding their text so as to provide the reader with a translation of the most authoritative and reliable form of the ancient text. We will leave it to the volume editors and translators, under the supervision of the general editors, to make these assessments. This will include the challenge of considering which variants within the biblical text itself might impinge on the patristic text itself, and which forms or stemma of the biblical text the patristic writer was employing. The annotator will supply explanatory footnotes where these textual challenges may raise potential confusions for the reader.
2. Our editors and translators will seek to understand the historical context (including social-economic, political and psychological aspects as needed) of the text. These understandings are often vital to right discernment of the writer’s intention. Yet we do not see our primary mission as that of discussing in detail these contexts. They are to be factored into the translation and commented on as needed in the annotations, but are not to become the primary focus of this series. Our central interest is less in the social location of the text or the philological history of particular words than in authorial intent and accurate translation. Assuming a proper social-historical contextualization of the text, the main focus of this series will be on a dispassionate and fair translation and analysis of the text itself.
3. The main task is to set forth the meaning of the biblical text itself as understood by the patristic writer. The intention of our volume editors and translators is to help the reader see clearly into the meanings which patristic commentators have discovered in the biblical text. Exegesis in its classic sense implies an effort to explain, interpret and comment on a text, its meaning, its sources and its connections with other texts. It implies a close reading of the text, utilizing whatever linguistic, historical, literary or theological resources are available to explain the text. It is contrasted with eisegesis which implies that interpreters have imposed their own personal opinions or assumptions on the text. The patristic writers actively practiced intratextual exegesis, which seeks to define and identify the exact wording of the text, its grammatical structure and the interconnectedness of its parts. They also practiced extratextual exegesis, seeking to discern the geographical, historical or cultural context in which the text was written. Our editors and annotators will also be attentive as needed to the ways in which the ancient Christian writer described his own interpreting process or hermeneutic assumptions.
4. The underlying philosophy of translation that we employ in this series, like that of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, is termed dynamic equivalency. We wish to avoid the pitfalls of either too loose a paraphrase or too rigid a literal translation. We seek language that is literary but not purely literal. Whenever possible we have opted for the metaphors and terms that are normally in use in everyday English-speaking culture. Our purpose is to allow the ancient Christian writers to speak for themselves to ordinary readers in the present generation. We want to make it easier for the Bible reader to gain ready access to the deepest reflection of the ancient Christian community of faith on a particular book of Scripture. We seek a thought-for-thought translation rather than a formal equivalence or word-for-word style. This requires the words to be first translated accurately and then rendered in understandable idiom. We seek to present the same thoughts, feelings, connotations and effects of the original text in everyday English language. We have used vocabulary and language structures commonly used by the average person. We do not leave the quality of translation only to the primary translator, but pass it through several levels of editorial review before confirming it.
The Function of the ACT Introductions, Annotations and Translations
In writing the introduction for a particular volume of the ACT series, the translator or volume editor will discuss, where possible, the opinion of the writer regarding authorship of the text, the importance of the biblical book for other patristic interpreters, the availability or paucity of patristic comment, any salient points of debate between the Fathers, and any special challenges involved in translating and editing the particular volume. The introduction affords the opportunity to frame the entire commentary in a manner that will help the general reader understand the nature and significance of patristic comment on the biblical texts under consideration and to help readers find their critical bearings so as to read and use the commentary in an informed way.
The footnotes will assist the reader with obscurities and potential confusions. In the annotations the volume editors have identified Scripture allusions and historical references embedded within the texts. Their purpose is to help the reader move easily from passage to passage without losing a sense of the whole.
The ACT general editors seek to be circumspect and meticulous in commissioning volume editors and translators. We strive for a high level of consistency and literary quality throughout the course of this series. We have sought out as volume editors and translators those patristic and biblical scholars who are thoroughly familiar with their original language sources, who are informed historically, and who are sympathetic to the needs of ordinary nonprofessional readers who may not have professional language skills.
Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, Series Editors
Abbreviations
ACW Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1946–.
ANF A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature, 1885–1896. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1951–1956; Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 1947–.
DCBW. Smith and H. Wace, eds. Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines. 4 vols. London, 1887. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1984.
DEOODesiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera omnia. Edited by Jean Leclerc. 10 vols. Leiden, 1703–1706. Reprint, Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag, 1961–1962.
FC Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-.
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1897–.
NPNF P. Schaff et al., eds. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 2 series (14 vols. each). Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature, 1887–1894; Reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952–1956; Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
PG J.-P. Migne, ed. Patrologia Graeca. 166 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857–1886.
SC H. de Lubac, J. Daniélou et al., eds. Sources Chrétiennes. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1941–.
Translator’s Introduction
Origen of Alexandria (185–254) was probably the most important and influential Christian theologian of the pre-Nicene church.1 Born the eldest of seven children to Christian parents in Alexandria, Egypt, he became a humble Christian scholar of deep learning in the Scriptures and of heroic sanctity of life. Origen received a thorough education in Scripture and Greek literature from his father, Leonides, who was imprisoned and later beheaded in 202 during the Emperor Septimus Severus’s persecution of the Christians. Longing for martyrdom himself, Origen survived this purge, though his life was often in great danger. Evidently, the anti-Christian legislation only affected converts, not the already-baptized.2 Origen even wrote a letter to his imprisoned father, exhorting him not to shrink back from offering the supreme witness of the faith. Forty years later, while preaching in Caesarea, Origen reflected back on his spiritual heritage and made the following confession: “Having a father who was a martyr does me no good, if I do not live well myself and adorn the nobility of my descent. That is, I must adorn his testimony and confession by which he was illustrious in Christ.”3 Origen’s humility and his zeal for martyrdom, which is reminiscent of St. Ignatius of Antioch, are defining characteristics of his personality. He once preached: “If God would consent to let me be washed in my blood, receiving a second baptism by accepting death for Christ, I would surely go from this world. . . . But blessed are they who merit these things.”4 The thirst for martyrdom, which is viewed as a gift that Christ grants to the worthy, is an idea that is present in these homilies as well.5
After Leonides’s execution the family’s goods were confiscated. In order to support his mother and siblings, Origen became a teacher of Greek grammar and literature. He studied philosophy in depth and gained a reputation for his learning, even in the pagan world. Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria later put him in charge of instructing catechumens, and for some time Origen maintained dual teaching responsibilities, both secular and ecclesial. He later gave up teaching secular literature, sold his library for a meager sum of money, and dedicated himself completely to Christian catechesis. In Alexandria this activity went on during the persecutions, and many of Origen’s pupils and converts were killed, while he accompanied them to the execution site. Later in Caesarea, Origen’s giftedness as an exemplary Christian teacher was remembered with nostalgia and great emotion by one of his most famous pupils, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonderworker), in the Panegyric to Origen. Gregory highlighted the fact that Origen’s actions corresponded to his words, and that his sincere and Spirit-filled Christian discipleship is what led many others to imitate him. At the beginning of the fourth century, the future martyr Pamphilus of Caesarea noted that Origen was very humble and had deeply Christian character.6
It is well known that Origen lived a life of extreme asceticism and self-denial, in conscious imitation of Christ and the apostles. According to some reports, Origen took Matthew 19:12 literally and castrated himself in order to protect his chastity, since many of his students were female. Crouzel wryly remarked that this is the only bit of information the general public usually knows about Origen. This story is increasingly doubted by modern scholars as secondhand hearsay. Most recently, J. McGuckin rejected the tradition as “a smokescreen of Pamphilus’s own invention, canonized by Eusebius.”7 The reason for doubt is that the story seems to contradict several passages in his writings, where Origen himself ridicules such a crassly literal interpretation of Jesus’ words.8 Yet the tradition still seems probable to me, since Eusebius, a fervent admirer of Origen, records it. Eusebius knew men and women who had known Origen personally. Moreover, it does not seem consistent with Pamphilus’s upright Christian character to suggest that he would have invented this story as a “smokescreen.”
At some point in his career Origen traveled to Rome to visit the very famous and ancient church there. According to St. Jerome, in Rome Origen heard St. Hippolytus preach a sermon, and the future martyr acknowledged the presence of his distinguished guest.9 Origen later moved to Palestine, where, Eusebius reports, bishop Theoctistus of Caesarea allowed him to preach, even though he was a layman. Then, without permission from his home bishop, Origen was ordained a priest in Palestine by the local bishops. This was a canonically irregular procedure in that it took place without permission from Demetrius (Origen’s bishop in Alexandria) and it was carried out in spite of the mutilation he had deliberately undergone. According to Eusebius it was for these reasons, that is, canonical irregularities, that Origen was expelled from the church of Alexandria. However, there also seems to have been doctrinal issues involved in Origen’s excommunication. Eusebius may have willed to minimize these out of his partiality for Origen. Yet they are attested by Origen himself in his own Letter to Friends in Alexandria, which is cited by both Rufinus and Jerome.10 The doctrinal issue referred to in that letter was Origen’s alleged belief that the devil would ultimately be saved, something Origen vehemently repudiates in the same letter. I will say more on this below.
Origen was consulted in theological discussions, one of which survives, Dialogue with Heraclides. Unfortunately, only two letters from his once vast correspondence are extant. He journeyed to Arabia and to Antioch, where he had been summoned by Julia Mammaea, the mother of the emperor Alexander Severus, who wanted to learn more about Christianity from him. Such involvements show Origen’s substantial reputation among his contemporaries, both Christian and pagan. In 250, shortly after completing his lengthy Against Celsus and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Origen was arrested during Decius’s persecution. He was imprisoned and severely tortured on the rack, but Origen, like his father, refused to deny his Lord Jesus Christ in order to be released. Had he died during that term of imprisonment, there does not seem to be any doubt that he would have been canonized. Instead, it was the emperor who died, the anti-Christian measures expired, and Origen was released from prison, but in broken health. Origen is thus technically ranked among the church’s “confessors,” whereas his father is a martyr. He died at the age of 69, probably in 254. His tomb was still being shown to crusaders in the thirteenth century at Tyre, in the church of the Holy Sepulcher.
Origen’s Surviving Works
One of the great tragedies of church history is that the vast majority of Origen’s writings do not survive.11 This owes to the condemnation of later developments of his thought at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. Balthasar strikingly compared the destruction of Origen’s writings to the shattering of a perfume vessel into a thousand pieces that filled the whole house (of the church) with its fragrance.12 Some of the missing titles are known from St. Jerome’s Epistle 33 to Paula. Of Origen’s major extant works, table 1 shows their approximate length.13 (Origen’s massive text-critical project, the Hexapla, where he displayed in parallel columns up to eight texts and translations of the Old Testament, does not survive except in fragments).
Against Celsus is Origen’s magnum opus. As his longest extant writing and final work, it comprises the most important written defense of Christianity from antiquity. As a work of Christian apologetics, the book retains its relevance and interest even to modern readers. This work has caused misunderstanding because it contains remarks by Origen where he argues that the allegorization of the biblical narratives is no more unreasonable than the allegorization, or rationalization, of the Greek myths which was fashionable in the erudite Greek world of his day. Some scholars have extrapolated from this that Origen’s exegetical principles were derived from Neo-Platonic allegorization of Homer. However, de Lubac showed long ago that, in spite of the widespread scholarly misunderstanding of Origen’s ad hominem remarks here, these statements simply do not become principles which are found in Origen’s exegesis.14 The same applies to Origen’s theoretical hermeneutical principles found in On First Principles, book 4. De Lubac forcefully argued that scholars should observe Origen at work, in his actual exegesis, to determine the principles of his hermeneutics. What makes the modern misapprehension of Origen all the more tragic is that in the very book Against Celsus, and in all his other works, Origen refuses to treat the Bible, or any part of it, like a Platonic myth. He defends historical Christianity against the attacks of Gnosticism, down to the very details concerning the dimensions of Noah’s ark.15
Table 1. Extent of Surviving Text of Origen’s Works
Title of Work (with ancient Latin translator)
Number of columns in Migne (PG 11-17)
*Against Celsus
493
Commentary on Romans (Rufinus)
455
*Commentary on John
405
*Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (on Mt 16:13–22:33)
382
On First Principles 1-4 (Rufinus)
296
Homilies on Numbers (Rufinus)
220
Commentary Series on the Gospel of Matthew (on Mt 22:24–27:66) [traditionally called Homilies]
199
Homilies on Leviticus (Rufinus)
169
Commentary on the Song of Songs (Rufinus)
136
Homilies on Joshua (Rufinus)
123
Homilies on Genesis (Rufinus)
117
*Homilies on Jeremiah (Jerome)
107
Homilies on Exodus (Rufinus)
100
Homilies on Luke (Jerome)
99
Homilies on Ezekiel (Jerome)
96
Homilies on Psalms 36–38 (Rufinus)
90
*On Prayer
73
Pamphilus’s Apology for Origen (Rufinus)
72
Homilies on Judges (Rufinus)
40
*Exhortation to Martyrdom
36
Homilies on the Song of Songs (Jerome)
21
Homily on 1 Samuel (Rufinus?)
17
* Indicates that the work survives in Greek as well.
Origen’s commentaries on Romans, John, Matthew and Song of Songs became classics in the West.16 They show Origen “at work” in the verse-by-verse exposition of individual books of the Bible. All but the commentary on Romans place their main focus on bringing out the deeper spiritual meaning of the text. The Commentary on Romans, on the other hand, approaches being a literal exposition of Paul’s words. His treatises On Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom are important thematic treatments that exemplify the way Origen grounded theology in the explanation of Scripture. They too remain stimulating reading to this day. Pamphilus’s Apology for Origen (309) is listed here because it is a work comprised mainly of excerpts from a diverse selection of Origen’s writings, many of which are no longer extant. Composed by the martyr Pamphilus (d. 310), with the collaboration of Eusebius of Caesarea, the author defends Origen’s orthodoxy against the attacks of some contemporaries (probably Methodius). Other more recently discovered works of Origen are not listed here and include the previously mentioned Dialogue with Heraclides and his treatise On the Passover (or The Pascha).
Origen’s first book, On First Principles, is also his most controversial treatise.17 It was the main source of posthumous accusations against Origen’s orthodoxy. In this work Origen became the first Christian theologian to attempt a theological reflection on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, beginning with the Holy Trinity, using the tools of reason, scripture and apostolic tradition. His stated aim is to defend the church’s faith against the heretics. Two centuries after Origen’s death, in 543, some of Origen’s opinions that are discussed in On First Principles were condemned by emperor Justinian. In 553 fifteen anathemas were laid down against Origenian doctrines by the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council outside the official sessions of the Council. The condemned doctrines included Origen’s theories about the preexistence of human souls and of Christ’s soul, the spherical shape of resurrection bodies, the animate nature of the stars and heavenly bodies, the suggestion that Christ may have to be crucified in the future age on behalf of demons, the view that the power of God is limited, and the conjecture that the punishment of demons and impious men is only temporary.18 Many scholars today would deny that Origen ever affirmed some of these points. All agree that Origen spoke tentatively and never intended his discussions of these matters to be taken as defined doctrine. Moreover, H. Crouzel, a very competent expert on Origen in the twentieth century, states that the action of Emperor Justinian in 543 was really directed against sixth-century “Origenists,” and not against the historical Origen. This would mitigate the authority and relevance of the action with respect to Origen. What is an undeniable fact is that in the Western church, Origen’s writings were cherished in the form of the Latin translations that were carried out by St. Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia. Their author was considered to be fundamentally orthodox. The reader is referred to the standard treatments of Origen’s life and doctrine by H. Crouzel and J. Daniélou, as well as the theological classic History and Spirit by Henri de Lubac, for more detailed discussions of these matters.
Origen’s Homilies
A large percentage of Origen’s surviving writings are homilies on Scripture, which illustrates how deeply Origen was connected to the church of his day, both as a priest, catechist and pastor of souls. Origen’s reflections on the institutional church in his homilies are extremely valuable, as a sort of window into the church of the third century.19 More generally, Origen’s homilies represent the oldest surviving corpus of Christian sermons. As such, they were in their Latin translations a source of endless inspiration to Christians of later generations in the Western church. To give some examples, the very learned priest-scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536) recommended the writings of Origen for the Christian’s edification. He expressed admiration of Origen’s successful allegorical interpretations found above all in Origen’s Homilies on Numbers and emulated Origen’s approach in his work Handbook (Enchiridion) of the Militant Christian (1503).20 Recently Pope Benedict XVI commended the writings of Origen to his Roman Catholic audience.21
Rufinus of Aquileia
Some of Origen’s homilies were translated by St. Jerome, but the greater part, including the present Homilies on Numbers, were translated by Rufinus of Aquileia (345–411). Rufinus is best known to posterity as a Latin translator.22 He was, in fact, the most productive translator of Greek patristic texts of antiquity and stands alongside St. Jerome as one of the greatest Latin translators of all time. In addition to the works of Origen, Rufinus also translated into Latin several other important works of the Greek Fathers, including Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, the [pseudo]-Clementine Recognitions, the Dialogue of Adamantius on the Orthodox Faith, the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, the Homilies of St. Basil, History of the Monks in Egypt, Rule of St. Basil, The Blessings of the Patriarchs and the Sentences of Evagrius. Rufinus also wrote in his own name an important Apology Against Jerome and the Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.
Rufinus was born in Concordia, educated in Rome, baptized in Aquileia, and ordained in Jerusalem by Bishop John, the successor of Cyril. In his youth Rufinus was on intimate terms with St. Jerome, and he maintained close friendships with the best minds of Christian Italy throughout his life. He spent about seven years in Egypt, where he was a disciple of Didymus the Blind. Rufinus himself became a “confessor” when, after the death of Athanasius in 373, an Arian ruler in Egypt persecuted, imprisoned and exiled him along with several bishops because of their Nicene orthodoxy.23 Later he traveled with St. Melania to Palestine, where he lived as a monk for many years on the Mount of Olives. The last part of his life, from about 397–411, was spent in Aquileia, Rome, southern Italy and finally Sicily, where he died. This final fortnight of years was devoted principally to the task of translation.
Rufinus always maintained a clear and stable attitude toward Origen, whom he regarded as his teacher. He believed that Origen was the outstanding exegete and theologian of the early church and that a translation of Origen’s works would be of considerable profit to the church in the West. After his death in 411, Rufinus’s translations and ecclesiastical services were highly praised by Palladius, John Cassian and Cassiodorus. Unfortunately, a conflict with the fatefully eloquent but intemperate St. Jerome damaged Rufinus’s reputation in the West until quite recently. Jerome’s irresponsible and malevolent defamation of Rufinus’s character and orthodoxy was written during the unproductive Origenist controversies of the late-fourth and early-fifth centuries. Fortunately Rufinus did not allow himself to become discouraged by this quarrel, and by his patient and selfless translation effort, carried out at the request of his superiors, he saved from certain destruction some of the most precious writings of Christian antiquity. His translations were “destined to form Latin minds for many years to come.”24
Rufinus’s Translation Method
Rufinus’s translation technique, particularly for the work On First Principles, has been the subject of reproach since the days of Jerome. By his own free admission, Rufinus suspected that the Greek manuscripts of Origen’s writings had been tampered with by heretics.25 Because of this suspicion, in his Latin translations Rufinus sometimes omitted or altered the wording of the original in order to make the text conform more adequately to Origen’s plainly orthodox statements found elsewhere in his writings. For obvious reasons Rufinus was particularly concerned to defend Origen against the charge of “proto-Arianism.”26 Yet Rufinus denies on repeated occasions that he had added anything of his own. He says that he simply restored Origen to himself.
In spite of such claims, Rufinus’s translation procedure is blemished in part by an honest but serious text-critical misjudgment. He mistakenly believed that the spurious Dialogue of Adamantius on the Orthodox Faith was an authentic work of Origen. Buchheit thought that Rufinus falsified the authorship of this work deliberately.27 However, Hammond has shown that this is wrong and that Rufinus had good reasons for his mistaken attribution of this work.28 As late as the nineteenth century, the Dialogue of Adamantius was judged to be an authentic work of Origen. Rufinus himself had translated this work into Latin with the intention of exhibiting Origen as a champion in the fight against heresy.29 The Dialogue contains statements such as “I believe that . . . God the Word is consubstantial and eternal,”30 and “the blessed Trinity is consubstantial and inseparable.”31 Such formulations seem to point to the recent determination of the Council of Nicaea.32 Yet by a mistaken text-critical judgment, Rufinus thought these were Origen’s own expressions. He therefore felt free to borrow such formulations and put them into Origen’s mouth in certain thematically related texts, whenever he was convinced that heretics had inserted their own corruptions into Origen’s original text. When judged by his own contemporary standards of literary criticism, Rufinus’s mistake was honest and excusable. The few passages from the Homilies on Numbers that may be affected by Rufinus’s practice will be noted below.33 Apart from such christological and trinitarian passages, Rufinus’s Latin translation can be received as generally reliable.34
In the preface to the Homilies on Numbers, Rufinus reports to his dedicatee Ursacius that conditions have not been favorable for completing the translation, since he has been forced in 410 to flee across the Straits of Messina to Sicily during the invasion of the Italian peninsula by Alaric, ruler of the Goths. Thus the present group of homilies was completed in Sicily. It represents Rufinus’s last surviving translation.35 Rufinus remarks in the preface that he has supplied additional material to the homilies from Origen’s “Excerpts” or Scholia, his more detailed commentary notes. The Scholia on Numbers are no longer extant except in what is preserved here. Rufinus says that he did this in order to fill in exegetical gaps that existed in Origen’s homilies on the book of Numbers and to make the work more complete and coherent.36 Therefore the genre of the present work is a mixture of the homily and of Origen’s more detailed exegesis of the Old Testament text. When he is judged by ancient standards of translation, Rufinus’s procedure of supplying additional Origenian material from other exegetical writings is not reproachable. For his declared aim was to edify his Latin readers, who longed to read more of Origen’s exegesis of Numbers than was found in the original homilies. We can be grateful for the added exegesis, since otherwise it would not have survived, even if it means that the present form of the homilies is not the exact form in which Origen originally delivered them.
Origen’s Exegetical Method
Origen’s spiritual exegesis of the Old Testament is grounded on the historical revelation of the Christian mystery. The presupposition of all ancient Christian exegesis is that the coming of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God and Messiah of Israel, has brought the fulfillment of the long-awaited time of salvation (cf. Mk 1:15), of the Mosaic law (cf. Mt 5:17; Rom 13:10), and of the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. Mt 26:31, 54; Lk 22:37; Jn 13:18; Acts 3:18; 1 Cor 15:3-4). In light of the historical fulfillment, the Old Testament must now be received as a period of preparation for the messianic/ecclesiastical age and as a period of divine pedagogy (cf. Gal 3:23-25). The fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New Testament implies a surpassing or going beyond what was imperfect and incomplete in the Old Testament; indeed it introduces a certain obsolescence of the ceremonial and ritual aspects of the law. The Christian principle admits that Old Testament moral precepts remain in force, and that the Old Testament had a positive role in that it procured religious education for the Jews and led them to Christ. But the law was a temporary and provisional regime from which Christians have now been set free.
Origen’s basic hermeneutical principle for interpreting the Old Testament is derived from Christ himself, who taught his followers that the Old Testament prefigures the spiritual realities that constitute the New Testament. Jesus explained the meaning of his life and death using the rites of the Sinai covenant (cf. Lk 22:20). The four Evangelists develop this way of reading the Old Testament, as do Revelation and the Catholic Epistles.37 Origen endeavors, quite simply, to sit at Jesus’ feet as a devoted pupil and learn from him how to read the Old Testament. He wants to perpetuate and develop in detail the interpretive methods that are used by the authors of the New Testament when treating Old Testament texts. Origen brings this christological and ecclesiological interpretive program to bear on the smallest details of the Old Testament text. Nothing authorizes the reader of Origen, therefore, to see in his method a concern to “Hellenize.” Rather, Origen was following his interpretive guides, Jesus, Paul and the other sacred writers. In 7.5.3, Origen tells his hearers to go back to the Gospels and Paul to find examples of “spiritual interpretation.”
Programmatic texts for Origen’s hermeneutics are the following:
Hebrews 10:1: “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, . . .”
1 Corinthians 10:11: “Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.”
Romans 15:4: “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
In light of St. Paul’s claims about the Old Testament in these passages, Origen asks in 7.1.1: What foreshadowing, what warning, what instruction, what encouragement, reproof, correction or exhortation, do we find in the narratives recorded in the book of Numbers?
In addition to adhering closely to the New Testament patterns of interpretation of the Old Testament, it is also evident that Origen had an almost excessive admiration of ancient Jewish methods of exegesis. In 13.5.1 he mentions a Jewish convert to Christianity, the son of a Palestinian rabbi, who taught him influential principles of Scripture interpretation. Links to the renowned Philo of Alexandria are not difficult to find in Origen’s Homilies on Numbers.38 Indeed, it is to Origen that the West owes the survival of Philo’s writings.39 Origen also subtly praises the type of symbolic interpretation found in the intertestamental Jewish book 1 Enoch, a work that is quoted in the New Testament book of Jude 14.40 Thus it is clear that many tributaries fed into Origen’s exegetical method. Yet Origen did not derive his principles from pagan thought or from intertestamental Jewish exegesis or from the rabbis. Of fundamental importance to him was the pattern of interpretation found in the New Testament itself, which he felt Christian exegetes and homilists ought to imitate.
Origen’s method of interpretation has been much maligned and misunderstood by modern scholars. Some of these professedly Christian critics are equally offended and embarrassed by the New Testament itself and the way its writers, and even Jesus himself, interpret the Old Testament.41 This fact not only places Origen in good company, but shows that some of Origen’s critics themselves recognize that his hermeneutical principles do not stem from a spirit of rationalism, a Platonist’s anti-historicism, or the intention to “demythologize” the Old Testament, but from the New Testament writers.42 Origen sought to imitate St. Paul; he endeavored to preserve the Old Testament for the church, to edify his congregation, to equip his hearers for spiritual warfare,43 and to see souls renewed in the image of Christ. Origen had the heart of a pastor. To him, the question for the homilist is not whether the stories in the book of Numbers literally occurred in history. For the most part Origen assumed that they did. As H. Crouzel intelligently reminds us, “In spite of the spontaneous reactions of many modern scholars it must not be concluded from the fact that Origen allegorizes a story that he does not believe in the historicity of the literal account, which is perfectly compatible with the quest for a spiritual meaning.”44 Rather, the question is, Assuming the literal factuality of these narratives, why were they preserved by the Holy Spirit in the church? What spiritual lessons and warnings do these stories offer the Christian? How can our souls be edified by these readings? In Homily 26.3 Origen justifies his interpretive approach by citing Luke 16:29: the Old Testament was written to help us avoid going to the place of torments. Accordingly, by his spiritual interpretation of the text of Numbers, Origen aims to save souls.
Origen concedes that sometimes believers’ souls can be edified by the literal application of the Old Testament text. For example, Origen refers to the warning to avoid sexual immorality that is based on the example of the seduction of the men of Israel by the Midianite women.45 Ancient Israel was often edified by this level of interpretation, and sometimes Christians are too, though the physical sword of Phinehas has been removed by Christ from the hands of his redeemed people.46 Indeed, the whole world benefits from the literal application of parts of the law of Moses.47 But even when literal applications are valid and beneficial, Origen strives to find symbolic meaning in all narratives. For instance, the book of Numbers speaks of censuses to which the sons of Israel were subjected during their exodus wanderings. Origen asks: What improvement do those who read about this obtain from this knowledge?48
Doubtless, the fact that the followers of Marcion denied that the Old Testament narratives have any use whatsoever played a role in inspiring Origen to find a practical and spiritually edifying use even for seemingly insignificant details in the text of the Old Testament.49 Clearly Origen goes too far at times and plays games with allegorical exegesis that lead to forced and farfetched interpretations. Origen sometimes expresses himself provocatively and his reasoning lends itself to misunderstandings. Yet Origen does not claim finality for his spiritual interpretations, and in fact he often offers more than one. Frequently, he challenges his hearers to pursue their own investigations into the mystical meaning. All that matters is that the minds of the hearers be lifted up to heaven, equipped for spiritual combat and better suited to make progress in their spiritual journey toward the Promised Land. This brief summary shows that Origen’s homiletical exhortations should be judged chiefly for what they are: material aimed to edify Christian souls by bringing out the potential Christian meaning of the Old Testament, based chiefly on the conscious imitation of Pauline/Hebrews methods of Old Testament interpretation. These homilies are not designed to inform historical scholars of ancient near eastern history.
Lienhard argued the important thesis that Origen’s main achievement was to assure the Old Testament a permanent place in the Christian church. Origen did this
not by an abstract theory but by working his way through the entire Old Testament, book by book, sentence by sentence, and word by word. Origen provided the church with the first Christian commentary on virtually the entire Old Testament. Seldom, if ever again, would there be any doubt that this book had its proper and rightful place in the Christian church.50
This is a fitting assessment of Origen’s great contribution to Christian thought.
Concluding Remarks
The classic study of Origen’s practice of Scripture interpretation is now available to English readers.51 De Lubac refutes the widespread distortions of Origen’s hermeneutical method that continue to be perpetuated by scholars who have read little of Origen’s exegesis. In this work de Lubac does not assume the role of apologist for Origen, except indirectly, by correcting the misreading of Origen that has gone on in the past. Nor does he undertake to rehabilitate Origen’s interpretative method as if it should be emulated by modern exegetes. On the contrary, de Lubac invites modern exegetes to use other methods of interpretation than those used by the authors of the New Testament.52 This shows that R. E. Brown misses the point of de Lubac’s book when he passes the judgment that de Lubac and Daniélou have failed in their endeavor to give great value to patristic exegesis as exegesis and then declares confidently: “I think we must recognize that the exegetical method of the Fathers is irrelevant to the study of the Bible today.”53 Brown fails to understand that de Lubac’s task was corrective and explanatory. By his unparalleled and exhaustive knowledge of Origen’s writings, he demonstrated convincingly that, contrary to the allegations of Origen’s critics, Origen’s exegesis does not entail the negation of the literal sense. De Lubac showed that the basic principle of Origen’s approach to interpreting Scripture is his Christian response to the mystery of Christ. Origen’s Christian faith was situated between the interpretations of Judaism, on the one hand, and of the heretics, on the other.
The all too common reproach of Origen’s spiritual exegesis of the Old Testament, popularized by R. P. C. Hanson, is that it proves that Origen was only interested in history as parable. One recent interpreter of Origen, in the footsteps of de Lubac, has handled this criticism in a responsible manner. Peter Martens writes:
If concern for history in biblical scholarship indeed is to equate to restricting the meaning of a passage to what its human author(s) intended for their audience at that time, to hold that the resources of the exegete are solely aimed at unveiling the milieu from which biblical writings emerged and the milieu to which they were originally addressed, then Origen can be fairly labeled as uninterested in history. But this is hardly a self-evident conclusion. Could one not, for example, turn this argument on its head and argue that history is only taken seriously when the exegete takes the full symbolic potential of an event into consideration?54
The lesson here is that Origen’s exegesis is often unfairly criticized on the basis of modern academic assumptions about what exegesis should be about. These objections are inapplicable to Origen’s ecclesiastical context, since Origen’s exegesis was given in the context of the liturgy. It was therefore aimed at a different audience and grounded on different principles than those of modern critical exegesis. Was the liturgy designed to be the forum for history lessons or for the edification of Christian souls?
Text and Scripture Citations
The following translation is based on Baehrens’s critical Latin text (GCS 30, 7 [1921]), as that text appears in SC 415, 442 and 461. I have been greatly assisted by the updated French translation of M. Borret and L. Doutreleau, who revised the original SC translation of André Méhat (SC 29 [1951]). The footnotes in this new edition have also proven valuable. Also, I consulted the excerpts found in the anthologies by Hans Urs von Balthasar and R. Tollinton. For Homily 27, I took advantage of the existing English translation by R. Greer and based my new translation on it. The great study of Origen’s ecclesiology by F. Ledegang, Mysterium Ecclesiae, and de Lubac’s History and Spirit, provided me with many of the references to parallel passages in Origen and in other early Christian literature. For the wording of the Scripture citations, I have tried to follow the RSV text as closely as possible. It is important to recall, however, that both Origen and Rufinus viewed the Greek Septuagint as the divinely inspired text of the Old Testament. Although Origen often mentions variant Hebrew readings as well as Hebrew etymologies, his exegesis turns entirely on the Septuagint (LXX) readings. The reader is well advised to consult an English translation of the LXX for clarification of Origen’s exegesis.55 Scripture references in the footnotes are given according to their location in the RSV so long as the reading corresponds generally with the RSV text. Where the LXX text departs significantly from the RSV, reference is made to the LXX. In the Psalms, readers will find that the LXX numbering often differs by one from the RSV numbering.
OrigenHomilies on Numbers
Rufinus to Ursacius:1
Brother, I will address you in the words of the blessed martyr:2 “You are right to remind me, dearest Donatus, but I too remember my promise,”3 to collect all that Adamantius4 wrote in his old age on the law of Moses and to translate into the Latin language things worth reading. But the time for fulfilling the promise was not “seasonable,”5 as that one6 says, but was tempestuous7 for us and full of confusion. For what opportunity is there for composition when there is fear of the enemy’s missiles, when the devastation of cities and fields is before one’s eyes, when one has to flee from dangers of the sea, and even in exile there is no freedom from fear? For as you yourself saw, the barbarian was within sight of us.8 He had set fire to the town of Rhegium, and our only protection against him was the very narrow sea that separates the soils of Italy from Sicily.9
Well, to those who find themselves in such a position, what security could there be for writing, and especially for translating, where one’s purpose is not to develop one’s own thoughts but to adapt those of another? However, when there was a quiet night, and our minds were relieved from the fear of an attack by the enemy, and we had at least some little leisure for thought, as a solace from our troubles and to relieve the burden of our pilgrimage, we have found all that Origen had written on the book of Numbers, whether in the homiletical style or even some of those writings that are called “Excerpts.”10 At your urging, we brought these writings together from diverse sources and arranged them into a single sequence. Then we translated them into the Roman tongue to the best of our ability. You assisted my labor with all your might, Ursacius. Indeed, you were so extremely eager about this that you thought the youth who acted as secretary was too slow in carrying out his service.
But I want you to know, brother, that this reading, to be sure, clears paths for understanding, but it does not deal with each clause separately as you have read in Origen’s commentaries. The rationale for this is to prevent the reader from becoming idle himself, but, as it is written, “let him stir up his own heart” and “let him produce a meaning,”11 and when he has heard the good word, he should add to it, as one who is wise.12
Therefore, as I am able, I am striving to achieve what you have enjoined. Indeed, now of all the writings that I have found on the Law, the brief orations on Deuteronomy alone are lacking. If the Lord offers his help, and if he gives soundness to my eyes, we desire to add these to the remaining body of the work,13 although our very loving son Pinianus14 is enjoining yet other tasks from me. Because we have in common a devotion to chastity, I am blessed by his religious companionship in my exile. But pray together with us that the Lord may be present, and give peace to our times, and bestow grace on those who are laboring, and make our work fruitful for the progress of the readers.
Homily 1Numbers 1:1-54
1.1. Not everyone is worthy of the divine numbering,1 but those who ought to be comprised within the number of God are designated by certain privileges.
Now this book that is inscribed “of Numbers,” contains clear proof of this fact. It reports that by God’s command women are not summoned to the numbering.2
