# Apology against Jerome - Author: [Rufinus of Aquileia](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/rufinus/) - Latin title: *Apologia in sanctum Hieronymum* - Date: ca. 401 (approximate) - Source: J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, vol. 21 (Paris, 1849) (Latin text: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 21, digitized by Open Greek and Latin (patrologia_latina-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Editions and translations: Manlio Simonetti, ed., Rufini Opera, CCSL 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1961) - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/ - Passages: 90 ## Apology against Jerome 1.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-1 - Source: PL 21:542a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus tells Apronianus that he has read Jerome's attack sent to Pammachius and had meant to bear it in silence, as Christ bore insults. ### Latin text Perlegi scripta tua, Aproniane fili carissime, quae ab amico (Hieronymo) et fratre bono de Oriente ad virum nobilissimum Pammachium missa, transmisisti ad me: et recordatus sum sermonis Prophetici, qui ait: Filii hominum dentes eorum, arma et sagittae, et lingua eorum machaera acuta. Verum ad haec vulnera, quae infliguntur ex lingua inter homines, medicus pene nullus est. Et ideo conveni me ad Jesum caelestem medicum, qui mihi antidotum potentissimam dedit de Evangelii sui pixide prolatam, quae vim doloris spe futuri apud se justi examinis solaretur. Potio ergo ipsa quam temperavit Jesus, haec erant verba: Beati, inquit, estis cum vos persecuti fuerint, et dixerint adversum vos omne malum menticnles. Gaudete et exultate, quoniam merces vestra multa est in coelis. Sic enim per secuti sunt et Prophetas, qui erant ante vos. Et ego quidem, quantum in me est, hoc medicamento contentus, de reliquo silere decreveram, dicens apud meipsum: Si patremfamilias Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis (nos licet indignos) domesticos ejus? Et si illi dictum et: Quia seductor est, et seducit turbas: ego cur indigner, si audiam me haereticum dici: et pro ingenii tarditate, vel potius caecitate talpam nominari? Et cum Dominus meus, immo omnium Deus Christus dictus sit homo vorax, et vini potator, amicus publicanorum et peccatorum: Ego cur indigner, si audiam homo carnalis, et in deliciis degens. ### English translation (Claude) I have read through the writings, my dearest son Apronianus, which a friend (Jerome) and good brother sent from the East to that most noble man Pammachius, and which you forwarded to me; and I remembered the prophet's word, which says: "The sons of men, their teeth are weapons and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword." Against these wounds which the tongue inflicts among men there is scarcely any physician. And so I betook myself to Jesus, the heavenly physician, who gave me a most potent antidote, brought out from the medicine chest of his Gospel, to soothe the force of the pain with the hope of the just judgment to come before him. The draught which Jesus mixed consisted of these words: "Blessed are you," he says, "when they persecute you and say every evil against you falsely. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." And I, for my part, content with this medicine, had resolved to keep silence about the rest, saying to myself: "If they called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more" (unworthy though we are) "those of his household?" And if it was said of him, "He is a deceiver and leads the crowds astray," why should I be indignant if I hear myself called a heretic, and for the slowness, or rather blindness, of my mind, called a mole? And since my Lord, or rather Christ the God of all, was called "a gluttonous man and a wine-drinker, a friend of tax collectors and sinners," why should I be indignant if I hear myself called a carnal man who lives in luxury? ### Scripture references - Ps 57:4 (56:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:11–12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 10:25: quotation, high confidence - John 7:12: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 11:19: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The letter Rufinus answers is Jerome's letter to Pammachius and Oceanus (Jerome, Ep. 84), with Jerome's writings against his translation of Origen. - "The sons of men…": Ps 57:4 (LXX 56:5). "Blessed are you…": Matt 5:11–12. "If they called…": Matt 10:25. "He is a deceiver…": John 7:12 (compare Matt 27:63). "A gluttonous man…": Matt 11:19. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.1 (PL 21:542a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-1). ## Apology against Jerome 1.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-2 - Source: PL 21:542a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus explains why he must answer after all, since silence on a matter of faith would cause scandal, and promises plain words rather than eloquence. ### Latin text Verum quoniam respondendi mihi, vel ex parte justa quaedam necessitas videtur imponi;·ex eo quod dicatur multos oifendi de his, quae ab eo scripta sunt, nisi quid sil in caussa pandatur: compellor contra votum meum et propositum respondere, ne forte reticendo videar crimen agnoscere. Quamvis Christiano caetera crimina silendo depellere, exemplo Domini gloriosum sit: sed tamen hoc in fide, si fiat, maximum scandalum generat. Quia ergo in initiis hujus invectionis suae promittit se omissurum personas, et rebus tantum, et criminibus responsurum: utrumque autem falsum est, nam cui respondeal crimini, quod nullus obtendit? Quomodo autem omittit personas, cum interpretem librorum toto Invectionis suae textu indestnenter incuset et lacerti? Nos omissa omni ironia, et ύποχΑσεως tergiversatione, quae Deo exsecrabilis est, licet incomptis verbis et oratione incomposita respondebimus: veniam imperitiae nostrae a legentibus concedendam, non immerito praesumentes: quia non alios accusamus, sed nosmetipsos a maledietis purgare contendimus. Et ideo studemus, ut non tantum in nobis sermo, quantum veritas luceat. ### English translation (Claude) But since a certain just necessity seems to be laid on me to answer, at least in part, because it is said that many are offended by what he has written unless the true state of the case is laid open, I am compelled against my wish and my resolve to reply, lest by keeping silent I seem to admit the charge. For though it is glorious for a Christian, after the Lord's example, to repel other charges by silence, yet in a matter of faith this, if done, produces the greatest scandal. Since, then, at the beginning of this invective of his he promises to leave persons aside and to answer only to matters and charges, both statements are false: for to what charge does he reply, which nobody alleges? And how does he leave persons aside, when through the whole text of his invective he ceaselessly accuses and tears at the translator of the books? We, laying aside all irony and the shuffling of pretence, which is abhorrent to God, will reply, though in unpolished words and artless speech, presuming, not without reason, that our readers will grant pardon to our lack of skill, since we are not accusing others but striving to clear ourselves of slanders. And therefore we take care that in us it is not the speech that shines so much as the truth. ### Translation notes - The Greek word is garbled in the digital text (ύποχΑσεως); it is translated by sense as "pretence" (probably a form of ὑπόκρισις). - "Invective" (invectio) is Rufinus's name for Jerome's writing against him. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.2 (PL 21:542a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-2). ## Apology against Jerome 1.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-3 - Source: PL 21:542a–543b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus says Jerome repays praise with insults and asks pardon for his own plain and perhaps sharp reply. ### Latin text Sed priusquam incipiam purgare me, illud eum ante omnia vere dixisse confiteor, quod ait, se non reddere maledictum pro maledicto. Hoc satis verum est: non enim pro maledictis, sed pro benedictis et laudibus convicia et maledicta restituit. Neque, ut ait, verberanti dexteram maxillam offert alleram: sed palpanti et leviganti maxillam, morsum improvisi dentis infigit. Cum enim nos in co et eloquentiam ac studium laudaverimus (interpretando dumtaxat ex Graecis) et fidei ejus numquam derogaverimus; ille utrumque in nobis damnat: et ideo veniam etiam ipse nobis concedat, si forte aliquid, aut asperius, aut incomptius dicimus: quia imperitum hominem ad respondendum lacessivit, quem sciret non posse per multam dicendi artem et eloquentiae copiam id agere, ut is quem laesum vellet ac vulneratum, nec vulneratus videatur esse nec laesus. Hoc ergo eloquentiae genus ab ipso requiratur, qui ad culpandum seu vituperandum levi rumusculo commotus, velut quis censor accurrit. Qui vero objectas depellere a se n aculas cupit, necessitate sibi responsionis imposita, non quam eleganter et ornate, sed quam vere respondeat, cogitavit. ### English translation (Claude) But before I begin to clear myself, I confess that he has spoken truly above all in this, that he says he does not return reviling for reviling. That is true enough: for he returns insults and reviling not for reviling but for blessings and praises. Nor, as he says, does he turn the other cheek to one who strikes the right; rather, to one who strokes and soothes his cheek he drives home the bite of an unexpected tooth. For when we praised in him both eloquence and learning (only, indeed, in translating from the Greek), and never disparaged his faith, he condemns both in us. And therefore let him grant us pardon too, if perhaps we say something either rather harsh or rather unpolished: for he has provoked an unskilled man to reply, whom he knew to be unable, by great art of speaking and abundance of eloquence, to make the man he wished to wound and injure appear neither wounded nor injured. Let that kind of eloquence be looked for from him who, stirred by a light rumour, runs up like some censor to blame and to abuse. But he who wishes to rid himself of the stains laid upon him, having the necessity of reply imposed on him, has thought not how elegantly and ornately, but how truly, he may answer. ### Scripture references - 1 Pet 3:9: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 5:39: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - "Reviling for reviling": 1 Pet 3:9; "the other cheek": Matt 5:39, both as cited by Jerome. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.3 (PL 21:542a–543b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-3). ## Apology against Jerome 1.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-4 - Source: PL 21:543b–544b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus recalls his baptism at Aquileia about thirty years earlier and sets out his faith in the Trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection of this same flesh. ### Latin text Et quoniam inter principia ipsa ait: Quasi sine me haeretici esse non possint, primo hoc nobis ostendendum est, quod nec cum ipso, nec sine ipso haeretici sumus, ut cum de nobis constiterit quid simus, tunc demum nec de aliorum quidem dictis ad nos retorqueri possit infamia. Ego, sicut et ipse et omnes norunt, ante annos fere triginta in monasterio jam positus, per gratiam Baptismi regeneratus, signaculum fidei consecutus sum per sanctos viros Chromatium, Jovinum, et Eusebium, opinatissimos et probatissimos in Ecclesta Dei Episcopos, quorum alter tunc Presbyter beatae memoriae Valeriani, alter Archidiaconus, alius Diaconus simulque pater mihi et doctor Symboli ac fidei fuit. Illi ergo sic mihi tradiderunt, et sic teneo, Quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unius deitatis sint, unius substantiae: coaeterna, inseparabilis, incorporea, invisibilis, incomprehensibilis Trinitas, et sibi soli, ut est, a perfectum nota: Quia nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius. Et Spiritus Sanctus est qui scrutatur etiam alta Dei: et ideo caret omni visibilitate corporea, sed intel ectuali illo deitatis oculo sic videt Patrem Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, sicut Pater videt Filium et Spiritum Sanctum; nec est prorsus ulla in Trinitate diversitas, nisi quod ille Pater est, et hic Filius, et ille Spiritus Sanctus. Trinitas in personarum distinctione, unitas in veritate subsiantiae: et quod unigenitus Filius Dei, per quem a principio omnia quae sunt, facta sunt, sive visibilia, sive invisibilia, in novissimis diebus carne et anima humana suscepta, homo factus est, et passus est pro salute nostra. Et tertia die, suscitata illa ipsa carne, quae posita fuerat in sepulero, resurrexit a mortuis. Et cum ipsa eadem carne glorificata ascendit ad caelos, unde et exspectatur venturus ad judicium vivorum et mortuorum. Sed et simili modo nobis quoque spem resurrectionis dedit, ut eodem ordine, eadem consequentia, pari eademque forma, qua ipse Dominus resurrexit a mortuis, nos quoque resurrecturos esse credamus: non nubes aut auras tenues, ut calumniantur: sed haec ipsa, in quibus nunc, ve! vivimus, vel morimur, nostra corpora recepturi. Nam quomodo verum erit, quod resurrectionem carnis credimus, nisi in ea vere et integre carnis natura servetur? Absque ullis ergo praestigiis, verae et integrae carnis hujus nostrae, in qua nunc sumus, resurrectionem fatemur. ### English translation (Claude) And since at the very beginning he says, "As if there could be no heretics without me," we must first show that we are heretics neither with him nor without him, so that once it is clear what we are, no ill repute may be turned back on us even from the sayings of others. I, as he himself and all know, about thirty years ago, being already in a monastery, was regenerated by the grace of baptism and received the seal of the faith through the holy men Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius, bishops of the highest repute and most approved in the church of God; of whom one was then a presbyter of Valerian of blessed memory, another archdeacon, the third deacon and at the same time my father and teacher in the Creed and the faith. They, then, handed it down to me thus, and thus I hold it: that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one Godhead, of one substance; a Trinity coeternal, inseparable, incorporeal, invisible, incomprehensible, and perfectly known, as it is, to itself alone; for "no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son." And it is the Holy Spirit who "searches even the deep things of God." And therefore it is free of all bodily visibility; but by that intellectual eye of the Godhead the Son and the Holy Spirit see the Father just as the Father sees the Son and the Holy Spirit; nor is there any difference at all in the Trinity, except that the one is the Father, the other the Son, and the other the Holy Spirit: a Trinity in the distinction of persons, a unity in the reality of substance. And that the only-begotten Son of God, through whom from the beginning all things that are were made, whether visible or invisible, in the last days took flesh and a human soul, was made man, and suffered for our salvation; and on the third day, that very flesh which had been laid in the tomb being raised, he rose from the dead; and with that same flesh glorified he ascended to heaven, whence he is also awaited to come to judge the living and the dead. And in like manner he gave us also the hope of resurrection, so that we believe that we too shall rise in the same order, the same sequence, and the same form in which the Lord himself rose from the dead: not receiving clouds or thin air, as they slanderously say, but these very bodies of ours in which we now live and die. For how will it be true that we believe in the resurrection of the flesh unless the nature of the flesh is truly and wholly preserved in it? Without any trickery, then, we confess the resurrection of this true and entire flesh of ours, in which we now are. ### Scripture references - Matt 11:27: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:10: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus's statement of faith on the Trinity and on the resurrection is translated exactly; it answers the charge that Origenists denied the resurrection of the flesh. - Chromatius later became bishop of Aquileia, Jovinus and Eusebius bishops elsewhere; Valerian was bishop of Aquileia. - "No one knows the Son…": Matt 11:27; "searches even the deep things of God": 1 Cor 2:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.4 (PL 21:543b–544b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-4). ## Apology against Jerome 1.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-5 - Source: PL 21:544b–545a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus appeals to the Creed of Aquileia, which confesses "the resurrection of this flesh," and complains that his accuser still demands every limb be named. ### Latin text Verum ad majorem rei fidem addo aliqud amplius, et calumniosorum necessitate compulsus. singulare et praecipuum Ecclestae nostrae mysterium pando. Etenim cum omnes Ecclestae ita Sacramentum Symboli tradant, ut postquam dixerint peccatorum remissionem, addant carnis resurrectionem, sancta Aquileiensis Ecclesta Dei spiritu futuras adversum nos calumnias praevidente, ubi tradit carnis resurrectionem, addit unius pronominis syllabam: et pro eo quod caeteri dicunt, carnis resurrectionem, nos dicimus, hujus carnis resurrectionem, Quo scilicet frontem, ut mos est, in fine Symboli signaculo contingentes: et ore carnis hujus, videlicet quam contingimus, resurrectionem fatentes, omnem venenatae adversum nos linguae calumniandi aditum perstruamus. Est ne aliquid hac confessione plenius? est aliquid ista expositione perfectius? Sed nihil ut video profuit nobis cautela haec tanta Spiritus Sancti. Inveniunt adhuc male loquaces lingue calumniandi locum. Membra, inquit, singula nominatim nisi dixeris, et caput cum capillis suis, manus, pedes, venvem, atque ea quae sub venire sunt, nisi expressius destgnaveris, carnis resurrectionem negasti. ### English translation (Claude) But to make the matter more credible I add something further and, forced by the need created by slanderers, I disclose a special and distinctive mystery of our church. For whereas all the churches hand on the sacrament of the Creed in such a way that, after saying "the forgiveness of sins," they add "the resurrection of the flesh," the holy church of Aquileia, as though the Spirit of God foresaw the slanders that would come against us, where it hands on the resurrection of the flesh adds a pronoun of one syllable: and where the others say "the resurrection of the flesh," we say "the resurrection of this flesh." So, touching our forehead, as the custom is, with the sign at the end of the Creed, and with the mouth of this flesh, namely the flesh we touch, confessing its resurrection, we block every approach by which a poisoned tongue might slander us. Is anything fuller than this confession? Is anything more complete than this exposition? But, as I see, all this great precaution of the Holy Spirit has profited us nothing. Evil-speaking tongues still find room for slander. "Unless you name each limb," he says, "and specify more expressly the head with its hair, hands, feet, belly, and what lies below the belly, you have denied the resurrection of the flesh." ### Translation notes - The words in quotation marks at the end summarize Jerome's demand (compare Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem and Ep. 84). - The sign at the end of the Creed: the custom of signing the forehead with the cross. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.5 (PL 21:544b–545a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-5). ## Apology against Jerome 1.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-6 - Source: PL 21:545a–545c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christ's risen body, which the disciples could touch, is the pattern: we shall rise in this same flesh, freed from corruption and made spiritual. ### Latin text Haec sunt novelli sapientis inventa, quae beatos Apostolos tradentes fidem Ecclesiae latuerunt: nec ulli Sanctorum nisi huic soli per carnis spiritum revelata sunt. Et nunc indecenter quidem proponit: sed audiat et honestius et verius quam proponit. Primitiae dormientium Christus est, qui et primogenitus ex mortuis dicitur: s cut et Apostolus de resurgentibus dicit: Initium Christus est, deinde hi qui sunt Christi. Habentes ergo indubitatas resurrectionis nostrae primitias Christum, quid de caeteris dubitamus, cum certum sit quod qualibus membris, et qualibus capillis, qua carne, et quibus ossibus Christus resurrexit, et nos omnes resurgamus? Quia et ipse propterea se post resurrectionem palpandum discipulis praebuit, ne ulla de resurrectione ejus cunctatio remaneret· Cum igitur ita evidens, et (ut ita dicam) palpabile et manu attrectandum nobis Christus dederit sua: resurrectionis exemplum, ita aliquis insanit, ut aliter se resurrecturum putet; quam resurrexerit ille, qui primus resurrectionis aditum patefecit? Unde etiam illud veritatem hujus confessionis affirmat, quod natura quidem carnis hujus est ipsa, nec ulla alia quae resurget, purgata tamen a vitiis resurget, corruptione deposita, ut verum sit illud quod dicit Apostolus, Quia seminatur in corruptione, surget in incorruptione: seminatur in ignominia, surget in gloria: seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale, Tanquam ergo spiritale, et gloriosum, et incorruptibile corpus, suis propriis et non aliunde assumtis exornabitur et illustrabitur membris, secundum eam gloriam quam proposium nobis Christi servat exemplum, sicut et Apostolus dicit: Qui transformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, conforme corpori claritatis Filii sui. ### English translation (Claude) These are the inventions of this new sage, which escaped the blessed apostles when they handed down the faith to the church, and were revealed to none of the saints but to him alone, through the spirit of the flesh. And now he puts it indecently; but let him hear it put both more decently and more truly than he puts it. Christ is the firstfruits of those who sleep, who is also called the firstborn from the dead; as the Apostle also says of those who rise: "Christ is the beginning, then those who are Christ's." Having, then, in Christ the undoubted firstfruits of our resurrection, why do we doubt about the rest, when it is certain that with such limbs, such hair, such flesh and such bones as Christ rose, we too shall all rise? For this was why he offered himself after the resurrection to be touched by the disciples, so that no hesitation about his resurrection might remain. Since, then, Christ has given us so clear and, if I may say so, palpable an example of his resurrection, one to be handled by the hand, is anyone so mad as to think that he will rise otherwise than he rose who first opened the way to resurrection? This too confirms the truth of this confession: that the nature of the flesh which will rise is this very one and no other, yet it will rise cleansed of its faults, corruption laid aside, so that what the Apostle says may be true: "It is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it will rise in glory; it is sown a natural body, it will rise a spiritual body." As a spiritual, glorious, and incorruptible body, then, it will be adorned and made illustrious with its own members, not with members taken from elsewhere, according to that glory which the example of Christ set before us preserves; as the Apostle also says: "who will transform the body of our humiliation, conformed to the body of the glory of his Son." ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:20: allusion, high confidence - Col 1:18: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:23: quotation, high confidence - Luke 24:39: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:42–44: quotation, high confidence - Phil 3:21: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - "Firstfruits of those who sleep": 1 Cor 15:20; "firstborn from the dead": Col 1:18; "Christ is the beginning…": 1 Cor 15:23 (Migne prints "1 Cor 1:15"); the touching: Luke 24:39, John 20:27; "it is sown…": 1 Cor 15:42–44; "who will transform…": Phil 3:21, in Rufinus's own wording ("of his Son"). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.6 (PL 21:545a–545c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-6). ## Apology against Jerome 1.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-7 - Source: PL 21:545d–546c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus mocks Jerome's caricature of Origenist women who reject a frail resurrection body and argues from Paul that the risen body is not frail. ### Latin text Cum igitur per omnia in resurrectionis spe Christus proponatur ad formam, et primogenitus ipse sit resurgentium, atque omnis creaturae ipse sit caput, sicut scriptum est, Qui est caput omnium primogenitus ex mortuis: ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens; quid inaniter verborum pugnas, et malarum suspicionum certamina commovemus, cum in ea confessione quam supra exposui, Ecclestastica fides constet, et clarum sil quod ad incusandum non moveat aliquem diversitas fidei, sed perversitas animi. Verum quoniam in hoc loco cum de resurrectione carnis argueret, ut ei mos est, miscuit seriis ridicula et ludicra, dicens: « Mulieres quasdam de nostris, mammilas suas tenentes, vel laeves contrectantes genas cum plausu femoris et ventris dicere solere, quid nobis prodest resurrectio, si corpus iterum fragile resurget? Futurae Angelorum similes, Angelorum habebimus et naturam. » Quas hic mulierculas incuset, et si laceratione dignae sint, ipse viderit. Aut si eum se putat qui praedicat, non esse suum, talione mordere, nunc etiam sine talione mordere: vel certe si aequanimiter fert suas mulierculas veris et non fictis neque commentitiis remorderi, haec, inquam, ipse viderit. Nos interim quod ille promiserit, implemus: non reddimus talionem. Sed ut video, isti cui displicet mulier, quae negat se ex resurrectione fragile corpus habituram, sine dubio placet ei, fragilitatem corporis permansuram. Et ubi est quod dicit Apostolus: Seminatur in in firmitate, surget in virtute: seminatur corpus animate, surget corpus spiritale: quam fragilitatem vis esse in corpore spiritali? Et quod resurget in virtute: quomodo iterum fragile erit? In virtute, quod fragile est, quomodo erit? Nonne melius dicunt mulierculae, quam tu, quae negant ultra fragilitatem corpori dominaturam? Quid illas irr des, quae sequuntur Apostolum dicentem: Quia corruptibile hoc induet incorrupiionem: et mortale hoc induet immortalitatem? Apostoli non docuerunt fragile corpus futurum esse, quod resurget a mortuis, sed e contrario in virtute et in gloria resurrecturum dicunt. Tu hoc unde nunc profers? Nisi forte a Judaeis aliquibus nova nunc lege promulgatur Ecclestae, ut etiam ista discamus. Est enim Judaeorum vere de resurrectione talis opinio, quod resurgent quidem, sed ut carnalibus deliciis et luxuriis, caeterisque voluptatibus corporis perfruantur. Quae autem alia est fragilitas corporis, nisi corruptela membrorum, irritatio gulae, et incitamenta libidinis? ### English translation (Claude) Since, then, Christ is set before us in all respects as the pattern of our hope of resurrection, and he is himself the firstborn of those who rise, and is himself the head of all creation, as it is written, "who is the head of all, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the first place," why do we stir up empty battles of words and contests of evil suspicions, when the church's faith stands in the confession I have set out above, and it is clear that what moves anyone to accuse is not a difference of faith but a perversity of mind? But since in this place, when he was arguing about the resurrection of the flesh, he mixed, as is his habit, jests and trifles with serious matters, saying: "Certain women of ours, holding their breasts, or fondling their smooth cheeks, and slapping thigh and belly, are accustomed to say, 'What use is the resurrection to us, if the body rises frail again? We shall be like the angels, and we shall have the nature of angels,'" let him see to it what little women he is accusing here, and whether they deserve to be torn. Or if he thinks that one who preaches does not do his part unless he bites back in retaliation, and now bites even without retaliation; or at any rate, if he bears it calmly that his own little women should be bitten in return with true and not invented charges, let him, I say, see to that himself. We meanwhile fulfil what he promised: we do not retaliate. But, as I see, if this man is displeased with a woman who denies that she will have a frail body in the resurrection, he is no doubt pleased that the body's frailty will remain. And where is what the Apostle says: "It is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown a natural body, it will rise a spiritual body"? What frailty do you want there to be in a spiritual body? And that which will rise in power, how will it be frail again? How will what is frail be in power? Do not the little women speak better than you, when they deny that frailty will any longer rule the body? Why do you mock those who follow the Apostle when he says: "This corruptible will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality"? The apostles did not teach that the body that rises from the dead will be frail; on the contrary, they say it will rise in power and in glory. Where do you now bring this from? Unless perhaps some Jews are now promulgating a new law to the church, so that we should learn these things too. For it is indeed the opinion of the Jews about the resurrection that they will rise, but in order to enjoy carnal delights and luxuries and the other pleasures of the body. And what else is the frailty of the body than the corruption of its members, the provocation of the appetite, and the incitements of lust? ### Scripture references - Col 1:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 22:30: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 15:43–44: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.6 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The words in quotation marks are Jerome's (Ep. 84.6). - The view attributed to "the Jews" is Rufinus's own characterization, translated as written. - "Head of all…": Col 1:18; "it is sown in weakness…": 1 Cor 15:43–44; "this corruptible…": 1 Cor 15:53 (Migne prints 1 Cor 1:54). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.7 (PL 21:545d–546c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-7). ## Apology against Jerome 1.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-8 - Source: PL 21:546c–547b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The risen flesh is this same flesh with all its members but without corruption, frailty, or sexual use; the church's faith walks between two errors. ### Latin text Sed patimini quaeso vos. si tamen Christum amatis, in incorruptione absque his esse corpus, quod resurget a mortuis; fas sit haec aliquando cessare. Credamus in resurrectione destnere etiam licitos coitus, ne et illiciti subrepant, quamdiu horum non sit oblivio. Quid tam sollicite, tam curiose discutitur et pertractatur venter, et ea quae sub ventre sunt? Et nos carnales et deliciosos dicitis, tum vos ut video, ab his cessandum, nec in resurrectione credatis. Neque enim naturam carnis hujus, in qua nunc vivimus, resurgere denegemus: nequo rursus cum ea carnis vitia pariter involvamus. Sed caro quidem resurget, et non alia pro alia, sed haec ipsa, nec naturam perdet, sed fragilitatem et vitia deponet. Alioquin nec immortale erit, quod fragile permanserit. Et ideo nos neque vobiscum, neqne sine vobis haeretici sumus. Ecclcsiae enim fides, cujus nos alimui sumus, media incedens inter utrumque discrimen, neque naturae carnis vel corporis (quod resurget a mortuis) denegat veritatem, neque contra Apostoli sententiam incorruptionem futuri regni dicit a corruptione possidendam. Non ergo carnem, vel corpus, perditis, ut ais, aut amputatis membris resurgere dicimus, sed totum et integrum corpus, corruptione tantum et ignominia ac fragilitate deposita atque omnibus mortalitatis vitiis pariter amputatis, ita ut nihil prorsus ex natura sua destt spiritali illi corpori, quod resurget a mortuis, nisi illa corruptio. ### English translation (Claude) But bear with me, I pray you, if you love Christ: that the body which rises from the dead may be in incorruption without these things; let it be permitted that these things should at some time cease. Let us believe that in the resurrection even lawful intercourse ceases, so that the unlawful may not creep in, so long as these are not forgotten. Why is the belly, and what lies below the belly, discussed and handled so anxiously, so curiously? And you call us carnal and lovers of luxury, when, as I see, you do not believe that these things are to cease even in the resurrection. For neither do we deny that the nature of this flesh in which we now live will rise, nor again do we wrap up the faults of the flesh along with it. But the flesh will rise, and not another in place of another, but this very flesh; nor will it lose its nature, but will lay aside its frailty and faults. Otherwise what has remained frail will not be immortal either. And therefore we are heretics neither with you nor without you. For the faith of the church, whose nurslings we are, walking in the middle between the two dangers, neither denies the reality of the nature of the flesh or body that will rise from the dead, nor, contrary to the Apostle's judgment, says that the incorruption of the future kingdom will be possessed by corruption. We do not say, then, that the flesh or body will rise with its members lost or, as you say, cut off, but that the whole and entire body will rise, laying aside only corruption, dishonour and frailty, and with all the faults of mortality likewise cut away, so that nothing at all of its own nature will be lacking to that spiritual body that rises from the dead, except that corruption. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:50: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - "Corruption will not possess incorruption": 1 Cor 15:50, alluded to. - The opening sentence is awkward in the Latin and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.8 (PL 21:546c–547b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-8). ## Apology against Jerome 1.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-9 - Source: PL 21:547c–547d - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus sums up his statement of faith, especially on the resurrection, as complete and unambiguous. ### Latin text Latius quam proposueram, huic uni titulo de resurrectione respondi, verens ne iterum per brevitatem aliquibus calumniis pateremus. Et ideo non solum corporis in quo calumniantur, sed et carnis fecimus frequenter mentionem, et non solum carnis, sed addidimus hujus carnis: et non solum hujus carnis, sed et naturam hujus carnis commemoravimus, nec contenti fuimus boc, sed ne membrorum quidem resurrecturis integritatem diximus defuturam. Ita tamen ut secundum Apostoli definitionem, corpus quod resurget ex corruptibili incorruptibile, ex ignobili gloriosum, ex fragili immortale, ex animali spi ritale credatur, ut ita demum spiritalis corporis membra, absque ullis esse corruptelae, vel fragilitatis suspicionibus sentiamus. Destgnavi fidem meam de Trinitate, destgnavi de Incarnatione, Passione ac Resurrectione, et de secundo adventu in gloria, et de judicio futuro Domini Salvatoris nostri. Destgnavi et de resurrectione carnis nostrae, et nihil, ut opinor, ambiguum dereliqui. Quid nunc superesl? Nihil arbitror quantum ad fidem pertinet. ### English translation (Claude) I have answered this one heading, on the resurrection, at greater length than I had intended, fearing that through brevity we might again be exposed to slanders. And so we have made frequent mention not only of the body, about which they slander us, but also of the flesh; and not only of the flesh, but we added "this flesh"; and not only "this flesh," but we spoke of "the nature of this flesh"; nor were we content with that, but we said that not even the completeness of the members will be lacking to those who rise. Yet in such a way that, according to the Apostle's definition, the body that rises is believed to be incorruptible from corruptible, glorious from ignoble, immortal from frail, spiritual from natural, so that we may think the members of the spiritual body to be free of any suspicion of corruption or frailty. I have set out my faith on the Trinity; I have set it out on the incarnation, passion and resurrection, on the second coming in glory, and on the future judgment of our Lord and Saviour. I have set it out also on the resurrection of our flesh, and I have left nothing ambiguous, I think. What remains now? Nothing, I think, as far as faith is concerned. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:42–44: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Apostle's definition: 1 Cor 15:42–44. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.9 (PL 21:547c–547d; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-9). ## Apology against Jerome 1.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-10 - Source: PL 21:547d–548a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's charge that he translated Origen's teaching on universal restoration and pre-existent souls, and undertakes to explain why he translated On First Principles. ### Latin text Sed in eo te, inquit, arguo, quod Origenem interpretatus es, qui restitutionem omnium dicit futuram, in qua non solum omnes peccatores absolvendos, sed et ipsum diabolum et angelos ejus quandoque dicit relaxandos esse de poenis, ut restitutio omnium consequenter possit intelligi. Et animas ante dicit creatas esse quam corpora, easque de caelo deductas, et corporibus insertas. Ego nunc nihil pro Origene ago, nec apologeticum pro ipso scribo. Sive enim stat apud Deum, sive lapsus est, ipse viderit: suo Dumino stat aut cadit, Sed cogor in aliquibus ejus facere mentionem: quia dum illum arguit rhetor noster, non jam oblique, sed palam mucrone districto me petit, et lotus fertur in me. Et quid dico, me petit? Imo vero, ut in me desaeviat, nec institutori suo parcit: dum putat se ex his quos interpretatus sum libellis ejus, posse iu me aliquid calumniae retorquere. Quia inter caetera, quae culpat in nobis, etiam hoc invidiosus addidit, dicens, me hoc opus ad interpretandum delegisse, quod neque ipse, neque alius quis veterum interpretum delegisset. Hujus ergo rei caussam primo, cur opus potissimum adorsus sim, quia bine maxime mordeor, quam potero paucissimis et verissimis absolvam. Licet id apud te, fili ini carissime (Aproniane), qui rem ut gesta est bene nosti, superfluum videatur, tamen et ignorantes convenit noscere: simul etiam quia et hoc non solum ipse, sed et omnis schola ejus jactat de nobis, quod cum aliter promiserimus nos in Praefationibus translaturos, aliter fecerimus in opere: ideo non solum ipsis, sed et aliis respondebimus quibus vel proprius livor mentem, vel criminatio aliena, conturbat. ### English translation (Claude) "But I find fault with you in this," he says, "that you translated Origen, who says that there will be a restoration of all things, in which, he says, not only are all sinners to be absolved, but even the devil himself and his angels are at some time to be released from punishment, so that the restoration of all things may be understood consistently. And he says that souls were created before bodies, and brought down from heaven and put into bodies." I am now doing nothing on behalf of Origen, nor am I writing an apology for him. Whether he stands before God or has fallen, that is his affair: "to his own Lord he stands or falls." But I am forced to mention him in some matters, because while our rhetorician argues against him, he attacks me not obliquely but openly with drawn sword, and rushes against me with all his weight. And why do I say he attacks me? Rather, to rage against me he does not even spare his own teacher, since he thinks that from those books of his which I translated he can turn some slander back on me. For among the other things he blames in us he has spitefully added this too, saying that I chose to translate this work, which neither he himself nor any other of the older translators had chosen. First, then, I will set out, in as few and as true words as I can, the reason why I undertook this work in particular, since it is here that I am most bitten. Although with you, my dearest son (Apronianus), who know well how the matter happened, it may seem superfluous, yet it is right that those who do not know should learn; and also because not only he but his whole school boasts this about us, that though we promised in our prefaces to translate in one way, we did otherwise in the work; therefore we will answer not only them but also others whose minds are disturbed either by their own envy or by another's accusation. ### Scripture references - Rom 14:4: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The quoted charge is Jerome's (compare Ep. 84.7). The doctrines named are those of Origen, On First Principles (e.g. 1.6, 1.8, 3.6); Rufinus says he is not writing an apology for Origen. - "Our rhetorician" is Rufinus's name for Jerome; "his own teacher" is Origen, whom Jerome had once praised. - "To his own Lord…": Rom 14:4. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.10 (PL 21:547d–548a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-10). ## Apology against Jerome 1.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-11 - Source: PL 21:548a–549a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus tells how Macarius, guided by a dream, asked him to translate first Pamphilus's Apology for Origen and then On First Principles. ### Latin text Vir fide, eruditione, nobilitate, vita clarus Macarius cum opuscula adversus Fatum, vel Mathesim haberet in manibus, eaque utili et pernecessario sudore componeret, in aliquantis vero, quia erat perdifficilis materia, de Divinae providentiae disserere dispensationibus haesitaret, per soporem sibi a Domino tale aliquid dicebat ostensum, quod navis ei quaedam demonstratetur eminus adventare per pelagus, quae cum portum fuisset ingressa, nodos suae haesitationis absolveret. Exsurgens vero cum de visu sollicitus cogitaret, nos supervenisse aiebat in tempore; quibus continuo et opuscula sua et ambiguitatem indicavit et visum. Quid porro Origenes, quem opinatissimum apud Graecos audierat, sentiret de talibus percunctatur, breviterque sibi ejus de singulis quibusque sententias orat exponi. Ego rem primum dicebam factu esse difficilem: sanctum tamen Pamphilum Martyrem dixi quadam ex parte tale aliquid operis conscripsisse in Apologetico suo. Continuo id sibi poscit in Latinum verti. Nullum dicebam me usum hujuscemodi operis habuisse, et ad Latinum sermonem tricennali jam pene incuria torpuisse. Perstitit tamen deprecans qualicumque sermone notitiam sibi tantum eorum, quae cupiebat ostendi. Cumque id quo potui sermone fecissem, majori destderio accensus est ad illa ipsa plenius cognoscenda, e quibus pauca illa, quae transtuleram videbantur assumta. Excusantem me urgere vehementius cepit, et sub Dei testimonio convenire, ne sibi ad opus bonum, quae se auxilia juvare possent, denegarem. Cumque vehementer insisteret, et destderium ejus secundum Deum esse perspicerem, acquievi tandem, et interpretatus sum quidem. ### English translation (Claude) Macarius, a man distinguished in faith, learning, nobility and life, had in hand some works against Fate, or astrology, and was composing them with useful and very necessary labour; but in some places, because the subject was very difficult, he was at a loss in discussing the dispensations of divine providence. He used to say that in his sleep something like this was shown him by the Lord: a ship was shown him coming from afar across the sea, which, when it had entered the harbour, would untie the knots of his perplexity. Rising up, and anxiously pondering the vision, he said that we had arrived just in time; and to us he at once disclosed his works, his difficulty, and the vision. He asks what Origen, whom he had heard to be most highly esteemed among the Greeks, thought about such things, and begs that his views on each point be briefly set out for him. I said first that the thing was hard to do; yet I said that the holy martyr Pamphilus had written something of this kind, in part, in his Apology. At once he asks me to translate it into Latin. I said that I had had no practice in work of this kind and had grown sluggish in the Latin tongue through almost thirty years' neglect. Yet he persisted, begging that, in whatever language, just the knowledge of the things he desired might be shown him. And when I had done this in such language as I could, he was fired with greater desire to know more fully those very writings from which the few things I had translated seemed to have been taken. When I excused myself, he began to press me more vehemently, and to adjure me before God not to refuse him the helps that could assist him toward a good work. And since he pressed vehemently, and I saw that his desire was according to God, I at length gave in and did translate. ### Extrabiblical texts - Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. (Apology for Origen): allusion, high confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Pamphilus's Apology for Origen, Book 1, survives only in Rufinus's Latin translation (on this site as a separate work); On First Principles is the work Rufinus then translated. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.11 (PL 21:548a–549a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-11). ## Apology against Jerome 1.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-12 - Source: PL 21:549a–549c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus says his prefaces declared his catholic faith and explained that he left out passages in Origen that contradicted Origen's own orthodox statements or had been interpolated. ### Latin text In Praefatiunculis tamen utriusque operis et maxime in Pamphili libellum, quem primum transtuleram, exposui primum omnium fidem meam, et protestatus sum, me quidem ita credere, sicut fides catholica est. Si quid autem vel legeretur, vel interpretaretur a me, id me salva fidei meae facere ratione. In istis vero περὶ Ἀρχῶν libellis, etiam illud admonui, quod, cum in ipsis libris invenirentur quaedam de fide ita catholice scripta, ut Ecclesta praedicat, quaedam autem his contraria, cum de una eademque re dicantur: mihi visum sit haec secundum illam semper regulam proferenda, quam ipse catholicae sementiae expositione protulerat, et ea quae a semetipso invenirentur esse contraria, vel inserta ab aliis (id enim epistolae suae querimonia contestatur) abjicerem, vel certe, ut nihil aedificationis iu fide habentia praeterirem. Non autem superfluum puto videri, inserere etiam ipsa loca de Praefatiunculis meis, ut nihil careat teste quod dicimus. Sane ne in legendo error sit ex his, quae huic scripturae nunc aliunde inserimus, si quidem mea sunt, simplices adversum capita habent notas, si accusatoris mei, duplices. ### English translation (Claude) Yet in the short prefaces of both works, and above all in the one to Pamphilus's book, which I had translated first, I set out first of all my faith, and protested that I believe as the catholic faith is; and that if anything were read or translated by me, I did it without prejudice to my faith. In these books On First Principles I also gave this notice: that since in those books some things about the faith were found written as catholically as the church preaches, while others were contrary to these, though spoken about one and the same subject, it seemed to me that these things should always be rendered according to that rule which he himself had brought forward in setting out the catholic view; and that whatever was found contrary to himself, or inserted by others (for the complaint of his letter bears witness to this), I should either reject or at any rate pass over as having nothing that builds up the faith. I think it will not seem superfluous to insert the very passages from my short prefaces, so that nothing we say may lack a witness. And so that there may be no mistake in reading the things we now insert from elsewhere into this writing: if they are mine, they have single marks against the headings; if my accuser's, double marks. ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. pref. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, high confidence - Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. (Apology for Origen): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - "The complaint of his letter" refers to Origen's letter complaining that his writings had been falsified, which Rufinus cites in On the Falsification of Origen's Books. - The marks described were in Rufinus's manuscript and are not reproduced in the printed text. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.12 (PL 21:549a–549c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-12). ## Apology against Jerome 1.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-13 - Source: PL 21:549c–550a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes his preface to Pamphilus's Apology, with its confession of the Trinity and of the resurrection of this flesh, as taught by Bishop John of Jerusalem. ### Latin text Ex Praefatiuncula de Apologetico Pamphili, post aliquanta, ita diximus: Qualiter ergo sentiat Origenes, tenor libelli hujus edoceat: « De his autem quae apud eum contraria sibi inveniuntur, quid caussae sit, in ultimo brevi adjecta assertione docebimus. Nos autem sicut traditum est nobis a sanctis Prophetis ita tenemus: quod sancta Trinitas coaeterna sit, et ut unius virtutis atque substantiae: et quod Filius Dei in novissimo tempore homo factus est, et pro peccatis nostris passus est, et in ea ipsa carne, in qua passus est, resurrexit a mortuis: propter quod et resurrectionis spem humano generi tribuit. Carnis vero resurrectionem, non per aliquas praestigias, sicut nonnulli calumniantur, dicimus: sed hanc ipsam carnem, in qua nunc vivimus, resurrecturam credimus, non aliam pro alia, neque corpus aliud, quam hujus carnis dicimus. Sive ergo corpus resurrecturum edicimus, secundum Apostolum dicimus: hoc enim nomine usus est ille. Sive carnem dicimus, secundum traditionem Symboli confitemur. Stulta enim adinventio calumniae est, corpus humanum aliud putare esse quam carnem. Sive ergo carnem secundum communem fidem, sive corpus secundum Apostolum dicimus, quod resurget: ita credendum est, sicut Apostolus definivit, quia quod resurget, in virtute resurget, et in gloria, et incorruptibile ac spiritale corpus. Salvis ergo praerogativis futuri corpotis, vel carnis, resurrectio carnis credenda est integrae atque perfectae, ut et natura carnis eadem servetur, ct incorrupti ac spiritatis corporis status, et gloria non infringatur. Sic enim scriptum est: Quia corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit. Haec sunt, quae in Jerosolymis in Ecclesia Dei, a sancto Sacerdote ejus Joanne praedcantur; haec nos cum ipso et dicimus et tenemus. Si quis praeter haec vel credit, vel docet, vel a nobis aliter credi quam exposuimus putat, anathema sit.» Nostrae ergo fidei documentum si quis habere vult, habeat ex his. Si quid autem legimus, aut asserimus, aut interpretamur, salva hujus fidei nostrae facimus ratione, secundum Apostolum, Omnia probantes, quod bonum est tenentes, ab omni specie mala nos abstinentes. Et si qui hanc regulam sequuntur, pax super illos, et super Israel Dei. ### English translation (Claude) From the short preface to Pamphilus's Apology, after some other matter, we spoke thus: Let the tenor of this book teach how Origen thinks. "As to the things found in him which contradict each other, we will show the cause in a brief statement added at the end. But we hold, as it has been handed down to us by the holy prophets, that the holy Trinity is coeternal, and of one power and substance; and that the Son of God in the last time was made man and suffered for our sins, and rose from the dead in that very flesh in which he suffered, and for that reason also gave the hope of resurrection to the human race. And we speak of the resurrection of the flesh not by some sleight of words, as some slander us, but we believe that this very flesh in which we now live will rise, not another in place of another, nor do we speak of a body other than that of this flesh. Whether, then, we say that the body will rise, we speak according to the Apostle, for he used this word; or whether we say flesh, we confess according to the tradition of the Creed. For it is a foolish invention of slander to think that the human body is something other than flesh. Whether, then, we say flesh according to the common faith, or body according to the Apostle, that which will rise must be believed to rise as the Apostle defined: that what rises will rise in power and in glory, an incorruptible and spiritual body. Saving, then, the prerogatives of the future body or flesh, the resurrection of the flesh is to be believed whole and complete, so that both the same nature of the flesh is preserved and the state and glory of an incorruptible and spiritual body is not impaired. For so it is written: 'Corruption will not possess incorruption.' These are the things that are preached in Jerusalem in the church of God by its holy bishop John; these we say and hold with him. If anyone believes or teaches otherwise than this, or thinks that we believe otherwise than we have set out, let him be anathema." If anyone wishes to have a proof of our faith, let him have it from these words. And if we read, or assert, or translate anything, we do so without prejudice to this faith of ours, according to the Apostle: "Testing all things, holding fast what is good, abstaining from every form of evil." And as many as follow this rule, peace be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:43–44: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence - 1 Thess 5:21–22: quotation, high confidence - Gal 6:16: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. pref. (Apology for Origen): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The quoted preface is Rufinus's own (prefixed to his translation of Pamphilus's Apology). - "Sacerdos" here means bishop (John of Jerusalem). - "Corruption will not possess…": 1 Cor 15:50; "testing all things…": 1 Thess 5:21–22 (Migne prints 1 Thess 5:2); "peace be upon them…": Gal 6:16. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.13 (PL 21:549c–550a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-13). ## Apology against Jerome 1.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-14 - Source: PL 21:550a–551c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes his preface to On First Principles: he promised only to leave out what contradicted Origen himself, not everything contrary to the faith. ### Latin text Cum igitur haec ego antequam calumniatorum aliquis exsurgeret, de mea fide praefatus sim, ne quis forte diceret, quod ab ipsis admonitus, vel coactus haec modo dicerem, quae ante non senseram: cumque me si quid illa interpretandi necessitas poposcisset, integro fidei meae statu facturum esse promiserim, quomodo adhuc locus calumniantibus datur, cum utique prima confessionis meae vox ab omni suspicione contrarii dogmatis tutum me faciat et munitum? Praeterea enim, ut et superius praedixi, Domini sermone didici, quia ex suis unusquisque verbis, et non ex alienis, vel justificabitur, vel condemnabitur. Sed et in ea nihilominus Praefatiuncula, quam in ipsis περὶ Ἀρχῶν libris praemisimus, qualiter Interpretationis nostrae fidem observandam dixerimus, ex ipsis aeque sermonibus comprobetur. AEquum namque est, etiam ex ipsa, quae ad rem pertinent, inseri. Nam cum honoris gratia mentionem fecissemus hujus viri, qui haec nunc adducit crimen, pro eo quod ante nos ipse prior Origenis quamplurima fuisset interpretatus, et ejus vel eloquentiam in explicando, vel in interpretando diligentiam laudassemus, eumque nobis sequendum in opere simili diceremus, post aliquanta etiam hoc adjecimus: « Hunc ergo etiam nos, licet non eloquentiae viribus, disciplinae tamen regulis, inquantum possumus, sequimur: observantes hoc, ne ea, quae in libris Origenis a semetipso discrepantia inveniuntur atque contraria, proferamus. » Memento, qui legis, ne bic te breviter dictus sermo praetereat, quem dixi, quia non proferam ea quae in libris Orgenis a semetipso discrepantia inveniuntur atque contraria. Non enim generaliter promisi me non prolaturum, quae essent fidei contraria, sed quae ipsi sibi essent contraria, vel quae a semetipso discrepant, non quae a me, vel ab alio aliquo discreparent. Non ergo hoc sermone subripientes inimici calumnias generent, ut dicant me promisisse, quia si quid contrarium est, vel discrepat a fide nostra, proferam. Hoc etiam si facere potui, tamen promittere non auderem. Et si quidem factum hoc in opere meo invenies, amplecti poteris. Si vero in aliquo tibi minus impletum videtur, culpare non poteris, quia professionis meae tale vinculum non tenes. ### English translation (Claude) Since, then, I made this declaration of my faith before any of the slanderers arose, so that no one might perhaps say that I was now saying, warned or forced by them, what I had not held before; and since I promised that if the necessity of translating demanded anything, I would do it with the state of my faith intact, how is room still given to slanderers, when the very first word of my confession makes me safe and fortified against all suspicion of a contrary doctrine? For besides, as I said above, I have learned from the Lord's word that each one will be justified or condemned by his own words, not by another's. But let it be proved equally from my own words, in the short preface I prefixed to the books On First Principles themselves, how I said the faithfulness of our translation was to be observed. For it is fair to insert from it too what bears on the matter. For when, for honour's sake, we had mentioned this man who now brings the charge, because before us he had himself first translated a great many works of Origen, and had praised either his eloquence in exposition or his care in translating, and said that we should follow him in a similar work, after some other matter we added this too: "Him, then, we too follow, as far as we can, if not in force of eloquence, yet in the rules of the method, taking care not to bring forward those things in the books of Origen which are found to disagree with and contradict himself." Remember, reader, not to let this briefly spoken word slip past you, in which I said that I would not bring forward the things found in Origen's books that disagree with and contradict himself. For I did not promise in general that I would not bring forward what was contrary to the faith, but what was contrary to itself, or what disagrees with himself, not what disagrees with me or with someone else. Let not my enemies, then, steal this word and breed slanders from it, saying that I promised that if anything is contrary to or disagrees with our faith, I would not bring it forward. Even if I could have done this, I would not have dared to promise it. And if you find this done in my work, you may welcome it. But if it seems to you less than fulfilled in some point, you cannot blame me, because you do not hold me to such a bond in my profession. ### Scripture references - Matt 12:37: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. pref. (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - "Each one will be justified or condemned by his own words": Matt 12:37. - The quoted words are from Rufinus's preface to On First Principles, Book 1 (pref. 2–3), where he praised Jerome's earlier translations of Origen. - Rufinus's denial in the last sentences, "proferam" (affirmative), is read by sense as the slanderers' claim that he promised not to bring such things forward. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.14 (PL 21:550a–551c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-14). ## Apology against Jerome 1.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-15 - Source: PL 21:551c–552a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus continues quoting his preface to On First Principles: he left out or adjusted only what contradicted Origen's own orthodox statements, adding nothing of his own. ### Latin text Sed conlungamus etiam caetera. « Cujus diversitatis, inquam, caussas plenius tibi in Apologetico, quem Pamphilus pro libris ipsius Origenis scripsit, edidimus, brevissimo libello superaddito, in quo evidentibus, ut arbitror, probamentis, corruptos esse in quamplurimis ab haereticis et malevolis libros ejus, ostendimus, et praecipue istos quos nunc exigis, ut interpreter, id est, περὶ Ἀρχῶν, quod vel de Principiis, vel de Principatibus dici potest, qui sunt revera et obscurissimi et difficillimi. De rebus enim talibus ibi disputat, in quibus Philosophi omni sua aetate consumta, nihil invenire potuerum. Hic vero noster quantum potuit id egit, ut Creatoris fidem, et creaturarum rationem, quam illi ad impietatem traxerant, ad pietatem Iste converteret, » Etiam hic diligentius inspice, ut non te praetereat, quod Creatoris quidem fidem diximus, creaturarum vero rationem: scientes quod ea quae de Deo dicuntur, ad fidem pertinent: quae vero de creaturis disputamus, ad rationem. Sed quod sequitur adhuc addamus: « Sicubi ergo nos in libris ejus aliquid contrarii invenimus, quod ab ipso in cacteris locis pie de Trinitate fuerat definitum, velut adulteratum hoc et alienum, aut praetermisimus, aut secundum eam regulam protulimus, quam ab ipso frequenter invenimus affirmatam. Nunquid et hic incaute aliquid diximus? » Nunquid dixi, quia secundum fidei nostrae regulam protuli, quod erat utique jam penitus modum interpretis, et ex Graeco in Latinum vertentis excedere? Sed secundum eam regulam protulisse me dixi, quam ab ipso frequenter invenimus affirmatam. Item his addidimus: « Si qua sane velut peritis ja et scientibus loquens, dum breviter transire vult, obscurius protulit: nos ut manifestior fieret locus, et ea quae de ipsa re in altis libris apertius legeramus, adjecimus, explanationi studentes. Nihil tamen nostrum diximus, sed licet in aliis locis dicta, sua tamen sibi reddidimus. » ### English translation (Claude) But let us join on the rest as well. "The causes of this inconsistency," I said, "I have set out more fully for you in the Apology which Pamphilus wrote for the books of Origen himself, adding a very short treatise in which I showed, by clear proofs, as I think, that his books have been corrupted in very many places by heretics and ill-wishers, and especially these which you now require me to translate, that is, Peri Archon, which may be rendered either On First Principles or On Principalities; and they are in truth both very obscure and very difficult. For he discusses there matters in which philosophers, after spending their whole lives, could find out nothing. But this man of ours did what he could to turn to piety the faith in the Creator and the account of created things, which they had dragged into impiety." Here too look more carefully, so that it does not escape you that we said faith in the Creator, but the account of created things: knowing that what is said about God belongs to faith, while what we discuss about created things belongs to reasoning. But let us add what follows: "Wherever, then, we found in his books anything contrary to what he had piously laid down about the Trinity in other places, we either passed it over as corrupted and foreign, or rendered it according to the rule which we found him frequently affirming." Did we say anything incautious here either? Did I say that I rendered it according to the rule of our faith, which would certainly have gone wholly beyond the limit of a translator turning Greek into Latin? No: I said that I rendered it according to the rule which we found him frequently affirming. We also added this: "If, speaking as to the skilled and knowledgeable, he expressed something rather obscurely while wishing to pass over it briefly, we, to make the place clearer, added what we had read more plainly on the same subject in his other books, aiming at explanation. Yet we said nothing of our own, but gave back to him his own words, though spoken in other places." ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. pref. (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence - Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. (Apology for Origen): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The quoted passages are from Rufinus's preface to On First Principles, Book 1 (pref. 2–3); the "very short treatise" is his On the Falsification of the Books of Origen, appended to Pamphilus's Apology. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.15 (PL 21:551c–552a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-1/#p-1-15). ## Apology against Jerome 1.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-16 - Source: PL 21:552a–554a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus insists he added nothing of his own, recalls his preface's solemn adjuration against altering his translation, and says his accusers falsified it anyway. ### Latin text Puto quod etiam apud iniquissimos judices sufficere mihi posset sola ista confessio, qua dixi, nihil nostrum diximus, sed licet in aliis locis dicta, sua tamen sibi reddidimus. Nunquid me in aliquo obnoxium feci? nunquid promisi me meum aliquid dicturum? Ubi est quod accusant, quod calumniantur, quod confingunt me dixisse, quia mala tuli, et bona dixi, et quaecunque bona sunt transtuli? Erubescant aliquando, et destnant falsa proferre, et diaboli in se opus, fratres criminando, suscipere. Audiant quia nihil nostrum diximus, et iterum ac saepius audiant, quia nibil nostrum diximus, sed licet in aliis locis dicta, sua tamen sibi reddidimus. Et ne nos absque Domini misericordia buic operi manus existiment commodasse, videant nos haec ipsa ante praedixisse, quae faciunt. Post hoc enim addidimus etiam ista: « Haec autem idcirco in Praefatione commonui, ne forte calumniatores iterum se criminandi putent invenisse materiaro. » Quod dixi, iterum, illa est caussa, quia jam sancti Episcopi Joannis Epistolam de fide ad sanctum Theophilum scriptam criminati sunt, quando corpus humanum, aliud nescio quid fingebant esse, qum carnem, idcirco, iterum, posui. Sed viderint, inquam, quid perversi atque contentiosi homines agant, « Nobis interiro tantus labor, si tamen orantibus vobis, Deus juvent. Idcirco susceptus est, non ut calumniosis os, quod fieri non potest, licet forte etiam hoc Deus faceret, clauderembs, sed ut proficere ad scien-am rerum volentibus materiam praeberentns. » Ut autem scas, quia et quod falsaturi haec essent, et praevidimus et praediximus, vide quid in sequentibus junxerimus: « Illud sane, omnem qni hos libros vel descripturus est, vel lecturus, in conspectu Dei patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti comestor atque convenio per futuri regni fidem, per resurrectionis ex mortuis sacramentum, per illum, qui proeparatus est Diabolo et angelis ejus, aeternum ignem: sic non illum louin aeterna haereditate possideat, ubi esttus et stridor dentium, et Ubi ignis eorum non extingetur, et vermis eurum non morietur, ne addat Aliquid huic Scripturae, ne anferat; ne inserat, ne immutet. » Et tamen post ista omnia, tam horrifico, tamque horribilia adjurationum sacramenta, falsare haec atque corrumpere non timuerunt illi, qui se dicunt credere resurrctiionem carnis fututam. Qui vel hoc ipsum si crederdnt, quod Deus est, nunquam haec tam criminosa et nefanda committerent. Ubi tamen in his, quae praefati sumus, aut Origenes laudibus usqnd ad coelum, ut criminatur, elatus est, ubi Apostolus, aut Propheta, aut tale aliquid a nobis, quale ipse de co scripserat, dictum est? Aut in quo prorsus alio inveniunt criminandi locum? Fidem nostram praemisimus, quae puto quod in omnibus cum Ecclestastica confessione concordet. Interpretandi observantiam distinximus, cujus revera nobis in quampluribus exemplutum ipse praebuerat, qui nunc accusator existit. Quid propositi in interpretando gesserim, destgnavi. Jam si plene id, aut minus plene implere valui, a legentibus comprobetur, a quibus vel laudnri, vel rideri solet, non tamen ad crimen vocari, cum in alteram linguam, vel proprie, vel minus proprie al ena verba vertuntur. ### English translation (Claude) I think that even before the most unjust judges this confession alone could be enough for me, in which I said: we said nothing of our own, but gave back to him his own words, though spoken in other places. Did I make myself liable in any respect? Did I promise to say anything of my own? Where is what they accuse, what they slander, what they invent: that I said I had removed the bad and had translated the good, whatever was good? Let them blush at last, and cease to bring falsehoods, and to take upon themselves the devil's work by accusing their brothers. Let them hear that we said nothing of our own; and let them hear again and often that we said nothing of our own, but gave back to him his own words, though spoken in other places. And lest they think that we put our hand to this work without the Lord's mercy, let them see that we foretold the very things they are doing. For after this we added these words too: "I have given this warning in the preface lest perhaps the slanderers think they have again found matter for accusation." As for my saying "again," the reason is this: they had already accused the letter on the faith which the holy bishop John wrote to the holy Theophilus, pretending that the human body was something or other other than flesh; that is why I wrote "again." "But let perverse and contentious men see to it," I said, "what they are doing. For us meanwhile so great a labour, if God helps through your prayers, has been undertaken not to shut the mouths of slanderers, which cannot be done (though perhaps God might do even this), but to provide material for those who wish to advance in the knowledge of things." And so that you may know that we both foresaw and foretold that they would falsify these things, see what we joined on in what follows: "This, indeed, I adjure and charge everyone who is to copy or to read these books, in the sight of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, by the faith of the kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from the dead, by that eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, as he would not possess as his eternal inheritance that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their fire is not quenched and their worm does not die: that he add nothing to this writing, take nothing away, insert nothing, change nothing." And yet, after all these so dreadful and fearful oaths of adjuration, those who say they believe in the resurrection of the flesh to come did not fear to falsify and corrupt these things. If they believed even this, that God exists, they would never commit such criminal and abominable acts. Yet where, in what we have prefaced, was Origen raised with praises to the sky, as he charges? Where was he called by us an apostle or a prophet, or anything such as he himself had written about him? Or in what else at all do they find room for accusation? We set our faith first, which I think agrees in everything with the church's confession. We distinguished our method of translating, of which indeed he who now comes forward as accuser had himself given us an example in very many works. I stated what purpose I pursued in translating. Whether I was able to fulfil it fully or less fully, let the readers judge, by whom a man is usually praised or laughed at, but not called to account for a crime, when he turns another's words into another language either aptly or less aptly. ### Scripture references - Matt 25:41: allusion, high confidence - Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence - Mark 9:48: allusion, high confidence - Isa 66:24: allusion, medium confidence - Rev 22:18–19: echo, low confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. pref. (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The quotations are from Rufinus's preface to On First Principles, Book 1 (pref. 3–4). - The letter of John of Jerusalem to Theophilus of Alexandria (about 396) is lost apart from what Jerome quotes in Against John of Jerusalem. - "Prepared for the devil and his angels": Matt 25:41; "weeping and gnashing of teeth": Matt 8:12; "their worm…": Isa 66:24, Mark 9:48; "add nothing … take nothing away": compare Rev 22:18–19, Deut 4:2. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.16 (PL 21:552a–554a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-16). ## Apology against Jerome 1.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-17 - Source: PL 21:554a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus introduces the passage of On First Principles about the invisibility of God that his accusers had falsified. ### Latin text Verum quoniam eorum fecimus mentionem, qui haec ipsa, quoquo modo sunt, tamen nisi falsa sint, criminari ea nullatenus potuissent, ipsum caput, in quod manus falsarias imposuerunt, conveniens puto huic Apologiae nostrae inserere, ne me studio meo subtrahere putent hoc, quod illi addito suo falsa crimina obtendunt. Etenim cum in quodam supradicii Operis loco, quem interpretati sumus, quaestio haberetur adversum eos, qui Dem corporeum dicunt, et humanis eum membris habituque describunt (quod asserere praecipue Valentinianorum et Anthropomorphitarum haerests solt, cui isti accusatores nostri nimis, ut video, dextras dederunt) et Origenes Ecclesiasticam contra eos fidem defendens, omni genere incorporeum esse Deum, et idcirco etiam invisibilem confirmaret, provocante se ordine quaestionis, respondit contra hacrcticos in hoc loco quaedam, quae a nobis isto modo versa sunt in Latinum. ### English translation (Claude) But since we have mentioned those who, whatever these writings are like, could in no way have accused them unless they were falsified, I think it fitting to insert in this Apology of ours the very chapter on which they laid their forging hands, so that they may not think that I am withdrawing from my own work the passage to which they attach false charges by their own addition. For in a certain place in the aforesaid work which we translated, a question was being treated against those who say that God is corporeal and describe him with human members and form (which it is the special habit of the heresy of the Valentinians and the Anthropomorphites to assert, to whom, as I see, these accusers of ours have given their hands far too much); and Origen, defending the church's faith against them and affirming that God is incorporeal in every respect and therefore also invisible, answered the heretics in this place, as the order of the question required, with certain words which we rendered into Latin in this way. ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.1.8 (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The passage is On First Principles 1.1.8. The Latin text of it, which Rufinus inserted here, is not printed at this point in the edition. - The Anthropomorphites held that God has a human form. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.17 (PL 21:554a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-17). ## Apology against Jerome 1.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-18 - Source: PL 21:555b–556b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus explains Origen's preference for "knowing" over "seeing" in the Godhead as a defence against Valentinians and Anthropomorphites, and says it implies no inequality in the Trinity. ### Latin text Istud caput, quod istis, qui ad insidiandum mihi de Oriente transmissi sum, non solum perversa intelligentia, verum diam ve horum adulterio conati sunt infamae. Quod ego idcirco, ut alia quoque nonnulla ejus quem interi retabar Scriptoris, suspectum habere non potui, neque pra termittendam judicavi, quia noti in co aliquid de comparatione Patris ac Filiid ceba ur, sed dc ipsa Deitatis natura quaerebatur, si ei aptum ullo genere vocabulum videretur. Respondit, ut supra diximus, his haereticis, qui idcirco Deum visibilem esse asserunt, quia et corporeum dicunt, pro eo quod visio proprie corporis et. Unde et illi Valentiniani, quos supra diximus, haeretici, corporaliter et visibiliter generasse Parem, et generatum Filium, dicunt. Refugiens ergo, ut opinor, Origenes visionis appellatonem tunquam suspectam, ait melius esse in natura Deitatis, id est, inter Patrem et Filium uti illo sermone, quem ipse Dominus definivit, dicens: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit mi Filius: omnem ergo occasionem supradictis haecrestbus credidit excluden lam, si notionem in natura Deltatis potius diceret, quam visionem, dum visio occasionem aliquam praebere videatur haereticis. Notio vero unius naturae inter Patrem et Filium servat indissoci bilem veritatem: praecipue, quia Evangelii talis auctoritas est. Simul et cautelae per hoc plurimum credidit fore, ne Anthropomorphitae, quoquo modo audirent visibilem Deum- Haec ratio, quia non faciebat aliquam differetiam Trinitatis, visa misi est non debere penitus abjici, etiam si aliqua verba in Graeco incautius fortasse posita, deel navimus. Sit sane adhuc in judicio legentium, utrum ct boc adversum supradictas haereses utile, aut mimis utile videatur. Tamen ponamus, quod etiam hi qui norunt de literis, et hujuscemodi sensibus judicare, quibus cum peritia adest et timor Dei: qui nihil per contentionem, neque per inanem gloriam gerunt, quorum animus ab invidia et fatore, et odio vacat, dicant non multum ad instructionem, ad ad expugnandas supradictas haereses caput istud valere, numquidnam id non licet praeterire, et tanquam minus validum ad depellendos adversarios transcurrere? Pone quia sil otiosum, num* quid et criminosum? Quomodo criminis loco ducetur, ubi invisibilitatis aqualitas inter Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum confirmatur? Non puto hoc ita coiquam videri. Et quid dico cuiquam? Sed ne istis quidem ipsis criminatoribus meis, aliquid in meis literis visum esse quod possit offendere. Denique si hoc putassent, ipsa, sicut transtuleram, mea verba posuisseat ### English translation (Claude) That chapter, which those who were sent from the East to lay snares for me tried to defame not only by perverse understanding but also by corrupting the words. I could not regard it as suspect, as I did some other things of the writer I was translating, nor did I judge that it should be passed over, because nothing was being said in it about a comparison of the Father and the Son, but the question was about the very nature of the Godhead, whether the word "sight" seemed in any way fitting to it. He was replying, as we said above, to those heretics who assert that God is visible because they also say he is corporeal, since sight properly belongs to a body. Hence also those Valentinian heretics of whom we spoke above say that the Father begot, and the Son was begotten, bodily and visibly. Origen, then, shrinking, I think, from the word "sight" as suspect, says that it is better in the nature of the Godhead, that is, between the Father and the Son, to use that word which the Lord himself laid down, saying: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son." He thought, then, that every occasion would be removed from the aforesaid heresies if he spoke of "knowing" rather than "seeing" in the nature of the Godhead, since "seeing" seems to offer the heretics some occasion, while the knowing of one nature between the Father and the Son preserves an inseparable truth, especially since the authority of the Gospel is such. At the same time he thought that this would be a very great safeguard, lest the Anthropomorphites should in any way hear of a visible God. This reasoning, since it made no difference within the Trinity, seemed to me not at all to be rejected, even if we avoided some words perhaps rather incautiously placed in the Greek. Let it remain, indeed, for readers to judge whether this seems useful or less useful against the aforesaid heresies. Yet suppose that even those who know letters and can judge of such meanings, who have skill joined with the fear of God, who do nothing through rivalry or vain glory, whose mind is free of envy, malice and hatred, should say that this chapter is of little value for instruction or for overthrowing the aforesaid heresies: may it not be passed over and run through as less effective for repelling adversaries? Suppose it idle: is it also criminal? How will it be counted a crime when it confirms the equality of invisibility between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? I do not think it seems so to anyone. And why do I say to anyone? Not even to these accusers of mine did anything in my writings seem able to give offence. In short, if they had thought so, they would have set down my very words as I had translated them. ### Scripture references - Matt 11:27: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.1.8 (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - "No one knows the Son…": Matt 11:27. - The passage defended is On First Principles 1.1.8. - The sentence about the Valentinians is translated as Rufinus wrote it. - The digital text is badly garbled here (e.g. "mss. ater" for "nisi Pater"); it is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.18 (PL 21:555b–556b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-18). ## Apology against Jerome 1.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-19 - Source: PL 21:556b–558a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus charges Eusebius of Cremona with interpolating into his translation the claim that the Son does not see the Father nor the Spirit the Son, and anathematizes that claim. ### Latin text Sed nunc ausculta, quid faciunt, et flagitii eorum require, si ullum praecessit exemplum. In eo loco ubi scriptum erat: « Quod si requ ris a me, quid etiam de ipso Unigenito sentiam, si ne ipsi quidem visibilem dicam naturam Dei, qui naturliter invisibilis est, non tibi slatim, vel impium videatur esse, vel absurdum rationem quippe dabimus consequenter; » pro eo quod nos scripsimus, Rationem quippe dabimus consequenter, illi scripterunt, « Noti tibi statim impium, vel absurdum videatur esse, quia sicut Filius Patrem non videt, ita nec Spiritus Sanctus videt Filium, » Hoc si in foro pos tus, vel negotiis saccularibus commisisset iste (EusebiusCremonensis), qui de monasterio Romam, quasi calumniandi peritissimus missus est, norunt omnes, quid consequeretur ex legibus publicis ejusmodi criminis reus. Nunc vero quia saecularem vitam reliquit, et a tergiversatione illa actuum publicorum ad monasterium conversus est, et adhaestt magistro (Hieronymo) nobili, ab ipso edocetur iterum pro modestia furere, insanire: pro quiete, seditiones movere; pro pace, movere bellum: pro concordia movere dissid a: perfidus esse, pro fide: pro veritate falsarius. Crede mihi, quod hujus sceleris nequitia etiam verum fuisset exemplar, nisi Jezabel tibi illa occurrisset, illa est enim, quae hoc crimen adversus Nabutheum Jezraelitem vineae caussa composuit, et ni. mandavit presbyteris iniquitatis, falsis eum conscriptionibus perurgere, quasi qui benedixbiet, id, blasphemasset Deum, et regem. Sed quis in boc felicior, ilia quae mandat, aut hi qui mandato iniquitatis ob tempora tu? Gravia haec, et ut opinor, in Ecclesta pene hujusmodi facinus inauditum est. Sed additur adhuc aliquid. Requiris quid illud, Ut rei judices fiant, et insidiatores sententiis ferant. Nam errasse scribentem, aut lapsum esse In sermone, novum non est, et ut opinor venia dignum est, quia et Scriptura dicit, In multis enim offendimus omnes: qui autem in Verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vir. Erratum putatur in verbo? Corrigatur, emendetur, si id utilitas postulat, et auferatur. Inseri vero quae non sunt scripta literis alienis, et falsa interseri ad hoc solum ut vitam fratris infames, temerare aliena scripta, dl scriptori inferas notam; ut subrepas auribus populorum, ut cohturbes corda simplictum; ut nihii aliud ex eo nisi apud homines opinioni maculam conferas: videte si alterius est opus, nisi illius qui ab initio mendax fuit, et fratres criminando, diabolus, id est, criminator, nomen accepit. Nam cum falsam hujusmodi sententiam apud Medi, lanum recitaret (Eusebius), et a hie quae legebat falsa tesse dicerentur, interrogatus a quo accepisset exemplaria, respondit matronam (Marcellum) qua udam sibi dedisse, de qua ego, quaecunque illa est, nihil dico; sed sui eam et Dei conscientiae derelinquo. Mihi tamen in hoc Dei et vedri sufficit testimonium, id est. tuum et sancti viri Ipsius, cui hoc opus gerebam, Macarii, qui schedulas ipsas meas vel ab initio legistis, vel etiam licet nondum completa, et ad integrum emendata exemplaria retinetis, id est, quia sicut Filius non videt Patrem, ita nec Spiritus Sanctus Filium videt, Id est, quod ego non solum unquam non scripsi, sed e contrario, quia ille falsavit, indico. Si quis negat, quod non ita'idel Filius Patrem, sicut Pater Filium: et non ita videt Spiritus Sanctus Patrie n cl Filium, sicut videt Pater Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, anathema sit. Videt enim, et verissime videt, sed ut Deus Deum, et lux lucem, et non ut caro carnem, sed ut Spiritus Sanctus, non corporeis sensibus, sed virtut bus Deitatis. Si quis haec negat, sit anathema in aeternum. Qui autem vos conturbat, sicut dicit Apostolis, portabit judicium, quicunque est ille, ### English translation (Claude) But now listen to what they do, and ask whether their crime has any precedent. In the place where it had been written: "But if you ask me what I think also about the Only-begotten himself, if I say that the nature of God, which is naturally invisible, is not visible even to him, let it not at once seem to you either impious or absurd; for we will give the reason in due course," in place of what we wrote, "for we will give the reason in due course," they wrote: "let it not at once seem to you impious or absurd, because just as the Son does not see the Father, so neither does the Holy Spirit see the Son." If this man (Eusebius of Cremona), who was sent from the monastery to Rome as one most skilled in slander, had done this in the forum or in secular business, everyone knows what would follow under the public laws for one guilty of a crime of this kind. But now, because he has left the secular life and has turned from that shuffling of public affairs to a monastery, and has attached himself to a noble master (Jerome), he is taught by him in turn to rage and to be mad instead of being modest; to stir up seditions instead of quiet; to stir up war instead of peace; discord instead of concord; to be faithless instead of faithful; a forger instead of truthful. Believe me, the wickedness of this crime would have been without precedent, had not that Jezebel come to mind: for it was she who contrived this charge against Naboth the Jezreelite for the sake of a vineyard, and commanded the elders of iniquity to press him with false written charges, as one who had blessed, that is, blasphemed, God and the king. But who is the more fortunate in this, she who gives the command, or those who obey the command of iniquity? These things are grave, and I think a crime of this kind is almost unheard of in the church. But something more is added. You ask what? That the guilty become judges, and the plotters pass sentence. For that a writer should err, or slip in a word, is nothing new, and I think worthy of pardon, for Scripture too says: "For in many things we all stumble; but whoever does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man." Is it thought that there is an error in a word? Let it be corrected, amended, and, if usefulness requires, removed. But to insert what is not written into another's writings, and to interweave falsehoods for this sole purpose, to defame a brother's life; to violate another's writings so as to brand the writer; to creep into the ears of the people; to disturb the hearts of the simple; to gain nothing from it but a stain on a man's reputation: see whether this is the work of anyone but him who was a liar from the beginning, and who, by accusing the brothers, received the name devil, that is, accuser. For when (Eusebius) was reciting a false sentence of this kind at Milan, and it was said by those present that what he was reading was false, being asked from whom he had received the copies, he answered that a certain matron (Marcella) had given them to him; about her, whoever she is, I say nothing, but leave her to her own conscience and God's. For me, however, the testimony of God and of yourselves suffices in this, that is, yours and that of the holy man himself for whom I was doing this work, Macarius, who either read my sheets from the beginning or still keep copies, though not yet complete and fully corrected; namely, that "just as the Son does not see the Father, so neither does the Holy Spirit see the Son" is something which I not only never wrote, but on the contrary I declare that he forged. If anyone denies that the Son sees the Father as the Father sees the Son, and that the Holy Spirit sees the Father and the Son as the Father sees the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema. For he sees, and sees most truly, but as God sees God and light light, and not as flesh sees flesh; but as the Holy Spirit, not by bodily senses but by the powers of the Godhead. If anyone denies this, let him be anathema for ever. But he who troubles you, as the Apostle says, will bear his judgment, whoever he is. ### Scripture references - 1 Kgs 21:8–13: allusion, high confidence - Jas 3:2: quotation, high confidence - John 8:44: allusion, high confidence - Rev 12:10: echo, low confidence - Gal 5:10: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 1.1.8 (Origen, On First Principles): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The genuine sentence is On First Principles 1.1.8; the interpolated words are given as Rufinus reports them. The names in parentheses (Eusebius of Cremona, Jerome, Marcella) are explanatory insertions printed in the edition. - Jezebel and Naboth: 1 Kgs 21:8–13; "in many things we all stumble…": Jas 3:2; "a liar from the beginning": John 8:44; "devil, that is, accuser": a play on Greek diabolos; "he who troubles you…": Gal 5:10. - Rufinus's anathema on the Trinity is translated exactly. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.19 (PL 21:556b–558a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-19). ## Apology against Jerome 1.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-20 - Source: PL 21:558a–558d - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that the four books he translated consistently teach an undivided Trinity, and that an honest critic in Rome would simply have asked him about the passage. ### Latin text Memini sane, quod aliquis eorum cum argueretur falsasse haec, respondit mihi, in Graeco ita haberi, me autem in Latino immutare voluisse. In quo omitto illud exsequi, quia nec quidem verum dicunt, sed tamen ponamus, quia sic est in Graeco, et ego in Latino hoc non scripseram. Promiseram me enim in Praefatiunculis tale aliquid facturum. Quod si fecerum, ut quod ibi offendebat, in Latino commodius scriberem: quid absque promisso, vel quid absque ratione nostra feceram? Tu certe qui hoc in Latinis meis exemplaribus non inveneras, in tuis chartulis, hoc unde scriptum legebas? Ego qui interpretatus sum, non scripsi. Tu qui me accusas, et meas tales literas non tenes, crimen mihi unde componis? Aut inde ego accusari debeo, unde tu falsum dixisti? Rem planissimam dico. Quatuor libri sunt isti, quos interpretatus sum, in quibus de Trinitate sparsim per singulas pene paginas disputatur. Relegantur universa, si usquam talis aliquis de Trinitate inventus fuerit in interpretatione nostra sensus, qualem in isto capite calumniantur: tunc demum creditur etiam hoc eo sensu, quo isti confingunt, esse prolatum. Si vero per omme librorum corpus nusquam sit illa differentia Trinitatis, nonne vesanum stullumque pariter commentum est dicere, quod uno solo capite haerests confirmata est ab eo, qui eam mille capitibus expugnaverit? Sed cl rei Ipsius consequentia prudentem quemque satis edocet. Quod si boc in meis libris invenisset, cl vere scrupulum aliquem ex ipsa lectione cepisset, cum me, sicut ipse nosti, Romae positum haberet praesentem, continuo utique perquisisset, cl ipsa ad me scripta detulisset: quippe qui usque dd ipsum tempus etiam videre me; et salutare, et in oratione communicare solitus erat, contulisset sinc dubio mecum de his, quibus videbatur offendi: inquisisset quomodo a me fuisset prolatum, quomodo haberotur in Graeco. ### English translation (Claude) I remember indeed that one of them, when he was charged with having falsified these things, answered me that it stood thus in the Greek, but that I had wished to change it in the Latin. Here I forbear to pursue the point that they do not even tell the truth; but let us suppose that it is so in the Greek, and that I had not written this in the Latin. For I had promised in my short prefaces to do something of this kind. If I had done it, so as to write more suitably in Latin what was offensive there, what had I done without a promise, or without our stated reason? You at any rate, who had not found this in my Latin copies, where did you read it written in your papers? I who translated did not write it. You who accuse me, and do not hold any such writings of mine, from what do you compose a charge against me? Or ought I to be accused on the ground on which you have spoken falsely? I say a very plain thing. There are four books which I translated, in which the Trinity is discussed here and there on almost every page. Let them all be read again: if anywhere in our translation such a sense about the Trinity is found as they slanderously allege in this chapter, then at last let this too be believed to have been put forward in the sense they invent. But if in the whole body of the books there is nowhere that difference within the Trinity, is it not an insane and foolish invention to say that heresy was confirmed in one single chapter by one who has fought against it in a thousand? But the very sequence of events teaches every prudent man enough. If he had found this in my books, and had really taken some scruple from the reading itself, since he had me, as you know, present in Rome, he would certainly have inquired at once and brought the writings themselves to me: for up to that very time he used to see me, greet me, and share in prayer with me; without doubt he would have conferred with me about the things that seemed to offend him; he would have asked how I had rendered it, and how it stood in the Greek. ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The critic meant is Eusebius of Cremona. - The Latin of the last sentences is garbled in the digital text and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.20 (PL 21:558a–558d; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-20). ## Apology against Jerome 1.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-21 - Source: PL 21:558d–559c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus accuses Eusebius of spreading the charge behind his back, and Jerome of retranslating On First Principles to expose Origen's errors, contrary to Jerome's own earlier boast. ### Latin text Certe etiam hoc gloriae sufficere sibi putasset, si visus fuisset in dictis nosti is vel scriptis fecisse aliquid per se emendari. Aut si furor animi non tam emendare errorem quam proferre in publicum compulisset, sine dubio nunquam elegisset absentem lacerare, quem potuisset gravius confutare presentem. Sed istum quia falsi conscientia deterrebat, ad me quidem cujus erant scripta, quae volebat criminari, non detulit, sed per domos, per matronas, per monasteria, per singulos quosque fratrum circumfert, quo solo possit conturbare auditu. Et hac fecit sub ipso tempore quo confestim ex Urbe discederet, ne vel comprehensus facti sui redderet caussas. Etiam inde, ut intelligi datur, secundum praeceptum magistri per totam me Italiam criminari, instigare turbas, conturbare Ecclestas, aures quoque polluere sacerdotum, et in his omnibus modestia nostra tanquam conscientia abuti. Haec discipuli. Ipse vero orientalis magister, qui ad Vigilantium scribens dixerat, « Per me Latini cognoscunt omnes Origenis bona, et ignorant mala; » istos ipsos quos ego nunc transtuleram, reinterpretatus est, et omnia quae a me vel improbabilia praetermissa fuerant, inseruit, quo scilicet nunc contra sententiam suam Romani per ipsum Origenis cognoscant mala, et gnorent bona. Hinc jam non solum Origenem, sed me ipsum in suspicionem ha rests conatur adducere. Hinc emittit incessabiliter canes suos, qui mc per urbes, per vicus, per iter quoque transeuntem calumniarum latratibus insectentur, et fanda adversum mc omnia, atque infanda tentantur. Quid, quaeso te, sceleris admisimus, si fecimus quod fecisti? Si tamen nefarium est uti exemplis tuis, de te ipse, quid judicis? ### English translation (Claude) Surely he would have thought it glory enough for himself if he had been seen to have caused something in our sayings or writings to be corrected through him. Or if the fury of his mind had driven him not so much to correct an error as to publish it, he would without doubt never have chosen to tear one who was absent, whom he could have refuted more severely face to face. But because the consciousness of falsehood deterred him, he did not bring it to me, whose writings they were that he wished to accuse; instead he carries it around through houses, through matrons, through monasteries, to each one of the brothers, where by mere hearing he could disturb them. And this he did at the very time he was about to leave the City, so that he might not be caught and have to give an account of his deed. Thence too, as is given to be understood, according to his master's precept, he goes on accusing me through the whole of Italy, stirring up crowds, disturbing churches, polluting even the ears of bishops, and in all these things abusing our modesty as if it were a guilty conscience. These are the disciple's doings. But the Eastern master himself, who in writing to Vigilantius had said, "Through me the Latins know all Origen's good things, and are ignorant of the bad," has re-translated these very books which I had just translated, and has inserted everything that I had passed over as improbable, so that now, against his own declared view, the Romans may through him know Origen's bad things and be ignorant of the good. From this point he tries to bring under suspicion of heresy not only Origen but me myself. From this point he ceaselessly sends out his dogs to pursue me with the barking of slanders through cities, through villages, even as I pass along the road, and they attempt everything against me, speakable and unspeakable. What crime, I ask you, have we committed, if we did what you did? If indeed it is wicked to use your examples, what do you judge about yourself? ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 61.2 (Letters): quotation, high confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - "Through me the Latins…": Jerome, Ep. 61.2 (to Vigilantius). - Jerome's literal translation of On First Principles (Ep. 124 summarizes it) is otherwise lost. - "Sacerdotes" here means bishops. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.21 (PL 21:558d–559c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-21). ## Apology against Jerome 1.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-22 - Source: PL 21:560c–561a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus mocks Jerome's claim to have repented of his former praise of Origen, saying true repentance weeps and keeps silent rather than accusing others. ### Latin text Et quid, inquit, abscinditur poenitentia? Non: erratur, et in verbo maxime: licet quidem de errore poenitere. Sed simul aliquis poenitentiam agit, simul accusat, simul judicat, simulque condemnat? Quasi vero si qua meretrix una se nocte, aut duabus a scortando contineat, debeat continuo leges de pudicitia scribere, et non solum leges condere, verum et sepulcra obruere omnium, quae jam defuncte sunt feminarum, quod eas suspicetur sui similem vitam duxisse? Poenitentiam agens quod haereticus fueris benefacis. Quid hoc ad me, qui nunquam haereticus fui? Poenitentiam agis pro errore, recte facis; si tamen ipsam poenitentiam legitime geras, non accusando, sed deprecando, non condemnando, sed flendo. Nam quae poenitentae veritas est, ubi indulgentiae decretum ipse sibi poenitens dictat? Qui poenitet pro his quae male locutus est, vulnus suum non iterum male loquendo curat, sed silendo. Sic enim scriptum est: Peccasti, quiesce. Sed nunc ipse te reum statuis, et iterum reatu ipse te absolvis, et ex reo ipse te judicem facis. Haec jam non tua, qui irrides nos, sed nostra qui ita nos irrideri patimur, est miseria. ### English translation (Claude) "And what," he says, "is repentance cut off?" No: one errs, and especially in a word; it is indeed permitted to repent of error. But does someone at the same moment do penance, accuse, judge and condemn? As though a harlot, if she has kept herself from fornication for one night or two, ought at once to write laws on chastity, and not only make laws but also break open the tombs of all women already dead, because she suspects that they led a life like her own? You do well to repent of having been a heretic. What has this to do with me, who was never a heretic? You repent of an error: you do rightly, if indeed you carry out that repentance lawfully, not by accusing but by entreating, not by condemning but by weeping. For what truth is there in repentance when the penitent himself dictates to himself the decree of pardon? He who repents of what he has spoken badly does not heal his wound by speaking badly again, but by keeping silent. For so it is written: "You have sinned; be still." But now you set yourself up as guilty, and again absolve yourself from guilt, and from a defendant make yourself judge. This misery is no longer yours, who mock us, but ours, who allow ourselves to be mocked in this way. ### Scripture references - Gen 4:7: quotation, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.3 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome had written that he repented of his former admiration for Origen (Ep. 84.3); the opening question is his. - NPNF² 3 prints before this a longer passage (Rufinus questioning Jerome about his earlier praise of Origen as "a master second only to the apostles"), which is not in the text printed here. - "You have sinned; be still": Gen 4:7 in the Greek and Old Latin form (Hebrew differs). - "Poenitentia" is rendered "repentance"; "poenitentiam agere" once as "do penance". ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.22 (PL 21:560c–561a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-22). ## Apology against Jerome 1.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-23 - Source: PL 21:561b–561c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus turns to Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians and quotes its statement that wives will be turned into men and bodies into souls. ### Latin text Veruntamen veniamus ad hos duos Commentarios, quos, caeteris omnibus opusculis suis condemnatis ac renuntiatis, solos excepit, et quam caste se in his et continenter egerit, videamus. Ex his enim solis et fidem suam probari vult, et quod Origeni in omnibus adversetur. Proferantur ergo isti qui ei soli ex omnibus scriptis suis placent, id est, in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephestos libri tres: et in Ecclestasten, ut puto, unus. Sed nunc inierim qui primus occurrit, in Epistolam ad Ephestos Commentarius relegatur. Etiam ibi consocium et concordem et συμμύστην, ut se ait, in his quae arguit approbo. Et primo omnium de quibus irridet mulierculas, quae se dicunt post resurrectionem non habituras fragile corpus, quippe quae Angelorum futurae sint similes, quid ipse sentiat, videamus. In tertio Commentariorum libro in Epistola Pauli ad Ephestos, sub eo capitulo ubi scriptum est: Qui uxorem suam diligit, seipsum diligit: nemo enim unquam carnem suam odio habuit, post aliquanta ita ait, « Foveamus igitur et viri uxores, et animae nostrae corpora, ut et uxores in viros, et corpora redigantur in animas, et nequaquam sit sexuum ulla diversitas, sed quomodo apud Angelos non est vir et mulier, ita et nos qui similes Angelis futuri sumus, jam nunc incipiamus esse quod nobis in caelestibus repromissum est. » ### English translation (Claude) But let us come to those two commentaries which alone he has excepted, having condemned and renounced all his other works, and let us see how chastely and continently he has conducted himself in them. For he wishes both his faith and his opposition to Origen in all things to be proved from these alone. Let them be brought forward, then, these which alone of all his writings please him: that is, the three books on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, and one, I think, on Ecclesiastes. But for now let the first that comes to hand, the commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians, be read again. There too I prove him to be my associate and partner and, as he says, fellow-initiate in the very things he censures. And first of all, about the little women whom he mocks for saying that after the resurrection they will not have a frail body, since they are to be like the angels, let us see what he himself thinks. In the third book of the commentaries on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, under the heading where it is written, "He who loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh," after some other matter he speaks thus: "Let us therefore cherish, husbands our wives, and our souls our bodies, so that both wives may be turned into men and bodies reduced to souls, and there may be no difference of sex at all; but as among the angels there is neither male nor female, so we too, who are to be like the angels, may begin even now to be what is promised us in heaven." ### Scripture references - Eph 5:28–29: quotation, high confidence - Matt 22:30: allusion, high confidence - Gal 3:28: echo, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 3, on Eph 5:28–29 (no id on this site yet). "Fellow-initiate" renders the Greek συμμύστης. - "He who loves his wife…": Eph 5:28–29; "as among the angels…": compare Matt 22:30, Gal 3:28. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.23 (PL 21:561b–561c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-23). ## Apology against Jerome 1.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-24 - Source: PL 21:561c–563b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that Jerome's own words on the sexes and on bodies becoming souls are more open to suspicion than anything the women he mocks ever said. ### Latin text Haec te in tuis Commentariis scripsisse sciens, quomodo eos ad exemplum fidei tuae, et ea quae arguis confutanda proponis: quomodo de tuis verbis mulieres arguis? Deinde quae mulier dixit aliquando, quod uxores in viros convertantur, et corpora redigantur in animas, quod tu scribis. Si corpora in animas redigentur, ergo secundum te non solum carnis resurrectio non erit, sed nec corporum, quod confiteri istos quos in fecisti haereticos, dicis. Ubi jam ultra corpus quaerimus, si in animam redigitur? Erit enim jam totum anima, et nusquam corpus. Et iterum Si uxores in viros commutabuntur, pro eo quod subjunxisti, ut nequaquam sit sexuum ulla diversitas, quasi ut hoc ostenderes, quia sexus quidem femineus interibit ex eo quod redigetur in virum, solus autem manebit virilis: nescio quidem si haec tibi de se dicere feminarum sexus permittat. Tamen et si ab illis concedatur, qua consequentia poteris ostendere ibi virilem sexum esse necessarium, ubi femineus necessarius non probatur, quia naturali quodam vinculo in tantum sexus alter eget alterius, ut si alter non sit, alterius opus non sit. Etenim si luteam formam ex resurrectione, homo tantum recepturus putatur, quam in paradiso habuit, ubi est quod scriptum est, quia Masculum et feminam fecit eos, et benedixit eis? Si vero ut tu et mulierculae quas incusas, dicitis, neque vir neque mulier est, quomodo ergo aut corpora redigentur in animas, aut mulieres convertentur in viros, cum vel paradisus utrumque sexum non patiatur, vel similitudo Angelorum, ut tu quoque fateris, nullum omnino recipiat? Et miror quomodo ab aliis exigas de sexuum diversitate sententiam, de qua tu volens disserere, tantis te involvis nodis, ut evolvere te nullatenus possis. Quanto rectius faceres, si nos quos culpas, imitareris in talibus, et haec soli Deo, ut sc veritas habet, nosse permitteres: et te potius ignorare fatereris, quam ea scriberes quae paulo post tu ipse damnares? Velim mihi, conscientia sua teste, nunc diceret, non dico si in aliquo Opusculo meo, sed in Epistola saltem mea, quam alicui familiari meo negligentius scripsissem, invenisset scriptum, quia corpora in animas redigantur, et uxores in viros, si non haec etiam aereis literis scribi per portas civitatum praecepsset, si non in foro, in curia, pro rostris etiam recitari. Quantos ex hoc accusationum titulos, quae volumina conscripsisset, quam me totis armis ac telis foecundissimi sui pectoris perurgeret, dicens, quia si mihi non creditis dicenti, quia fallit cum corpus dicit resurgere, et carnem negat, vel cum fatetur quidem carnem, membra autem negat et sexum: ecce videre, quomodo ipse scripsit in Epistola sua, quia corpora vertamur in animas, et uxores in viros. Sed nos te quidem haec scribentem, non solum non arguimus haereticum: sed satis facimus tamquam magistro. Mulieres tamen ille, quas tam indiguis et inhonestis contumel is lacerasti exhibebunt ante tribunal Christi et haec quae bis Commentariis doces, et illa quae oblitus tui rursum cum contumeliis scribis: et ibi utraque recitabuntur, ubi cessabit jam favor hominum, et redemti laudibus plausus silebunt: et tecum pro his vel dictis, vel gestis judicabuntur apud justum judicem Christum. ### English translation (Claude) Knowing that you wrote this in your commentaries, how do you put them forward as a model of your faith and as refuting what you censure? How do you censure women with your own words? Next, what woman ever said that wives are turned into men and bodies reduced to souls, as you write? If bodies are to be reduced to souls, then according to you there will be no resurrection not only of the flesh but even of bodies, which you say these people, whom you have made heretics, confess. Where shall we look any longer for a body, if it is reduced to a soul? For it will then be all soul and nowhere body. And again, if wives are to be changed into men, since you added "so that there may be no difference of sex at all," as if to show that the female sex will perish by being reduced to the male and the male alone will remain: I do not know whether the female sex will allow you to say this about it. Yet even if it were granted by them, by what logic will you be able to show that the male sex is necessary there, where the female is proved not to be necessary? For by a kind of natural bond each sex so needs the other that if one does not exist, the other has no function. For if man is thought to be going to receive at the resurrection only the form of clay which he had in paradise, where is what is written: "Male and female he made them, and blessed them"? But if, as you and the little women you accuse say, there is neither male nor female, how then will either bodies be reduced to souls or women turned into men, when either paradise does not exclude either sex, or the likeness of the angels, as you also confess, admits none at all? And I wonder how you demand from others a judgment on the difference of the sexes, when, wishing to discuss it yourself, you entangle yourself in such knots that you can in no way unravel yourself. How much more rightly you would act if you imitated us, whom you blame, in such matters, and left these things, as the truth is, for God alone to know, and confessed that you are ignorant rather than write what a little later you yourself would condemn! I should like him, with his conscience as witness, to tell me now: if he had found written, I do not say in some work of mine, but even in some letter of mine written rather carelessly to an intimate friend, that bodies are reduced to souls and wives to men, would he not have ordered it to be written in letters of bronze over the gates of cities, and recited in the forum, in the senate-house, even from the rostra? How many heads of accusation, what volumes would he have written from it, how he would press me with all the arms and weapons of his most fertile breast, saying: "If you do not believe me when I say that he deceives when he says the body rises and denies the flesh, or when he confesses the flesh but denies the members and sex: see how he himself wrote in his letter that we are turned from bodies into souls, and wives into men." But we, so far from accusing you of heresy for writing this, give you satisfaction as a master. Yet those women whom you have torn with such unworthy and dishonourable insults will bring before the judgment seat of Christ both what you teach in these commentaries and what, forgetting yourself, you write again with insults; and both will be read out there, where the favour of men will cease and the applause bought with praises will be silent; and they will be judged with you, for these sayings or deeds, before Christ the just judge. ### Scripture references - Gen 1:27–28: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 5:10: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus's argument about the sexes in the resurrection is translated as written. - "Male and female…": Gen 1:27–28 (5:2); "the judgment seat of Christ": 2 Cor 5:10, Rom 14:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.24 (PL 21:561c–563b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-24). ## Apology against Jerome 1.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-25 - Source: PL 21:563b–564a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians on "before the foundation of the world," in which Jerome explains katabolē and speaks of election before birth. ### Latin text Verum pergamus discutere quid etiam dc quaestionibus scribat, hoc enim ad fidem petinet, in quibus de carnis resurrectione sic variat caetera, ul quaestiones. Item ex Cometariorum libro primo de Epistola Pauli ad Ephestos de co capitulo, ubi dicit Apostolus: Sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immaculati coram ipso, ita ait: « Pro constitutione mundi in Graeco scriptum habet καταβολῆς κόσμου. Non iipsum autem καταβολή quod constitutio sonat. Unde et nos propter panpertatem linguae et rerum novitatem, et sicut quidam ait, quod Graecorum et sermo latior et lingua felicior sit, conabimur non tam verbum ex verbo transferre, quod impossibile est, quam v verbi quodam explicare circuitu. Καταβολή proprie dicitur, cum quid deorsum jacitur, et in inferiorem locum mittitur a sublimi, vel eum aliqua res sumit exordium. Unde et hi qui aedium futurarum prima jaciunt fundamenta, καταβεβληκέναι, id est, diorsum initia fundamentorum jecisse dicuntur. Volens itaque Paulus ostendere, quia Deus universa sit machinatus ex nihilo, non creaturam, non conditionem, non facturam, sed καταβολήν id est, initium fundamenti ad eum retulit, ut non juxta Mani haecum, et caeterasreses, quae factorem et materiam ponunt, aliud quid unde creature factae sint, antecesserit creaturas, sed omnia ex nihio exstiterint. Quod autem electos nos ut essemus sancti et immacu ati coram ipso, hec est, Deo, ante fabricam mundi testatus est, ad praescientiam Dei pertinet, cui omnia futura jam facta sunt, et antequam fiant Universa sunt nota; sicut et Paulus ipse praedestinatur in utero matris suae, et Jeremias in vulva sanctificatur, eligitur, roboratur, et in typo Christi Propheta gentibus mittitur, » ### English translation (Claude) Let us go on to examine what he writes also about the questions, for this belongs to the faith; in these, on the resurrection of the flesh, he varies as with the other questions. Again from the first book of the commentaries on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, on the heading where the Apostle says, "As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him," he speaks thus: "For 'foundation of the world' the Greek has katabolēs kosmou. But katabolē does not mean the same as 'foundation.' Hence we too, because of the poverty of the language and the novelty of the matter, and because, as someone says, the speech of the Greeks is broader and their tongue happier, will try not so much to translate word for word, which is impossible, as to explain the force of the word by a kind of circumlocution. Katabolē properly is said when something is thrown down and sent from a high place to a lower, or when a thing takes its beginning. Hence those who lay the first foundations of buildings to come are said to have katabeblēkenai, that is, to have laid down the beginnings of the foundations. Paul, then, wishing to show that God fashioned all things out of nothing, ascribed to him not the creation, not the founding, not the making, but the katabolē, that is, the beginning of the foundation; so that, not as the Manichaean and the other heresies hold, which posit a maker and matter, something else, from which creatures were made, preceded created things, but all things came to be out of nothing. And that he testified that we were chosen to be holy and blameless before him, that is, God, before the making of the world, belongs to the foreknowledge of God, to whom all things to come are already done, and all things are known before they happen; as Paul himself is predestined in his mother's womb, and Jeremiah is sanctified in the womb, chosen, strengthened, and sent, as a type of Christ, as a prophet to the nations." ### Scripture references - Eph 1:4: quotation, high confidence - Gal 1:15: allusion, high confidence - Jer 1:5: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Lucretius, 1.832 (Lucretius, On the Nature of Things): echo, low confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The opening sentence is garbled in the digital text ("de quaestionibus"); other editions read "about the judgment" (of God), which fits what follows. - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:4. The Greek words are garbled in the digital text and are restored from the sense (καταβολή, καταβεβληκέναι). - "As someone says": Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 1.139 and 1.832 ("the poverty of the language"), as Jerome often recalls. - Paul predestined in the womb: Gal 1:15; Jeremiah: Jer 1:5. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.25 (PL 21:563b–564a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-25). ## Apology against Jerome 1.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-26 - Source: PL 21:564a–565b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians, where "another" interpreter teaches that souls existed before the world and were cast down into bodies, and mocks Jerome with an imagined dialogue. ### Latin text Hucusque unam edidit expositionem, sed sub cujus persona hujuscemodi intelligentia accipienda sit, non expressit. Hoc tantum egit, quod ex consequentibus reprobat priora; ait enim in consequentibus: « Alius vero est, qui Deum justum conatur ostendere. Unde manifeste ostendit, quod per illam priorem expositionem non ostendatur justitia Dei: quod utique impium est: sed per istum quem dicit alium, cujus assertionem sine dubio volens apud omnes indubitatam et catholicam demonstrare, dedit tale testimonium, quod hac sua assertione, justum esse Deum conetur ostendere. Sed videamur quid dicat iste alius, qui Deum justum esse praedicat. « Alius vero, inquit, qui Deum esse justum conatur ostendere, quod non ex praejudicio scientae, suae, sed ex merito electorum unumquemque eligat, dicit ante visibiles creaturas, caelum, terram, maria, et omnia quae intra ea sunt, fuisse alias invisibiles creaturas, in quibus et animas, quae ob quasdam caussas soli Deo notas, dejectae sint g deorsum, in vallem istam lacrymrum, in locum istum affctionis ct peregrinationis nostrae, in quo sanctus constitutus orabat, ut ad sedem pristinam, revertiretur, dicens, Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est, habitavi cum habitantibus Cedar: multum peregrinata est anima mea. Et in alio loco: Miser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Et albi, Melius est reverti, et esse cum Christo. Et alibi, Antequam humiliarer, ego peccavi, et caetera his similia, » Itaque priusquam animae, inquiunt, praecipitarentur in mundum. Magister dicis, inquiunt, et non dicis, qui sunt isti qui haec inquiunt, quod animae prius essent, quam praecipitarentur in mundum. Nonne ergo recte dixi, inquit, quia talpa es, et non vides? Dixi jam superius, quia illi haec dicunt, qui Deum justum esse asserunt, quem utique si cor haberes, me ipsum esse intelligeres. Neque enim ita impius sume ut alium me et diversum esse statuam ab his qui Deum justum defendunt, quod utique omnes faciunt, qui sanum sapiunt, « Die ergo, dic, magister, quid isti qui tues, inquiunt? Itaque prius quam animae, inquiunt, praecipitarentur in mundum, et mundus ex animabus fieret, cum habitaticibus suis in, infimum ipse dejectus, elegit Paulum Deus, et ei similes coram se, qui erant sancti et immaculati. Nemo autem eligitur nisi de pluribus, et ubi sunt aliqui viliores, ibi electio perpetratur. Quomodo autem in Babylonia captivitate, quando a Nabuchodonosor in Chaldaeam ductus est populus, missi sunt Prophetae, Ezechiel, Daniel, tres Pueri, Aggaeus et Zacharias, non quod ipsi meruerint captivitatem, sed ut essent in solatio captivorum: ita et in illa dejectione mundi, cos qui antequam mundus fieret, electi erant a Deo, missos esse in eruditionem et magisterium animarum peccatricium, ut praedicatione eorum reverterentur ad eum locum unde corruerant: et hoc esse quod a Moyse in octogestmo nono dicatur Psalmo: Domine, refugium factus es nobis in generatione et progenie, antequam montes firmarentur, et fieret terra, et orbis terrarum· Quod scilicet antequam mundus fieret, et universa generatio principium sumeret, Sanctis suis Deus refugium fuerit, ### English translation (Claude) So far he has given one exposition, but he has not stated in whose person this kind of interpretation is to be received. He has only done this: by what follows he rejects what went before. For he says in what follows: "But there is another who tries to show that God is just." By this he plainly shows that by that former exposition the justice of God is not shown, which is certainly impious; but through this man whom he calls "another," whose assertion he undoubtedly wishes to present as undoubted and catholic in the eyes of all, he has given such testimony as to say that by this assertion of his he tries to show that God is just. But let us see what this "other" says, who proclaims that God is just. "But another," he says, "who tries to show that God is just, in that he chooses each one not by the prejudgment of his knowledge but by the merit of the elect, says that before the visible creatures, heaven, earth, the seas and all that is in them, there were other invisible creatures, among them also souls, which for certain causes known to God alone were cast down into this vale of tears, into this place of our affliction and pilgrimage, set in which the saint prayed that he might return to his former seat, saying: 'Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged; I have dwelt with those who dwell in Kedar; my soul has long been a pilgrim.' And in another place: 'Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?' And elsewhere: 'It is better to return and be with Christ.' And elsewhere: 'Before I was humbled, I sinned'; and other things like these." "So, before the souls," they say, "were hurled down into the world." "Master," they say, "you say and do not say who these are who say this, that souls existed before they were hurled down into the world." "Did I not rightly say," he says, "that you are a mole and do not see? I have already said above that it is those who assert that God is just who say these things; and if you had any wit you would understand that I am that man. For I am not so impious as to set myself apart from and opposed to those who defend God's justice, which indeed all do who are of sound mind." "Tell us, then, tell us, master, what these men of yours say?" "So, before the souls were hurled down into the world, and the world made up of souls was itself cast down with its inhabitants into the lowest place, God chose Paul and those like him in his sight, who were holy and blameless. But no one is chosen except from many, and where there are some of lower worth, there the choice is made. And as in the Babylonian captivity, when the people was led by Nebuchadnezzar into Chaldaea, prophets were sent, Ezekiel, Daniel, the three young men, Haggai and Zechariah, not because they had deserved captivity but to be a comfort to the captives: so also in that casting down of the world, those who had been chosen by God before the world was made were sent for the instruction and teaching of sinful souls, so that by their preaching they might return to the place from which they had fallen. And this is what Moses says in the eighty-ninth Psalm: 'Lord, you have become our refuge in generation and generation, before the mountains were set firm, and the earth and the world were made'; that is, before the world was made, and the whole generation of things took its beginning, God was a refuge to his saints." ### Scripture references - Ps 84:6 (83:7 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Ps 120:5–6 (119:5-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:24: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:23: quotation, high confidence - Ps 119:67 (118:67 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Eph 1:4: allusion, high confidence - Ps 90:1–2 (89:1-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence - Dan 1:6: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. 2.9 (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:4; the view given under "another" is Origen's (compare On First Principles 2.9, 3.5). Rufinus's imagined exchange between Jerome and his pupils is interwoven with the quotation; the quotation marks follow the sense. - "Vale of tears": Ps 84:6 (LXX 83:7); "Woe is me…": Ps 120:5–6 (LXX 119:5–6); "Wretched man…": Rom 7:24; "It is better…": Phil 1:23; "Before I was humbled…": Ps 119:67 (LXX 118:67); "Lord, you have become our refuge…": Ps 90:1–2 (LXX 89:1–2), whose title ascribes it to Moses. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.26 (PL 21:564a–565b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-16/#p-1-26). ## Apology against Jerome 1.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-27 - Source: PL 21:565b–566b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that Jerome's own commentary teaches the pre-existence of souls, and that Jerome's device of attributing it to "another" traps him either way. ### Latin text Haec sunt quae in illis, quos solos ex omnibus opusculis luis eligis, et ad condemnandos caeteros relegi jubes, Commentariis scribis. Mundum, ais, fuisse invisibilem antequam hic visibilis fieret: in quo mundo cum reliquis habitatoribus, Angelis scilicet, et animae erat. Istas animas, ais, ob quasdam caussas soli Deo cognitas, in hoc visibili mundo nasci in corporibus, et quae ante ha bitaverant caelum apud prius saec lum, nunc hic habitant, terram scilicet non extra caussas aliquas, quas ipsae inibi vivendo commiserint. Et ais, quod Sancti quique, ut est Paulus et caeteri similes ei per generationes singulas ad eruditionem earum a Deo destinati sunt, ut eas praedicatione sua ad illam habitationem suam, unde collapsa fuerant, revocarent, et hoc copiosissimis Scripturarum testimoniis firmas. Et quae sunt alia quaeso dicta pro quibus Origenem in jus vocas? quae alia sunt in quibus eum damnari jubes? Ahumne damnasn tuis? Et si, ut tu suades, hujusmodi dicta damnanda sunt, feres tu prius sententiam, et pro dictis talibus prior te ipse condemnabis. Neque enim jam tibi ullum remansit effugium. Nullae hic strophae, pro quibus caeteros arguis, habebunt locum. In ipsa etenim poenitentia tua post conversionem jam emendatus et correptus, istis libris auctoritatem dedisti: videlicet, ut ei his tua sententia de his quae damnanda dicis, dogmatibus probaretur. Et ideo qua hic scripta sunt, tanquam si modo hac pronunties et definias, audienda sunt. Et hic talia definis qualia dicis esse damnanda. Sed non sum, inquit, ego qui definio, alium dico esse qui hac ita dicat: id est, ipsum istum quem modo dico debere damnari. Repetamus ergo si placet illum ipsum versiculum, ubi immutas exponentis personam, ut videamur, quis est Ille, quem talia dicis astruere. Ais ergo, Alius vero qui Deum justum conatur ostendere dicit hac quae jam supra diximus. Si iste quem dici- Alium, Deum justum assertione hac sua, ut ais, ostendit, et a te alius et diversus est, de te ipso quid sentis? Tu negas justum esse Deum? Magister, dum tu multum vides, et satis arguis captos oculis talpas: puto te incurrisse et ex utraque parte concludi. Aut enim justum Deum negabis ut alius sis et contrarius illi qui haec dicit: aut si, ut omnis confitetur Ecclesta, etiam tu Deum justum esse confitearis, lu es qui haec dicis, et tu es qui primus excipis sententiam, quam in alium fers, et tu qui tuometipsius mucrone confoderis. Sufficere opinor haec apud justissimos judices et futurum Dei judicium praestolantes, non quia comdemnare debeant eum, qui festucam videt in oculis fratris sui, et in suo trabem non videt; sed emendare et ad veram poenitentiam revocare. ### English translation (Claude) These are the things you write in those commentaries which alone of all your works you choose, and bid men read again in order to condemn the rest. You say that there was an invisible world before this visible one was made, and in that world, with its other inhabitants, the angels namely, there were also souls. These souls, you say, for certain causes known to God alone, are born in bodies in this visible world, and those which before had dwelt in heaven in a former age now dwell here, on earth namely, not without some causes which they themselves committed while living there. And you say that each of the saints, such as Paul and others like him, in each generation were destined by God for their instruction, so that by their preaching they might call them back to that dwelling of theirs from which they had fallen; and you confirm this with very abundant testimonies of Scripture. And what other sayings, I ask, are there for which you summon Origen to court? What others are there for which you bid him be condemned? Do you condemn another for what is in your own writings? And if, as you urge, sayings of this kind are to be condemned, you will pass sentence first, and for such sayings you will condemn yourself first. For no escape is left you any longer. No tricks, for which you accuse others, will have room here. For in your very repentance, after your conversion, already amended and corrected, you gave authority to these books: namely, that your judgment on the doctrines you say are to be condemned should be proved from them. And therefore what is written here must be heard as though you were now pronouncing and defining it. And here you define such things as you say are to be condemned. "But it is not I," he says, "who define it; I say it is another who says these things": that is, this very man whom I now say ought to be condemned. Let us then take up again, if you please, that very sentence where you change the person of the expositor, to see who it is whom you say asserts such things. You say, then: "But another, who tries to show that God is just, says" the things we have already quoted above. If this man whom you call "another" shows by this assertion of his, as you say, that God is just, and is other than and different from you, what do you think about yourself? Do you deny that God is just? Master, while you see so much, and so sharply censure moles whose eyes are blind, I think you have run into a trap and are shut in on both sides. For either you will deny that God is just, so as to be other than and contrary to him who says these things; or if, as the whole church confesses, you too confess that God is just, you are the one who says these things, and you are the first to receive the sentence you pass on another, and you are the one pierced by your own sword. This, I think, should suffice before most just judges who await the coming judgment of God: not that they should condemn him who sees the speck in his brother's eye and does not see the beam in his own, but that they should correct him and call him back to true repentance. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:3: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - "Sees the speck…": Matt 7:3. - "Paenitentia" is rendered "repentance." ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.27 (PL 21:565b–566b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-27). ## Apology against Jerome 1.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-28 - Source: PL 21:566b–567a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians on Eph 1:5–6, which sets out the view that differences at birth reflect souls' earlier merits. ### Latin text Verum ne forte latuerit eum locus iste unut ex his libris quos ad liquidum se recensuisse putaverat, et quorum exemplum, caeteris omnibus condemnatis, ad confessionem fidei proposuerat, requiramus quomodo etiam in caeteris sentiat. Item in eodem libro, de eo capitulo ubi scriptum est: Secundum placitum voluntatis suoe in laudem glorioe suoe, post; pauca ita ait: « Invadunt itaque in hoc loco occasionem, qui ante consitutionem mundi animas putant cum Angelis et caeteris Virtutum caelestium nominibus in caelesti Jerusalem fuisse versatas, quod nec secundum beneplacitum Dei, nec in laudem gloriae ejus et gratiae possit intelligi, alios nudos, barbaros, servos, debiles; alios divites, Romanos, liberos, sanos: ignobiles, vel nobiles in diversis oris, et diversa parte generari, nisi caussae praecesserint, quibus ex meritis haec animarum unaquaeque sortita est. Et illud quod ad Romanos scriptum est, quidam putant nosse, nec norunt: An non habet potestatem figulus luti, de eadem massa facere aliud vas in honorem aliud in contumeliam. ad eundem sensum referunt, ut quomodo mala vita seu bona, laboriosa vel facilis frustra in hoc mundo agitur, nisi credamus Dei futurum esse judicium: ita et diversitas in hoc mundo nascentium justitiam Dei arguat, nisi animarum merita praecesserint. Si enim, inquiunt, haec noti ita accipimus, nec beneplacitum voluntatis Dei erit, nec in laudem gloriae et gratiae' ejus alios elegisse ante constitutionem mundi, ut essent sancti et immaculati, et haberent adoptionem peresum Christum, alios ultimae conditioni et poenis perpetuis destinasse: amare Jacob antequam oriatur ex uero, odisse Esau priusquam digna odiis perpetraret, nisi caussae praecesserint quae justitiam Dei probent. » ### English translation (Claude) But lest perhaps this passage escaped him, one of those in the books which he thought he had thoroughly revised, and whose example, all the rest being condemned, he had put forward as a confession of faith, let us inquire how he thinks in the other places too. Again in the same book, on the heading where it is written, "According to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glory," after a little he speaks thus: "Here, then, those seize an occasion who think that before the foundation of the world souls dwelt with the angels and the other names of the heavenly powers in the heavenly Jerusalem; because it cannot be understood to be according to God's good pleasure, nor to the praise of his glory and grace, that some are born naked, barbarians, slaves, weak, and others rich, Romans, free, healthy; base-born or noble in different regions and in different parts, unless causes preceded, by whose merits each of the souls received this lot. And that which is written to the Romans, which some think they understand and do not, 'Has the potter no power over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honour, another for dishonour?', they refer to the same meaning: that just as a bad or good life, a toilsome or easy one, is lived in this world to no purpose unless we believe that there will be a judgment of God, so also the diversity of those born in this world would accuse the justice of God, unless the merits of souls had preceded. For if, they say, we do not take it so, it will be neither the good pleasure of God's will, nor to the praise of his glory and grace, that he chose some before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless and to have adoption through Jesus Christ, and destined others to the lowest condition and to everlasting punishments; that he loved Jacob before he came out of the womb, and hated Esau before he had done things deserving of hatred, unless causes had preceded which prove the justice of God." ### Scripture references - Eph 1:5–6: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:21: quotation, high confidence - Rom 9:11–13: allusion, high confidence - Mal 1:2–3: allusion, medium confidence - Heb 12:22: echo, low confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:5. - "Has the potter…": Rom 9:21; Jacob and Esau: Rom 9:11–13 (Mal 1:2–3); heavenly Jerusalem: Gal 4:26, Heb 12:22. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.28 (PL 21:566b–567a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-28). ## Apology against Jerome 1.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-29 - Source: PL 21:567a–568a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that when Jerome presents another's view at length without refuting it, the view is his own, and that Origen himself spoke more cautiously. ### Latin text Quid expressius hac assertione? quid evidentius vel ab Origene, vel a quoquam eorum quos te arguere dicis, de his dogmatibus vel cogitari, vel dici potuit, quod scilicet diversitas et inaequalitas, quae est in hoc mundo nascentium, ad Dei justitiam referatur? Caussam salutis vel damnationis dicis dedisse ipsam sibi unamquamque animam, ex his scilicet motibus animorum quos prius in caelesti Jerusalem, quae est mater omninon, vivendo gesserunt. Et hoc, inquit, non ex mea persona dictum est, sed alium dicere descripsi. Denique dixi, quia Invadunt quidum occasionem. Nec ego nego, quod de alio dicere videaris. Sed iste alius, quem haec dicere ais, utrum tibi concors et consonans, an vero contrarius sit et immicus, non denegasti. Cum enim alium istum contrarium tibi aliquem nominas, soles ponere quaedam dicti ejus, sed statim ea destruere et impugnare: ut Marcionis, et Valentini, et Arii, et caeterorum. Cum vero alium quidem nominas, et dicta ejus cum validissimis assertionibus scribis, testimoniis quoque Scripturarum copiosissimis munis, nonne etiam nos tardissimi, et quos tu talpas dicis, videmus istum, cujus dicta ponis et non destruis, non alium quam te esse, et fieri haec rhetorica figura, cum sub aliena persona suam sententiam proferunt. Fiunt ista ab Oratoribus, cum aut offendere aliquos metuunt, aut invidiam declinare cupiunt. Nam si te ex hoc defensum putas, quod in his dictis alium nomines, multo erit excusabilior ille quem insimulas. Nam ille non solum hoc in consuetudine habet, ut dicat alios ita dicere, et quibusdam ita videri; sed multo cautius dicit ille, de talibus se hoc non definire, sed opinari magis. Quod si alii melius visum fuerit, dicit, ut his omissis illa teneantur. Vide quanta ille cautione usus est: et tamen a te ad damnationem vocatur. Tu quia tantummodo alium nominas, effugisse te putas. Ex his enim eum damnas, in quibus eum sequeris et imitaris. ### English translation (Claude) What could be more explicit than this assertion? What could be thought or said more plainly about these doctrines, either by Origen or by any of those whom you say you censure, namely, that the diversity and inequality among those born in this world is to be referred to the justice of God? You say that each soul has itself given the cause of its salvation or damnation, from those movements of mind which they performed while living before in the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of all. "And this," he says, "was not said in my own person, but I wrote that another says it. In short, I said, 'Some seize an occasion.'" Nor do I deny that you seem to speak of another. But whether this "other," whom you say says these things, is in agreement and harmony with you, or contrary and hostile, you have not denied. For when you name some "other" contrary to you, you usually set down some of his sayings but at once destroy and attack them, as with Marcion, Valentinus, Arius and the rest. But when you name an "other," and write his sayings with very strong assertions, and fortify them with abundant testimonies of the Scriptures, do not even we, the slowest of men, whom you call moles, see that this man whose sayings you set down and do not destroy is none other than yourself, and that this is the rhetorical figure by which speakers put forward their own view under another's person? Orators do this when they fear to offend some people or wish to avoid ill-will. For if you think yourself defended by naming another in these sayings, much more excusable will be the man you accuse. For he not only is in the habit of saying that others say so, and that it seems so to some; but he says much more cautiously that on such matters he does not define but rather offers an opinion; and that if something else seems better to another, these things should be dropped and those held. See how much caution he used; and yet he is summoned by you to condemnation. You think you have escaped because you merely name "another." For you condemn him for the very things in which you follow and imitate him. ### Scripture references - Gal 4:26: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - "Mother of all": Gal 4:26. - Origen's habit of offering opinions rather than definitions is described as Rufinus saw it (compare On First Principles, preface 2–3). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.29 (PL 21:567a–568a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-29). ## Apology against Jerome 1.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-30 - Source: PL 21:569b–570a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus presses the dilemma: whichever "other" is Jerome's own voice, Jerome either teaches the pre-existence of souls or condemns its denial as heretical. ### Latin text Sed majora adhuc ex consequentibus, sicut promisimus, ostendemus. Post hoc enim quod dixerat, nos ante sperasse in Christo, et ex eo jam tempore, id est, ante constitutionem mundi, et antequam in corporibus nasceremur, in caelis esse benedictos et electos, iterum illum suum alium introducit, ei dicit, « Alius vero hoc dogma non sustinens, quod ante fuerimus et speraverimus in Christo, quam in isto corpore degeremus, illo intelligentiam transfert. » Hoc in loco omnem suum foetorem quisquis ille est, isie ejus alius exhalavit. Dicat enim nobis hic, quem vult alium esse, qui hoc dogma non sufferat, quod antequam in hoc corpore deberemus, et fuerimus, et speraverimus in Christo, hoc est enim pro quo damnari jubet Origenem. Quem vult hic alium intellexisse? an aliquem contrarium sibi? Quid dicis, magister? bicorni illo urgeris, de quo exponere discipulis soles. Si enim hic alium istum qui ante fuisse animas quam in corpore degerent, non recipit, te esse dixeris, proditum est, quod in superioribus celabatur. Inveniris enim tua confessione alius ille tu esse, qui definis omnia dogmata, quae damnari jubes. Si vero non es tu in superioribus alius, ne libi ea quae improbas adscribantur, nec hic tu eris alius, qui non sustineas ante fuisse animas quam in corpore degeremus. Elige utramlibet excusationis partem. Istum alium, quem frequenter inducis, te vis intelligamus, an alterum aliquem? catholicum eum vis videri, an haereticum? damnandum, an absolvendum? Si catholicus est iste alius tuus, qui iu superioribus dicebat, ante hunc mundum visibilem fuisse animas cum Angelis, et caeteris virtutibus in superiori Jerusalem in caelestibus constitutas, et ibi vivendo contraxisse caussas sibi diversitatis, vel nascendi in hoc mundo, vel alias quaslibet conditiones tolerandi, erunt ergo ista catholica dogmata, et interim impium damnare quod catholicum est. Si vero alium istum haereticum dixeris, haereticum destgnabis eum, qui fuisse animas non recipit, et sperasse in Christo antequam in corpore nascerentur. Qua hinc exitur, magister? Quo erumpitur? quo rursum evaditur? Quocunque te converteris, haerebis. Non dico nullus subtrahendi te aditus datur, sed ne respirandi quidem paululum fit copia. Sic tibi Alexandri tui Aristotelici Commentarii profuere? sic Porphyrii? sic te tol et tantorum Philosophorum Graecae et Latinae, insuper et Judaicae eruditionis excoluit disciplina, ut in istas angustias tam inextricabiles devenires, et tam miserabiliter coarctareris, ut nec ad Alpes posses esse defensus? ### English translation (Claude) But we will show still greater things from what follows, as we promised. For after he had said that we "hoped before in Christ," and that from that time, that is, before the foundation of the world and before we were born in bodies, we were blessed and chosen in the heavens, he again brings in that "other" of his, and says: "But another, not accepting this doctrine, that we existed and hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, transfers the meaning to this." In this place this "other" of his, whoever he is, has breathed out all his foulness. For let him tell us whom he wishes to be this "other," who does not endure the doctrine that before we lived in this body we both existed and hoped in Christ; for this is the very thing for which he bids Origen be condemned. Whom does he wish to be understood here as "another"? Someone contrary to himself? What do you say, master? You are pressed by that horned dilemma which you are accustomed to explain to your pupils. For if you say that this "other," who does not accept that souls existed before they lived in the body, is you, then what was hidden in the earlier passage is betrayed: for by your own confession you are found to be that "other" who defines all the doctrines you bid be condemned. But if you are not the "other" in the earlier passage, so that what you reject may not be ascribed to you, neither will you be the "other" here, who does not endure that souls existed before we lived in the body. Choose whichever side of the excuse you please. Do you wish us to understand this "other" whom you so often bring in to be you, or someone else? Do you wish him to seem catholic or heretic? To be condemned or acquitted? If this "other" of yours is catholic, who said in the earlier passage that before this visible world souls existed with the angels and the other powers, placed in the heavens in the Jerusalem above, and there by their manner of life contracted the causes of their diversity, either of being born in this world or of enduring any other conditions, then these will be catholic doctrines, and meanwhile it is impious to condemn what is catholic. But if you call this "other" a heretic, you will mark as a heretic him who does not accept that souls existed and hoped in Christ before they were born in the body. Where is the way out of here, master? Where does one break out? Where does one escape again? Wherever you turn, you will stick fast. I do not say that no way of withdrawing yourself is given, but not even a little room to breathe. Is this how the commentaries of your Alexander on Aristotle have profited you? Is this how Porphyry's have? Has the training of so many and such great philosophers, Greek and Latin, and of Jewish learning besides, so cultivated you that you have come into these straits so inextricable, and are so wretchedly hemmed in that you could not be defended even as far as the Alps? ### Scripture references - Eph 1:12: allusion, high confidence - Eph 1:3–4: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - NPNF² 3 has before this a longer passage (Jerome on προηλπικότες in Eph 1:12, and Rufinus thanking God that Jerome himself owns the "other" view of the earlier passage), which is not in the text printed here. - "Hoped before in Christ": Eph 1:12; blessed and chosen: Eph 1:3–4. - Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle's logic, which Jerome says he studied. The last phrase ("not even as far as the Alps") is obscure in the Latin; it is translated literally. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.30 (PL 21:569b–570a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-30). ## Apology against Jerome 1.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-31 - Source: PL 21:570a–571c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus offers Jerome a way out, supposing the second "other" is Jerome himself, and quotes the commentary's view that all, even the devil and his angels, will be subjected to Christ, some willingly and some by necessity. ### Latin text Sed parcamus jam: deferendum est literis, et ut ipse ait, operi magno somnus non est adseribendus, quanquam ipse parcat nemini, et non tam ratione dictorum quam flagello linguae, quos libitum fuerit verberet. Et si quis et minus adulabitur, continuo haereticus et scriptis et missis per diversa centum codicibus destgnetur. Tamen nos non ipsum. sed Patriarcham imitemur David, qui comprhensum in spelunca inimicum suum Saul, cum posset jugulare, noluit; sed ei pepercit, quod et iste sibi a nobis aliquoties factum, non solum verbo sed et re atque opere, etiam si fateri non vult, corde tamen et conscientia retinet. Demus ergo veniam ei, qui dare veniam nescit, qui sine ullo humanitatis respectu de dictis alterius judicat, et interim educamus eum de hac spelunca, usquequo in illam incidat, de qua etiam si omnes conemur et cupiamus, exire non possit. Dicat ergo, qui potest fieri, ut in superioribus illis, ubi istud dogma confirmabatur ab eo qui justum Deum conabatur ostendere: ubi alium quem dixit, vere ne alterius persona fuerit talis quadem nunc condemnari vult: hic vero ubi contrarius est, et non recipit, quae in superioribus dicta sunt, alium seipsum dixerit. Potest enim fieri, ut conscius sibi sit, ita sensisse se cum scriberet, licet stilo id non potuerit explicare. Sit ergo venia, et ponamus in hoc loco istum alium, hunc esse ipsum, qui non recipit dogma, quod dicit, animas fuisse antequam in corpore degeremus, et sperasse in Christo, Repetamus ipsum capitulum, et quo rursus tendat, diligentius prosequamur. Ait itaque: « Alius vero hoc dogma non sustinens, quod ante fuerimus, et speraverimus iu Christo, quam in isto corpore degeremus, illo intelligentiam transfert, ut dicat in adventu Domini Salvatoris, quando in nomine ejus omne genu flectetur, caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum et omnis lingua confitebitur, quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris, cum ei fuerint universa subjecta, alios voluntate, alios necessitate subjiciendos, et eos qui ante praesentiam majestatis ejus speraverint in eum, futuros esse in laudem gloriae ejus, ct vocari προηλπικότας: eos vero qui reperti fuerint necessitate credentes, eo tempore quo nec diabolus, nec angeli ejus poterunt negare regnantem, esse sperantes, sed non in laudem gloriae ejus. Quod quidem et nunc ex parte videmus expleri, quia alia sit merces ejus, qui voluntate sequatur Deum, alia qui necessitate. Veruntamen sive per occasionem, sive per veritatem, tantum Christus annuncietur: dummodo sciat, et sperans, et ante sperans, quod pro diversitate spei diversa sint praemia recepturi ### English translation (Claude) But let us spare him now: we must defer to letters and, as he himself says, sleep is not to be charged to a great work; though he himself spares no one, and flogs whom he pleases not so much by the reasoning of what was said as with the lash of his tongue. And if anyone flatters him rather less, he is at once branded a heretic by writings and by a hundred copies sent in all directions. Yet let us imitate not him but the patriarch David, who, when he had caught his enemy Saul in the cave, would not cut his throat though he could, but spared him; which this man also, even if he will not admit it, keeps in his heart and conscience as having been done to him by us more than once, not only in word but in deed and act. Let us then grant pardon to one who does not know how to grant pardon, who judges another's sayings without any regard for humanity, and meanwhile let us lead him out of this cave, until he falls into that one from which, even if we all try and wish it, he cannot get out. Let him say, then, how it can be that in that earlier passage, where this doctrine was confirmed by him who was trying to show that God is just, where he spoke of "another," it was truly another's person, such as he now wishes condemned; while here, where the "other" is contrary and does not accept what was said earlier, he called himself "another." For it may be that he is conscious of having held this view when he wrote, though he could not express it with his pen. Let there be pardon, then, and let us suppose that in this place this "other" is himself, who does not accept the doctrine which says that souls existed before we lived in the body and hoped in Christ. Let us take up the chapter itself again and follow more carefully where it tends. He says, then: "But another, not accepting this doctrine, that we existed and hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, transfers the meaning to this: he says that at the coming of the Lord and Saviour, when in his name every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father, when all things have been subjected to him, some will be subjected by will and others by necessity; and those who hoped in him before the presence of his majesty will be to the praise of his glory and will be called proēlpikotes; but those who are found believing by necessity, at the time when neither the devil nor his angels will be able to deny him as he reigns, will be hoping, but not to the praise of his glory. This we see partly fulfilled even now, because the reward of him who follows God by will is one thing, and that of him who follows by necessity another. Yet, whether in pretence or in truth, provided only Christ is proclaimed: so long as both he who hopes and he who hoped before know that they will receive different rewards according to the difference of their hope." ### Scripture references - 1 Sam 24:3–7: allusion, high confidence - Eph 1:12: allusion, high confidence - Phil 2:10–11: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:18: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:28: echo, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Horace, ars-poetica.360 (Horace): echo, low confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:12. The Greek word is garbled in the digital text and restored as προηλπικότας ("those who hoped before"). - "Sleep is not to be charged to a great work": compare Horace, Ars poetica 360, which Jerome echoes. - David and Saul: 1 Sam 24:3–7; "every knee…": Phil 2:10–11; "whether in pretence or in truth…": Phil 1:18. - The doctrine that the devil and his angels will finally be subjected to Christ is translated as quoted, without comment. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.31 (PL 21:570a–571c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-31). ## Apology against Jerome 1.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-32 - Source: PL 21:571c–572a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus concludes that Jerome's second exposition promises lesser rewards even to the devil and his angels, a view harsher than the opinion Jerome condemns in Origen. ### Latin text Omnis in hoc loco adimitur cavillationis occasio. In superioribus dixisti, quod hi qui ante speraverunt in Christo, illi sunt qui antequam in hoc visibili mundo in corporibus nascerentur, spem in Christo habuerunt in caelestibus positi. Sed ne Istud dogma tuum esse videretur, aliam introduxisti expositionem. qua dicis eo tempore, quo omne genu flectetur Domino Jesu, universa creatura caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum duobus ei modis erit subjecta, quidam voluntate, qui iam necessitate. Et voluntate ais subjectos Sanctos omnes, qui per verba praedicationis modo ei credunt, et istos vocari προηλπικότας, id est, qui ante speraverunt in Christo. Necessitate autem subjectos, qui nunc quidem per praedicationem verbi non cred derunt: tunc autem jam negare non poterunt, sicut diabolus et angeli ejus, et qui cum ipsis necessitate ceciderunt, quique omnes cum quibus, et diabolus et angeli ejus, quia postea credent, non vorabuntur ante sperantes, pro eo silicet quod illi ante crediderunt in Christo, et speraverunt in eum voluntate; isti vera postmodum, et necessitate. Et ideo ais eos diversa praemia recepturos. Praemia tamen ponis in his omnibus, qui modo non credunt, id est, diabolo et angelis ejus, licet inferiora, et eum de cujus sola poenarum aliquando venia opinionem, non sententiam alterius arguis, lu in regno Christi ad praemia secunda perducis. Et hoc vis intelligi, quia sicut nihil interest utrum veritate, an necessitate Christus annuncietur: ita nihil refert necessitate, an voluntate credatur. ### English translation (Claude) In this place every opportunity for quibbling is taken away. In the earlier passage you said that those who "hoped before in Christ" are those who, before they were born in bodies in this visible world, had hope in Christ while placed in the heavens. But so that this doctrine might not seem to be yours, you brought in another exposition, in which you say that at the time when every knee shall bow to the Lord Jesus, the whole creation of things in heaven, on earth and under the earth will be subjected to him in two ways, some by will, others by necessity. And you say that by will all the saints are subjected, who now believe in him through the words of preaching, and that these are called proēlpikotes, that is, those who hoped before in Christ. But by necessity those are subjected who now indeed have not believed through the preaching of the word, but then will no longer be able to deny, like the devil and his angels and those who by necessity have fallen with them; and all these, with whom also the devil and his angels, because they will believe afterwards, will not be called "those who hoped before," for the reason that the former believed in Christ before and hoped in him by will, but these later and by necessity. And therefore you say they will receive different rewards. Yet you place rewards for all these who do not now believe, that is, for the devil and his angels, though lower ones; and him, of whom you censure in another the mere opinion, not the judgment, that his punishment will at some time be remitted, you yourself lead to second rewards in the kingdom of Christ. And you wish this to be understood: that as it makes no difference whether Christ is proclaimed in truth or by necessity, so it matters nothing whether one believes by necessity or by will. ### Scripture references - Phil 2:10: allusion, high confidence - Phil 1:18: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus's inference about the devil is his own reading of Jerome's commentary, translated as written. The Greek word is restored as προηλπικότας. - "Every knee…": Phil 2:10; "in truth…": Phil 1:18. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.32 (PL 21:571c–572a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-32). ## Apology against Jerome 1.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-33 - Source: PL 21:572a–572b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus sums up: Jerome's own chosen commentaries teach both the pre-existence of souls and a final reward even for the devil, the doctrines he condemns in Origen. ### Latin text Haec sunt, quae nobis discere de Commentariis tuis jubes. Istas nos regulas confusionis fidei doces, ut hoc damnetur in aliis, quod domi discitur. Nam utique si tu es nunc alius, qui primum dogma illud non sustines, quod animas iu caelestibus fuisse dicit, antequam in corporibus tur: tu es sine dubio, qui diabolum et angelos ejus atque omnes incredulos, non solum venia donas, verum etiam secundis munerandos esse praemiis polliceris. Si vero hoc secundum dogma refugis, tu eris primi illius dogmatis pater.miror quomodo isti prudentes et eruditi viri, qui haec ejus legunt script, de quibus nunc illa ab illo, scribuntur, rideant de me, quod me talpam nominet, et non sentiant se magis ipsos ab eo talpas judicari, quos putat haec in suis libris non videre defossa. Si enim putaret eos legentes intelligere posse, nunquam ad condemnanda ea, quae ipse magister docet, istorum librorum habere jussisset exemplum, in quibus ea ipsa plenius et manifestius continentur, quae condemnare nos suadet. Ostendimus interim istum ipsum asserere in istis electis Commentariis suis ea quae damnari in alterius libris jubet, id est, quod animae fuerint in caelestibus antequam in hoc mundo in corporibus nascerentur, et quod omnes, vel peccatores, vel increduli cum diabolo et angelis ejus, cotempore quo omne genu flectetur Jesu, caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, non solum veniam accipient, verum etiam ad secunda praemia vocabuntur. ### English translation (Claude) These are the things which you bid us learn from your commentaries. These are the rules of confusion in the faith that you teach us, so that what is learned at home is condemned in others. For certainly, if you are now the "other" who does not endure that first doctrine, which says that souls existed in the heavens before they were in bodies, you are without doubt the one who not only grants pardon to the devil and his angels and all unbelievers, but even promises that they are to be rewarded with second prizes. But if you shun this second doctrine, you are the father of that first doctrine. I wonder how these prudent and learned men who read these writings of his, about which these things are now written by him, laugh at me because he calls me a mole, and do not perceive that they are rather judged moles by him, since he thinks they do not see these things buried in his books. For if he thought that as readers they could understand, he would never have bidden them take the copy of these books for condemning the very things which the master himself teaches, books in which those very things which he urges us to condemn are contained more fully and plainly. We have shown meanwhile that he himself asserts in these chosen commentaries of his the things which he bids be condemned in another's books: namely, that souls existed in the heavens before they were born in bodies in this world; and that all, whether sinners or unbelievers, with the devil and his angels, at the time when every knee shall bow to Jesus, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, will not only receive pardon but will also be called to second rewards. ### Scripture references - Phil 2:10: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - "Every knee…": Phil 2:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.33 (PL 21:572a–572b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-33). ## Apology against Jerome 1.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-34 - Source: PL 21:572b–574a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's comment on Eph 2:6–7 that the fallen angels and Lucifer will at the end be governed by the will of Christ and his saints, and argues that this implies their final blessedness. ### Latin text Sed quoniam haec rei novitas, non dubito quod fidem difficile mereatur, ut quis credatur ea damnare quae adstruit; scio quid destderatis, ut si possumus talia es eisdem libris profemus exempla, et tam evidentia, ni nullus omnino de his cuiquam dubndi restdeat locus, id est. ubi ne ille quidem alius suus nominetur: et ita faciam. Item ex eodem libro, quod in saeculi fine Christus, et omnes Sancti sui supra daemones habebunt sedem, ut et ipsi daemones secundum voluntatem sedentis supra se Christi, et Sanctorum ejus agant: Ex eo capitulo ubi dicit Apostolus, Ut ostenderet soeculis supervenientibus abundantes divitias gra tioe suoe, in bonitate super nos in Christo Jesu, post pauca: « Quod nos, inquit, qui quondam lege tenebamur inferni, et propter vitia atque peccta ut operibus carnis, ita eramus et supp destinati, nunc in Christo regnemus, sedeamusque cum eo. Sedeamus autem non in humili quocunque loco, sed super omnem Principatum, Potestatem et Dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non solum in hoc saeculo, sed etiam in futuro. Si enim Christus resuscitatus est a mortuis, et sedet ad dexteram Dei in caelestibus super omnem Principatum, et Potestatem, et Dominationem, et super omne nomen quod nominatum est, non solum in hoc saeculo, sed et iu futuro. et nos sedebimus regnabimusque cum Christo, necesse est, ut super his, super quae sedet ille, sedeamus. Sed qui diligens Lector est, statim dicet et requiret: Quid ergo, major homo angelis et cunctis in caelo potestatibus? Quod quia pericul sum est respondere, Principatus, Potestates, ac Virtutes, et Dominattones, et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo, sed etiam in futuro (maxime quia omnia subjecta sunt Christi pedibus) non ad bonam partem, sed ad contrariam referre, ut dicat eas esse angelos refugas, et principem mundi hujus, et Luciferum qui mane oriebatur, super quibus sancti in fine saeculi sessuri sunt cum Christo, illis quoque tribuente beneficium, qui nunc inferni, et male libertate sua abutentes vagentur passim et per praecipitia corruant pecca·: torum. Cum autem tales habuerint sessores, juxta sedentium voluntatem incipient gubernari, » Numquid et hic ambiguitas aliqua derelicta est, ut locus hic egeat assertore? Ubi evidentiss me, nulla Illus alii sibi interjecta persona, dicit, angelos refugas, et principem mundi hujus, et Luciferum qui mane oriebatur, in fine, Christo supersedente et regnante cum sanctis luis, consortes ac socios, non solum regni ejus, sed et voluntatis futuros. Secundum voluntatem namque Christi, et omnium Sanctorum ejus, agere, hoc est, ad summam beatitudiue pervenisse. Neque enim est alia perfectio Orationis, qua supplicare nos docuit Patri, nisi ut fiat voluntas ejus, sicut in coelo et in terra. ### English translation (Claude) But since the novelty of the thing, I do not doubt, hardly earns belief, that anyone should be believed to condemn what he builds up, I know what you desire: that, if we can, we bring forward from the same books examples so clear that no room at all for doubt about them remains for anyone, that is, where not even that "other" of his is named. And so I will do. Again from the same book: that at the end of the age Christ and all his saints will have their seat above the demons, so that the demons themselves act according to the will of Christ and of his saints seated above them. From the heading where the Apostle says, "That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus," after a little: "That we," he says, "who were once held by the law of hell, and through vices and sins, as by works of the flesh, were thus destined also to punishment, now reign in Christ and sit with him. And we sit not in some low place, but above every principality, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. For if Christ has been raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in the heavens above every principality and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come, and we too shall sit and reign with Christ, it is necessary that we sit above the things above which he sits. But the careful reader will at once say and ask: What then, is man greater than the angels and all the powers in heaven? Since it is dangerous to answer this, he refers the principalities, powers, virtues, dominions and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come (especially since all things are subjected to Christ's feet) not to the good side but to the contrary, so as to say that they are the fugitive angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who rose in the morning, above whom the saints will sit with Christ at the end of the age, conferring a benefit on them too, who now are infernal and, misusing their freedom, wander everywhere and fall headlong over the precipices of sins. But when they have such rulers seated over them, they will begin to be governed according to the will of those seated over them." Is any ambiguity left here too, so that this place needs a defender? Where most plainly, with no person of that "other" interposed, he says that the fugitive angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who rose in the morning, will at the end, when Christ sits above them and reigns with his saints, be partners and companions not only of his kingdom but also of his will. For to act according to the will of Christ and of all his saints is to have arrived at the highest blessedness. For there is no other perfection of the prayer in which he taught us to pray to the Father than that his will be done, as in heaven so also on earth. ### Scripture references - Eph 2:7: quotation, high confidence - Eph 2:6: allusion, high confidence - Eph 1:20–21: quotation, high confidence - Eph 1:22: allusion, high confidence - John 12:31: allusion, high confidence - Isa 14:12: allusion, high confidence - Matt 6:10: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 2:7. Rufinus's conclusion that being governed by Christ's will means blessedness is his own inference, translated as written. - "That he might show…": Eph 2:7; "sit with him": Eph 2:6; "above every principality…": Eph 1:20–21; "all things subjected…": Eph 1:22; "the prince of this world": John 12:31; "Lucifer who rose in the morning": Isa 14:12; "your will be done…": Matt 6:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.34 (PL 21:572b–574a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-34). ## Apology against Jerome 1.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-35 - Source: PL 21:574a–574c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's comment on Eph 1:21 that in the age to come beings will rise and fall from one rank to another. ### Latin text Sed quaeso patienter audite, non quidem omnia, quae de ipsis dogmatibus in libris ejus continentur revolventem (tanta enim sunt, ut plura mihi, si exsequi ea cupiam, volumini conscribenda sint, sed tanta quanta satisfacere legentibus possint: quod non iste casu in haec incidat, quae nunc discipulis imitanda proponit, sed latissima et frequenti assertione confirmat. Sed videamus quae sunt, quae nos ex his probatissimis edocet Commentariis. Item ex eodem libro, quod non solum in praesenti saeculo, verum etiam in futuro ascensus sit hominum et descensus, de eo capitulo, in quo ait: « Super omnem Principatum, Potestatem, ac Virtutem, et Dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc soeculo, verum etiam in futuro, post aliquanta: Si autem sunt, inquit, Potestates, Virtutes, et Principatus, et Dominationes, necesse est, ut et subjectos habeant, ei timentes se, et servientes sibi, et eos qui a sua fortitudine roborentur. Quae distributiones officiorum, non solum in praesentiarum, sed etiam in futuro saeculo erunt: ut per singulos profectus et honores, ascensiones etiam et descensiones, vel crescat alius, vel decrescat, et sub alia atque alia Potestate, Virtute, Principatu, atque Dominatione fiat. » ### English translation (Claude) But listen patiently, I pray, not indeed to one going through everything about these doctrines that is contained in his books (for they are so many that if I wished to pursue them I should have to write several volumes), but as much as may satisfy readers: that he does not fall into these things by chance, which he now sets before his disciples to imitate, but confirms them with very broad and frequent assertion. But let us see what he teaches us from these most approved commentaries. Again from the same book: that not only in the present age but also in the age to come there is an ascent and descent of men. On the heading where he says, "Above every principality, power, virtue and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come," after some other matter: "But if there are powers, virtues, principalities and dominions," he says, "it is necessary that they also have subjects, who fear them and serve them, and who are strengthened by their might. These distributions of offices will exist not only in the present but also in the age to come, so that by particular advances and honours, by ascents also and descents, one may grow or decrease, and come under one or another power, virtue, principality and dominion." ### Scripture references - Eph 1:21: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:21. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.35 (PL 21:574a–574c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-35). ## Apology against Jerome 1.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-36 - Source: PL 21:574c–575b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus turns Jerome's own words against him and quotes the Ephesians commentary on the church as including angels and on knowledge of God as recollection from a former life. ### Latin text Cur, magister, ut tuis tecum verbis agam, post quadringentos fere annos quietas et simplices haec Latinorum mentes doces? Cur novas voces, quas ab Apostolis nemo suscepit, insuetis auribus ingeris? Quaeso te, ut parcas Romanis auribus, parcas fidei, quae Apostoli voce laudata est. Cur in medium profers quod Petrus et Paulus edere noluerunt? Usquequo tu haec scriberes, non Usquequo ego interpretarer, ut doces; sed usquequo haec ante quindecim fere annos scriberes, sine his, mundus Christianus non fuit? Quid enim tu modo, doces, quod in futuro saeculo adhuc ascensiones descensiones fiant, et proficiant aliqui, et aliqui decrescant? Ergo illud quod dicis, in hoc saeculo. vita, vel acquiritur, vel amittitur, non est verum: au occultam habet aliquam interpretationem? Non enim poenitentiam agis pro his, quae in istis Commentariis continentur, Item quod Ecclesta unum corpus non solum ex hominibus, sed et ex Angelis, et omnibus Virtutibus coelestibus intelligendum sit, ex eodem libro, de eo capitulo, in quo scriptum est: Et ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclestam, post pauca: Non solum, inquit, hominum, sed etiam Angelorum cunctarumque Virtutum, et rationabilium creaturarum, Ecclesta intelligi potest. Item quod animae, quia in illa priori vita noverant Deum, modo eum non quasi ignotum cognoscant, sed quasi post oblivionem denuo agnoscant, ex eodem libro ita dicit: « Quod vero ait, in agnitione ejus, id est, ἐπιγνώσει, quidam sic intelligunt, ut inter γνῶσιν καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν, hoc est inter notionem et agnitionem, illud intersit, quod notio eorum sit, quae ante non scivimus, et ea postea scire coepimus; agnitio vero eorum quae postea recordamur. Et priorem quamdam vitam in coelestibus suspicamur, postquam in corpora ista dejecti, et obliti Dei Patris, nunc eum per revelationem cognovimus, secundum illud quod scriptum est: Reminiscentur et convertentur ad Dominum omnes fines terroe, et multa his similia » ### English translation (Claude) Why, master, to deal with you in your own words, after nearly four hundred years do you teach these things to the quiet and simple minds of the Latins? Why do you thrust upon unaccustomed ears new words which no one received from the apostles? I beg you to spare the ears of the Romans, to spare the faith which was praised by the Apostle's voice. Why do you bring into the open what Peter and Paul were unwilling to publish? Until you wrote these things (not, as you teach, until I translated, but until you wrote them about fifteen years ago), was the Christian world without them? For what is it that you now teach, that in the age to come there will still be ascents and descents, and some will advance and some decrease? Then what you say, that in this age life is either gained or lost, is not true; or has it some hidden interpretation? For you do not repent of the things contained in these commentaries. Again, that the church is to be understood as one body made up not only of men but also of angels and all the heavenly powers: from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "And he gave him as head over all the church," after a little: "The church," he says, "can be understood as consisting not only of men but also of angels and all the powers and rational creatures." Again, that souls, because they knew God in that former life, now know him not as one unknown but recognize him anew as after forgetting him: from the same book he speaks thus: "As to what he says, 'in the knowledge of him,' that is, en epignōsei, some understand it thus, that between gnōsis and epignōsis, that is, between knowing and recognizing, there is this difference: knowing concerns things we did not know before and afterwards began to know, while recognizing concerns things which we afterwards remember. And we suspect a certain former life in the heavens, since, after being cast down into these bodies and forgetting God the Father, we have now come to know him by revelation, according to what is written: 'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord'; and many things like these." ### Scripture references - Rom 1:8: allusion, high confidence - Eph 1:22: quotation, high confidence - Eph 1:17: quotation, high confidence - Ps 22:27 (21:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.8 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - "To deal with you in your own words": Rufinus echoes Jerome's letter to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 84.8), which asks why such teachings are brought to Rome after four hundred years. - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1, on Eph 1:22 and 1:17. The Greek words are garbled in the digital text and restored from the sense. - "The faith praised by the Apostle": Rom 1:8; "All the ends of the earth…": Ps 22:27 (LXX 21:28). - NPNF² 3 numbers this chapter 36; there is no 37 in this edition (a misnumbering). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.36 (PL 21:574c–575b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-36). ## Apology against Jerome 1.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-38 - Source: PL 21:575b–577a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes further passages of Jerome's Ephesians commentary, on stars not being clean, the soul made before the body, and angels and souls as the sheep and the lost sheep. ### Latin text Quod autem ait: Quia quidam haec dicunt, puto me satis evidenter in superioribus edocuisse, quod si quando ponit, Quia quidam haec dicunt, vel, Alius dicit, nec tamen ista quae dicuntur destruit: iste ipse sit quidam, vel alius, maxime cum jam concordes his sententias, absque ulla hujusmodi Interjectione personae, ab eo dictas frequenter ostenderim. Sed quid adhuc est, quod ei displicet in alio? Et astra, inquit, vel extera quae in coelo sunt, rationabilia dicit et delicti capacia. Videamus ergo quid ipse de talibus sentiat, In eodem libro ex eodem capitulo, ubi scriptum est: Oportet enim eum regnare, donec ponat inimicos suos sub pedibus suis, post aliquanta: « Potest, Inquit, ita responderi, quod absque peccato nullus sit. Et sidera ipsa non sint munda coram Deo, omnisque creatura paveat Creatoris adventum. Unde crux Salvatoris non solum ea quae in terris sunt, sed etiam quae in coelis erant, purgasse perhibetur. » Item quod propter corpus humilitatis et corpus mortis, homines filii irae appellentur, ex eodem libro de eo capitulo, ubi scriptum est: Eramus natura filii iroe sicut et coeteri; post aliquanta: « Nos vero, inquit, dicamus esse primum omnes homines natura filios irae propter corpus humilitatis et corpus mortis: et quod ab adolescentia mens hominum apposita sit ad malitiam.» Item quod prima sit animae factura, et deinceps corporis plasmatio, ex eodem libro sub eodem capitulo, post multa: « Et diligenter, inquit, observa, quia non dixit ipsius figuratio sumus atque plasmatio, sed ipsius factura. Plasmatio quippe originem de terrae limo trahit: factura vero juxta similitudinem et imaginem Dei sumpsit exordium. Quod in centestmo decimo octavo Psalmo simul positum diversa significat. Manus tuoe. Domine, fecerunt me, et plasmaverunt me, Factura primum locum tenet, deinde plasmatio, » Quid adhuc aliud est, quod condemnari vult? Dicat ut id de ejus libris, immo de ejus corde proferamus. Quod enim, inquit, unam naturam et animarum, et Angelorum, molestum est hoc. Sed videamus quid ipse de hoc sentiat in his libris, quos nobis ad confessionis exemplum et ad credendi regulam ponit, Item ex eodem libro de eo capitulo, ubi scriptum est: Veniens evangelizavit pacem his qui longe, et his qui prope; et quod cum de Judaeis, et de Gentibus primum dictum exposuisset, postmodum addidit haec: « Et haec quidem juxta Vulgatam interpretationem dicta sint. Caeterum qui illud Apostoli legit, de Christo memorantis, Pacem faciens per sanguinem crucis suoe his quoe in terra erant, et his quoe in coelis, et caetera quae in eodem dicuntur loco, non putabit nos, qui juxta spiritum Israel vocamur, fuisse longe et Judaeos, qui tantummodo Israel nuncupantur in carne, fuisse prope. Et hanc totam intelligentiam ad Angelos virtutesque coelestes, et ad animas temperabit humanas, quod in suo Christus sanguine terrena et coelestia copulaverit, quae inter se dissidebant. Et bonus pastor morbidam ad montes revectans ovem, fecerit esse cum caeteris: drachmamque quae perierat, drachmis quae salvae fuerint, copulaverit, » ### English translation (Claude) As to his saying, "Some say these things," I think I have shown clearly enough above that whenever he puts "Some say these things," or "Another says," and yet does not destroy what is said, he himself is that "some" or "another," especially since I have often shown that views agreeing with these were stated by him without any such interposition of a person. But what else is there that displeases him in another? "He says," he declares, "that the stars and the other things in heaven are rational and capable of sin." Let us see, then, what he himself thinks about such things. In the same book, from the same heading, where it is written, "For he must reign until he puts his enemies under his feet," after some other matter: "It can be answered," he says, "that no one is without sin. Even the stars themselves are not clean before God, and every creature fears the coming of the Creator. Hence the cross of the Saviour is said to have cleansed not only the things on earth but also the things that were in heaven." Again, that because of the body of humiliation and the body of death men are called children of wrath: from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "We were by nature children of wrath like the rest," after some other matter: "But let us say," he says, "that all men are first by nature children of wrath because of the body of humiliation and the body of death, and because from youth the mind of men is set on evil." Again, that the making of the soul comes first and then the moulding of the body: from the same book under the same heading, after much else: "And observe carefully," he says, "that he did not say 'we are his figure and moulding,' but 'his workmanship.' For moulding draws its origin from the clay of the earth, but workmanship took its beginning according to the likeness and image of God. These two, set together in the hundred and eighteenth Psalm, signify different things: 'Your hands, Lord, have made me and moulded me.' Making holds the first place, then moulding." What else is there that he wishes condemned? Let him say, so that we may bring it out of his books, or rather out of his heart. "That he makes one nature of souls and of angels," he says, "this is offensive." But let us see what he himself thinks about this in these books which he sets before us as a model of confession and a rule of belief. Again from the same book, on the heading where it is written, "And coming he preached peace to those far off and to those near": when he had first explained it of the Jews and Gentiles, he afterwards added this: "And let this be said according to the common interpretation. But whoever reads the Apostle's words about Christ, 'making peace through the blood of his cross with the things that were on earth and those in heaven,' and the rest that is said in the same place, will not think that we, who in the spirit are called Israel, were far off, and the Jews, who are called Israel only in the flesh, were near. And he will apply this whole meaning to the angels and heavenly powers and to human souls: that Christ in his blood joined the earthly and the heavenly, which were at variance with each other. And the good shepherd, carrying back the sick sheep to the mountains, made it be with the rest; and joined the drachma that was lost to the drachmas that were safe." ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 15:25: quotation, high confidence - Job 25:5: allusion, high confidence - Col 1:20: quotation, high confidence - Eph 2:3: quotation, high confidence - Phil 3:21: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 7:24: allusion, medium confidence - Gen 8:21: allusion, high confidence - Eph 2:10: allusion, high confidence - Ps 119:73 (118:73 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Eph 2:17: quotation, high confidence - Luke 15:4–10: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 1 (on Eph 1:22, citing 1 Cor 15:25) and 2 (on Eph 2:3, 2:10, 2:17). - NPNF² 3 numbers this chapter 38; there is no 37. - "He must reign…": 1 Cor 15:25; "the stars are not clean": Job 25:5; the cross cleansing things in heaven: Col 1:20, Heb 9:23; "children of wrath": Eph 2:3; "body of humiliation", "body of death": Phil 3:21, Rom 7:24; "from youth…": Gen 8:21; "his workmanship": Eph 2:10; "Your hands…": Ps 119:73 (LXX 118:73); "preached peace…": Eph 2:17; "making peace…": Col 1:20; the sheep and the drachma: Luke 15:4–10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.38 (PL 21:575b–577a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-27/#p-1-38). ## Apology against Jerome 1.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-39 - Source: PL 21:577a–578c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that Jerome's commentary makes souls and angels one nature to be reunited in one flock, the very view of the "little women" he ridicules, and mocks Jerome's claim that Paul only hinted at it. ### Latin text Vides quantam diversitatem naturae facit inter animas et Angelos? Quanta est, inquit, inter ovem et oves, et inter drachmam et drachmas. Sed et post pauca addidit dicens: « Quod autem ait, Ut duos conderet in semetipso in unum novum hominem: quod et magis videtur superiori de Judaeis et Gentibus sensui convenire, sic suae intelligentiae coaptabit: ut dicat hominem juxta imaginem, et similitudinem Dei factum, eamdem post reconciliationem formam recepturum, quam et nunc Angeli habent, et ipse perdidit. Novum autem hominem dicit esse, qui quotidie renovatur, et habitaturus est in novo mundo. » Sicut oves ab ove, et drachma a drachmis differunt: ita et animas cum Angelis esse dicit, et eamdem formam, quam nunc habent Angeli, prius homo habuerit, et perdiderit, et hominem habiturum dicit in futuro. Si natura, si specie, si forma non differat, quomodo nullus pudor est erudito homini suas sententias sub alterius nomine condemnare, maxime cum hoc ita non secundum vulgatam expositionem, sed secundum Apostoli sensum dici debere decernas? Sed videamus quid ad haec in eodem loco additur. Post pauca sic inquit: « Et instaurationem novi hominis tunc plene perfecteque complendam, cum coelestia terrestriaque fuerint copulata, et in uno spritu et sensu eademque sententia accesserimus ad Patrem. Nescio quid tale et in alia Eistola (si quis tamen canonem receperit) prudentibus quibusque lectoribus Paulus subindicat, dicens: Hi omnes testimonium fidei accipientes, non receperunt promissionem, Deo pro nobis aliquid melius providnteut non absque nobis consummarentur. Propterea universa creatura congemiscit nobiscum, qui in tabernaculo isto congemiscimus: et condolet, qui a timore Dei in utero concepimus, ct dolemus, et praestolamur revelationem filiorum Dei, ut de vanitate servitutis, cui nunc est subjecta, liberetur, et fiat unus pastor et unos grex, et Oratio Domini compleatur dicentis: Fiat voluntas tua sicut in coelo et in terra. » Coelestia et terrestria, id est, Angelos et homines, sicut ante unam formam gesserunt, et unum ovile habuerunt, ita et in futuro dicis esse reparanda. Quia Christus venit utraque facere unum gregem, et hoc futuros homines dicis, vel quod nunc sunt Angeli, vel quod ante ipsi homines, id est, animae fuerunt. Et quomodo, quaeso te, tam amice, immo jam nec amice, sed scurriliter mulierculas irridebas, quae cum plausu ventris et femoris, negarent se post resurrectionem in corpore iterum fragili futuras, sed similes Angelis, vel idipsum futuras esse quod Angelos? Et haec cum tanta irrisione dici a mulieribus arguis, quae de tuis illis electis Commentariis scripta proferuntur. Numquid non huc tibi tale videtur, quale si quis furti alium incusans, idipsum unde alium arguit, in suo sinu contegat furtum, et posteaquam late peroraverit, et magnifice fuerit invectus in furem, posteaquam testes produxerit, juris quoque jurandi dederit sacramenta: post haec omnia furtum ipsum, pro quo alium jam se convicisse putaverat, de sinu ejus extrahatur? Tum deinde arguis alios, quod interrogati de talibus non prompte, nec statim respondeam, sed cunctabundi et nutu magis quam verbis agant. Et hoc ipse de Apostolo dicis, quod nescio quid tale in Epistola sua prudentibus quibusque lectoribus subindicat. Si Paulus non indicat, sed subindicat, et non quibuscunque, sed prudentibus, nos miseros quid irrides, o noster poenitens, si quod Apostolus non manifeste protulit, aut nescire, aut dubitare nos dicimus, et non tam intelligere, quam subintelligere, et ideo non tam in licamus, sed subindicamus? Jam si tibi revelata sunt illa quae oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, et in cor hominis non ascenderunt: si tibi venit quod perfectum est, et destiterunt tibi ea que ex parte sunt: clama de his et praedica, et quae Apostolum suhind casse dicis, ta indica, qui non solum ea quae subindicata, verum et quae confirmata ab eo scribis esse, nunc damnas· Haec enim omnia quae nunc anathematizari jubes, dum Apostoli dicta exponis, adstruxeras, et tanquam illius sensibus haec inserta esse docueras. ### English translation (Claude) Do you see how great a difference of nature he makes between souls and angels? As great, he says, as between a sheep and sheep, and between a drachma and drachmas. And a little after he added, saying: "As to his saying, 'that he might create the two in himself into one new man,' which seems rather to fit the earlier sense about the Jews and Gentiles, he will adapt it to his own understanding thus: that man, made after the image and likeness of God, will receive after the reconciliation the same form which the angels now have and which he himself lost. And he says that the new man is he who is renewed day by day and is to dwell in the new world." As sheep differ from a sheep and a drachma from drachmas, so he says souls are with the angels, and that the same form which the angels now have man had before and lost, and he says that man will have it in the future. If they do not differ in nature, in kind, in form, how is it no shame to a learned man to condemn his own views under another's name, especially when you decide that this should be said not according to the common exposition but according to the Apostle's meaning? But let us see what is added to this in the same place. A little later he speaks thus: "And the restoration of the new man will be fully and perfectly accomplished then, when the heavenly and earthly have been joined, and in one spirit and mind and the same judgment we have approached the Father. Something of this kind Paul also hints in another letter (if anyone receives it as canonical) to every prudent reader, saying: 'All these, receiving testimony of faith, did not receive the promise, God providing something better for us, that they might not be made perfect without us.' Therefore the whole creation groans with us, who groan in this tabernacle; and it suffers pain with us, who through the fear of God have conceived in the womb, and suffer pain, and await the revelation of the sons of God, that it may be freed from the vanity of the bondage to which it is now subjected, and there may be one shepherd and one flock, and the prayer of the Lord may be fulfilled, who says: 'Your will be done, as in heaven so also on earth.'" The heavenly and the earthly, that is, angels and men, as they formerly bore one form and had one fold, so you say they are to be restored in the future. Because Christ came to make both one flock; and you say that men will be in the future either what angels are now, or what men themselves, that is, souls, were before. And how, I ask you, did you so amiably, or rather no longer amiably but scurrilously, mock the little women who, slapping belly and thigh, denied that after the resurrection they would again be in a frail body, but would be like the angels, or would be the very thing angels are? And you censure these things, said by women, with such mockery, though they are brought forward as written in those chosen commentaries of yours. Does it not seem to you like a man accusing another of theft, who hides in his own bosom the very theft for which he accuses the other; and after he has pleaded at length and inveighed magnificently against the thief, after he has produced witnesses and taken solemn oaths, after all this the very stolen thing for which he thought he had already convicted the other is drawn out of his own bosom? Then you also censure others because, when asked about such things, they do not answer promptly and at once, but hesitate and act by a nod rather than by words. And you say this yourself of the Apostle, that he "hints something of this kind in his letter to every prudent reader." If Paul does not declare but hints, and not to just anyone but to the prudent, why do you mock us poor wretches, O our penitent, if what the Apostle did not plainly set out we say that we either do not know or doubt, and that we do not so much understand as half-understand, and therefore do not so much declare as hint? If now those things have been revealed to you which eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man; if that which is perfect has come to you, and the things that are in part have ceased for you, cry out about them and preach them; and the things which you say the Apostle hinted at, you declare, you who now condemn not only what you write he hinted at but also what you write he confirmed. For all these things which you now bid be anathematized you had built up while expounding the Apostle's words, and had taught that they were inserted in his meaning. ### Scripture references - Eph 2:15: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 4:16: allusion, high confidence - Eph 2:18: allusion, high confidence - Heb 11:39–40: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:19–23: allusion, high confidence - 2 Cor 5:4: allusion, medium confidence - Isa 26:18: allusion, medium confidence - John 10:16: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:9: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:10: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 2, on Eph 2:15–18. - "One new man": Eph 2:15; "renewed day by day": 2 Cor 4:16; "approached the Father": Eph 2:18; "All these, receiving…": Heb 11:39–40 (Jerome's parenthesis reflects the doubts in the West about Hebrews); the groaning creation: Rom 8:19–23, 2 Cor 5:4; "conceived in the womb" through fear of God: Isa 26:18 (LXX); "one shepherd and one flock": John 10:16; "Your will be done…": Matt 6:10; "what eye has not seen…": 1 Cor 2:9; "that which is perfect…": 1 Cor 13:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.39 (PL 21:577a–578c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-39). ## Apology against Jerome 1.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-40 - Source: PL 21:578c–579b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's commentaries on Ephesians and Philemon describing the body as the soul's prison and the soul's return to Christ. ### Latin text Quid adhuc aliud est, quod damnare exteros jubet? Quod corpus hoc, inquit, carcerem, et vincula esse animae dicunt, et ipsam animam non ire asserunt, sed redire quasi ad ca loca, ubi jam ante fuerat. Proferamus ergo et de hoc quomodo ipse senserit, testimonia. Ex istis ipsis Commentariis libro secundo, ex eo capitulo, ubi dicit: Hujus rei gratia ego Paulus vinctus Jesu Christi: post pauca: « Quia in pluribus, inquit, locis scriptum est, vinculum aniae corpus boc dici, quod quasi clausa in carcere teneatur, dicimus propterea Paulum corporeis nexibus coerceri, nec reverti et esse cum Christo: ut perfecta in Gentes per eum praedicatio compleatur. » item de eadem re, ex eisdem Commentariis, libro tertio, capitulo ubi dicit: Pro quo legatione fungor in catena, post aliquanta per illum iterum suum alium qui ipse est, ita dicit: « Alius vero propter corpus humilitatis, et catenam istam qua circumdamur, et necdum scimus secundum quod oportet nos scire, et per speculum videmus in aenigmate, eum dixisse contendet: et tunc vere posse in confidentia Evangelii aperire mysteria, cum catenam deposuerit, et de carcere liber exierit. Nisi forte et in vinculis absque vinculis computandus est, qui conversationem habet in coelis; et de quo dici potest: Vos autem in carcere estis, nec in carne, sed in spiritu, si tamen spiritus Dei habitat in vobis. » Item de eadem re, ex Commentario Epistolae Pauli ad Philemonem sub eo capitulo, ubi ait: Salutat te Epaphras concaptivus meus: post aliquanta: « Nisi forte reconditum aliquid et sacratum, ut quidam putant, in verbo captivitatis ostendit, quod capti pariter et vincti, in vallem hanc deducti sunt lacrymarum. » ### English translation (Claude) What else is there that he bids others condemn? "That they say this body is the prison and chains of the soul," he says, "and assert that the soul does not go, but returns as it were to those places where it had been before." Let us bring forward testimonies of what he himself thought on this too. From these same commentaries, book two, from the heading where he says, "For this reason I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ," after a little: "Since in many places," he says, "it is written that this body is called the chain of the soul, because it is held in it as though shut up in a prison, we say that Paul is therefore restrained by bodily bonds and does not return and be with Christ, so that the preaching to the Gentiles through him may be fully completed." Again on the same matter, from the same commentaries, book three, at the heading where he says, "For which I am an ambassador in a chain," after some other matter, he speaks thus through that "other" of his again, who is himself: "But another will contend that he said this because of the body of humiliation, and this chain with which we are bound, and because we do not yet know as we ought to know, and see through a mirror in an enigma; and that he could then truly open the mysteries with confidence in the Gospel when he had laid aside the chain and gone out free from prison. Unless perhaps he too is to be counted without bonds even in bonds, who has his citizenship in heaven, and of whom it can be said: 'But you are not in prison, nor in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.'" Again on the same matter, from the commentary on Paul's Letter to Philemon, under the heading where he says, "Epaphras, my fellow-captive, greets you," after some other matter: "Unless perhaps he shows something hidden and sacred, as some think, in the word 'captivity': that they were taken captive and bound together and led down into this vale of tears." ### Scripture references - Eph 3:1: quotation, high confidence - Phil 1:23: allusion, high confidence - Eph 6:20: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:12: allusion, high confidence - Phil 3:20: allusion, high confidence - Rom 8:9: quotation, high confidence - Phlm 1:23: quotation, high confidence - Ps 84:6 (83:7 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 2 (on Eph 3:1) and 3 (on Eph 6:20), and Commentary on Philemon (on Phlm 23). - "Return and be with Christ": Phil 1:23; "we know in part… through a mirror": 1 Cor 13:9, 12; "citizenship in heaven": Phil 3:20; "you are not… in prison": Rom 8:9, with "in prison" added by Jerome (the digital text marks the word as uncertain); "vale of tears": Ps 84:6 (LXX 83:7). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.40 (PL 21:578c–579b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-40). ## Apology against Jerome 1.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-41 - Source: PL 21:579b–580a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's own demand to be judged only by what he says in his own person, and then cites the Ephesians commentary, without any "other," on the restoration of all things to their original state. ### Latin text Vides quomodo haec tanquam mystica et sacrata dicit haberi apud quosdam, quorum tamen et ipsum unum esse, in multis saepe docuimus: sed uti figura, per quam scientiae mysticae videatur invidiam declinare. Haec, inquit, quomodo se habeant, videns. Numquid et omnia restituenda esse in unum statum atque in unum corpus reintegrandos non solum homines, sed daemones et angelos refugas, dictum a me potes referre? Vis mihi, inquit, non fiat, si quod ex alterius persona dixi, alterius sit; si quod sane exinde dictum, ac, nullius interjecta persona; scriptum legeris, hoc mihi merito debet adscribi. Et quid omnes istos effundimus, quos superius desudavimus agones? Tantum valet frontis duritia. Sed age fiat, acquiescamus etiam in hoc, non ut res, sed ut ipse postulat, convincitur. Ex his Commentariis libro secundo de ea re quam proposui, sub co capitulo, ubi scriptum est: Solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis: unum corpus et unus spiritus, sicut et vocali estis i una spe vocationis testroe; post aliquanta, « Quaeritur, inquit, quomodo una spes vocationis sit, cum apud Patrem diversae sint mansiones? Ad quod Unam spem vocationis regnum coelorum, quasi unam domum Dei Patris esse, dicimus, ei in una domo plurimas mansiones. Alia enim gloria solis, alia gloria lunoe, alia stellarum gloria· Aut certe illud subtilius indicatur,., quod in fine et in consummatione rerum, ih pristinum statum restituenda sint omnia, quando omnes unum corpus efficiemur, et in virum perfectum reformabimur, et Oratio in nobis Salvatoris implebitur: Pater da, ut quomodo ego et tu unum sumus: ita et isti in nobis unum sint. » ### English translation (Claude) You see how he says that these things are held as mystical and sacred by certain people, of whom we have often shown in many places that he himself is one; but he uses a figure by which he seems to avoid the odium of mystical knowledge. "How these things stand," he says, "you see. Can you report that it was said by me that all things are to be restored into one state, and that not only men but also demons and fugitive angels are to be reintegrated into one body? Let it not be done to me," he says: "if I said something in another's person, let it be the other's; if you read something written as said from my own side, with no person interposed, that may rightly be ascribed to me." And why do we pour out all these contests over which we have sweated above? So much is the hardness of a brow worth. But come, let it be so; let us acquiesce in this too, and let him be convicted not as the matter but as he himself demands. From these commentaries, book two, on the matter I proposed, under the heading where it is written, "Eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called in one hope of your calling," after some other matter: "It is asked," he says, "how there is one hope of calling, when there are different mansions with the Father? To which we say that the one hope of calling is the kingdom of heaven, as it were one house of God the Father, and in the one house there are very many mansions. For one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. Or perhaps this is more subtly indicated: that at the end and consummation of things all things are to be restored to their original state, when we shall all be made one body and be re-formed into a perfect man, and the Saviour's prayer will be fulfilled in us: 'Father, grant that as I and you are one, so these too may be one in us.'" ### Scripture references - Eph 4:3–4: quotation, high confidence - John 14:2: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:41: quotation, high confidence - Eph 4:13: allusion, high confidence - John 17:21–22: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.7 (Letters): allusion, low confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The opening words in quotation marks are Rufinus's summary of Jerome's challenge (compare Jerome, Ep. 84.7). - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 2, on Eph 4:3–4. - "One body and one Spirit…": Eph 4:3–4; "many mansions": John 14:2; "one is the glory of the sun…": 1 Cor 15:41; "a perfect man": Eph 4:13; "that they may be one…": John 17:21–22. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.41 (PL 21:579b–580a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-41). ## Apology against Jerome 1.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-42 - Source: PL 21:580a–581c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's comment on Eph 4:16, which pictures the restoration of all rational creatures, the fugitive angel included, into one body like a dismembered body reassembled. ### Latin text Accepistis et hanc ejus de resurrectione omnium absque ulla ambiguitate, accpte et etiam; et tunc concludam Apologiae nostrae primum volumen. Innumera sunt enim ejus dicta de talibus. Item et codem libro sub eo capitulo, ubi scriptum est. Ex quo totum corpus compactum et conglutinatum per omnem juncturam subministrationis, secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscujusque memri, augmentum corporis facit in oedificationem sui in caritate; sic cepit, « In fine rerum cum Deum videre ceperimus facie ad faciem, et in mensuram pervenerimus aetatis plenitudinis Christi, de cujus plenitudine nos omnes accepimus, ita ut Christus non ex parte sit. sed totus in nobis, et relictis initiis parvulorum, creverimus in eum virum, de Prop dicit, Ecce vir, Oriens nomen est illi: et Joannes Baptista commemorat, Post me venit vir, qui ante me factus est: quoniam ante me erat: tunc in occursu unius fidei, et unius agnitionis Filii Dei, quem nunc pro varietate mentium, non una nec eadem fide agnitionis cognoscimus, totum corpus quod prius dissipatum fuerat et in diversa laceratum in suam compaginem juncturamque redigetur, ita ut una subministratio, cademque operatio, et unius aetatis consummata perfectio, totum faciat crescere corpus aequaliter, et omnis membra juxta mensuram suam incrementum aetatis accipiant· Haec autem tola aedificatio, per quam Ecclestae per partes corpus augetur, mutua in se caritate complebitur. Totas rationabiles creaturas sub unius rationabilis animalis intelligamus exemplo, et quodcunque de hujus membris dixerimus et partibus hoc sciamus esse referendum ad unamquamque rationabilem maturam. Putemus hoc animal ita per ossa, venas carnesque laceratum, ut nec os ossi haerat, nec nervus jungitur ad nervum, separatim oculi jaceant, seorsum nares, manus alium locum teneant, in alium projecti sint pedes, et reliqui membra in hunc modum in er se dispersa sint et divisa. Fingamus [Al Finge] aliquem venire tantae scntiae medicum, qui juxta fabulas Ethnicorum, Aesculapium poscit imitari, et novam figuram novumque hominem Virbium suscitare. Hic necesse habebit unumquodque membrum suo loco restituere, et compagem copulare compagi, et quodam glutino partibus restitutis unum corpus efficere. Hucusque nobis una similitudo processerit. Nunc in cadem similitudine ad id quod intelligi volumus aliud trahatur exemplum. Parvulus crescit, et occulto aevo in perfectam adolescit a tatem: suum manus habent augmentum, sua pedes sentiunt incrementa: venter, dum nesciamus, impletur, humeri, dum falluntur oculi, dilatantur, et omni membra per paries juxta mensuram suam sic crescunt, ut tamen non sibi sed corpori videantur augeri. Ita igitur et in restitutione omnium, quando corpus totius Ecclestae nunc dispersum atque laceratum, verus medicus Jesus Christus, sanaturus advenerit, unusquisque secundum mensuram fidei et agnitionem Filii Dei (quem ideo agnoscere dicitur, quia prius noverit, et postea nosse destvit) suum recipiet locum, et incipiet id esse quod fuerat: ita tamen ut non juxta aliam haerestm omnes in una aetate sint positi, id est, omnes in Angelos reformentur: sed unumquodque membrum juxta mensuram suam et officium suum perfectum sit. Verbi gratia, ut Angelus refuga id incipiat quod creatus est: et homo qui de paradiso fuerat ejectus, ad culturam iterum paradisi restituatur. Ista autem universa sic fient, ut invicem inter se caritate jungantur: et dum congaudet membrum membro, et in alterius provectione laetatur, Christi corpus Ecclesta primitivorum, habitet in caelesti Jerusalem, quam in alio loco Apostolus vocat matrem Sanctorum. » ### English translation (Claude) You have received this statement of his on the resurrection of all, without any ambiguity; receive this one too, and then I will close the first book of our Apology. For his sayings on such matters are innumerable. Again from the same book, under the heading where it is written, "From whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint of supply, according to the working in the measure of each member, makes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love," he began thus: "At the end of things, when we have begun to see God face to face, and have come to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, of whose fullness we have all received, so that Christ is not in part but wholly in us, and leaving behind the beginnings of little children we have grown up into that man of whom the prophet says, 'Behold the man, the East is his name,' and whom John the Baptist mentions, 'After me comes a man who was made before me, because he was before me': then, in the meeting of one faith and one recognition of the Son of God, whom now, according to the variety of minds, we recognize not with one and the same faith and recognition, the whole body which had before been scattered and torn into different parts will be brought back into its frame and joining, so that one supply and the same working, and the completed perfection of one age, may make the whole body grow equally, and all the members receive the increase of age according to their measure. And this whole building up, by which the body of the church grows by parts, is completed in mutual love. Let us understand all rational creatures under the image of one rational living being, and whatever we say of its members and parts, let us know that it is to be referred to each rational creature. Let us suppose this living being so torn apart through its bones, veins and flesh that bone does not cling to bone nor sinew join sinew, the eyes lie apart, the nostrils separately, the hands hold one place, the feet are thrown into another, and the other members are in this way dispersed and divided among themselves. Let us imagine some physician of such skill coming, who, according to the fables of the heathen, seeks to imitate Aesculapius and to raise up the new figure and new man Virbius. He will need to restore each member to its place, and couple joint to joint, and with a kind of glue, the parts being restored, make one body. So far let one comparison have brought us. Now let another example be drawn in the same comparison toward what we wish to be understood. A little child grows, and by unseen time grows up to perfect age: the hands have their increase, the feet feel their growth; the belly is filled without our knowing, the shoulders broaden while the eyes are deceived; and all the members by parts so grow according to their measure that they seem to be increased not for themselves but for the body. So also in the restoration of all things, when Jesus Christ, the true physician, comes to heal the body of the whole church, now scattered and torn, each one according to the measure of faith and the recognition of the Son of God (whom he is said to recognize for this reason, that he knew him before and afterwards ceased to know him) will receive his place and begin to be what he had been; yet not so that, according to another heresy, all are set in one age, that is, all are re-formed into angels; but each member will be perfect according to its own measure and office. For example, the fugitive angel will begin to be what he was created, and man, who had been cast out of paradise, will be restored again to the tilling of paradise. And all these things will happen in such a way that they are joined to one another by love; and while member rejoices with member and is glad at the other's advancement, the body of Christ, the church of the firstborn, will dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, which in another place the Apostle calls the mother of the saints." ### Scripture references - Eph 4:16: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:12: allusion, high confidence - Eph 4:13: allusion, high confidence - John 1:16: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 13:10: allusion, medium confidence - Zech 6:12: quotation, high confidence - John 1:30: quotation, high confidence - Rom 12:3: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 12:26: allusion, medium confidence - Heb 12:23: allusion, high confidence - Gal 4:26: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Virgil, Aen.7.765-773 (Virgil): echo, low confidence - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 2, on Eph 4:16. The teaching that the "fugitive angel" will be restored is in Jerome's text as Rufinus quotes it, and is translated as written. - Aesculapius and Virbius: the myth of Hippolytus raised from the dead by Aesculapius (compare Virgil, Aeneid 7.765–773). - "Face to face": 1 Cor 13:12; "the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ": Eph 4:13; "of whose fullness…": John 1:16; "not in part": 1 Cor 13:10; "Behold the man…": Zech 6:12; "After me comes…": John 1:30; "measure of faith": Rom 12:3; "member rejoices with member": 1 Cor 12:26; "church of the firstborn": Heb 12:23; the heavenly Jerusalem as mother: Gal 4:26. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.42 (PL 21:580a–581c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-42). ## Apology against Jerome 1.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-43 - Source: PL 21:581c–583b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus parodies Jerome by putting into his mouth a speech that excuses every earlier teacher but condemns Origen alone for the doctrines Jerome's own commentary teaches. ### Latin text Haec tua dicta legunt omnes Latini; quae etiam nunc tu quoque jubes eos legere, ubi dicis, quod omnes rationabiles creaturae, quae sub unius rationabilis animalis exemplo intelliguntur, ita in unum corpus reparandae sint, tanquam si unius hominis membra divulsa, rursus in ejusdem corporis soliditatem AEsculapii arte reparentur: in quibus quidem diversa futura definis Officia, utpote membrorum, sed corpus unum, hoc est unius naturae, et hoc omnium unum corpus, primitivam Ecclestam vocas, et corpus esse nominas Christi, cujus corporis unum membrum suo Officio redimendum, ais esse angelum refugam, qui est utique diabolus, et in hoc quod ab initio creatus est, reparandum. Similiter et hominem, aliud membrum, ad cultum paradisi tanquam colonum originarium revocandum: et haec nulla, ut fieri solet, cum de rebus talibus pedetentim cauteque dicitur, alterius interjecta persona; prosequeris, ut dubitasse te aliquis in rebus tam secretis et absconditis existimet, sicut Origenes iste; cujus te et discipulum non negas, et proditorem fateris, semper facere invenitur in talibus: sed abrupta et definita sententia, tanquam si Angelus loqueretur in Daniele, aut Christus in Paulo, mortalium auribus futurorum arcana enuntias saeculorum. Et ais, Nulli veterum, electa a Christo plebs fidelium, credas. Si Origenes aliquid de divinae dispensationis secretioribus suspicatus est, nmo recipiat; Et si Clemens, aut ille Apostolorum discipulus, aut ille Alexandrina Ecclestae, et ipsius magister Origenis tale aliquid dixerunt: etiamsi Gregorius ille Ponticus, vir Apostolicarum virtutum: etiamsi iste alius Nazianzenus, et Didyimus videns Propheta, ambo magistri mei quibus sapientius in fide Christi nihil habuit mundus. Omnes isti ut Origenes erraverunt; sed accipiant erroris sui veniam, quia et ego aliquando erravi, et nunc poenitentiam gero, sed veniam accipere debeo. Origenes vero cum eadem quae ego dixerit, etiamsi poenitentiam egit. veniam non accipiet, immo pro his quae omnes diximus, solus ipse damnetur. Ipse est qui omnia mala fecit. Ipse enim nobis prodidit, unde est (totum quicquid nos loquimur, quicquid scribimus, quicquid dicti putatur eruditi: et quod de Graecis bonis Latina facimus non bona. Nemo ergo quemquam horum audiat, sed haec sola suscipite, quae in meis Commentariis invenitis, et maxime in Epistola ad Ephestos, in quibus Orgenis dicta vehementissime confutavi. Ego autem scrutatus sum, ut credere et tenere debeatis resurrectionem carnis ita futuram, ut corpora convertantur in animas, et uxores dirigantur in viros: et quod ante mundi constitutionem animae in caelestibus fuerint, et inde ob quasdam caussas soli Deo cognitas, in vallem hanc deductae sint lacrymarum: et quod corpori mortis insertae sint: et quod in fine saeculorum omnis natura rationabilis in unum corpus restituatur sicut ab initio fuit, ita ut ei homo ad paradisum revocetur, et angelus refuga supra Petrum et Paulum exaltetur, cui ipsi ad paradisum, ut pote homines, postponendi sunt, ille autem in id quod ex initio creatus est, reparetur, ul fiant omnes simul Ecclesta primitivorum in caelestibus, et sint, dum in officiis quidem singulis quibusque sunt, membra Christi. Universitas vero cunctorum perfectum Christi sit corpus. Haec tenentes, o fideles prudentesque discipuli, et istas meas indubitatas definitiones custodientes, Origenem tamen pro his ipsis dictis condemnantes, bene agetis. Valete. ### English translation (Claude) All the Latins read these sayings of yours, which even now you too bid them read, where you say that all rational creatures, understood under the image of one rational living being, are to be restored into one body, as if the torn-apart members of one man were restored again by the art of Aesculapius into the solidity of the same body; in which you define that there will indeed be different offices, as of members, but one body, that is, of one nature; and this one body of all you call the church of the firstborn, and name the body of Christ; and of this body you say that one member, to be redeemed in its office, is the fugitive angel, who is certainly the devil, and that he is to be restored to that for which he was created from the beginning; likewise man, another member, to be called back to the tilling of paradise as its original husbandman. And these things you pursue with no other person interposed, as is usually done when such matters are spoken of step by step and cautiously, so that someone might think you had doubts in things so secret and hidden, as this Origen, whose disciple you do not deny being and whose betrayer you confess yourself to be, is always found to do in such matters; but with an abrupt and definite judgment, as if an angel were speaking in Daniel or Christ in Paul, you announce to mortal ears the secrets of the ages to come. And you say: "Do not believe any of the ancients, you faithful people chosen by Christ. If Origen suspected anything about the more secret things of the divine dispensation, let no one receive it. And if a Clement, whether that disciple of the apostles or that one of the church of Alexandria, the teacher of Origen himself, said anything of the kind; even if that Gregory of Pontus, a man of apostolic powers; even if that other, of Nazianzus, and Didymus the seeing prophet, both my teachers, than whom the world had nothing wiser in the faith of Christ: all these erred like Origen; but let them receive pardon for their error, because I too once erred, and now do penance, and I ought to receive pardon. But Origen, though he said the same things as I, even if he did penance, shall not receive pardon; rather, for what we all said, let him alone be condemned. He is the one who did all the evil. For he betrayed to us the source of everything we say, everything we write, everything thought to be said learnedly; and from good Greek things we make Latin things not good. Let no one, then, listen to any of these, but receive only what you find in my commentaries, and especially in the Letter to the Ephesians, in which I have most vehemently refuted the sayings of Origen. I have searched out that you must believe and hold that the resurrection of the flesh will be such that bodies are turned into souls and wives directed into men; and that before the foundation of the world souls were in the heavens, and thence, for certain causes known to God alone, were led down into this vale of tears, and inserted into the body of death; and that at the end of the ages every rational nature is to be restored into one body as it was from the beginning, so that man is called back to paradise, and the fugitive angel is exalted above Peter and Paul, who, being men, are to be placed after him, in paradise, while he is restored to that for which he was created from the beginning; so that all together become the church of the firstborn in the heavens, and are members of Christ, in their several offices; while the totality of all is the perfect body of Christ. Holding these things, O faithful and prudent disciples, and guarding these undoubted definitions of mine, yet condemning Origen for these very sayings, you will do well. Farewell." ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 13:3: allusion, medium confidence - Ps 84:6 (83:7 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Heb 12:23: allusion, high confidence - Rom 7:24: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The speech after "And you say" is Rufinus's ironic parody in Jerome's voice, not a quotation; it is printed in quotation marks for clarity. - Clement of Rome (the "disciple of the apostles"), Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus of Pontus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Didymus the Blind ("the seeing prophet," Jerome's own phrase) are named as teachers who held such views. - "An angel speaking in Daniel": compare Dan 9–10; "Christ in Paul": 2 Cor 13:3. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.43 (PL 21:581c–583b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-43). ## Apology against Jerome 1.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-44 - Source: PL 21:583c–584c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus concludes Book 1: if Origen's repentance, reported in his letter to Fabian, did not earn him pardon, neither can Jerome's. ### Latin text Vides quia totum cum irrisione agis, et poenitere te ideo dicis, ut fallas eos quibus scribis? Nam et si vere te poeniteat, ut debet, quid facies propter omnes illas animas, quas per tot annos haec tua tam venenata, ut ipse ais, doctrina decepit? Denique quis umquam per tuam poenitentiam emendabitur, cum iste ipse libellus, in quo et poenitens et accusator et judex es, auditores tuos rursum ad haec ipsa et legenda et tenenda transmittat? Ad ultimum etiam si haec ita non essent, ipse tamen tibi etiam post poenitentiam, omnem aditum veniae praeclusisti. Ais enim ipsum Origenem pro his dictis poenituisse, Libello poenitentiae ad Fabianum, tunc urbis Romae Episcopum dato, et tamen post poenitentiam, post centum et quinquaginta annos mortis suae in jus eum trahis, et ad damnationem vocas; Quomodo ergo pro his dictis tibi venia dabitur poenitenti, si ille qui ante te pro his poenituit, veniam non meretur? Similiter ut scripsisti, scripsit: similiter ut poenituisti, poenituit. Aut similiter pro poenitentia debetis absolvi, aut si negas veniam poenitenti (quod ego non opto, tu perurges), nos pariter condemnari secundum quandam Evangelii parabolam: Oblata est Domino a Judaeis adultera, ut viderent quid de ea secundum legem judicaret. Ille misericors et miserator Dominus, dixit, Si quis vestrum peccatum non habet, mittat super eam lapidem. Et tunc omnes, inquit, discesserunt. Et Judaei quidem licet impii et increduli, tamen erubuerunt conscientias suas, ne cum. ipsi essent peccatores, in peccatores viderentur ulcisci. Et latro ille de cruce dicebat ad alteram latronem, qui simul pendebat in cruce, et blasphemabat, Quia nec tu Deum times, vel quod in eodent nos sumus supplicio. Nos cum haec eadem quae in nobis sunt, condemnemus in aliis, nec cum Judaeis erubescimus, nec cum latrone mitescimus. ### English translation (Claude) Do you see that you do everything in mockery, and say that you repent only to deceive those to whom you write? For even if you truly repent, as you ought, what will you do about all those souls which this teaching of yours, so poisonous, as you yourself say, has deceived for so many years? In short, who will ever be amended by your repentance, when this very little book, in which you are penitent and accuser and judge, sends your hearers back again to read and hold these very things? Finally, even if this were not so, you yourself have shut every approach to pardon for yourself, even after repentance. For you say that Origen himself repented of these sayings, in a little book of repentance given to Fabian, then bishop of the city of Rome; and yet after his repentance, a hundred and fifty years after his death, you drag him to court and summon him to condemnation. How then will pardon be given to you, repenting of these sayings, if he who repented of them before you does not merit pardon? As you wrote, so he wrote; as you repented, so he repented. Either you must both be absolved alike for your repentance, or, if you deny pardon to a penitent (which I do not wish, but you press for), we must be condemned alike, according to a certain parable of the Gospel. An adulteress was brought to the Lord by the Jews, so that they might see how he would judge her according to the law. That merciful and compassionate Lord said, "Let whoever of you has no sin throw a stone at her." And then, it says, they all went away. And the Jews, impious and unbelieving though they were, yet were ashamed before their consciences, lest, being sinners themselves, they should seem to take vengeance on sinners. And that thief on the cross said to the other thief, who was hanging on a cross with him and blaspheming, "Do you not even fear God, since we are under the same punishment?" We, condemning in others the very things that are in ourselves, neither blush with the Jews nor grow gentle with the thief. ### Scripture references - John 8:3–11: allusion, high confidence - Luke 23:40: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.10 (Letters): allusion, high confidence - Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.36.4 (Church History): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Origen's letter to Fabian of Rome is mentioned by Eusebius, Church History 6.36.4, and by Jerome, Ep. 84.10. - The adulteress: John 8:3–11; the thief: Luke 23:40. - Rufinus calls the story of the adulteress a "parable"; translated as written. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 1.44 (PL 21:583c–584c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-1-44). ## Apology against Jerome 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-1 - Source: PL 21:584d–585a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus begins Book 2 by denying Jerome's charge that Origenists are pledged to perjury by a teaching in Origen's Stromata, which he says he never possessed or read. ### Latin text Superiore quidem libello dogmaticas illius objectiones quas aliis impingit immerito, in se, ipso teste retorsimus: nunc vero jam explicitis et post tergum rejectis bis, quae fidei vicinae sunt caussationibus, confidentius ei de caeteris criminationibus respondebimus. Est enim etiam illud accusationis ejus gravissimum caput, quod similiter, ut caetera mendacia, veritatis falce resecandum est. Ait enim confoederatos esse quosdam Origeni ad perjurium, et istud mysticae ejus traditionis arcanum absconditum esse in sexto Stromatum libro: nec ab ullo alio in tot saeculis nisi a se solo deprehensum. Verum ne risum ei moveam, si jurisjurandi sacramento alienum me esse confirmem, a confoederatione perjurii planiore via ad manifestationem veritatis incedam, ex eo: quod facillime probare possum, nec habuisse me umquam libros istos, nec legisse a quoquam praestitos. Et sicut me non possum excusare de eo, quod quale sit nescio, ita ne accusari quidem possum de eo quod, vel si sit, penitus ignoro. Iste tamen, qui arguit vel ab illo traditum, vel a discipulis ejus dici, quod scriptum est, Qui loquitur veritatem cum proximo suo, proximus non sit, nisi ille qui perfectus sit, et symmystes. Et iterum quod Apostolus dicit: Quia sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos: et quod scriptum est: Nolite mittere Sanctum canibus, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ut asserant, inquit, per hoc veritatem non omnibus aperiendam. ### English translation (Claude) In the former book we turned back upon him, on his own testimony, the doctrinal objections which he undeservedly brings against others. Now that these complaints, which border on the faith, have been set out and put behind us, we will answer the rest of his accusations with more confidence. For there is this heaviest head of his accusation too, which, like his other lies, must be cut back with the sickle of truth. He says that certain people are bound together with Origen in a league to commit perjury, and that this secret of his mystic tradition is hidden in the sixth book of the Stromata, and has been detected by no one else in so many ages but by himself alone. But, so as not to make him laugh if I affirm by the sacrament of an oath that I am a stranger to a league of perjury, I will go to the manifestation of the truth by a plainer road, from this: that I can very easily prove that I never had those books, nor read them when lent by anyone. And as I cannot excuse myself about something whose nature I do not know, so neither can I be accused about something of which, even if it exists, I am wholly ignorant. Yet he charges that it is handed down by Origen, or said by his disciples, that what is written, "He who speaks truth with his neighbour," means that no one is a neighbour except one who is perfect and a fellow-initiate; and again what the Apostle says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect"; and what is written, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine": so that by this, he says, they assert that the truth is not to be opened to all. ### Scripture references - Eph 4:25: quotation, high confidence - Zech 8:16: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 2:6: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:6: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.3 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The charge is Jerome's (Ep. 84.3, compare Against John of Jerusalem). Origen's Stromateis, in ten books, is lost. - "He who speaks truth…": Eph 4:25 (Zech 8:16); "We speak wisdom…": 1 Cor 2:6; "Do not give…": Matt 7:6. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.1 (PL 21:584d–585a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-1). ## Apology against Jerome 2.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-2 - Source: PL 21:585b–586a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's comment on Eph 4:25, which itself restricts mysteries to the worthy, to show that Jerome holds what he condemns. ### Latin text Videamus quod ipse in istis ipsis electis suis commentariis libro secundo, sub eo capitulo ubi scriptum est: Propter quod deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem unusquisque cum proximo suo, quoniam sumus invicem membra: post pauca, « Propter quod, inquit, Paulus ipse perfectus in Epistola alia loquebatur; Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos. Ergo hoc est quod jubet, ut unusquisque mystica quaeque atque secreta, et ea quae Dei veritate sunt plena loquatur cum proximo suo, ut dies diei eructet verbum, et nox nocti indicet scientiam, hoc est, clara quaeque et lucentia indicet his, qui merentur audire: Vos estis lux mundi. Porro tenebrosa et involuta, et omni sacramentorum nocte velata aliis referat, qui et ipsi nox, tenebrae, vel caligo sunt. De quibus dicitur. Et caligo sub pedibus ejus, haud dubium quin Dei. Nam et in monte Sina Moyses ingreditur in turbinem et caliginem, ubi erat Deus. Et de ipso Deo scriptum est: Posuit tenebras latibulum suum. Loquatur itaque veritatem atque mysteria unusquisque cum proximo suo, nec det sanctum canibus, neque mittat margaritas ante porcos: sed quicunque oleum veritatis habuerint, illos in thalamum sponsi et penum regis inducat. » Videte, quaeso vos, et diligentius perspicite, si alium aliquem in omnibus his quae scribit, nisi se et sua dicta condemnet. Si inimici sui lacerare eum, et arguere pro scriptis suis vellent, quo alio ordine, quibus aliis adversum eum sententiis uterentur, nisi quibus ipse adversum se, tanquam adversus alios, utitur? Condemnatio adversum istum si proferenda sit, Epistola sua sufficit, si solum nomen immutes, textus enim criminum nec in alium omnino quemquam sicut in ipsum convenit solum. Quae damnari jubet, haec iterum observari jubet: quae agit, arguit: quae detestatur, operatur. Beati discipuli ejus, qui eum vel audiunt vel imitantur. ### English translation (Claude) Let us see what he himself says in these very chosen commentaries of his, book two, under the heading where it is written, "Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak truth each one with his neighbour, for we are members of one another." After a little: "Therefore," he says, "Paul himself, being perfect, said in another letter: 'But we speak wisdom among the perfect.' This, then, is what he commands: that each one should speak all mystical and secret things, and things full of the truth of God, with his neighbour, so that day may pour forth speech to day and night show knowledge to night; that is, let him show all clear and shining things to those who deserve to hear: 'You are the light of the world.' But let him relate the dark and involved things, veiled in all the night of mysteries, to others, who are themselves night, darkness, or gloom; of whom it is said, 'And gloom was under his feet,' no doubt God's. For on Mount Sinai too Moses enters into the whirlwind and the gloom where God was. And of God himself it is written: 'He made darkness his hiding place.' Let each one, then, speak truth and mysteries with his neighbour, and not give what is holy to dogs nor cast pearls before swine; but let him bring those who have the oil of truth into the bridegroom's chamber and the king's storeroom." See, I pray you, and look more carefully whether in all that he writes he condemns anyone but himself and his own sayings. If his enemies wished to tear him and censure him for his writings, by what other order, what other judgments would they use against him than those which he uses against himself as though against others? If condemnation is to be brought against him, his own letter is enough, if you only change the name; for the text of the charges fits no one else at all as it fits him alone. What he bids be condemned, he bids again be observed; what he does, he censures; what he detests, he practises. Happy his disciples, who either hear him or imitate him! ### Scripture references - Eph 4:25: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:6: quotation, high confidence - Ps 19:2 (18:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:14: quotation, high confidence - Ps 18:9 (17:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Exod 20:21: allusion, high confidence - Ps 18:11 (17:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:6: allusion, high confidence - Matt 25:1–10: allusion, medium confidence - Song 1:4: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Comm. Eph. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 2, on Eph 4:25. - "We speak wisdom…": 1 Cor 2:6; "day pours forth speech…": Ps 19:2 (LXX 18:3); "You are the light…": Matt 5:14; "gloom was under his feet": Ps 18:9 (LXX 17:10); Moses in the gloom: Exod 20:21; "He made darkness his hiding place": Ps 18:11 (LXX 17:12); "dogs… swine": Matt 7:6; the oil and the bridegroom's chamber: Matt 25:1–10; the king's storeroom: Song 1:4. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.2 (PL 21:585b–586a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-2). ## Apology against Jerome 2.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-3 - Source: PL 21:586a–586b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus declares that anyone who teaches that perjury is ever permitted is outside the faith of Christ and the catholic church. ### Latin text Veruntamen quoniam perjurii ejus dogma proponitur, nihil ad me si iste vel agat vel scribat, quia apud nonnullos fratrum etiam hanc nobis inurere conatus est maculam, et nunc iterare per literas, secundum ab illo datam regulam: quid ego ipse de perjurio sentiam, profero, ut de sese iterum sibi ipsi judicium derelinquam. Etenim cum Dominus et Salvator noster dicat in Evangeliis, Dictum est antiquis, non perjurabis reddes enim Domino juramenta tua: ego autem dico vobis, nolite jurare omnino: omnis qui docet quacunque ex caussa pejerandum esse, ego dico quod alienus sit a fide Christi, et ab Ecclestae unitate catholicae. ### English translation (Claude) Nevertheless, since the doctrine of perjury is put forward as his, it is nothing to me whether he practises or writes it; but since among some of the brothers he has tried to brand this stain on us too, and now to repeat it by letter, I state what I myself think about perjury, according to the rule he has given, so that I may again leave him to judge about himself. For since our Lord and Saviour says in the Gospels, "It was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but you shall render to the Lord your oaths; but I say to you, do not swear at all," I say that whoever teaches that one may swear falsely for any cause whatever is a stranger to the faith of Christ and to the unity of the catholic church. ### Scripture references - Matt 5:33–34: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - "It was said…": Matt 5:33–34. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.3 (PL 21:586a–586b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-3). ## Apology against Jerome 2.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-4 - Source: PL 21:586b–587a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus undertakes to show from Jerome's own writings that Jerome himself has committed perjury. ### Latin text Sed velim nunc posteaquam de meo, ut ipse statui, anathemate satisfeci, elaborare paululum, si patienter accipitis, et hoc quod iste per orgia quaedam et mysticas foederationes, perjurium observari dicit, quos habeat cultores et symmystas, aperire. Certa est enim et satis vera Dei illa sententia quae dicit, Quia ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos: et iterum: Ex fructibus, inquit, arbor cognoscitur. Et nos ergo, sicut iste dicit, perjurii dogma suscepimus. Si ad hoc edocti sumus, et talis in nobis arbor plantata est, non potest fieri, ut non tales aliqui ex nobis saepius germinaverint fructus, verum etiam mystici dogmatis auctoritate coaluerint. Et quidem quantum ad personam meam pertinet, quem solum ex his omnibus quae scribit, lacerare se putat, non mihi ipsi feram testimonium, nec dicam quod etiam sit jurandum, cum forte necessitas exigit: et si non cautus sum, at certe timidus esse cupio. Postremo et si observare non possum, errasse me noverim. Haec ergo non dicam, tamen sive errem in his, sive caveam, iste inierim caussam commissi alicujus, qua me in talibus arguat, non habet. Ego autem qualiter apud istum sacratissima sit hujus non dogmatis, sed foedissimi et verissimi vitii observantia, iterum ex scriptis ejus probabo. Nihil enim ex livore et invidia confictum adversum eum proferam, ut ipse contra nos facit; sed ipsum se testem et scripta sua adversum eum producam: ut sciat se non ab inimicis argui, sed a semetipso redargui. ### English translation (Claude) But now that I have satisfied him with my anathema, as he himself laid down, I should like, if you bear with me patiently, to labour a little and to disclose what worshippers and fellow-initiates this perjury has, which he says is observed through certain orgies and mystic leagues. For that saying of God is certain and true enough which says, "By their fruits you will know them"; and again, "By the fruit," it says, "the tree is known." And so we too, as he says, have received the doctrine of perjury. If we have been taught this, and such a tree has been planted in us, it cannot be that such fruits have not often sprung from some of us, and indeed grown strong by the authority of a mystic doctrine. And as far as my own person is concerned, whom alone of all these he thinks he is tearing in what he writes, I will not bear witness to myself, nor will I say whether one must even swear when perhaps necessity demands; and if I am not careful, at least I wish to be fearful. Finally, if I cannot keep it, I shall know that I have erred. These things, then, I will not say; yet whether I err in them or take care, he meanwhile has no cause of any offence by which to convict me in such matters. But I will prove again from his writings how most sacred with him is the observance, not of this doctrine, but of this most foul and most real vice. For I will bring nothing against him invented from spite and envy, as he does against us; but I will produce himself as witness and his writings against him, so that he may know that he is censured not by his enemies but refuted by himself. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:16: quotation, high confidence - Matt 12:33: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - "By their fruits…": Matt 7:16; "by the fruit the tree is known": Matt 12:33. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.4 (PL 21:586b–587a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-4). ## Apology against Jerome 2.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-5 - Source: PL 21:587a–587d - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus recalls Jerome's letter to Eustochium on virginity, which pagans copied eagerly because it ridiculed virgins, widows, monks, and clergy. ### Latin text Libellum quemdam de conservanda virginitate Romae positus scripsit, quem libellum omnes Pagani et inimici Dei, apostatae et persecutores, et quicunque sunt, qui Christianum nomen odio habent, certatim sibi describebant pro eo, quod omnem ibi Christianorum ordinem, omnem gradum, omnem professionem, universamque pariter foedissimis exprobrationibus infamavit Ecclestam; et ea quae Gentiles falso in nos conferre crimina putabantur, iste vera esse, immo multo pejora a nostris geri, quam illi criminabantur, asseruit. Nam primo illas ipsas virgines, de quarum virtute scribere videbatur, infamat, et dicit de eis his verbis: « Aliae virili habitu, veste mutata, erubescunt se feminas esse, quod natae sunt, crinem amputant, et impudenter erigunt facies eunuchinas. Sunt quae ciliciis vestiuntur, et cucullis fabrefactis, ut ad infantiam redeant, imitantur noctuas et bubones. » Dicit et mille alia de his probra graviora. Sed nec viduis quidem parcit. Ait namque, quantum in consequentibus augescat invectio. « Sunt alii, inquit, de mei ordinis hominibus loquor, qui ideo Presbyterium et Diaconatum ambiunt, ut mulieres licentius videant. Omnis his cura de vestibus, si bene oleant, si pes laxa pelle non folleat. Crines calamistri vestigio rotantur, digiti de anulis radiant, et ne plantas humidior via spargat, vix imprimunt summa vestigia. Tales cum videris, sponsos magis aestimes esse quam Clericos. » Et posteaquam speciatim non tam vilia quam crimina Sacerdotum, vel ministrorum exprobrans, etiam ingressum eorum et salutationes ad matronas, non solum decoloravit, verum etiam exsecrabilem fecit: quomodo posteaquam omne genus Christianum conscidit et infamavit, sibi quoque non parcat ipse, audite. ### English translation (Claude) While he was at Rome he wrote a little book on preserving virginity, a book which all the pagans and enemies of God, apostates and persecutors, and all who hold the Christian name in hatred, vied with one another in copying for themselves, because in it he defamed every order of Christians, every rank, every profession, and the whole church alike, with most foul reproaches; and the crimes which the Gentiles were thought to bring against us falsely, he asserted to be true, indeed that far worse things were done by our people than they charged. For first he defames those very virgins about whose virtue he seemed to write, and speaks of them in these words: "Others, changing their dress for a man's garb, blush to be women, which they were born; they cut off their hair, and shamelessly lift up eunuch-like faces. There are some who dress in haircloth, and with hoods cleverly made, so as to return to infancy, imitate night owls and screech owls." And he says a thousand other graver reproaches about them. But he does not spare even widows. For he says of them: "They have no care but for the belly and what is next to the belly." He heaps on many other obscenities as well. And how foully, how basely he tears the whole class of monks would be long to prove by his own words or writings. What disgraceful things he described about deacons and presbyters I am ashamed to repeat. Yet I will set down the beginning of his tearing, from which it may more easily be guessed how much the invective grows in what follows. "There are others," he says (I speak of men of my own order), "who seek the presbyterate and the diaconate so as to see women more freely. All their care is for their clothes, whether they smell sweet, whether the foot is not baggy in a loose skin. Their locks are curled by the trace of the curling iron; their fingers glitter with rings; and so that a damp road may not spatter their soles, they barely press the ground with the tips of their toes. When you see such men, think them bridegrooms rather than clerics." And after he had reproached, one by one, not so much the faults as the crimes of the priests or ministers, he not only discoloured but made execrable even their entering and greeting matrons. Hear how, after he had cut to pieces and defamed the whole Christian race, he does not spare himself either. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 22.27 (Letters): quotation, high confidence - Jerome, Ep. 22.28 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 22 (to Eustochium), quoted from 22.27 (virgins), 22.29 (widows), and 22.28 (clergy). - "Sacerdotes" here means bishops and presbyters generally; rendered "priests." ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.5 (PL 21:587a–587d; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-5). ## Apology against Jerome 2.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-6 - Source: PL 21:588a–588c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's account of his dream, in which he was beaten before Christ's tribunal as a "Ciceronian" and swore never again to own or read secular books. ### Latin text Redeo enim post excessum quemdam ad hoc quod proposueram, propter quod et Libelli hujus res poposcit fieri mentionem, et ostendam apud istum tam licita haberi perjuria, ut scriptis quoque suis deprehendi ea non erubescat. Igitur in hoc ipso Libello, cum moneret, saeculares codices legi non debere et diceret, « Quid faciet cum Psalterio Horatius, cum Evangeliis Maro, cum Apostolo Cicero? nonne scandalizabitur frater, si te viderit in idolio recumbentem? » et extera cum dixisset ejusmodi, quibus alienam esse a Christiano assereret librorum saecularium lectionem: inserit etiam revelationem quandam ad se divinitus factam, satis horrificis refertam praeceptis. Refert enim, quod posteaquam saeculo renuntiasset, et ad Deum fuisset conversus, amore tamen saecularium librorum valde teneretur, nec facile posset tali carere destderio, « Et pro hoc subito, inquit, raptus in spiritu, ad tribunal Judicis pertrahor, ubi tantum luminis et tantum erat ex circumstantium claritate fulgoris, ut projectus in terram, sursum aspicere non auderem. Interrogatus conditionem, Christianum me esse respondi. Et ille, qui praestdebat. Mentiris ait, Ciceronianus es, non Christianus; ubi thesaurus tuus est, ibi et cor tuum. Illico obmutui, et inter verbera (jam enim caedi me jusserat. conscientiae magis igne torquebar. Clamare tamen cepi, et ejulans dicere, Miserere mei, Domine, miserere mei. Haec vox inter flagella resonabat. Tandem ad praestdentis genua provoluti, qui adstabant, precabantur, ut veniam tribueret adolescentiae, et errori locum poenitentiae commodaret, exacturus deinde cruciatum, si Gentilium literarum libros aliquando legissem. Ego qui tanto constrictus articulo, vellem etiam majora promittere, dejerare cepi, et nomen ejus obtestans dicere, Domine, si unquam habuero codices saeculares, aut si legero, te negavi. In haec verba dimissus, revertor, inquit, ad Superos. » ### English translation (Claude) For I return, after a sort of digression, to what I had proposed, on account of which the matter required mention of this little book, and I will show that with him perjuries are held so permissible that he does not blush to be caught in them even in his writings. In this very book, then, when he was warning that secular books should not be read, and saying, "What has Horace to do with the Psalter, Virgil with the Gospels, Cicero with the Apostle? Will not a brother be scandalized if he sees you reclining in an idol's temple?" and had said other such things by which he asserted that the reading of secular books is foreign to a Christian, he also inserts a certain revelation made to him from God, filled with quite terrifying commands. For he relates that after he had renounced the world and been converted to God, he was still strongly held by love of secular books and could not easily do without such a desire. "And for this," he says, "I am suddenly caught up in the spirit and dragged before the tribunal of the Judge, where there was so much light, and so much brightness from the radiance of those standing around, that, thrown to the ground, I did not dare look up. Asked my condition, I answered that I was a Christian. And he who presided said: 'You lie; you are a Ciceronian, not a Christian; where your treasure is, there is your heart also.' At once I was struck dumb, and amid the blows (for he had ordered me to be beaten) I was tortured more by the fire of conscience. Yet I began to cry out and to say, wailing, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, have mercy on me.' This cry resounded among the lashes. At last those who stood by, falling at the knees of him who presided, begged him to grant pardon to my youth, and to allow room for repentance for my error, being ready to exact the torment afterwards if I ever read the books of Gentile literature. I, who in so great a strait would have been willing to promise even greater things, began to swear, and calling on his name to say: 'Lord, if ever I possess secular books, or if I read them, I have denied you.' Released on these words, I return," he says, "to the upper world." ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 6:14–15: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 8:10: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:21: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 22.29 (Letters): quotation, high confidence - Jerome, Ep. 22.30 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 22.29–30. - "What has Horace…": compare 2 Cor 6:14–15; "reclining in an idol's temple": 1 Cor 8:10; "where your treasure…": Matt 6:21; "Have mercy on me…": Ps 51:1 (LXX 50:3) and elsewhere. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.6 (PL 21:588a–588c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-6). ## Apology against Jerome 2.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-7 - Source: PL 21:588c–589a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus charges Jerome with breaking his oath, since his writings are full of quotations from Cicero, Horace, Virgil, and Greek philosophers. ### Latin text Audisti quam novum, quam horrificum juramenti sui exposuerit genus? Restdente in tribunalibus judice Domino Jesu Christo, assistentibus Angelis, et Intercedentibus pro se, inter verbera et cruciatus jurat se saeculares libros nec habiturum unquam, nec lecturum. Relegantur nunc, quaeso, quae scribit, si una ejus Operis pagina est, quae non eum iterum Ciceronianum pronuntiet, ubi non dicat: sed Tullius noster, sed Flaccus noster, sed Maro. Jam vero Chrysippum et Aristidem, Empedoclem, et caetera Graecorum auctorum nomina, ut doctus videatur, et plurimae lectionis, tanquam fumos et nebulas lectoribus spargit. Denique inter caetera etiam Pythagorae libros legisse se jactat, quos ne exstare quidem, eruditi homines asserunt. Sed iste ne aliqua ex parte juramentum suum de auctoribus Gentilium praeteriret, etiam ea, quae non sunt scripta, legisse se scribit. Sed in omnibus fere Opusculis suis multo plura, et prolixiora testimonia de his suis, quam de Prophetis nostris vel Apostolis ponit. Puellis quoque et mulierculis scribens, quae non utique nisi de nostris Scripturis aedificari et cupiunt et debent, exempla eis Flacci sui, et Tullii, vel Maronis intexit. ### English translation (Claude) Have you heard what new, what terrifying kind of oath he has set out? With the Lord Jesus Christ seated as judge on the tribunal, with the angels standing by and interceding for him, amid blows and torments he swears that he will never possess or read secular books. Let what he writes now be read again, I pray: whether there is one page of his work which does not again pronounce him a Ciceronian, where he does not say, "But our Tully," "but our Flaccus," "but our Maro." And as for Chrysippus and Aristides, Empedocles and the other names of Greek authors, he scatters them like smoke and mist before his readers, so as to seem learned and of very wide reading. In fact, among other things he even boasts that he has read the books of Pythagoras, which learned men assert do not even exist. But this man, lest he should pass over his oath about the Gentile authors in any respect, writes that he has read even what was never written. And in almost all his works he sets down many more and longer testimonies from these authors of his than from our prophets or apostles. Even writing to girls and little women, who certainly both desire and ought to be built up only from our Scriptures, he weaves in for them examples from his Flaccus and Tully and Maro. ### Extrabiblical texts - Cicero (Cicero): allusion, low confidence - Horace (Horace): allusion, low confidence - Virgil (Virgil): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Tully is Cicero, Flaccus is Horace, Maro is Virgil. - Jerome's claim to have read Pythagoras is in Against Rufinus 3.39–40, written later; Rufinus refers to earlier statements of the kind. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.7 (PL 21:588c–589a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/1-39/#p-2-7). ## Apology against Jerome 2.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-8 - Source: PL 21:591c–592a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus gives witnesses that Jerome had Cicero's dialogues copied on the Mount of Olives and taught the classical poets to boys at Bethlehem. ### Latin text Sed transeamus jam hinc ad alterius objecti purgationem, si tamen convictum se perjurii et praevaricationis simul, perurgente etiam conscientia sua, fateatur. Alioquin si inficias eat, etiam testes quamplurimos fratrum habere possum, qui in meis cellulis manentes, in monte Oliveti quamplurimos ei Ciceronis Dialogos descripserunt, quorum et ego quaterniones, cum scriberent, frequenter in manibus tenui, et relegi, quod mercedes multo largiores, quam pro aliis scripturis solent, ab isto eis darentur, agnovi. Mihi quoque ipsi aliquando cum de Bethleem Jerosolymam venisset, et codicem secum detulisset, in quo erat unus Dialogus Ciceronis, et idem ipse Graecus Platonis, quod dederit ipsum codicem, et aliquandiu fuerit apud me, nullo genere negare potest. Sed quid immoror tandiu in re, quae luce est clarior? cum ad haec omnia quae supra diximus, etiam illud addatur, ubi cesset omne commentum, quod in monasterio positus in Bethleem, ante non multo adhuc tempore, partes Grammaticas exsecutus sit, et Maronem suum, Comicosque ac Lyricos et Historicos Auctores, traditis sibi ad discendum Dei timorem puerulis exponebat, scilicet et ut praeceptor fieret Auctorum Gentilium quos si legisset tantummodo, Christum se negaturum juraverat. ### English translation (Claude) But let us now pass from here to clearing myself of another charge, if indeed, pressed by his conscience as well, he admits himself convicted of perjury and breach of faith. Otherwise, if he denies it, I can produce very many brothers as witnesses who, staying in my cells on the Mount of Olives, copied very many of Cicero's dialogues for him; whose quires, as they were writing, I often held in my hands and read over, and I knew that he paid them much higher wages than are usual for other writings. He cannot in any way deny that once, when he had come from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and had brought with him a book containing one dialogue of Cicero and the same one of Plato in Greek, he gave me that very book, and it was with me for some time. But why do I dwell so long on a matter clearer than daylight? when to all that we have said above this too is added, where all invention ceases: that, while in the monastery at Bethlehem, not very long ago, he carried out the part of a grammarian, and expounded his Maro, and the comic and lyric poets and historians, to little boys entrusted to him to learn the fear of God; so that he became, of course, a teacher of the Gentile authors whom he had sworn that he would deny Christ if he so much as read. ### Extrabiblical texts - Cicero (Cicero): allusion, low confidence - Virgil (Virgil): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - NPNF² 3 prints before this section a longer passage (on Jerome's letter On the Best Kind of Translating, his letter to Domnio naming Porphyry as his introducer to logic, and Rom 2:17–24 applied to him), which is not in the text printed here. - The dialogue of Cicero with "the same one of Plato in Greek" is perhaps Cicero's translation of Plato's Timaeus or Protagoras; uncertain. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.8 (PL 21:591c–592a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-8). ## Apology against Jerome 2.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-9 - Source: PL 21:592b–592c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that the views Jerome condemns as pagan, the pre-existence of souls and a final end of punishment, are not impious if held to defend God's justice. ### Latin text Sed videamus quid adhuc aliud culpet. Gentilium esse dicit haec dogmata: ecce qua sententia se ipse condemnet. Gentilium dicit dogmata, quae ipse conscribit: labitur; sed porrigenda manus est, non est nimie perurgendus. Dum enim totus in eloquentia volitat, et vituperationibus atque invectionibus fertur, immemor sui fit, et a ratione devolvitur. Noli, frater, temetipsum etiam in non necessariis temere condemnare. Non continuo inter Gentiles deputandus es, vel tu vel Origenes, si, ut ipse dixisti, volentes Dei justitiam defendere, et respondere contra eos, qui vel fato vel casu cuncta moveri dicunt: et volentes ostendere justam esse Dei providentiam, quae moderatur universa; dixisti inaequalitatis caussas unam quemque sibi animam jam ex anterioris vitae, quam in caelestibus habuit, motibus ac sensibus comparasse; vel etiam si dixisti, bonae illi et incommutabili ac simplici naturae Trinitatis convenire, ut omnem creaturam suam in fine omnium restituat in hoc quod ex initio creata est, et post longa et spatiis saeculorum exaequata supplicia, quae Deus non tam irascentis quam curantis affectu inferi unicuique, quippe qui commonitionis caret vitio, et medentis et curantis vice finem statuat aliquando poenarum. Haec ergo quam vera dixeritis, Deus viderit; tamen impietatis non multum mihi continere videntur in Deum, nec Gentilitatis aliquid, maxime si hac mente dicitis, quavis ratione Dei scilicet justitiam defendere cupientes. ### English translation (Claude) But let us see what else he blames. He says these are doctrines of the Gentiles: see by what judgment he condemns himself. He says that what he himself writes are the doctrines of the Gentiles. He slips; but a hand must be held out to him; he must not be pressed too hard. For while he is all flying in eloquence and is carried away by abuse and invective, he forgets himself and rolls away from reason. Do not, brother, rashly condemn yourself even in things that are not necessary. Neither you nor Origen is at once to be counted among the Gentiles if, as you yourself said, wishing to defend the justice of God and to answer those who say that all things are moved by fate or chance, and wishing to show that the providence of God which governs all things is just, you said that each soul has itself procured the causes of inequality from the movements and feelings of a former life which it had in the heavens; or even if you said that it befits that good, unchangeable and simple nature of the Trinity to restore its whole creation at the end of all things to that for which it was created from the beginning, and that after long punishments, made equal to the spans of ages, which God inflicts on each one with the disposition not so much of one who is angry as of one who heals, since he is free from the fault of resentment, he will at some time, acting as physician and healer, set an end to punishments. How true these things are which you have said, God will see; yet they do not seem to me to contain much impiety towards God, nor anything of heathenism, especially if you say them with this intention, desiring by whatever reasoning to defend the justice of God. ### Translation notes - Rufinus here states, without asserting them, the views on pre-existence and on the restoration of all things; he says only that God knows how true they are. Translated exactly. - "Commonitionis" (free from the fault of "warning") is probably a slip for "commotionis" (agitation, resentment); translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.9 (PL 21:592b–592c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-9). ## Apology against Jerome 2.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-10 - Source: PL 21:592d–593d - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus attacks Jerome's phrase in the letter to Eustochium calling her mother "the mother-in-law of God," and blames it on Jerome's study of Porphyry. ### Latin text Pro his ergo noli te satis conturbare, neque teipsum superfluo aut poenitentiae subjicias, aut condemnationi. Sed illud est revera, unde te defendere, aut excusare non possumus, quod non solum gentiliter, verum et super omnem gentilitatem, imo impietatem a te dictum probatur, quod in hoc ipso libello, cujus superius fecimus mentionem, Deum socrum habere dixisti. Et quid tam impium vel profanum a quoquam Gentilium Poetarum saltem dici potuit? Stultum est enim si requiram de te, ubi hoc in Scripturis sanctis legeris. Quaero si vel Flacus tuus, aut Maro, si Plautus, aut Terentius, certe si vel Satyricus quis inter omnia spurca sua et impudica istud nefas in Deum ex suo ore protulerit. Fefellit te credo illa res et decepit, quod puella ad quam sermo Dei fiebat, sponsa Christi dicebatur: ut propterea etiam matrem carnalem, socrum Dei appellandam putares. Et nesciebas quod haec non secundum carnis ordinem dicuntur, sed secundum spiritus gratiam. Sponsa enim ex eo appellatur, quod sermo Dei quasi sacrato quodam connubio jungatur animae humanae. Si autem tali conjunctione etiam mater puellae Christo per fidem sociatur, rectius etiam ipsam sponsam Christi, quam socrum Dei appellare potuisses. Nunc restat tibi, ut et patrem puellae, socerum Dei dicas, et sorores ejus, cognatas: etiam puellam nurum Dei pronunties. Sic dum totus Plautinae et Tullianae cupis eloquentiae sectator videri, oblitus es, quomodo Apostolus omnem Ecclestam, id est parentes cum liberis, matrem cum filiabus, cum sororibus fratres omnes simul unam nominet virginem, vel sponsam, dicens: Statui autem hoc ipsum omnes vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. Sed tu dum non Paulum, sed Porphyrium introductorem te habere gloriaris, ipsum Porphyrium sequendo, qui adversum Christum, et adversum Deum libros impios ac sacrilegos scripsit, et ab ipso, ut ais, introductus in istud blasphemiae barathrum decidisti ### English translation (Claude) Do not, then, be too much disturbed on account of these things, and do not needlessly subject yourself either to repentance or to condemnation. But this really is something from which we cannot defend or excuse you: it is proved to have been said by you not only in a heathen way but beyond all heathenism, indeed beyond all impiety, that in this very little book of which we made mention above you said that God has a mother-in-law. And what so impious or profane could have been said by anyone, even of the Gentile poets? For it would be foolish if I asked you where you read this in the holy Scriptures. I ask whether your Flaccus, or Maro, whether Plautus or Terence, or certainly whether any satirist among all his filthy and shameless words, ever uttered with his mouth this outrage against God. I suppose this thing deceived and misled you: that the girl to whom the word of God was addressed was called the bride of Christ, so that for this reason you thought her mother in the flesh should also be called God's mother-in-law. And you did not know that these things are said not according to the order of the flesh but according to the grace of the Spirit. For she is called bride because the word of God is joined to the human soul as in a kind of sacred marriage. But if by such a union the girl's mother too is associated with Christ through faith, you could more rightly have called her too the bride of Christ than the mother-in-law of God. Now it remains for you to call the girl's father God's father-in-law, and her sisters his kinswomen, and to declare the girl God's daughter-in-law. So, while you wish to seem wholly a follower of the eloquence of Plautus and Tully, you have forgotten how the Apostle names the whole church, that is, parents with children, mother with daughters, brothers with sisters, all together, one virgin or bride, saying: "For I have betrothed you all to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." But you, while you boast that you have had not Paul but Porphyry as your introducer, by following Porphyry himself, who wrote impious and sacrilegious books against Christ and against God, have also, introduced by him, as you say, fallen into this pit of blasphemy. ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 11:2: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 22.20 (Letters): allusion, high confidence - Porphyry, Porphyry, Chr. (Porphyry, Against the Christians (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 22.20, where Eustochium's mother Paula is called "socrus Dei." - "Introducer" plays on Porphyry's Introduction (Isagoge) to Aristotle's logic, which Jerome studied. - "I have betrothed you…": 2 Cor 11:2. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.10 (PL 21:592d–593d; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-10). ## Apology against Jerome 2.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-11 - Source: PL 21:594a–594b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus urges Jerome to repent of calling God's bride's mother his mother-in-law, a blasphemy graver than any error about creatures. ### Latin text Quod si vere pro maledictis tuis vis agere poenitentiam, si non irrides ista dicendo, si non mente ψάόνειχο; et contentiosius propter hoc solum etiam te infamare non refugis, dummodo alium decolores: si non arte, sed fide dictorum tuorum poenitudinem egeris, pro hac tam gravi turpique blasphemia age poenitentiam, hinc enim in Deum blasphemasti. Nam de creaturis aliquid dicere et errare, maxime si non contumeliae voto, sed dum justitiam Dei, ut dicis, cupit asserere, quis effluat, non est nimis exsecrabile commissum. In caelum tendere os, grave est. Injustitiam vel contumeliam in excelsum loqui, perniciosum est. Hoc lugeatur quod difficile curatur. Nam quis est qui cum morbo regio laboret, et de ipso capite, et vultu ac vita periclitetur, magnopere clamet, quod non leve παρωνύχιον pedis, aut perfacilis ungulae suae offensa curetur? ### English translation (Claude) But if you truly wish to do penance for your revilings, if you are not mocking when you say this, if you do not, in a quarrelsome and contentious spirit, shrink even from defaming yourself for this sole purpose, so long as you discolour another; if you have repented of your sayings not by art but in good faith: do penance for this so grave and shameful blasphemy; for here you blasphemed against God. For to say something about creatures and to err, especially if not from a wish to insult but while one desires, as you say, to assert the justice of God, is not too execrable an offence. To set one's mouth against heaven is grave; to speak injustice or insult against the Most High is ruinous. Let that be mourned which is hard to cure. For who is there who, suffering from jaundice and in danger in his very head and face and life, cries out loudly that a light whitlow of the foot or a very easily healed hurt of his nail should be cured? ### Scripture references - Ps 73:9 (72:9 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 75:5 (74:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The two Greek words are garbled in the digital text; the first is probably φιλόνεικος ("quarrelsome") and is translated so; the second is restored as παρωνύχιον ("whitlow"). - "Set one's mouth against heaven": Ps 73:9 (LXX 72:9); "speak injustice against the Most High": Ps 75:5 (LXX 74:6). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.11 (PL 21:594a–594b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-11). ## Apology against Jerome 2.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-12 - Source: PL 21:594b–595c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus contrasts Jerome's brief stay with Didymus with his own years among Alexandrian teachers and desert fathers, and mocks Jerome's Jewish teacher as "Barabbas" and his debt to Porphyry. ### Latin text Illud autem minimum quidem est, et responsione vix dignum, quod enumerans doctores suos, quos se de synagoga dicit esse mercatum, stimulans nos, subjungit: Neque enim, inquit, ipse me docui, sicut quidam; nos sine dubio intuens, in quos omne ab initio lacerationis suae pondus invexit. Et miror hoc eum dicere voluisse, cum majorem in me et veriorem haberet obtrectandi materiam, quod magis inter multos et praeclaros magistros diu moratus, nihil dignum eorum, vel magisterio, vel institutionibus habeam. Caeterum iste qui in tota vita sua non totos triginta dies Alexandriae, ubi est, erta. Didymus commoratus est per totos pene libellos suos longe lateque se jactat. Didymi videntis esse discipulum, et καθηγητήν, id est proeceptorem, in scripturis sanctis habuisse Didymum. Et omnis ista jactantia in uno mense quaesita est. Ego qui sex annis Dei caussa commoratus sum, et iterum post intervallum aliquod, aliis duobus, ubi Didymus, de quo tu solo te jactas. et ubi alii nihilominus illo non inferiores, quos tu ne facie tenus quidem nosti, Serapion, et Menites, viri natura et moribus et eruditione germani: ubi Paulus senex Petri Martyris discipulus: et ut ad eremi magistros veniam, quibus et attentius et frequentius vacabamus, ubi Macarius Antonii discipulus et alter Macarius, et Isidorus, et a Pambas, omnes amici Dei, qui nos haec docebant, quae ipsi a Deo discebant: quantam ego, si hoc ita deceret, aut expediret, de his omnibus habere jactantiae materiam possem? Sed erubesco, haec etiam retexens, dum volo tibi ostendere, non, ut tu dicis, nostro ingenio magistros, sed quod plus doleo, magistris defuisse magis ingenium nostrum. Verum quid stultus ego sanctos enumero Christianos viros? Non propter istos dicit, quia ipsi nos docuimus, sed quia Barrabam ejus de Synagoga magistrum non suscepimus, et per εἰσαγωγήν Porphyrii, ad Logicam non sumus introducti. Ignosce mihi pro hoc quod malui ante imperitus et indoctus videri, quam Barrabae discipulus dici. Proposito etiam Christo simul et Barraba, ego quasi imperitus Christum elegi. Tu, ut video, cum illis clamas qui dicunt: Non hunc, sed Barrabam. Nam Porphyrius tuus, dic quaeso, quid te docuit, qui adversum Christianos, et adversum religionem nostram blasphemiae volumina conscripsit? Quid te isti in quibus tantum te jactas, unus ab idolis daemonum, et alius de Synagoga, ut dicis, Satanae magistri docuerunt boni? Nihil video nisi hoc quod et ipsi noverant. Nam Porphyrius te docuit de Christianis male loqui, concidere virgines, continentes, Diaconos, Presbyteros, et omnem prorsus Christianorum gradum et ordinem libellis editis infamare. Ille vero de Synagoga Barrabas tuus pro Christo electus, docuit te resurrectionem carnis, non in virtute, sed in fragilitate sperare: literae occidentis amicum fieri, et inimicum spiritus vivificantis. Et alia quaedam secretiora, quae si res poposcerit, postmodum proferentur in tempore. ### English translation (Claude) That point, indeed, is very slight and hardly worth an answer, that in enumerating his teachers, whom he says he bought from the synagogue, he adds, to goad us: "For I did not teach myself, as some have"; no doubt looking at us, against whom he has brought the whole weight of his tearing from the beginning. And I wonder that he chose to say this, since he had a greater and truer matter for disparaging me: that, though I stayed long among many distinguished teachers, I have nothing worthy of their teaching or instruction. But this man, who in his whole life did not stay thirty whole days at Alexandria, where Didymus is, boasts far and wide through almost all his books that he is a disciple of Didymus the seeing, and had Didymus as his kathēgētēs, that is, his teacher, in the holy Scriptures. And all this boasting was acquired in one month. I, who stayed six years for God's sake, and again after some interval two more, where Didymus was, of whom alone you boast, and where there were others no less than he, whom you do not know even by face, Serapion and Menites, men brothers by nature, character and learning; where there was the old man Paul, a disciple of Peter the martyr; and, to come to the masters of the desert, to whom we gave ourselves more attentively and more often, where there were Macarius the disciple of Antony, and the other Macarius, and Isidore, and Pambo, all friends of God, who taught us what they themselves learned from God: what matter for boasting could I have from all these, if it were fitting or expedient! But I blush even to repeat these things, while I wish to show you not, as you say, that I lacked teachers through my own talent, but, what I regret more, that my talent was rather lacking to my teachers. But why, fool that I am, do I enumerate holy Christian men? He does not say that we taught ourselves on their account, but because we did not take Barabbas, his teacher from the synagogue, and were not introduced to logic through Porphyry's Introduction. Forgive me for preferring to seem unskilled and unlearned rather than to be called a disciple of Barabbas. When Christ and Barabbas were set before me together, I, as an unskilled man, chose Christ. You, as I see, cry out with those who say: "Not this man, but Barabbas." For your Porphyry, tell me, I pray, what did he teach you, he who wrote volumes of blasphemy against the Christians and against our religion? What good did these teachers of whom you boast so much teach you, one from the idols of demons, and the other from the synagogue, as you say, of Satan? I see nothing except what they themselves knew. For Porphyry taught you to speak evil of Christians, to cut down virgins, the continent, deacons, presbyters, and to defame in published books every rank and order of Christians altogether. And that Barabbas of yours from the synagogue, chosen in place of Christ, taught you to hope for the resurrection of the flesh not in power but in frailty; to become a friend of the letter that kills and an enemy of the Spirit that gives life. And certain other more secret things, which, if the matter requires, will be brought forward later in due time. ### Scripture references - John 18:40: quotation, high confidence - Matt 27:21: allusion, medium confidence - Rev 2:9: allusion, medium confidence - 2 Cor 3:6: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 15:43: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.3 (Letters): allusion, high confidence - Porphyry, Porphyry, Chr. (Porphyry, Against the Christians (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome had written that he did not teach himself (Ep. 84.3) and named a Jewish teacher, Baraninas, whose name Rufinus turns into "Barabbas." The polemical phrases about the synagogue are Rufinus's own, translated as written. - The text is garbled at "Alexandriae, ubi est, erta. Didymus" and is translated by sense. The Greek words are restored as καθηγητήν and εἰσαγωγήν (Porphyry's Isagoge). - "Not this man, but Barabbas": John 18:40; "synagogue of Satan": Rev 2:9; "the letter kills…": 2 Cor 3:6; "in power… in weakness": 1 Cor 15:43. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.12 (PL 21:594b–595c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-12). ## Apology against Jerome 2.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-13 - Source: PL 21:596a–596c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus begins to quote Jerome's own prefaces praising Origen, starting with the preface to the Homilies on Ezekiel, which calls him the second teacher of the churches after the apostles. ### Latin text Sed quid in longum sermo producitur? Conviciis ejus et injuriis non respondeamus, lacerationibus ejus, ad quod opus quotidie stilum ejus Porphyrius exacuit, non obviemus. Ad hoc enim Jesus noster, non Barrabas magister, silere nos docuit. Ad illud veniamus, ut ostendatur quam vera sunt, quae vel pro sua excusatione, vel pro nostra accusatione conscripsit. Ait duas esse solas Praefatiunculas suas, in quibus laudare visus est Origenem: in eo tamen interpretationis opere eum laudaverit, in quo nihil omnino dogmaticum, nihil de fide dictum sit, et quod penitus in his quae ejus ipse interpretatus est, nihil tale inferatur, quale nunc ad Synagoga gratiam, non ad Christianorum aedificationem reprehendit. Et quamvis ei sufficere ad silentium agendum debeat, quod ea in alienis literis culpat, quae proferuntur ex suis; tamen et in hoc quam verum dixerit, videamus. Ex Praefatione interpretationum in Ezechiele, quatuordecim Homiliis, sive Oratiunculis Origenis, scribens cuidam Vincentio: « Magnum est, inquit, mi amice, quod postulas, ut Origenem faciam Latinum, et hominem juxta Didymi videntis sententiam, alterum post Apostolos Ecclestarum magistrum etiam Romanis auribus donem. » Et post aliquanta: « Et illud, inquit, breviter admonens, ut scias, Origenis opuscula in omnem Scripturam esse triplicia. Primum ejus opuscula Excerpta sunt, quae Graece σχόλια nuncupantur, in quibus ea quae sibi videbantur obscura, aut quae habere aliquid difficultatis, summatim breviterque perstrinxit. Secundum ὁμιλητικόν genus, de quo et praesens interpretatio est. Tertium quod scripsit ipse τόμους, nos volumina possumus nuncupare, in quo opere tota ingenii sui vela spirantibus ventis dedit: et recedens a terra, in medium pelagus aufugit. Scio te cupere, ut omne genus transferam dictionis: praemisi caussam, cur facere non possem: hoc tamen spondeo, quia si, orante te, Jesus reddiderit sanitatem, non dicam cuncta, quia hoc dixisse temerarium est, sed permulta sim translaturus, ea lege quam tibi saepe constitui, ut ego vocem praebeam, tu notarium. » ### English translation (Claude) But why is my speech drawn out at length? Let us not answer his abuse and insults; let us not meet his tearings, for which work Porphyry sharpens his pen daily. For our Jesus, not the teacher Barabbas, taught us to be silent in the face of this. Let us come to this: to show how true are the things he has written either to excuse himself or to accuse us. He says that there are only two short prefaces of his in which he seemed to praise Origen; that he praised him, however, in that work of translation in which nothing at all doctrinal, nothing about the faith, was said; and that in those of his works which he himself translated nothing at all of the kind is brought in which he now censures to please the synagogue, not to build up Christians. And although it ought to be enough to make him keep silent that he blames in others' writings what is brought forward from his own, yet let us see how truly he has spoken in this too. From the preface to his translation of fourteen homilies, or short discourses, of Origen on Ezekiel, writing to a certain Vincent: "It is a great thing, my friend," he says, "that you ask, that I should make Origen Latin, and give to Roman ears too the man who, in the judgment of Didymus the seeing, is the second teacher of the churches after the apostles." And after some other matter: "And this," he says, "I note briefly, so that you may know that Origen's works on the whole of Scripture are of three kinds. His first works are excerpts, which in Greek are called scholia, in which he touched summarily and briefly on things that seemed to him obscure or to have some difficulty. The second is the homiletic kind, of which the present translation also is. The third is what he himself called tomoi, which we can call volumes, in which work he spread all the sails of his genius to the blowing winds, and, leaving the land, fled into the open sea. I know you desire me to translate every kind of his writing; I have stated beforehand the reason why I could not; yet this I promise: if, at your prayer, Jesus restores my health, I will translate, I do not say all, for it would be rash to say that, but very many, on the condition I have often laid down for you, that I supply the voice and you the secretary." ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Hom. Ezech. pref. (Homilies on Ezekiel): quotation, high confidence - Jerome, Ep. 84.2 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome had written that only two of his prefaces praised Origen (compare Ep. 84.2). - The preface quoted is Jerome's to his translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezekiel (on this site). - The Greek words are garbled in the digital text and are restored as σχόλια, ὁμιλητικόν, and τόμους. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.13 (PL 21:596a–596c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-13). ## Apology against Jerome 2.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-14 - Source: PL 21:596c–597b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's preface to Origen's homilies on the Song of Songs, which praises Origen as surpassing himself. ### Latin text Item de Canticis Canticorum Praefatio: « Beatissimo Papae Damaso. Origenes cum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum ipse se vicit. Nam undecim voluminibus explicitis, quae ad viginti usque versuum millia pene perveniunt, primum Septuaginta interpretes, deinde Aquilam, Symmachum, Theodotionem, et ad extremum Quintam editionem, quam in Actio littore invenisse se scribit, ita magnifice aperteque disseruit, ut vel inde mihi videatur in eo completum esse quod dicitur: introduxit me rex in cubiculum suum. Itaque illo opere praetermisso, quia ingentis est otii, laboris et sumtuum, tantas res, tam dignum opus in Latinum transferre sermonem, hos duos Tractatus quos in morem quotidiani eloquii parvulis adhuc lactentibusque composuit, fideliter magis quam ornate interpretatus sum, gustum tibi sensuum ejus, non cibum offerens: ut animadvertas, quanti sint illa existimanda, quae magna sunt, cum sic possint placere, quae parva sunt. » ### English translation (Claude) Again, the preface to the Song of Songs: "To the most blessed Pope Damasus. While Origen surpassed all others in his other books, in the Song of Songs he surpassed himself. For in eleven volumes, which come to almost twenty thousand lines, he discussed first the Seventy translators, then Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and finally the fifth edition, which he writes that he found on the shore of Actium, so magnificently and openly that it seems to me that in him was fulfilled what is said: 'The king brought me into his chamber.' And so, passing over that work, because translating such great matters, so worthy a work, into Latin requires immense leisure, labour, and expense, I have translated these two treatises, which he composed in the manner of daily speech for little ones still at the breast, faithfully rather than ornately, offering you a taste of his meanings, not a meal, so that you may consider how highly those things that are great should be valued, when the things that are small can please so much." ### Scripture references - Song 1:4: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Hom. Cant. pref. (Homilies on the Song of Songs): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome's preface to his translation of Origen's two Homilies on the Song of Songs (on this site), addressed to Pope Damasus. The digital text reads "undecim" (eleven); other texts of the preface read "decem" (ten). - "The king brought me…": Song 1:4. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.14 (PL 21:596c–597b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-14). ## Apology against Jerome 2.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-15 - Source: PL 21:597b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Micah, in which he counts it praise to be said to borrow from Origen. ### Latin text Item ex Praefatione Commentarii in Michaeam scripta ad Paulam et Eustochium, post aliquanta: « Nam quod dicunt Origenis me volumina compilare, et contaminare non decere scripta Veterum, quod illi maledictum vehemens existimant, eam laudem ego duco maximam, cum illos imitari volo, qui cunctis prudentibus et nobis placent. » ### English translation (Claude) Again from the preface of the Commentary on Micah, written to Paula and Eustochium, after some other matter: "For as to their saying that I plunder the volumes of Origen, and that it is not fitting to contaminate the writings of the ancients, which they think a vehement reproach, I count it the greatest praise, since I wish to imitate those who please all prudent men and us." ### Translation notes - Jerome, Commentary on Micah, preface to Book 2 (no id on this site). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.15 (PL 21:597b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-15). ## Apology against Jerome 2.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-16 - Source: PL 21:597c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's preface to his Book of Hebrew Names, which calls Origen the teacher of the churches after the apostles. ### Latin text Item ex Praefatione interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum: post aliquanta, ita dicit: « At ne forte consummato aedificio, quasi extrema deesset manus, novi Testamenti verba et nomina interpretatus sum, imitari volens Origenem ex parte, quem post Apostolos Ecclestarum magistrum, nemo, nisi imperitus, negat. Inter caetera enim ingenii sui praeclara monimenta, etiam in hoc laboravit, ut quod Philo quasi Judaeus omiserat, hic ut Christianus impleret. » ### English translation (Claude) Again from the preface to the translation of the Hebrew names, after some other matter, he says this: "And lest, when the building was finished, the last hand should as it were be wanting, I have interpreted the words and names of the New Testament, wishing in part to imitate Origen, whom no one but an ignorant man denies to be the teacher of the churches after the apostles. For among the other splendid monuments of his genius he laboured in this too, that what Philo as a Jew had left out, he as a Christian might supply." ### Extrabiblical texts - Philo (Philo of Alexandria (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Book of Hebrew Names, preface (no id on this site). Philo's book of Hebrew names, which Origen supplemented, is lost. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.16 (PL 21:597c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-16). ## Apology against Jerome 2.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-17 - Source: PL 21:597c–598a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's letter to Marcella praising Origen's tireless study as described by his patron Ambrose. ### Latin text Item de Epistola ad Marcellam: « Ambrosius, quo chartas, sumtus, notarios ministrante, tam innumerabiles libros vere Adamantius noster et Chalcenterus explicuit, in quadam Epistola, quam ad eundem de Athenis scripserat, refert nunquam se cibos, Origene praesente, sine lectione sumsisse, nunquam inisse somnum, nisi unus e fratribus sacris Literis personaret. Hoc diebus egisse vel noctibus, ut et lectio orationem susciperet, et oratio lectionem. » ### English translation (Claude) Again from the letter to Marcella: "Ambrose, by whose supply of papers, expenses and secretaries our true Adamantius and Chalcenterus produced such countless books, in a certain letter which he wrote to him from Athens, relates that he never took food in Origen's presence without reading, never went to sleep unless one of the brothers was sounding out the sacred writings; that he did this day and night, so that reading took up prayer and prayer reading." ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 43.1 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 43.1. "Adamantius" (man of steel) was Origen's surname; "Chalcenterus" (brazen-bowelled) was the nickname of the tireless grammarian Didymus of Alexandria, which Jerome applies to Origen. The letter is attributed to Ambrose (Origen's patron), though in Jerome's text it was written to Origen. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.17 (PL 21:597c–598a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-17). ## Apology against Jerome 2.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-18 - Source: PL 21:598a–598b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's letter to Marcella on Pamphilus's library of Origen's works at Caesarea. ### Latin text Item ex alia Epistola ad Marcellam: « Beatus Pamphylus martyr, cujus vitam Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus tribus ferme voluminibus explicuit, cum Demetrium Phalereum et Pisistratum in sacrae Bibliothecae studio vellet aequare, imaginesque ingeniorum, quae vera sunt et aeterna monimenta, toto orbe perquireret: tunc omnes maxime Origenis libros impensius prosecutus, Caesariensi Ecclestae dedicavit. Quam Bibliothecam ex parte corruptam Acatius, dehinc Euzoius, qui ejusdem Ecclestae Sacerdotes fuerunt, in membranis instaurare conati sunt. Hic cum multa repererit, et inventorum nobis indicem reliquerit, centestmi vicestmi sexti Psalmi Commentarium, et Phe literae Tractatum, ex eo quod non inscripsit, confessus est non repertum. Non quod talis tantusque vir, Adamantium dicimus, aliquid praeterierit: sed quod negligentia posterorum ad nostram usque memoriam non durarit. » ### English translation (Claude) Again from another letter to Marcella: "The blessed martyr Pamphilus, whose life Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, set out in about three volumes, wishing to equal Demetrius of Phalerum and Pisistratus in zeal for a sacred library, sought throughout the world for the images of minds, which are the true and eternal monuments; and then, pursuing above all the books of Origen with great expense, he dedicated them to the church of Caesarea. This library, partly damaged, Acacius and then Euzoius, bishops of the same church, tried to restore on parchment. Though he found many things, and left us a list of what he had found, he confessed, by not listing them, that the commentary on the hundred and twenty-sixth Psalm and the treatise on the letter Phe were not found. Not that so great a man, we mean Adamantius, passed over anything, but that through the negligence of later generations it has not lasted to our memory." ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 34.1 (Letters): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 34.1. Eusebius's Life of Pamphilus is lost. - "He" who found many things is Pamphilus (or, as some read, Euzoius); the sentence is ambiguous in the Latin. - "Sacerdotes" here means bishops. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.18 (PL 21:598a–598b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-18). ## Apology against Jerome 2.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-19 - Source: PL 21:598c–599a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus explains why he quotes Jerome's praises of Origen: Jerome condemns in Rufinus what he excuses in himself. ### Latin text Sed fortasse dices mihi; Quid superfluis reples paginas? Nunquid et ille dicit criminis esse nominari Origenem, aut ingenii ei laudem dari? Si praedicatur talis ac tantus vir, eo magis, si qua sunt illius, in quibus aut apostolicus vir, aut Ecclestae magister dicitur, ut in superioribus ipse profert: aut si quid tale est quod fidem ejus, non ingenium solum commendare videatur. Hoc quidem faciam, tamen idcirco haec protuli, ubi cum talem ac tantum virum dicit, quia in ea Praefatiuncula, ubi eum dicit Apostolum, vel Prophetam defendi, vel usque ad coelum ferri: hunc puto sermonem laudis ejus inscriptum. Et sicubi forte scientiam ejus laudavimus, tales sunt omnes meae in illum laudes, pro quibus hic tantum in te ignis accendit, quas de suis scriptis nec imputari sibi dignum ducit. Verum quia non dignatur aequalem nobiscum personam habere in judicio, et nos quidem etiam ex suspicionibus condemnat: ipse vero neque ex chirographis suis teneri vult, nec putat in caussa observare Scripturae sanctae debere sententiam, quae jubet absque personarum acceptione judicari: non ut aequitas, sed ut ipse vult, ita satisfaciamus pro nobis. Ait enim. Tu si interpretatus es Origenem, culpandus es: ego etiam si eadem dixi, pro quibus ille culpatur, bene feci, et legi debent et teneri. Tu si laudasti ingenium ejus, vel scientiam, reus es: ego si ingenium laudavi, nihil est. ### English translation (Claude) But perhaps you will say to me: "Why do you fill your pages with superfluous matter? Does he too say that it is a crime for Origen to be named, or for praise of his genius to be given? Show it, if such a man is proclaimed as great; all the more if there are any passages of his in which he is called an apostolic man or a teacher of the church, as he himself brings forward in what precedes; or if there is anything such as seems to commend his faith, not merely his genius." This I will indeed do. Yet I brought these things forward because, where he speaks of so great a man, it is in that short preface of mine in which he says Origen is defended as an apostle or prophet, or raised to the sky: I think this was the language of praise he had in mind. And if anywhere we perhaps praised his knowledge, all my praises of him are of that kind, for which this great fire is kindled against you, while he thinks it not right that such praises be imputed to him from his own writings. But since he does not deign to have a person equal with us in judgment, and condemns us even on suspicions, while he himself does not wish to be held even by his own handwriting, nor thinks that in this case the judgment of holy Scripture ought to be observed, which commands that judgment be made without respect of persons: let us satisfy him on our behalf not as equity, but as he himself, wishes. For he says: "You, if you translated Origen, are to be blamed; I, even if I said the same things for which he is blamed, did well, and they should be read and held. You, if you praised his genius or knowledge, are guilty; I, if I praised his genius, it is nothing." ### Scripture references - Deut 1:17: allusion, medium confidence - Jas 2:1: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - The opening objection and the closing words in quotation marks are Rufinus's imagined speeches. The Latin of the second and third sentences is confused in the digital text and is translated by sense. - Judgment without respect of persons: Deut 1:17, Jas 2:1. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.19 (PL 21:598c–599a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-19). ## Apology against Jerome 2.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-20 - Source: PL 21:599b–600a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's letter comparing Origen's output with Varro's, which says Origen was condemned at Alexandria and Rome not for heresy but from envy. ### Latin text Sed profer, inquit, ubi eum ita laudaverim, ut fidem ejus excusarem. Non aeque quidem; sed quocunque duxeris sequar. Libellum quemdam scribens, comprehendere quasi indiculo quodam voluit, quanta apud Latinos Varro scripserit, et quanta apud nostros Origenes in Graecis, in qua ita ait, « Marcum Terentium Varronem miratur antiquitas, quod apud Latinos tam innumerabiles libros scripserit. Graeci Chalcenterum miris efferunt laudibus, quod tantos libros composuerit, quantos quivis nostrum alienos sua manu describere non possit. Et quia nunc otiosum est apud Latinos Graecorum voluminum indicem texere, de eo qui Latine scripsit aliqua commemorabo, ut intelligamus nos Epimenidis dormire somnum, et studium quod illi posuerunt in eruditione saecularium scripturarum, nos in congregandis opibus ponere. Scripsit itaque Varro quadraginta quinque libros Antiquitatum, quatuor de Vita populi Romani, » Et cum enumerasset per singula omnia quae Varro scripsit, addidit post haec: « Quorsum Varronis et Chalcenteri mentio facta sit quaeritis, videlicet ut ad Adamantium nostrumque Chalcenterum veniamus, qui tanto studio in sanctarum Scripturarum labore sudavit, ut juste Adamantii nomen acceperit. Vultis noscere quanta ingenii sui reliquerit monimenta? sequens titulus ostendit. Scripsit in Genestm libros tredecim; Mysticarum Homiliarum libros duos; in Exodo Excerpta, in Levitico Excerpta. » Et post multa: « Item, inquit, Monobiblia: περὶ Ἀρχῶν libros quatuor, de Resurrectione libros duos., et alios de Resurrectione Dialogos duos, » et cum enumerasset omnia ejus Opuscula, secundum indiculi fidem addidit et dicit, « Videtisne et Graecos pariter et Latinos unius labore superatos? Quis enim umquam tanta legere potuit, quanta ipse conscripsit? Pro hoc sudore quid accepit praemii? Damnatur a Demetrio Episcopo, exceptis Palaestinae et Arabiae et Phoenicis, atque Achaiae Sacerdotibus: in damnationem ejus consentit urbs Roma. Ipsa contra hunc cogit Senatum, non propter dogmatum novitatem, non propter haerestm, ut nunc adversum eum rabidi canes simulant, sed quia gloriam eloquentiae ejus et scientiae ferre non poterant, et illo dicente, omnes muti putabantur. Haec quare scripserim et ad pauperis lucernae igniculum, cito sermone, sed non cauto dictaverim, potestis intelligere, si Epicuros et Aristippos cogitetis. » ### English translation (Claude) "But show," he says, "where I so praised him as to excuse his faith." Not on equal terms indeed; but wherever you lead I will follow. Writing a certain little book, he wished to include as in a kind of catalogue how much Varro wrote among the Latins and how much Origen among us in Greek, in which he speaks thus: "Antiquity admires Marcus Terentius Varro because he wrote so countless books among the Latins. The Greeks extol Chalcenterus with wonderful praises because he composed so many books that any of us could not copy as many of another's with his own hand. And since it is idle now to weave a catalogue of Greek volumes among the Latins, I will mention some things about the one who wrote in Latin, so that we may understand that we are sleeping the sleep of Epimenides, and putting into amassing wealth the zeal they put into learning secular literature. Varro, then, wrote forty-five books of Antiquities, four On the Life of the Roman People." And when he had enumerated one by one everything Varro wrote, he added after this: "You ask why mention has been made of Varro and Chalcenterus: plainly so that we may come to our Adamantius and Chalcenterus, who sweated with such zeal in the labour of the holy Scriptures that he rightly received the name Adamantius. Do you wish to know how many monuments of his genius he left? The following list shows. He wrote thirteen books on Genesis; two books of Mystical Homilies; excerpts on Exodus, excerpts on Leviticus." And after much else: "Also," he says, "single books: four books Peri Archon, two books On the Resurrection, and two other dialogues On the Resurrection." And when he had enumerated all his works according to the faithfulness of the catalogue, he added and says: "Do you see that Greeks and Latins alike are surpassed by the labour of one man? For who could ever read as much as he wrote? And for this sweat what reward did he receive? He is condemned by Bishop Demetrius, with the exception of the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia; the city of Rome consents to his condemnation; it gathers its senate against him, not because of novelty of doctrines, not because of heresy, as mad dogs now pretend against him, but because they could not bear the glory of his eloquence and knowledge, and when he spoke all were thought dumb. Why I have written these things, and dictated them by the light of a poor lamp, in quick but not careful speech, you can understand if you think of the Epicuruses and Aristippuses." ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 33.4 (Letters): quotation, high confidence - Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence - Epimenides (Epimenides (fragments)): allusion, low confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Ep. 33 (to Paula), 33.1–5; the catalogue of Origen's works survives only through this letter. Jerome's statement that Origen was condemned "not for novelty of doctrines" is quoted exactly. - "The sleep of Epimenides": the sage said to have slept fifty-seven years. - The Greek title is garbled in the digital text and restored as περὶ Ἀρχῶν. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.20 (PL 21:599b–600a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-20). ## Apology against Jerome 2.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-21 - Source: PL 21:600a–600c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus imagines a prophet warning Jerome that he would one day condemn the Origen he then praised, and so condemn himself. ### Latin text Si quis tibi tunc quaeso cum ista ad pauperis, ut ais, lucernae igniculum, cito sed non cauto sermone dictares, adstitisset Propheta, et clamasset, o scriptor, cohibe hanc vocem, reprime stilum, erit enim tempus et non multo post, cum tu schisma ab Ecclesta facies, et ut pro ipso schismate colorem aliquem excusationis invenias, istos quos nunc omnibus mirabiles facis libros, incipies infamare, et istum quem modo Chalcenterum tuum vocas, et pro merito laudabilis laboris, ais, Adamantium nominatum, dicturus es, non tam libros ad utilitatem animae, quam venenata dogmata conscripsisse. Hunc quem negas juste a Demetrio in caussa fidei esse damnatum, et hunc quem negas pro dogmatum novitate accusatum, tu exsecrandum pro novitate dogmatum dices: et ea quae dicis, nunc adversum eum canes rabidos simulare, haec tu ipse simulabis. Romanum quoque senatum, ut nunc scribis, Epistolis tuis commonitoriis, juramentis, satellitibus circumvolantibus, etiam tu coges contra eum, et talem vicem pro omnibus laboribus suis Chalcentero tuo reddes. Et ideo cave haec nunc scribere, ne cum haec scripseris, et illa egeris, multo verius tu tuis sententiis condemneris, quam ille alienis. Putasne habuisses Prophetae illi haec tibi dicenti fidem, et non magis illum insanum tunc, quam te in haec venturum putasses? Sed contentio haec est, quae nec amicis parcit, dummodo laedat inimicos. Tu vero hoc supergressus, tibi ipsi non parcis, dummodo non inimicos conficias, sed amicos. ### English translation (Claude) If, I pray you, when you were dictating these things by the light, as you say, of a poor lamp, in quick but not careful speech, a prophet had stood beside you and cried out: "O writer, restrain this voice, check your pen; for the time will come, and not long hence, when you will make a schism from the church, and, to find some colour of excuse for that schism, you will begin to defame these books which you now make wonderful to all; and this man whom you now call your Chalcenterus, and say was named Adamantius for the merit of his praiseworthy labour, you will say wrote not so much books for the good of the soul as poisonous doctrines. This man whom you deny to have been justly condemned by Demetrius in a matter of faith, and whom you deny to have been accused for novelty of doctrines, you will say is to be execrated for novelty of doctrines; and what you now say mad dogs pretend against him, you yourself will pretend. You too will gather the Roman senate against him, as you now write, with your letters of warning, with oaths, with satellites flying round, and you will make your Chalcenterus such a return for all his labours. Therefore beware of writing these things now, lest, having written them and done those, you be condemned much more truly by your own judgments than he by others'." Do you think you would have believed that prophet when he said this to you, and would you not rather have thought him mad than that you would come to this? But this is rivalry, which does not spare even friends so long as it wounds enemies. But you, going beyond this, do not spare yourself, so long as you destroy not enemies but friends. ### Translation notes - "Schism from the church" refers to the quarrel at Jerusalem in the 390s, when Jerome's monastery was for a time out of communion with Bishop John; Rufinus's charge is translated as written. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.21 (PL 21:600a–600c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-21). ## Apology against Jerome 2.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-22 - Source: PL 21:600c–602a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's preface to the Hebrew Questions praising Origen's learning and his preface to Origen's Homilies on Luke, which mocks Ambrose's commentary on Luke as a croaking raven. ### Latin text Item ex Praefatione Hebraicarum Quaestionum post multa: « De Origene autem, inquit, sileo: cujus nomen, si parva licet componere magnis, meo nomine [Al invidiosius] invidiosum est. Qui cum in Homiliis suis quas ad vulgus loquitur, communem editionem sequatur, in Tomis Hebraica Veritate superatus, et suorum circumdatus agminibus, interdum linguae peregrinae quaerit auxilia. Hoc unum dico, quod vellem cum invidia nominis ejus habere etiam scientiam Scripturarum, flocci pendens imagines umbrasque larvarum, quarum naturae esse dicitur, terrere parvulos, et in angulis garrire tenebrosis. » Verum ego jam nec mirari debeo, nec conqueri pro his quae in me agit, qui tantis viris et talibus non pepercit. Nam et sanctae memoriae Ambrosium Episcopum qualibus figuris laceret, qualibus obtrectationibus secet, in his quibus nihilominus laudat Origenem, similiter ex suis Praefationibus edocebo. Praefatio de Homiliis in Lucam ad Paulam et Eustochium: « Ante paucos dies quorundam in Matthaeum et Lucam Commentarios vos legisse dixistis, e quibus alter et sensibus hebes esset, et alter in verbis luderet, in sententiis dormitaret. Quamobrem petitis, ut istiusmodi nugis contemtis, saltem triginta et novem Adamantii nostri in Lucam Homilias, sicut in Graeco habentur, interpreter. Molestam rem et tormento similem, alieno, ut ait Tullius, stomacho, et non suo scribere: quam tamen idcirco nunc faciam, quia sublimiora non poscitis. Siquidem illud quod olim Romae sancta Blaesilla efflagitaverat, ut viginti sex tomos illius in Matthaeum, et alios quinque in Lucam, et triginta duos in Joannem, nostrae linguae traderem, nec virium mearum, nec otii nec laboris esse perspicitis. Sed quantum apud me et auctoritas vestra et voluntas valet, praetermisi paululum Hebraicarum Quaestionum libros, ut ad arbitrium vestrum, lucrativis [Al lucrativi] operis, haec qualiacunque sunt non mea, sed aliena dictarem; praesertim cum a sinistro oscinem corvum audiam crocitantem, et mirum in modum de cunctarum avium ridere coloribus, cum totus ipse tenebrosus sit. Fateor itaque antequam ille objiciat, Origenem in his Tractatibus quasi puerum talis ludere. Alia sunt virilia ejus, et senectutis seria: quae si vobis libuerit, et potuero, si Dominus, ut in Latinum vertam sermonem, dederit commeatum, et praetermissum prius opus explevero, tunc videre poteritis, imo per vos Romana lingua cognoscet, quantum boni et ante nescierit, et scire nunc ceperit. » ### English translation (Claude) Again from the preface to the Hebrew Questions, after much else: "Of Origen," he says, "I am silent, whose name (if one may compare small things with great) is more hated than mine. Though in his homilies, which he speaks to the common people, he follows the common edition, in his tomes, overcome by the Hebrew truth and surrounded by his own troops, he sometimes seeks the help of a foreign tongue. This one thing I say: I would wish, with the ill-will his name bears, to have also his knowledge of the Scriptures, caring not a straw for the images and shadows of ghosts, whose nature is said to be to frighten little children and to chatter in dark corners." But I should neither wonder nor complain any longer about what he does to me, since he did not spare men so great and such as these. For I will show likewise from his prefaces with what figures he tears Bishop Ambrose of holy memory, with what disparagements he cuts him, in the very places where he nonetheless praises Origen. The preface to the Homilies on Luke, to Paula and Eustochium: "A few days ago you told me that you had read certain commentaries on Matthew and Luke, of which one was dull in its meanings, and the other played with words and slept in its thoughts. Therefore you ask me, despising such trifles, to translate at least the thirty-nine homilies of our Adamantius on Luke, as they are found in Greek. It is a troublesome task and like a torment to write, as Tully says, with another's stomach and not one's own; yet I will do it now for this reason, that you do not ask for loftier things. For what the holy Blesilla once begged of me at Rome, that I should render into our tongue his twenty-six tomes on Matthew, and five others on Luke, and thirty-two on John, you see is beyond my strength, my leisure and my labour. But, so far as your authority and your will prevail with me, I have laid aside for a little the books of Hebrew Questions, so that at your judgment I might dictate these things, whatever they are, not mine but another's, by a profitable work; especially since I hear on my left hand a raven, that bird of ill omen, croaking and mocking the colours of all the birds in a wonderful way, though he himself is all dark. And so I confess, before he objects it, that in these treatises Origen plays like a boy with dice. His manly works and the serious works of his old age are another thing: if it please you, and I am able, if the Lord grants me leave to turn them into the Latin tongue, and I complete the work I first laid aside, then you will be able to see, or rather through you the Roman tongue will learn, how much good it did not know before, and has now begun to know." ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Hom. Luc. pref. (Homilies on Luke): quotation, high confidence - Cicero (Cicero): quotation, low confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis, preface (no id on this site), and preface to Origen's Homilies on Luke (on this site). The "raven" was understood to be Ambrose, whose Exposition of Luke draws on Origen. - "With another's stomach": Cicero (the source is not certainly identified). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.22 (PL 21:600c–602a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-22). ## Apology against Jerome 2.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-23 - Source: PL 21:602a–602c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus insists that Jerome's raven was Ambrose, and promises another preface showing Jerome's contempt for Ambrose and for Rome. ### Latin text Ecce quae de Origene et de Ambrosio sentiat. Quod si negare voluerit hoc quod omnes sciunt, quia de sancto Ambrosio dixerit, primo ex eo convincetur, quod apud Latinos ipsius tantum, et non alterius in Lucam Commentarius fertur. Deinde scit me habere Epistolam suam, in qua hoc ipsum de aliis excusans, in illum convertit suspicionem. Verum, quia Epistola illa etiam secretiora quaedam continet, quae interim modo publicari nolo ante tempus, ex aliis adhuc his similibus approbabimus. Interim Origenis libros, ut supra diximus, in omnem admirationem extollit, et dicit, quod « si eos interpretetur, Romana lingua cognoscet quantum boni et ante nescierit et scire nunc ceperit, id est, in Matthaeum, inquit, viginti sex libros, et in Lucam quinque, et in Joannem triginta duos. » Isti sunt quos magnificat, in quibus eadem prorsus omnia, sed latius et copiosius, quae et in istis περὶ Ἀρχῶν libris, pro quibus me arguit, continentur. Quod si iste promittit se istos interpretaturum, me quare pro similibus incusat? Sed quoniam polliciti sumus probaturos nos quomodo laceret virum omnium admiratione dignum. Ambrosium Episcopum, qui non solum Mediolanensis Ecclestae, verum omnium Ecclestarum columna quaedam et turris inexpugnabilis fuit, unam adhuc ipsius Praefationem ponemus, ex qua videatis, vel tantum virum quam faede et indigne laceret, vel iterum quomodo Didymum usque ad caelum efferat laudibus, quem rursus usque ad inferna demergit: vel quomodo de urbe Roma, Deo favente, capite Christianorum, ea dicat, quae dicebantur tunc, cum Gentiles in ea populi et persecutores Principes morabantur. ### English translation (Claude) See what he thinks about Origen and about Ambrose. If he wishes to deny what everyone knows, that he said this of the holy Ambrose, he will be convicted first by the fact that among the Latins only Ambrose's commentary on Luke, and no other's, is current. Next, he knows that I have a letter of his in which, while excusing others for this very thing, he turns the suspicion on Ambrose. But since that letter contains also some more secret matters which I do not wish to publish for the present before the time, we will prove it from other similar passages. Meanwhile he extols Origen's books, as we said above, to every admiration, and says that "if he translates them, the Roman tongue will learn how much good it did not know before and has now begun to know," that is, twenty-six books on Matthew, he says, and five on Luke, and thirty-two on John. These are the books he magnifies, in which there are contained exactly the same things, but more broadly and copiously, as in these books Peri Archon for which he censures me. And if he promises to translate these, why does he accuse me for similar ones? But since we promised to prove how he tears a man worthy of all admiration, Bishop Ambrose, who was a kind of pillar and impregnable tower not only of the church of Milan but of all the churches, we will set down one more of his prefaces, from which you may see how foully and unworthily he tears so great a man; and again how he raises Didymus to the sky with praises, whom he afterwards plunges down to hell; and how he says of the city of Rome, by God's favour the head of Christians, the things that used to be said when Gentile peoples and persecuting emperors dwelt in it. ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Ambrose's Exposition of the Gospel of Luke is meant. The letter of Jerome which Rufinus says he holds is unknown. - The Greek title is garbled in the digital text and restored as περὶ Ἀρχῶν. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.23 (PL 21:602a–602c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-23). ## Apology against Jerome 2.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-24 - Source: PL 21:602c–603c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus quotes Jerome's preface to his translation of Didymus On the Holy Spirit, which calls Rome Babylon and disparages a Latin work on the Holy Spirit, understood to be Ambrose's. ### Latin text Praefatio ad Paulinianum de Spiritu Sancto: « Dum in Babylone versarer, et purpuratae meretricis essem colonus, et jure Quiritum viverem, volui aliquid garrire de Spiritu Sancto, et ceptum opusculum ejusdem urbis Pontifici dedicare. Et ecce olla illa quae in Jeremia post baculum cernitur, a facie cepit Aquilonis ardere, et Pharisaeorum conclamavit senatus, et nullus scriba vel fictus, sed omnis, quasi indicto sibi praelio, adversum me imperitiae factio conjuravit, Illico ego velut postliminio Jerosolymam sum reversus, et post Romuli casam, et nudorum lupercal, diversorium Mariae et speluncam Salvatoris aspexi. Itaque, mi Pauliniane frater, quia supradictus Pontifex Damasus, qui me ad hoc opus primus impulerat, jam dormivit in Domino, tam tuo, quam venerabilium mihi, ancillarum Christi, Paulae et Eustochii nunc adjutus oratu, canticum, quod cantare non potui in terra aliena, hic a vobis provocatus in Judaea immurmuro, augustiorem multo locum existimans, qui Salvatorem mundi, quam qui fratris genuit parricidam. Et ut auctorem titulo fatear, malui alieni operis interpres existere, quam ut quidam faciunt, quasi informis corniculo, alienis me coloribus adornare. Legi dudum de Spiritu Sancto cujusdam libellos, et juxta Comici sententiam, ex Graecis bonis Latina vidi non bona. Nihil ibi dialecticum, nihil virile atque districtum, quod lectorem, vel ingratis in assensum trahat, sed flaccidum totum, molle, nitidum, atque formosum, et exquisitis hinc inde coloribus pigmentatum. Didymus vero meus oculum habens sponsae de Cantico Canticorum, et illa lumina, quae in candentes jam segetes sublimari Jesus praecipit, procul altius intuetur, et antiquum nobis morem reddit, ut Videns vocetur Propheta. Certe qui hunc legerit, Latinorum furta cognoscet, et contemnet rivulos cum ceperit haurire de fontibus. Imperitus sermone est, sed non scientia, apostolicum virum ex ipso stilo exprimens, tam sensuum nomine, quam simplicitate verborum. » ### English translation (Claude) The preface to Paulinian, On the Holy Spirit: "While I was living in Babylon, and was a resident of the purple-clad harlot, and lived under the law of the Quirites, I wished to chatter something about the Holy Spirit, and to dedicate the work I had begun to the pontiff of that same city. And behold, that pot which in Jeremiah is seen after the rod began to boil from the face of the north, and the senate of the Pharisees cried out together, and no scribe, not even a feigned one, but the whole faction of ignorance conspired against me, as if battle had been declared. At once I returned to Jerusalem as by right of return from exile, and after the hut of Romulus and the Lupercal of the naked I looked upon the inn of Mary and the cave of the Saviour. And so, my brother Paulinian, since the aforesaid pontiff Damasus, who first urged me to this work, has now fallen asleep in the Lord, helped now by your prayers and by those of the handmaids of Christ venerable to me, Paula and Eustochium, I murmur here in Judaea, at your call, the song which I could not sing in a foreign land, thinking that place much more august which bore the Saviour of the world than that which bore a brother's murderer. And to confess the author in the title, I have preferred to be the translator of another's work rather than, as some do, adorn myself like an ugly jackdaw with others' colours. I read some time ago the little books of a certain man on the Holy Spirit, and, according to the saying of the comic poet (Terence), I saw from good Greek things Latin things not good. There is nothing dialectical there, nothing manly and close-knit to draw the reader into assent even against his will; but all is flaccid, soft, glossy and pretty, painted with colours sought out from here and there. But my Didymus, having the eye of the bride in the Song of Songs, and those lights which Jesus commands to be lifted up to the fields already white, sees far higher, and restores to us the ancient custom that a prophet be called a Seer. Certainly whoever reads him will recognize the thefts of the Latins, and will despise the rivulets when he has begun to drink from the springs. He is unskilled in speech, but not in knowledge, showing the apostolic man by his very style, as much by the weight of his meanings as by the simplicity of his words." ### Scripture references - Rev 17:4–5: allusion, high confidence - Jer 1:13: allusion, high confidence - Ps 137:4 (136:4 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Song 4:9: allusion, medium confidence - John 4:35: allusion, high confidence - 1 Sam 9:9: allusion, high confidence - 2 Cor 11:6: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Terence, Eun.prol.8 (Terence): quotation, high confidence - Horace, Ep.1.3.19 (Horace): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome's preface to his translation of Didymus the Blind, On the Holy Spirit (no id on this site). The Latin "little books" on the Holy Spirit are Ambrose's On the Holy Spirit (no id on this site). Jerome's names for Rome are quoted as written. - "The comic poet": Terence, Eunuch, prologue 7–8. - The purple-clad harlot: Rev 17:4–5; the pot from the north: Jer 1:13; the song in a foreign land: Ps 137:4 (LXX 136:4); the jackdaw in borrowed colours: Horace, Epistles 1.3.19; the eye of the bride: Song 4:9; the fields white for harvest: John 4:35; the prophet called a seer: 1 Sam 9:9; "unskilled in speech but not in knowledge": 2 Cor 11:6. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.24 (PL 21:602c–603c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-24). ## Apology against Jerome 2.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-25 - Source: PL 21:603d–605a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus defends Ambrose against Jerome's sneers, points out that Jerome praises his own borrowing from Origen but calls Ambrose's borrowing theft, and notes how Jerome turns on everyone he once praised. ### Latin text Audistis quomodo quem ante corvum dixerat et totum tenebrosum, nunc iterum corniculam dicat, alienis se pennis vel coloribus depingentem, et quam turpiter laceret, et nihil virile dicat habere virum, qui ad Ecclestarum Christi gloriam electus a Deo est, qui in testimoniis Domini locutus est, in conspectu persecutorum regum, et non est confusus. Ambrosius sanctus de Spiritu Sancto, non solum verbis, sed et sanguine suo scripsit. Obtulit enim persecutoribus sanguinem suum, quem in se fudit: sed a Deo ad alios adhuc reservabatur labores. Quod etiamsi secutus est Graecos catholicos nostrorum Scriptores, et aliquid de eorum scriptis praesumpsit, non continuo haec debuit tua esse summa cura, hic labor, hoc studium, ut pro hac caussa interpretareris librum Didymi de Sancto Spiritu, ut furta illius cognoscerentur, qui fortassis etiam necessitatem scribendi passus est, ut insanientibus tunc haereticis responderet. Haec est Christiana modestia? Sic monita servamus Apostoli dicentis. Nihil per contentionem, neque per inanem gloriam? Deinde quomodo, ut iterum eadem repetam, tu qui praedicas non furandum, furaris? Paulo ante interpretationem Micheae objectum tibi dicebas, quasi Origenis dicta furareris. Tu furtum quidem non negasti, sed ais: « Quod mihi illi maledictum vehemens existimant, hoc ego laudem duco maximam, cum illum imitari volo, qui cunctis prudentibus et nobis placet. » Tua furta laudem tibi praestant maximam: alios furta sua apud te corvos et corniculas faciunt. Si tu Origenem, quem alterum post Apostolos dicis, recte facis imitari, quid concidis eum, qui secutus est Didymum, quem nihilominus et Prophetam nominas et Apostolicum virum destgnas? Si ergo neque tanto ac tali viro Ambrosio pepercisti, et eum quem alterum post Apostolos scribis, atque omnibus placere prudentibus, ac mille aliis laudibus, non duobus, ut dicis, sed innumeris scriptis tuis usque ad caelum extulisti, rursum haereticum, quem ante Apostolum facis: et Didymum ipsum hunc, quem nunc Prophetam videntem, et oculum habentem sponsae de Cantico Canticorum, et Apostolicum virum sensuum nomine destgnas, iterum eum perversum doctorem criminaris, et inter haereticorum consortia tua censoria, ut ais, virgula segregas: quam virgulam a quo acceperis nescio: nam Petrum semel scimus claves a Christo accepisse, istas modo censorias virgulas qui spiritus erogat, tu videris: si inquam istos omnes, quos tuo ore laudasti, tuo ore rursum condemnas, quid ego ad istos pulex de me conquerar, si me nunc laceres, quem et in Epistolis tuis ante laudaveras, et in Chronicis tuis Florentio et Bonoso, pro vitae, ut ais, nobilitate conjunxeras? ### English translation (Claude) You have heard how the man he had before called a raven and all dark he now calls again a jackdaw, painting itself with others' feathers or colours; and how basely he tears him, and says that a man has nothing manly who was chosen by God for the glory of the churches of Christ, who spoke of the Lord's testimonies in the presence of persecuting kings and was not put to shame. The holy Ambrose wrote on the Holy Spirit not only with words but with his own blood. For he offered his blood to the persecutors, and shed it within himself; but he was still reserved by God for other labours. And even if he followed the catholic Greek writers of our faith and took something from their writings, it ought not at once to have been your chief care, your labour, your study, to translate Didymus's book on the Holy Spirit for this reason, that the thefts of one might be known who perhaps was under the necessity of writing in order to answer the heretics then raging. Is this Christian modesty? Do we so keep the warnings of the Apostle, who says, "Do nothing through rivalry or vain glory"? Next, to repeat the same thing again, how is it that you who preach that one must not steal, steal? A little before you said that in the translation of Micah it was objected against you that you stole the sayings of Origen. You did not indeed deny the theft, but you say: "What they think a vehement reproach against me, I count the greatest praise, since I wish to imitate him who pleases all prudent men and us." Your thefts bring you the greatest praise; with you, others' thefts make them ravens and jackdaws. If you do right to imitate Origen, whom you call second after the apostles, why do you cut down the man who followed Didymus, whom you nonetheless name a prophet and designate an apostolic man? If, then, you did not spare even a man so great and such as Ambrose; and if him whom you write to be second after the apostles and to please all prudent men, and whom you raised to the sky with a thousand other praises, not in two, as you say, but in countless writings of yours, you now make a heretic, whom before you made an apostle; and this very Didymus, whom you now designate a prophet and seer, having the eye of the bride of the Song of Songs, and an apostolic man by the weight of his meanings, you again charge as a perverse teacher, and with your censor's rod, as you call it, separate into the company of heretics (from whom you received that rod I do not know: for we know that Peter once received the keys from Christ; what spirit hands out these censor's rods now, you must see): if, I say, you condemn again with your mouth all these whom you praised with your mouth, why should I, a flea compared with them, complain about myself if you now tear me, whom you had praised before in your letters, and in your Chronicle had joined with Florentius and Bonosus for the nobility, as you say, of my life? ### Scripture references - Ps 119:46 (118:46 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Phil 2:3: quotation, high confidence - Rom 2:21: allusion, high confidence - Matt 16:19: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Ambrose's confession "in the presence of kings" refers to his resistance to the empress Justina and the Arians at Milan in 385–386. - Jerome's Chronicle, for the year 374 (or 378), names Florentius, Bonosus, and Rufinus as monks of note. - "Spoke of your testimonies…": Ps 119:46 (LXX 118:46); "Do nothing through rivalry…": Phil 2:3 (Migne prints "Phil 23"); "you who preach that one must not steal…": Rom 2:21; the keys: Matt 16:19. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.25 (PL 21:603d–605a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-8/#p-2-25). ## Apology against Jerome 2.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-26 - Source: PL 21:605a–605b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus says Jerome erased his praise of Melania from his Chronicle when he fell out with her, and notes that he has now cited ten of Jerome's praises of Origen. ### Latin text Etiam nec illud ejus admirabile factum silendum est, ne pudorem incutiamus audientibus, quod Marcellini Consulis neptem, quam Romanae nobilitatis primam, parvulo filio Romae derelicto, Jerosolymam petiisse, et ibi ob insigne meritum virtutis Teclam nominatam, in ipsis Chronicis suis scripserat: post id de exemplaribus suis erasit, cum actus vidisset districtioris disciplinae feminae displicere. Compellimur quidem plura adhuc de scriptis ejus congregare, ut agnoscatur, quam verum sit et hoc quod scribit, quod in suis duabus tantum Praefatiunculis Origenis meminerit, in his non fidem ejus, sed ingenium, non dogmatisten eum, sed interpretem laudans. Adhibui interim decem. ### English translation (Claude) Nor must that admirable deed of his be passed over, though we would not bring shame on our hearers: that the granddaughter of the consul Marcellinus, the first of the Roman nobility, who, leaving her little son at Rome, went to Jerusalem and was there named Thecla for her outstanding merit of virtue, as he had written in his very Chronicle, he afterwards erased from his copies, when he saw that the life of a woman of stricter discipline displeased him. We are compelled indeed to gather still more from his writings, so that it may be known how true is this too that he writes, that he mentioned Origen in only two short prefaces of his, and in them praised not his faith but his genius, not as a teacher of doctrine but as an interpreter. Meanwhile I have adduced ten. ### Extrabiblical texts - Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The woman is Melania the Elder, Rufinus's companion at Jerusalem; the erased entry is not in the surviving text of Jerome's Chronicle. The "ten" are the passages quoted in 2.13–2.24. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.26 (PL 21:605a–605b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-26). ## Apology against Jerome 2.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-27 - Source: PL 21:606a–607a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that Jerome's own translations of Origen's homilies omitted or softened passages on the Son, the soul, and the Trinity, which is exactly what Rufinus did. ### Latin text Nunquid mea aliqua proferre potes scripta similia, in quibus me vel in juventute errasse convincas? sicut tu non tam confiteris quam convinceris. Ego me interpretandi disciplina tantummodo imitatum te dixi vel secuturo, sed tamen in nullo alio, in quo etiam tibi omnem injuriam factam esse dicis, quia secutus sum, quod te videram in Homiliis secundum Lucae Evangelium fecisse, ut ubi de Filio Dei in Graeco non recte inveneras, praeterieris, in illo loco ubi dicit: Magnificat anima mea Dominum: et exultavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo. Nosti quia de anima, sicubi illa, quae solent dici, non praeterieris, sed ea adhuc etiam, ex te additis quibusdam assertionibus, lucidius scripseris, ut in illo loco, Ecce ut facta est vox salutationis tuoe in auribus meis, exultavit infans in utero meo; ubi dicis, quod non erat hoc principium substantiae ejus, de tuo addidisti, atque naturoe. Haec et mille alia his similia in interpretationibus tuis, sive in his ipsis Homiliis, sive in Jeremia, vel in Isaia, maxime autem in Ezechiele subtraxisti. De fide autem, id est, de Trinitate cum in aliquantis locis aliter invenisses, quae tibi visa sunt, praetermisisti. Hoc genus interpretandi uterque nostrum tenuit. Quod si alius culparet, tu utique respondere deberes, qui primus hoc feceras. Nunc ipse id culpas, sine dubio, unde ipse culperis. Verbum de verbo interpretari, antea et stultum esse et malitiosum pronuntiasti. In hoc secutus sum te. Nunquid de hoc vis ut poeniteat me, quia tu modo mutasti sententiam, et ad verbum interpretatum te dicis? Si qua in fide minus aedificabant, abstulisti, ita tamen abstulisti, ut non omnia nec in omnibus penitus amputares. Denique in Homiliis Isaiae, Visio Dei Filium et Spiritum Sanctum retulit. Ita tu transtulisti, adjiciens ex te, quod sensum auctoris ad clementiorem traheret intellectum. Ais enim: « Quae sunt ista duo Seraphim? Dominus meus Jesus Christus et Spiritus Sanctus. » Et ex tuo addidisti,« Nec putes Trinitatis dissidere naturam, si nominum servantur officia. » Haec et ego in quamplurimis feci, et aut desecavi, aut ad saniorem intelligentiam declinavi. Pro his me jubes agere poenitentiam. Non puto hoc te sentire. Quod si pro his neque tibi, neque mihi poenitendum est, pro quibus me aliis invitas ad poenitentiam? ### English translation (Claude) Can you bring forward any writings of mine like these, in which you can convict me of having erred even in youth, as you are not so much confessing as convicted? I said that I imitated or would follow you only in the method of translating, but in nothing else; and in this, in which you say every injury was done you, I followed what I had seen you do in the Homilies on the Gospel of Luke: that where you found something not rightly said about the Son of God in the Greek, you passed it over, in that place where it says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour." You know that about the soul you did not pass over what is usually said, if anywhere, but even wrote it more clearly by adding some assertions of your own, as in that place, "Behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the infant leaped in my womb," where you say that this was not the beginning of his substance, and added of your own, "and of his nature." These things and a thousand others like them you removed in your translations, whether in these very homilies, or in Jeremiah, or in Isaiah, but above all in Ezekiel. And concerning the faith, that is, the Trinity, when in some places you found it otherwise, you passed over what seemed good to you. Both of us held this kind of translating. If another blamed it, you certainly ought to answer, who had done it first. Now you yourself blame that for which, without doubt, you yourself are blamed. To translate word for word you formerly pronounced both foolish and malicious. In this I followed you. Do you want me to repent of this, because you have now changed your opinion and say that you translated word for word? If some things in the faith built up less, you removed them; yet you removed them so as not to cut away everything everywhere. Finally, in the Homilies on Isaiah, the vision of God he referred to the Son and the Holy Spirit. So you translated, adding of your own something to draw the author's sense to a milder understanding. For you say: "Who are these two seraphim? My Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." And of your own you added: "And do not think that the nature of the Trinity is divided if the offices of the names are kept distinct." These things I too did in very many places, and either cut away or bent to a sounder understanding. For these you bid me do penance. I do not think you mean this. But if neither you nor I should repent for these things, for what others do you invite me to repentance? ### Scripture references - Luke 1:46–47: quotation, high confidence - Luke 1:44: quotation, high confidence - Isa 6:2–3: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Hom. Luc. (Homilies on Luke): allusion, high confidence - Origen, Hom. Isa. 1.2 (Homilies on Isaiah): quotation, medium confidence - Jerome, Ep. 57.5 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - NPNF² 3 prints before this section a further paragraph (its 27: Rufinus refusing to "follow" Jerome in his amendment, "Get thee behind me"), which is not in the text printed here. - Jerome's translations of Origen's Homilies on Luke (7 and 9), on Isaiah (1.2), on Jeremiah and on Ezekiel are meant (all on this site). Origen's identification of the two seraphim with the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Jerome's added caution, are reported as Rufinus gives them. - Jerome had called word-for-word translation foolish (Ep. 57.5, On the Best Kind of Translating). - "My soul magnifies…": Luke 1:46–47; "Behold, when the voice…": Luke 1:44; the seraphim: Isa 6:2–3. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.27 (PL 21:606a–607a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-27). ## Apology against Jerome 2.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-28 - Source: PL 21:607a–608a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus says none of his writings needs retracting, whereas Jerome's commentaries teach what he condemns; translating Origen was not forbidden when Rufinus did it. ### Latin text Scripta mea nulla exstant, in quibus error meus aliquis corrigendus sit. Tua exstant multa, quae, ut video, nunc secundum sententiam tuam universa damnanda sunt. Exceperas tibi Commentarios in Epistolam ad Ephestos, in quibus te putaveras [Al putabas] aliquid emendatius condidisse. Etiam ipse [Forte ibi] vidisti, quam similes per omnia esse Origenis sensibus inventi sunt, imo [Al uno] et plus aliquid, quam hoc quod damnari expostulas, continere. Et nisi ipse de his jam tibi exclusisses poenitentiae facultatem, dicens, « Revolvite Commentarios meos in Epistolam ad Ephestos, et inde agnoscetis, quomodo Origenis dogmatibus adversatus sum. » Fortassis velles iterum et de his poenitere, et in istis condemnare temetipsum, sicut et in caeteris. Tamen quantum in me est, concedo ego tibi et pro his poenitere: sed et pro omnibus non solum, quae locutus es, sed et quae locuturus es, si agas poenitentiam, bene facis. Certum est enim, quod poenitenda sunt cuncta quae scripseris, Quod si hinc me aliquis culpandum putat, quare omnino aliquid de Origene interpretatus sum, si hoc culpatur, ego in hoc opere postremus sum, et necesse est, ut culpa a primis incipiat. Et tamen nemo commissum punit, quod, ne admitteretur [Al committeretur], ante non vetuit. Licuit, fecimus. Si quid prohibet lex, observari in posterum solet. Sed damnari dicit quis debere cum auctore suo libros. Sed quid facimus de isto auctore, qui eadem scribit, sicut superius plenissime ostendi? Similem excipiat eandemque sententiam. Ego hoc nec peto, nec urgeo, licet ille mecum hostiliter agat; sed, ut video, ipse sibi hoc, temere alios condemnando, conquirit. ### English translation (Claude) No writings of mine exist in which any error of mine needs correcting. Many of yours exist, all of which, as I see, are now to be condemned by your own judgment. You had excepted for yourself the commentaries on the Letter to the Ephesians, in which you thought you had composed something more correct. You yourself have seen how they have been found like Origen's meanings in everything, and indeed to contain something more than what you demand be condemned. And had you not yourself already shut off from yourself the opportunity of repentance for these, saying, "Read over my commentaries on the Letter to the Ephesians, and from them you will know how I opposed Origen's doctrines," you would perhaps wish to repent of these too, and condemn yourself in them as in the others. Yet, as far as in me lies, I grant you leave to repent for these too; and if you do penance for everything, not only what you have said but what you will say, you do well. For it is certain that everything you have written is to be repented of. But if anyone thinks me blameworthy on the ground that I translated anything of Origen at all: if this is blamed, I am the last in this work, and the blame must begin with the first. And yet no one punishes an act which he did not forbid beforehand. It was permitted; we did it. If a law prohibits anything, it is usually observed for the future. But someone says that books ought to be condemned with their author. But what are we to do with this author, who writes the same things, as I have shown most fully above? Let him receive a like and the same sentence. I neither ask nor press for this, though he deals with me as an enemy; but, as I see, he procures it for himself by rashly condemning others. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.2 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The words in quotation marks are Jerome's (compare Ep. 84.2). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.28 (PL 21:607a–608a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-28). ## Apology against Jerome 2.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-29 - Source: PL 21:608a–609b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus mocks Jerome's complaint that his translation showed Origen to be a heretic and Rufinus a catholic, asking which of the two Jerome actually wants him to say. ### Latin text Verum ut iterum tecum ex tuis verbis loquar, ipse scribis in istis Invectivis tuis, me interpretatione mea hoc ostendisse, quod ego quidem essem catholicus, Origenes autem, quem interpretabar, haereticus. Ais enim: « Hoc est dicere, quia ego sum quidem catholicus, iste autem, quem interpretor, haereticus. » Ais enim, hoc legi. Si, ut dicis, hoc toto opere meo ostendi, quod ego catholicus sum, et Origenes haereticus, quid adhuc aliud quaeritur? Nonne totum agis, et illum haereticum et me catholicum dici? Si hoc dixisse me, et hoc toto opere meo satis egisse testaris, quae tibi jam accusationis caussa superfuit? Quo profecit tua ista in nos Invectio? Si Origenem haereticum esse ostendi, et me catholicum, recte feci, an non recte? Si recte, cur ad culpam et accusationem, quae recte gesta sunt, vocas? Si non est rectum, Origenem haereticum dici, cur me hoc nomine in jus vocas? Quid opus fuit te interpretari malitiosius ea quae secundum tuum interpretandi morem fuerant translata, licet incultiori sermone? Quid certe opus erat auditores tuos illudere: et illis aliud opinantibus, te aliud agere? Illi enim hoc existimant, quod tu adversum eos agas, qui Origenem catholicum defendunt; tu vero illos arguis, et accusas, qui haereticum illum destgnarunt. Propter hoc forte me invitabas ad poenitentiam? Non intellexeram. Veruntamen scito, me ne de hoc quidem poenitudinem gerere, quin dicam non omnia, quae in libris ejus inveniuntur tanquam catholica esse suscipienda. Quae utrum sua sint, ut dicis, an ab aliis inserta, ut nos putamus, Deus viderit. A nobis interim ubi ad fidei fastigium et veritatem ventum fuerit, respuuntur. Tu tamen dic, quid exposcis a nobis: haereticum vis ut dicamus Origenem? Hoc fecisse nos, culpas. Sed catholicam? Pro hoc nos accusas. Destgna manifestius, quid velis, si tamen potes aliquid horum medium invenire, quod velis. Isti sunt omnes sales tui de Alexandri, et Porphyrii, et ipsius Aristotelis acumine congregati. Haec est omnis illa jactantia, qua te a prima aetate usque ad senectam in Grammaticorum et Rhetorum et Philosophorum scholis ac disciplinis praedicas esse versatum, ut procederes Origenem pronuntiaturus haereticum, et in ea ipsa oratione, qua in illum ferebas sententiam, accusares eum quem asserebas, quod illum haereticum designarit. Vide quia nusquam cura veritatis ac fidei, nusquam religionis ac judicii contemplatio, sed sola male loquendi et lacerandi fratres, exercita libido versatur in lingua, sola in corde humana contentio, sola invidia et livor in mente: in tantum ut cum odiorum tibi caussa non esset, cognominatum te a me fratrem et collegam, licet cum praeconio, indignanter acciperes. Ignosce mihi, quod nesciebam te ἀκατονόμαστον (innominabilem) dici, et incompellabilem nominari. Miror tamen, quod ea me condemnare deposcas, quae a me notata conquereris. ### English translation (Claude) But to speak with you again from your own words: you yourself write in these invectives of yours that by my translation I showed that I indeed was catholic, but Origen, whom I was translating, a heretic. For you say: "That is to say, I am indeed catholic, but this man whom I translate is a heretic." For you say this is to be read. If, as you say, I showed by this whole work of mine that I am catholic and Origen a heretic, what more is sought? Is not your whole aim that he be called a heretic and I a catholic? If you testify that I said this and did it sufficiently in my whole work, what cause of accusation is left to you? To what purpose was this invective of yours against us? If I showed Origen to be a heretic and myself a catholic, did I do right or not? If right, why do you call to blame and accusation what was rightly done? If it is not right that Origen be called a heretic, why do you summon me to court under this name? What need was there for you to translate more maliciously what had been translated according to your own manner of translating, though in rougher language? What need, certainly, to deceive your hearers, so that while they think one thing you do another? For they suppose that you are acting against those who defend Origen as catholic; but you censure and accuse those who designated him a heretic. Was it perhaps for this that you invited me to repentance? I had not understood. Yet know that I do not repent even of this, but say that not everything found in his books is to be received as catholic. Whether these things are his, as you say, or inserted by others, as we think, God will see. Meanwhile, when it comes to the height and truth of the faith, they are rejected by us. But tell me, what do you demand of us? Do you want us to call Origen a heretic? You blame us for having done so. Catholic, then? For this you accuse us. State more plainly what you want, if indeed you can find any middle between these that you want. These are all your witticisms gathered from the acuteness of Alexander and Porphyry and Aristotle himself. This is all that boasting with which you proclaim that from earliest youth to old age you have been versed in the schools and disciplines of grammarians, rhetoricians and philosophers: that you should come forward to pronounce Origen a heretic, and in the very speech in which you passed sentence on him, accuse the man you were addressing for having designated him a heretic. See how there is nowhere care for truth and faith, nowhere regard for religion and judgment, but only a practised lust for speaking evil and tearing the brothers dwells on the tongue; only human rivalry in the heart; only envy and spite in the mind: so much so that, when you had no cause of hatred, you took it indignantly that I named you brother and colleague, though with praise. Forgive me that I did not know you were called the unnameable and not to be addressed. Yet I wonder that you demand that I condemn the things which you complain I have marked. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence - Aristotle (Aristotle (works)): allusion, low confidence - Porphyry, Porphyry, Chr. (Porphyry, Against the Christians (fragments)): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - The quoted words are Jerome's (Ep. 84.12 and his other writings against Rufinus's prefaces). - The Greek word is garbled in the digital text; the edition glosses it "innominabilem" ("unnameable"), probably ἀκατονόμαστον. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.29 (PL 21:608a–609b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-29). ## Apology against Jerome 2.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-30 - Source: PL 21:609b–610c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus rebukes Jerome for doubting that the Apology for Origen is by the martyr Pamphilus, and argues that it defends Origen from Origen's own words whoever wrote it. ### Latin text Ad illam sane incusationis ejus partem, superfluum videtur vel respondere aliquid, ubi pie et religiose dicta Martyris Pamphili, aut falsa dici vult, aut etiam si vera sint, spernenda decernit. Cui jam iste deferat? cui jam parcat? Omnes apud istum Graeci Scriptores antiqui Ecclestastici erraverunt. Latinis vero quomodo deroget, quomodo carpat singulos, vel veterum, vel novorum, diversa ejus qui legit Opuscula, recognoscit. Sed nunc ne Martyres quidem apud eum habere possunt aliquid reverentiae. Non, inquit, credo quia Martyris sit. Hoc si velimus de omnibus Scriptorum dicere libellis, quae erit in singulis probatio? Si dicam, non est verum, quia Stromatum libri quos dicis, Origenis sunt: unde ipsius esse probantur? Ex caeterorum, inquit, similitudine. Sed sicut ille, qui in scriptura alicujus falsum facere vult, manus ejus imitatur: ita et qui sua dicta sub alterius nomine vult inserere, stilum sine dubio imitabitur ejus, cujus et nomen ascivit. Deinde ut omnia, quae justissime dici possunt, brevitatis caussa praeteream, si in tantum volebas audere, ut Martyrem reprehenderes, dicta ipsa, quae tibi videbantur reprehensibilia, in medium proferre debueras, et tunc unusquisque legentium vidisset, quid ibi esset absurdum, quid consequens, quid iniquum, quid certe contra Apostolicas regulas, sed tantum nescio quid impietatis, pro quo, ut dicis, expiando, sanguinem suum fuderit Martyr. Ipsa illa verba si legeret, jam non tua, sed sua sententia, aut errasse Martyrem, aut nomine Martyris, absurdam et impiam conscriptionem ab alio diceret esse compositam. Nunc vero sciens, quia si legantur ea, quae reprehendis, nota retorquebitur in eum, qui culpat injuste, ea quidem, quae reprehendis, non profers: tua autem illa censoria virgula et arroganti auctoritate decernis, Ille arceatur a bibliothecis, ille recipiatur: et iterum iste ipse, qui hodie receptus est, crastino si eum alius aliquis praeter melaudaverit, ejiciatur, et cum illo ipse qui laudavit. Hic autem catholicus habeatur, etiam si aliquando videatur errasse: illi erroris venia non detur, etiam si ea dicat, quae ego dixi, et neque interpretetur quis eum, neque legat, ne quis mea furta cognoscat. Hic haereticus quidem, sed magister meus est. Et hic licet Judaeus sit, et de Synagoga Satanae conductus verba vendat ad pretium, tamen magister meus est, et praeferatur omnibus, quia apud ipsos solum Scripturarum veritas permanet. Si tibi istud auctoritatis universa pariter injunxisset Ecclesia, et exigeretur a te, ut de singulis vel de omnibus judicares, nonne grave et periculosum onus, ne tibi imponeretur, excusare debueras? Nunc vero in tantum quotidiana derogandi meditatione profecimus, ut jam nec Martyribus parcamus. Sed ponamus, quod non sit Martyris libellus iste, sed cujuscunque unius de Ecclesta, nunquid suis verbis usus est, quisquis ille est Scriptor, ut meritis cedendum videatur auctoris? De ipsis Origenis voluminibus ponit exempla, et quid de singulis sentiat, non sui defensoris verbis, sed ejus ipsius, qui accusabatur, ostendit. Et sicut adversum te modo, multo meis verbis vehementiora sunt tua scripta: ita illum non excusantis auctoritas, sed sua dicta defendunt. Et ideo superflua est de auctore quaestio, ubi defensio talis est, quae assertore non egeat. ### English translation (Claude) To that part of his accusation, indeed, it seems superfluous even to reply, where he wishes the pious and religious sayings of the martyr Pamphilus either to be called false or, even if they are true, decides that they are to be despised. To whom will this man defer now? Whom will he spare now? With him all the ancient Greek church writers erred. And how he disparages the Latins, how he carps at each of them, old or new, whoever reads his various works recognizes. But now not even martyrs can have any reverence with him. "I do not believe," he says, "that it is the martyr's." If we wish to say this of all the books of writers, what proof will there be in each case? If I say, "It is not true that the books of the Stromata you mention are Origen's," from what are they proved to be his? "From their likeness to the rest," he says. But just as one who wishes to forge someone's writing imitates his hand, so also one who wishes to insert his own sayings under another's name will no doubt imitate the style of him whose name he has taken. Next, to pass over for brevity's sake everything that could most justly be said: if you wished to dare so much as to censure a martyr, you ought to have brought into the open the very sayings that seemed to you censurable; and then each reader would have seen what was absurd there, what consistent, what unjust, what certainly against the apostolic rules, but some impiety or other, for the expiation of which, as you say, the martyr shed his blood. If he read those very words, he would say, by his own judgment and no longer yours, either that the martyr erred, or that an absurd and impious writing was composed by another under the martyr's name. But now, knowing that if what you censure is read, the mark will be turned back on him who blames unjustly, you do not bring forward what you censure; but with that censor's rod of yours and arrogant authority you decree: "Let that one be barred from the libraries; let this one be received"; and again: "Let this very one who has been received today be cast out tomorrow, if anyone besides me praises him, and with him the one who praised him. Let this man be held catholic, even if he seems at some time to have erred; let no pardon for error be given to that one, even if he says what I said; and let no one translate him or read him, lest anyone learn my thefts. This man is a heretic, but he is my teacher. And this one, though he is a Jew and, hired from the synagogue of Satan, sells words for a price, is yet my teacher, and let him be preferred to all, because with them alone the truth of the Scriptures remains." If the whole church together had laid this authority on you, and it were required of you to judge of each and all, ought you not to have begged off so heavy and dangerous a burden from being laid on you? But now we have advanced so far by daily practice of disparagement that we do not spare even martyrs. But let us suppose that this book is not the martyr's but that of any one member of the church: did that writer, whoever he is, use his own words, so that it should seem that we must yield to the merits of the author? He sets down examples from Origen's own volumes, and shows what he thinks on each point not by the words of his defender but by those of the very man who was accused. And just as your writings against you now are much more vehement than my words, so not the authority of the one excusing him but his own sayings defend him. And therefore the question of the author is superfluous where the defence is such as needs no advocate. ### Scripture references - Rev 2:9: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Pamphilus, Apol. Orig. (Apology for Origen): allusion, high confidence - Jerome, Ep. 84.11 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome had claimed that the Apology was by Eusebius, not Pamphilus (Against Rufinus 1.8–11; Ep. 84.11). - The decrees in quotation marks are Rufinus's ironic parody of Jerome. - "Synagogue of Satan": Rev 2:9; the polemical language about Jerome's Jewish teacher is Rufinus's own, translated as written. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.30 (PL 21:609b–610c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-30). ## Apology against Jerome 2.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-31 - Source: PL 21:610c–611a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus answers Jerome's question why no saint had translated On First Principles, and turns it against Jerome's own boldness. ### Latin text Sed ad illud jam nequissimum incusationis ejus caput et invidiosissimum veniendum est, imo non invidiosum, sed invidum. Ait enim, Quis prudentium, vel quis Sanctorum aggredi voluit in Latinum vertere, quod tu ausus es? Ego ipse, inquit, saepe rogatus a multis, non feci. Et quidem Sancti quare hoc non fecerint, facilis excusatio est. Non enim continuo, qui Sanctus et prudens est Latinus, etiam linguae Graecae notitiam sufficienter habet. Nec sanctitati ejus detrahitur, cui deest peregrinae linguae notitia. Aut iterum non continuo si scientiam quis habet Graeci sermonis, etiam voluntatem interpretandi habet. Aut etiam si habet, non statim discutiendus est ille, qui pauca interpretatus est, quare non plura, aut cur non illa, sed illa. Libertas est enim in hujuscemodi opere, et est vel in arbitrio scribentis, vel in destderio deposcentis; et tamen de sancto Hilario dicit, et de sancto Victorino: quorum alterum interpretis titulo nihil omnino arbitror transtulisse de Graeco: alterum ipse dicit. Heliodori cujusdam Presbyteri usum scientia, ut quae ille sibi hauriret ex fonte Graecorum, ipse Latino ea sermone digereret, pro eo quod aut nihil aut parum Graece nosset. Illi ergo cur haec non fecerint, et facilis et manifesta est excusatio: de te sane mirandum est quare hoc feceris. Quid enim magis audax, vel quid amplius temerarium, libros istos interpretari Origenis, quorum jam pene omnem continentiam in aliis libris scripseras? quorum omnia jam dicta, quae reprehensibilia nunc dicis, sub proprii nominis sermone protuleras? ### English translation (Claude) But now we must come to that most wicked and most invidious head of his accusation, or rather not invidious but envious. For he says: "Which of the prudent, or which of the saints, wished to undertake to turn into Latin what you have dared? I myself," he says, "though often asked by many, did not do it." And indeed why the saints did not do this is easily excused. For it does not follow that one who is a holy and prudent Latin has also a sufficient knowledge of the Greek language; nor is anything taken from the holiness of one who lacks knowledge of a foreign tongue. Or again, it does not follow that one who has knowledge of Greek also has the will to translate. Or even if he has, one who translated a few things is not at once to be examined why not more, or why not these rather than those. For there is freedom in work of this kind, and it lies either in the choice of the writer or in the desire of the one asking. And yet he speaks of the holy Hilary and the holy Victorinus: of whom I think the one translated nothing at all from the Greek under the title of translator, and the other, he himself says, used the knowledge of a certain presbyter Heliodorus, so that what Heliodorus drew from the Greek spring Victorinus set out in Latin, because he knew little or no Greek. Why they did not do these things, then, is easily and plainly excused: of you indeed one must wonder why you did it. For what was more bold, or what more rash, than to translate these books of Origen, almost the whole content of which you had already written in other books? All of whose sayings, which you now call censurable, you had brought out in language under your own name? ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.7 (Letters): allusion, medium confidence - Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome's question is from Ep. 84.7. Hilary of Poitiers and Victorinus of Pettau are meant; Jerome had said that Victorinus drew on Origen through the presbyter Heliodorus. - The last sentence leads into the charge about Jerome's new translation of Scripture in 2.32. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.31 (PL 21:610c–611a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-31). ## Apology against Jerome 2.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-32 - Source: PL 21:611b–611c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus attacks Jerome's new Latin translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew as a graver offence than translating Origen, since it alters the Scripture the apostles handed down. ### Latin text An ut divinarum Scripturarum libros, quos ad plenissimum fidei Instrumentum Ecclestis Christi Apostoli tradiderunt, nova nunc et a Judaeis mutata interpretatione mutares? Quid tibi ex his duabus caussis magis videatur illicitum? Nam Origenis dicta, sive placent, ut hominis dicta placent, sive displicent, ut hominis falsa dicta facile contemnuntur. Ista vero quae nunc tu interpretaris, et per Ecclestas et monasteria, per oppida et castella transmittis, quomodo suscipiemus? tanquam divina, an tanquam humana? Et quid facimus, quod quae Prophetarum vel Legislatorum nominibus titulantur, veriora haec abs te, quam illa quae Apostoli probaverunt, affirmantur? Istud commissum, dico, quomodo emendabitur, imo nefas quomodo expiabitur? Si enim in explicanda lege aliquid aliter sensisse, damnabile apud te ducitur: ipsam legem pervertere in aliud quam Apostoli tradiderunt, quoties damnabile judicandum est? Cur non magis pro hujus ausi temeritate dicamus: Quis ex tot et tantis prudentibus et sanctis viris, qui ante te fuerunt ad istud opus ausus sit manum mittere? Quis praesumserit sacras Sancti Spiritus voces et divina Volumina temerare? Quis praeter te divino muneri et Apostolorum haereditati manus intulerit? ### English translation (Claude) Or was it to change now, by a new interpretation altered by the Jews, the books of the divine Scriptures which the apostles handed down to the churches of Christ as the fullest Instrument of faith? Which of these two causes seems to you the more unlawful? For the sayings of Origen, whether they please, please as a man's sayings, or whether they displease, are easily despised as a man's false sayings. But these things which you now translate and send through churches and monasteries, through towns and fortresses, how shall we receive them? As divine, or as human? And what are we to do, when what bears the names of the prophets or lawgivers is affirmed by you to be truer than what the apostles approved? This offence, I say, how will it be amended; rather, how will this crime be expiated? For if to have thought otherwise in explaining the law is held damnable with you, how often must it be judged damnable to pervert the law itself into something other than the apostles handed down? Why should we not rather say, for the rashness of this daring: Which of so many and such great prudent and holy men who were before you dared to put his hand to this work? Who presumed to violate the sacred utterances of the Holy Spirit and the divine volumes? Who but you laid hands on the divine gift and the inheritance of the apostles? ### Translation notes - Rufinus objects to Jerome's translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (the basis of the later Vulgate) in place of the Septuagint and the Old Latin; his objections are translated as written. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.32 (PL 21:611b–611c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-32). ## Apology against Jerome 2.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-33 - Source: PL 21:611d–612c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus protests that Jerome's version drops Susanna and the Song of the Three Young Men and sets one man's work against the Septuagint and the books handed down by Peter at Rome. ### Latin text Et quidem cum ingens copia fuisse ex initio in Ecclestis Dei, et praecipue Jerosolymis eorum, qui ex circumcisione crediderant, referatur, in quibus utique linguae utriusque perfectam fuisse scientiam, et legis peritiam probabilem, administrati pontificatus testatur officium. Quis ergo in ista eruditorum virorum copia ausus est Instrumentum divinum, quod Apostoli Ecclestis tradiderunt, et depositum Sancti Spiritus compilare? An non est compilare cum quedam quidem immutantur, et error dicitur corrigi? Nam omnis illa historia de Susanna, quae castitatis exemplum praebebat Ecclestis Dei, ab isto abscissa est et abjecta atque posthabita. Trium puerorum hymnus, qui maxime diebus solemnibus in Ecclesta Dei canitur, ab isto e loco suo penitus erasus est. Et quid per singula commemoro de his, quorum comprehendere numerum nequeo? De quo ut omittam illud dicere, quod Septuaginta duorum virorum per cellulas interpretantium unam et consonam vocem, dubitandum non est. Spiritus Sancti inspiratione prolatam, et majoris fidei debere esse auctoritatis, quam id quod ab uno homine, sibi Barraba aspirante, translatum est. Ut ergo hoc omittam, vide quid dicimus, verbi caussa. Petrus Romanae Ecclestae per viginti et quatuor annos praefuit: dubitandum non est quin sicut caetera, quae ad instructionem pertinent, etiam librorum Instrumenta Ecclestae ipse tradiderit, quae utique jam tunc, ipso sedente et docente, recitabantur. Quid ergo? Decepit Petrus Apostolus Christi Ecclesiam, et libros ei falsos et nihil veritatis continentes tradidit, et cum sciret, quod verum est haberi apud Judaeos, apud Christianos volebat haberi quod falsum est? Sed fortasse dicit, quia sine literis erat Petrus, et sciebat quidem, Judaeorum libros magis esse veros, quam istos, qui erant in Ecclesta: sed interpretari non poterat propter sermonis imperitiam. Et quid? Nihil in isto agebat ignea lingua per Spiritum Sanctum caelitus data? Non ergo omnibus linguis loquebantur Apostoli? ### English translation (Claude) And indeed, since it is related that from the beginning there was a great number in the churches of God, and especially at Jerusalem, of those who had believed from the circumcision, among whom the office of the episcopate they administered testifies that there was a perfect knowledge of both languages and a creditable skill in the law: who, then, in this abundance of learned men dared to pillage the divine Instrument which the apostles handed down to the churches, and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? Or is it not pillaging when some things are changed and it is said that an error is being corrected? For the whole story of Susanna, which offered the churches of God an example of chastity, has been cut away by him and thrown away and set aside. The hymn of the three young men, which is sung especially on solemn days in the church of God, has been entirely erased from its place by him. And why do I recount them one by one, when I cannot grasp their number? To omit saying of this that there is no doubt that the one harmonious voice of the seventy-two men translating in their cells was uttered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and ought to be of greater authority than what was translated by one man with Barabbas breathing on him: to omit this, see what we say, for example. Peter presided over the Roman church for twenty-four years. There is no doubt that, as with the other things that belong to instruction, he himself also handed down to the church the Instruments of the books, which were certainly already being read then, while he sat and taught. What then? Did the apostle Peter deceive the church of Christ, and hand down to it false books containing nothing of truth, and, though he knew that the truth was held among the Jews, wished what is false to be held among the Christians? But perhaps he says that Peter was without letters, and knew indeed that the books of the Jews were truer than those in the church, but could not translate for want of skill in the language. What then? Did the fiery tongue given from heaven through the Holy Spirit do nothing in him? Did not the apostles, then, speak in all tongues? ### Scripture references - Acts 2:3–4: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sus (Susanna): allusion, high confidence - Pr Azar (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men): allusion, high confidence - Let. Aris. (Letter of Aristeas): echo, low confidence - Jerome, Vir. ill. 1 (On Illustrious Men): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome placed Susanna and the Prayer of Azariah with the Song of the Three Young Men (the Greek additions to Daniel) outside the Hebrew text, with notes. - The story of the seventy-two translators in separate cells is a later form of the legend told in the Letter of Aristeas; Jerome rejected the cells. - Peter's twenty-four (usually twenty-five) years at Rome follow the tradition of Jerome's own Chronicle and On Illustrious Men 1. - "Barabbas" is Rufinus's name for Jerome's Jewish teacher (see 2.12). - The fiery tongues: Acts 2:3–4. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.33 (PL 21:611d–612c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-33). ## Apology against Jerome 2.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-34 - Source: PL 21:612c–613b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus argues that if the church's Old Testament were false, Paul at least would have corrected it, and pictures the church begging the synagogue for true jewels after four hundred years. ### Latin text Sed concedamus, quia non potuerit Petrus Apostolus facere quod hic modo fecit: de Paulo quid dicimus? Num et Paulus sine literis fuit? Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, secundum legem Pharisaeus, edoctus secus pedes Gamalielis, qui etiam et ipse Romae positus, si quid Petro defuisset, putas non potuit adimplere? Quomodo ergo isti, qui praecipiebant discipulis ut attenderent lectioni, emendatas eis et veras non dabant lectiones; et qui praecipiunt ne attendamus Judaicis fabulis et genealogiis, quae quaestiones magis praestant, quam aedificationem: et iterum cavere nos jubent, et observare maxime eos, qui ex circumcisione sunt: quomodo non pervidebant per spiritum, quod futurum esset tempus post quadringentos fere annos, quando Ecclesta, cognito eo quod ab Apostolis non sibi esset tradita veritas veteris Instrumenti, legatos mitteret ad istos, quos illi tunc Circumcisionem vocabant, obsecrans et exorans, ut sibi de veritate, quae apud ipsos est, aliquid largirentur? Per totos istos quadringentos annos errasse se, et ignorasse quod verum est, fateretur? Adscitam se quidem esse ex Gentibus sponsam Christo per Apostolos: sed non ab eis veris monilibus exornatam: putasse se lapides esse pretiosos, nunc autem deprehendisse, quod non sunt verae istae gemmae, quas sibi Apostoli Christi imposuerant: erubescere se ad publicum procedere, falsis et non veris lapidibus adornatam, et ideo rogare se, ut vel Barrabam illum quem aliquando, ut Christo nuberet, spreverat, mittant ad se qui possit cum uno electo ex suis viro ornamenta sibi vera, quae Apostoli non praestiterant, reparare? ### English translation (Claude) But let us grant that the apostle Peter could not do what this man has now done: what do we say of Paul? Was Paul too without letters? "A Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee," taught at the feet of Gamaliel: do you think that he, who was also at Rome, could not have supplied whatever Peter lacked? How then did these men, who commanded their disciples to attend to reading, not give them corrected and true readings? And they who command us not to attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which provide questions rather than edification, and again bid us beware and watch above all those who are of the circumcision: how did they not foresee by the Spirit that a time would come, after about four hundred years, when the church, learning that the truth of the Old Instrument had not been handed down to it by the apostles, would send envoys to those whom they then called the Circumcision, beseeching and imploring them to bestow on it something of the truth that is with them? That it would confess that for these whole four hundred years it had erred and been ignorant of what is true? That it had indeed been taken from the Gentiles as a bride for Christ by the apostles, but not adorned by them with true necklaces; that it had thought they were precious stones, but now had found out that these were not true gems which the apostles of Christ had placed on it; that it blushed to go out in public adorned with false and not true stones; and therefore asked them to send it even that Barabbas whom it had once rejected in order to marry Christ, who, with one man chosen from its own, might restore to it the true ornaments which the apostles had not supplied? ### Scripture references - Phil 3:5: quotation, high confidence - Acts 22:3: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 4:13: allusion, high confidence - Titus 1:14: allusion, high confidence - 1 Tim 1:4: quotation, high confidence - Titus 1:10: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The contrast of church and synagogue, and the name "Barabbas," are Rufinus's polemic, translated as written. - "A Hebrew of the Hebrews…": Phil 3:5; at Gamaliel's feet: Acts 22:3; "attend to reading": 1 Tim 4:13; "Jewish fables and genealogies…": Titus 1:14, 1 Tim 1:4; "those of the circumcision": Titus 1:10. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.34 (PL 21:612c–613b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-34). ## Apology against Jerome 2.35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-35 - Source: PL 21:613c–614a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus says Jerome's changes to Scripture expose the church to pagan ridicule and contradict Jerome's own rule against novelty, citing Susanna, the Song of the Three, and Jonah's gourd. ### Latin text Quid ergo mirum est, si me minimum et nullius numeri hominem laceret, si Ambrosium secet, si Hilarium, si Lactantium, si Didymum reprehendat? Nec multum dolere de injuria mea debeo, pro eo quod opus meum ipse interpretari denuo aggressus est, cum me Septuaginta interpretibus in hac aequaverit contumelia. Sed et illud quomodo accipiendum est? Quantum accessisse ad incredulitatem ex hoc facto Gentilibus aestimatis? Non enim latent eos, quae apud nos aguntur. Scientes ergo legem nostram nunc emendatam vel mutatam, nonne dicunt apud semetipsos, errant isti, nec est apud eos aliquid veritatis? Ecce ipsi cum volunt, leges suas corrigunt et emendant. Certum est autem errorem praecessisse, ubi emendatio subsecuta est, nec divinum videri posse, quod ab homine mutatur. Hoc nobis praestitit tua ista nimia sapientia, ut omnes insipientes etiam a Gentilibus judicemur. Nolo sapientiam, quam Petrus et Paulus non docuit: nolo veritatem, quam Apostoli non probaverunt. Tua verba sunt. Post quadringentos annos non debere simplices Latinorum aures novae doctrinae voce pulsari. Modo tu dicis: Omnis qui putabat Susannam nuptis et innuptis exemplum pudicitiae praestitisse, erravit. Non est verum. Et omnis qui putabat, quod puer Daniel Spiritu Sancto fuerit repletus, et arguerit adulteros senes, erravit: non erat verum. Et omnis Ecclesta per orbem terrarum, sive eorum qui in corpore sunt, sive eorum qui ad Dominum perrexerunt, sive illi sancti Confessores fuerunt, seu etiam sancti Martyres, quicunque Hymnum trium puerorum in Ecclesta Domini cecinerunt, omnes erraverunt, et falsa cecinerunt. Modo ergo nobis post quadringentos annos Legis veritas empta pretio de Synagoga procedit. Posteaquam senuit mundus, et perurgentur cuncta ad finem, scribamus etiam in sepulcris veterum, ut sciant et ipsi qui hic aliter legerant, quia Jonas non habuit umbram cucurbitae, sed hederae; et iterum cum voluerit legislator, nec hederae, sed alterius virgulti. ### English translation (Claude) What wonder is it, then, if he tears me, the least of men and of no account, if he cuts down Ambrose, if he censures Hilary, Lactantius, Didymus? Nor ought I to grieve much over the injury to me in that he undertook to translate my work afresh, since in this insult he has made me equal to the Seventy translators. But how is this to be taken? How much do you reckon has been added to unbelief among the Gentiles by this deed? For what is done among us is not hidden from them. Knowing, then, that our law has now been corrected or changed, do they not say among themselves: "These people are in error, and there is nothing of truth with them. See, they themselves correct and amend their laws when they wish. And it is certain that error went before where correction has followed; nor can that seem divine which is changed by man"? This is what your excessive wisdom has given us: that we are all judged fools even by the Gentiles. I want no wisdom which Peter and Paul did not teach; I want no truth which the apostles did not approve. These are your words: that after four hundred years the simple ears of the Latins ought not to be struck by the sound of a new doctrine. Now you say: "Everyone who thought that Susanna gave an example of chastity to the married and the unmarried was wrong; it is not true. And everyone who thought that the boy Daniel was filled with the Holy Spirit and convicted the adulterous elders was wrong; it was not true. And the whole church throughout the world, whether of those who are in the body or of those who have gone on to the Lord, whether holy confessors or holy martyrs, whoever sang the hymn of the three young men in the church of the Lord, all erred and sang false things." So now, after four hundred years, the truth of the law, bought for a price from the synagogue, comes forth to us. Now that the world has grown old and all things are being pressed toward the end, let us write even on the tombs of the ancients, so that they too who read otherwise here may know that Jonah had the shade not of a gourd but of an ivy; and again, when the lawgiver pleases, not of an ivy but of some other shrub. ### Scripture references - Jonah 4:6: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 84.8 (Letters): allusion, high confidence - Sus 45-62 (Susanna): allusion, high confidence - Pr Azar 28-68 (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - "After four hundred years…": Jerome, Ep. 84.8. - Jerome's rendering of Jonah 4:6 as "ivy" (hedera) instead of "gourd" (cucurbita) caused a famous disturbance at Oea in Africa (Augustine, Ep. 71.5). - Susanna and the elders: Susanna 45–62; the hymn of the three young men: Prayer of Azariah 28–68 (Dan 3:52–90 in Greek). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.35 (PL 21:613c–614a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-35). ## Apology against Jerome 2.36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-36 - Source: PL 21:614b–615b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus answers Jerome's appeal to Origen's Hexapla: Origen only marked differences between the Jewish versions and the church's text, without translating from the Hebrew or changing the church's Scripture. ### Latin text Sed et Origenes, inquit, asteriscos fecit, ex translatione Theodotionis assumens, ut componeret volumina, quae appellantur Hexapla. Et quid Origenem istum, quando tibi placet condemnandum, quando placet imitandum producis. Verisimile est, ut eundem tu et defensorem adhibeas et reum. Auctorem facti tui habere putes eum, quem et primus ipse condemnas, et ad condemnationem ejus Epistolis tuis Romanum cogis senatum? Ante hoc providere debueras. Nemo succidit arborem, cui inniti parat: nemo in sua caussa fidem ejus implorat, cujus ipse reprobat fidem. Sive hoc fecit Origenes, sive non fecit, quid ad te? Si ad illius exemplum judicari vis, relege sententias tuas, et vide quid dixeris. Hoc non est, inquis, se purgare: sed socios criminis quaerere. Noli ergo et tu socios criminis quaerere, sed purgationem facti require. Veruntamen videamus quid tale etiam reus et actor simul Origenes fecerit. Ego illius nec unum locum ex Scripturis divinis de Hebraeis invenio translatum. Et quomodo factum tuum et illius simile videri potest? Apostatae quidem et Judaei interpretati sunt ea, quorum lectione Judaei maxime utuntur. Et quia frequenter si disputatio accidisset, vel immutata esse aliquanta, vel deesse, vel abundare in nostris Scripturis mentiebantur, voluit Origenes nostris ostendere, qualis apud Judaeos Scripturarum lectio teneretur et in propriis paginis vel columnellis editiones eorum singulas quasque descripsit, et ea quae apud illos sunt addita vel decerpta, certis quibusque signis additis, ad versiculorum capita destgnavit, et in alieno non suo opere, suas tantummodo notas fixit: ut sciremus non quod nobis, sed quid Judaeis adversum nos certantibus, aut deesse, aut abundare videretur. Quod tale esset, quale si quis accepto Breviculo, in quo militum nomina continentur, nitatur inspicere, quanti ex militibus supersint, quanti in bello ceciderint; et requirens qui inspicere missus est, propriam nolam, verbi caussa, ut dici solet, Θ' ad uniuscujusque defuncti nomen adscribat, et propria rursus nota superstitem signet. Nunquid videbitur is, qui nolam ad defuncti nomen apponit, et propria rursum nota superstitem signat, quod egerit aliquid ut vel hic defuncti, vel ille viventis caussam acciperet? Sed quod eos qui ab aliis fuerint perempti, iste annotationis destgnavit indiciis. Ita ergo fecit et ille, ea quae per alios Interpretes sive perempta fuerant, seu etiam abundantius prolata, propriis quibusdam signis, id est, asterisci et obelisci notulis destgnavit. Caeterum neque verbum aliquod de suo unum saltem inseruit, neque nostrorum exemplariorum fidem fecit in aliquo vacillare: sed ea quae minus videbantur secundum cursum literae plana et lucida, spiritalis intelligentiae ostendit referta mysteriis. Quid tibi ergo Origenis factum in hoc potest praestare solatii, cujus neque opus simile aliquod ostendere potes, et in quo tantum laboras, ut litera occidat consequentem: dum ille e contrario spiritus vivificantis esse conatur assertor? ### English translation (Claude) "But Origen too," he says, "made asterisks, taking them from the translation of Theodotion, in order to compose the volumes called the Hexapla." And why do you bring forward this Origen, now for condemnation when it pleases you, now for imitation when it pleases you? Is it likely that you should employ the same man as both defender and defendant? Do you think you have as author of your deed him whom you yourself are the first to condemn, and for whose condemnation you rally the Roman senate with your letters? You should have provided for this beforehand. No one cuts down a tree on which he means to lean; no one in his own case implores the faith of one whose faith he himself rejects. Whether Origen did this or did not, what is it to you? If you wish to be judged by his example, read your own judgments again and see what you have said. "This is not clearing oneself," you say, "but seeking accomplices in a crime." Then do not you seek accomplices in a crime either, but seek to clear your deed. Yet let us see what Origen, at once defendant and plaintiff, did of this kind. I do not find even one passage of the divine Scriptures translated by him from the Hebrew. And how can your deed and his seem alike? Apostates and Jews translated the things which the Jews chiefly use in their reading. And because, whenever a dispute arose, they often falsely alleged that some things in our Scriptures had been changed, or were lacking, or were in excess, Origen wished to show our people what reading of the Scriptures was held among the Jews; and he wrote out each of their editions on its own pages or columns, and marked what they have added or taken away with certain signs placed at the heads of the verses; and in another's work, not his own, he fixed only his own marks, so that we might know not what seemed to us, but what seemed to the Jews disputing against us, to be lacking or in excess. It is as if someone, having taken a muster roll containing the names of soldiers, tried to see how many soldiers survive and how many have fallen in war; and the man sent to inspect, inquiring, writes his own mark, for example, as is usually done, a theta, beside the name of each dead man, and marks a survivor in turn with his own sign. Will the man who sets a mark beside the dead man's name, and marks the survivor in turn with his own sign, seem to have done anything to cause the one's death or the other's life? No: he has only marked by signs of annotation those who were killed by others. So also did Origen: what had been either removed by other translators or set out more fully, he marked with his own signs, that is, the little marks of asterisk and obelus. But he inserted not even one word of his own, nor did he make the reliability of our copies waver in any point; rather, the things that seemed less plain and clear according to the course of the letter he showed to be full of the mysteries of spiritual understanding. What comfort, then, can Origen's deed give you in this, when you can show no work of his like yours, and when in this you labour so hard that the letter may kill whoever follows it, while he on the contrary strives to be the champion of the Spirit that gives life? ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 3:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome had defended his asterisks and obeli by Origen's example in the Hexapla (compare Ep. 84 and his prefaces). The theta (Θ) was the mark set against the names of the dead (Greek thanatos). - "The letter kills…": 2 Cor 3:6. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.36 (PL 21:614b–615b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-36). ## Apology against Jerome 2.37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-37 - Source: PL 21:615b–616b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus blames Jerome's Jewish teachers for his attacks and reproaches him for exposing a brother's fault publicly instead of covering it as Noah's sons did. ### Latin text Tuum igitur, frater, tuum istud factum, nec quemquam te in hoc comitem vel socium in Ecclesta habuisse, certum est: nisi istum solum, quem frequenter commemoras, Barrabam. Quis enim alius auderet ab Apostolis tradita Ecclestae Instrumenta temerare, nisi Judaicus spiritus? Illi te, o mi frater, antequam a Judaeis capereris, carissime, illi te in haec mala praecipitant. Illi te libellis editis, notas infligere Christianis, illi te nec Martyribus parcere faciunt, et de omni Christianorum ordine fanda atque nefanda conscribere, turbare pacem nostram, scandala Ecclestae generare. Illi etiam adversum teipsum, et scripta tua, quasi quae Christianus aliquando locutus sis, cogunt ferre sententiam. Et ideo tibi omnes sordemus, dum illi pessimis suis artibus tibi nimium placent. Nam quomodo si tu Pauli literis acquiesceres, dicenti: Si quis frater praeventus fuerit in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis, instruite hujusmodi in spiritu mansuetudinis, ita efferbuisses, ut in nullo prorsus spiritalis institutionis ordinem custodires? Pone enim aliquid me scripsisse contumeliosum: pone quod tibi viro summae eloquentiae et fratri et collegae mihi, quem imitandum in disciplina interpretandi dixi, injuriam fecerim; tamen post pacem illam summo vix sudore reparatam, haec prima adhuc de meis injuriis querela ad te pervenerat· Sed et illam tuam ponamus injuriam, quod in interpretando Origenem te imitatus, aliqua praeterierim, quae mihi minus aedificationis in fide habere videbantur. Culpandus pro hoc eram fortassis, et emendandus? Scripta, ut ais, ad te fratrum missa sunt, deposcentium culpas interpretis argui. Quid tu vir spiritalis agis? quid formae et exempli in rebus talibus caeteris probes? Fratris turpitudinem non solum nudatam his qui foris sunt nuntias, sed et obtecta denudas. Pone quia non te imitatus, hoc feci, sed ebrietas aliqua subrepens, sicut Patriarchae fecit, nudaverit turpitudinem nostram: nunquid maledictionem consecutus fores, si obversus incedens, levi palliolo rescripti tui contexisses opprobrium nostrum, et si velasset Epistola vigilantis, quem stilus nudaverat dormitantis? ### English translation (Claude) Yours, then, brother, yours is this deed, and it is certain that you had no companion or partner in it in the church, except that one man whom you often mention, Barabbas. For who else would dare to violate the Instruments handed down by the apostles to the church but a Jewish spirit? They, my brother, dearest before you were captured by the Jews, they hurl you into these evils. They make you brand Christians in published books; they make you spare not even martyrs, and write things speakable and unspeakable about every order of Christians, disturb our peace, and breed scandals in the church. They even compel you to pass sentence against yourself and your writings, as things you said when once a Christian. And therefore we are all filth to you, while they please you too much with their wicked arts. For if you had acquiesced in Paul's letter, which says, "If a brother is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness," how would you have boiled over so as to keep no order of spiritual correction at all? Suppose that I wrote something insulting; suppose that I did an injury to you, a man of the highest eloquence, my brother and colleague, whom I said was to be imitated in the method of translating: yet after that peace restored with the greatest sweat, this first complaint of injuries from me had reached you. But let us suppose that injury of yours too, that in translating Origen, imitating you, I passed over some things which seemed to me to have less of edification in the faith. Was I to be blamed for this, perhaps, and corrected? Writings of the brothers were sent to you, as you say, demanding that the faults of the translator be censured. What do you, a spiritual man, do? What pattern and example do you approve for others in such matters? You not only announce your brother's shame laid bare to those outside, but you uncover even what was covered. Suppose that I did this not in imitation of you, but some drunkenness creeping on, as with the patriarch, laid bare our shame: would you have incurred a curse if, walking backwards, you had covered our disgrace with the light cloak of your reply, and if the letter of one awake had veiled what the pen of one dozing had uncovered? ### Scripture references - Gal 6:1: quotation, high confidence - Gen 9:21–23: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus's language about the Jews and "Barabbas" (his name for Jerome's teacher) is his own polemic, translated as written. - The peace was the reconciliation of Jerome and Rufinus at Jerusalem in 397. - "If a brother is overtaken…": Gal 6:1; Noah's drunkenness and his sons walking backwards: Gen 9:21–23. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.37 (PL 21:615b–616b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-37). ## Apology against Jerome 2.38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-38 - Source: PL 21:616b–617a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus suggests how Jerome should have answered Pammachius, recalling that Pammachius had quietly returned Jerome's controversial books against Jovinian to him for correction. ### Latin text Sed aliud rescribere non poteram his, qui ad me talem Epistolam miserant, ut nisi ita rescripsissem, aut reinterpretatus essem ea ad verbum, quae tu es Interpretatus ad sensum, etiam ego Origenem sequi viderer. Nondum dico quae sit illa aut qualis Epistola: tamen quoniam viri nobilis Pammachii continet nomen, quid fuisset absurdum, si ei tale aliquid respondisses? Frater, non est temere de alterius opere judicandum. Nam et tu ipse nosti quid feceris, quando adversum Jovinianum Romam misi libellos: cum eos quidam aliter intelligerent, quam ego me dictasse memineram. Nonne cum jam a plurimis legerentur, et offenderetur pene omnes, cum quibus etiam tu ipse esse putabaris, exemplaria jam de foro, jam de publico subtraxisti, et haec non ad aliquem alium, sed ad me remisisti, caussam pariter, quia multi scandalum pati videbantur, insinuans: quomodo ego Apologeticum denuo descripsi, et quae aliter intelligebantur, ad intelligentiam rectiorem pro ut potui, revocavi? AEquum est ergo, ut quod nobis fieri volumus, aliis nos faciamus. Sicut enim meos libros mihi remisisti, ut a me emendarentur: ita et ad illum suos remitte, et quod culpabile videtur, insinua, ut ipse se, si in aliquo erravit, emendet. Tum praeterea et nos jam in multis exercuimus ingenium, et multa jam nobis opuscula desudata sunt. Ille hoc primum prope opus adiit, et fortasse compulsus: et nihil mirum si fluctuavit in primis. Nec occasio derogandi Christianis captanda est, sed emendationis utilitas requirenda. ### English translation (Claude) "But I could write nothing else," he says, "to those who had sent me such a letter; for unless I had written so, or had retranslated word for word what you had translated by sense, I too would have seemed to follow Origen." I do not yet say what that letter is or of what kind; yet since it bears the name of the noble man Pammachius, what would have been absurd if you had answered him something like this: "Brother, one must not judge rashly of another's work. For you yourself know what you did when I sent the books against Jovinian to Rome: when some understood them otherwise than I remembered dictating them. When they were already being read by very many, and almost all were offended, among whom you yourself were thought to be, did you not withdraw the copies from the market and from public view, and send them back not to anyone else but to me, indicating the reason as well, that many seemed to be scandalized; whereupon I wrote an Apology afresh, and recalled to a more correct understanding, as far as I could, what was understood otherwise? It is fair, then, that we do to others what we wish done to us. For as you sent my books back to me to be corrected by me, so send his back to him, and point out what seems blameworthy, so that he may correct himself if he has erred in anything. Besides, we have already exercised our talent in many things, and many works have already been sweated out by us; he has undertaken almost his first work, and perhaps under compulsion; and it is no wonder if he wavered at first. Nor should an occasion for disparaging Christians be seized, but the benefit of correction sought." ### Scripture references - Matt 7:12: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Jov. (Against Jovinian): allusion, high confidence - Jerome, Ep. 48 (Letters): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The opening words are Jerome's (Ep. 84.12, compare Against Rufinus 1.1). The suggested reply in quotation marks is Rufinus's own composition in Jerome's voice. - Pammachius withdrew copies of Jerome's Against Jovinian at Rome; Jerome replied with Ep. 48–49 (the "Apology"). - "Do to others…": Matt 7:12. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.38 (PL 21:616b–617a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-38). ## Apology against Jerome 2.39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-39 - Source: PL 21:617b–617c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus contrasts Jerome's chance to correct his own controversial books against Jovinian with his refusal to let Rufinus correct an unpublished draft, and says Jerome feared exposure of his debt to Origen. ### Latin text Haec Si ad eum rescripsisses, nonne majorem gratiam et aedificationem vel ipsi intelligentiam in timore Dei habenti, vel caeteris legentibus praebuisses, quam nunc istae tuae Invectivae moeroris et confusionis omnibus timentibus Deum praestant, qui et in te foedissimam obtrectandi libidinem, et in me respondendi necessitatem miserabilem vident? Si enim, ut dixi, de tuis libris contra Jovinianum scriptis, nunc eadem, quibus illum arguebas, ipse inveneris asserere, nunc vero intantum prolaberis, ut sordes nuptiarum, nec martyrii cruore dilui posse confirmes, et illud est Manichaeorum dogmatis emendationem tibi habere facile visam est in his libris, quos jam edideras, et describendos plurimis praebueras: quid erat difficultatis, me non meum opus, sed interpretationem alieni operis, si quid forte in eo erratum, non ratio, sed livor suggesserat, emendare? maxime cum adhuc esset in schedulis, quas nondum ad plenum relegeram vel explicueram, quas non editas invenerunt? Nonne perfacile emendari poterant ea, quae adhuc emendata non fuerant? Verum non hinc, ubi quod culparet nihil habebat; sed totum inde mordetur, dum per hoc prodi timuit, unde est omne quod ipse dicit, unde doctus, unde Scripturarum videtur Interpres. ### English translation (Claude) If you had written this to him, would you not have given more grace and edification both to him, a man who has understanding in the fear of God, and to the other readers, than these invectives of yours now give of grief and confusion to all who fear God, who see in you a most foul lust for disparagement and in me a pitiable necessity of reply? For if, as I said, in your books written against Jovinian you are found now to assert the very things for which you censured him, and now to slip so far as to affirm that the defilement of marriage cannot be washed away even by the blood of martyrdom; and if correction of a doctrine of the Manichees seemed easy to you in these books which you had already published and given to very many to copy: what difficulty was there in correcting, if anything had perhaps gone wrong in it (as not reason but envy suggested), my work, not my own work but the translation of another's work? especially since it was still in sheets, which I had not yet fully read over or set out, which they found unpublished? Could not what had not yet been corrected be very easily corrected? But it is not from there, where he had nothing to blame, but from here that the whole biting comes: because he feared that through this would be betrayed the source from which comes all that he says, from which he is learned, from which he seems an interpreter of the Scriptures. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Jov. (Against Jovinian): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus attributes to Jerome's books against Jovinian the view that the defilement of marriage cannot be washed away even by martyrdom; the passage he means is not identified with certainty (compare Against Jovinian 1.26 and Ep. 48). The charge of Manichaeism was made against those books. The sentence is garbled in the digital text and is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.39 (PL 21:617b–617c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-26/#p-2-39). ## Apology against Jerome 2.40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-40 - Source: PL 21:617c–618b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus compares his free translation to reusing parts of an old house in a new one, and mocks word-for-word translation as carrying over even the privies. ### Latin text Sed idcirco caussam, qua ad interpretandum addoctus sum, exposui, ut sciat, me haec non contentione (ut ipse agere solet) vel aemulatione aliqua protulisse, sed necessitate, qua superius edocui, ad boni et utilis operis instrumentum, ut aliquid ex hoc vel ordinis vel coloris acciperet ille, qui rudis ipse opusculum condebat antiquum. Aut non videmus vetustas aedes novellis aedificiis profuisse? Et interdum assumitur lapis de abditis et abstrusis antiquae domus partibus, qui novae domus frontem decoret et exornet ingressum. Et interdum totum novellae constructionis aedificium, unius antiquae trabis stabilitate munitur. Agamus ergo nunc adversus eos. qui veteribus recte utuntur in novis. Non vobis licet, dicentes, transferre materiam de veteri domo ad novam, nisi lignum tigno, et lapidem lapidi junxeritis, nisi porticum de porticu, nisi membrum de membro: et hoc fieri non poterit, nisi secessum de secessu, nisi cloacam de cloaca transtuleritis. Habere enim domum magnam etiam haec necesse est. Hoc namque est verbum transferre de verbo, quod a te ante improbabile, nunc vero probabile judicatum est. Sed tu quidem tibi et quae non licent, licere defendis; nobis autem quae licita sunt impingis ad crimen. Nam tu cum sacras Literas et Volumina divina permutares, laudari vis; nos etiam si te imitantes, de hominum sermonibus aliquid, quod minus aedificare credimus, praeterimus, in his nobis veniam non das, in quibus exemplum dedisti. ### English translation (Claude) But I set out the reason why I was led to translate so that he may know that I brought these things out not from rivalry (as he usually acts) or any emulation, but from the necessity which I explained above, as material for a good and useful work, so that the man who was himself building a new work, though unskilled, might take from it something of order or of colour from the old. Or do we not see that old buildings have been of use to new ones? And sometimes a stone is taken from the hidden and remote parts of an old house to decorate the front of a new house and adorn its entrance. And sometimes the whole building of a new construction is made firm by the solidity of one old beam. Let us then now take action against those who rightly use old things in new ones, saying: "You may not transfer material from an old house to a new one unless you join beam to beam and stone to stone, unless you transfer portico from portico, room from room; and this cannot be done unless you transfer privy from privy and sewer from sewer. For a great house must have these too." For this is translating word from word, which you formerly judged improper, but now proper. But you defend as permitted to yourself even what is not permitted, while you charge as crimes against us what is permitted. For when you changed the sacred writings and divine volumes, you wish to be praised; we, even if in imitation of you we pass over something in men's discourses which we believe edifies less, you do not pardon in the very things in which you gave the example. ### Translation notes - The "man building a new work" is Macarius (see 1.11). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.40 (PL 21:617c–618b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-40). ## Apology against Jerome 2.41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-41 - Source: PL 21:618b–618c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus begins his summary: his faith, Jerome's errors on the resurrection, the reasons for his translation, and the forged passage. ### Latin text Verum agat haec iste, ut sibi vel licere, vel expedire putat. Ego interim, ut recenseamus in fine ea, quae sparsim pro nostra purgatione respondimus, cum de me dixerit, quasi sine se haereticus esse non possem, ostendi fidem meam, et de resurrectione carnis ipsum magis errare, qui corpus quod resurrecturum est, fragile esse scripserit, comprobavi. Sexus quoque diversitatem quomodo abraserit, et corpore in animas, et mulieres redigi in viros dixerit, docui. Meae quoque interpretationis caussas, ut puto, justissimas protuli, quod non vel contentione excitatus, vel gloriae cupidus, sed Dei timore provocatus, antiquae materiae transvexerim copias, novellae constructionis aedificiis profuturas, et tela vetera, rubigine jam obducta, deterserim, non ut civile bellum moverem, sed ut hostile depellerem. Ipsum etiam caput, cui manus falsarias injecerunt, inserui, et adulterium blasphemiae in Filium Dei et Spiritum Sanctum, alienum a meo nomine, sed ipsorum scelere, et ab ipsis docui esse commissum. ### English translation (Claude) But let him do these things as he thinks lawful or expedient for himself. I meanwhile, to review at the end what we have answered here and there in our defence: since he said of me that I could not be a heretic without him, I showed my faith, and proved that on the resurrection of the flesh it is rather he who errs, who wrote that the body which will rise is frail. I showed too how he erased the difference of the sexes, and said that bodies are reduced to souls and women to men. I also set out the reasons for my translation, most just, I think: that not stirred by rivalry or desire of glory, but moved by the fear of God, I brought over supplies of old material to benefit the buildings of a new construction, and cleaned old weapons already covered with rust, not to stir up civil war but to repel the enemy's. I also inserted the very chapter on which they laid forging hands, and showed that the falsification of blasphemy against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit was foreign to my name and was committed by their crime and by them. ### Translation notes - The summary refers to 1.4–1.9, 1.23–1.24, 1.11, and 1.17–1.19. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.41 (PL 21:618b–618c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-41). ## Apology against Jerome 2.42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-42 - Source: PL 21:618c–619b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus continues his summary: Jerome's own commentaries contain the Origenist views he condemns, he broke his oath against secular books, and he praised Origen in many prefaces. ### Latin text In singulis quoque, de quibus se idcirco Origenem arguere dicebat, ut nos pulsare se crederet, et infamare opus translationis nostrae, ostendi ex ipsis Commentariis suis, ex quibus fidem suam exspectari debere dixerat, et probari, quod et de animae statu, et restitutione omnium, de diabolo atque angelis refugis, eadem quae in illo culpat, ipse conscripserit. Sed et quod animae in corpore hoc vinctae velut in carcere tenerentur, ipsum dixisse, convici. Unum quoque esse Corpus totius creaturae rationabilis, id est, angelorum et animarum, in his ipsis eum scripsisse Commentariis, approbavi. Perjurii etiam confoederationem, apud nullum ita, ut apud ipsum, ostendi sacratissimam conversari. Veritatem adaeque, et perfectiorem doctrinam non esse omnibus publicandam, in ipsis Commentariis ipsum docere convici. Tum inde saeculares libros, pro quibus sedenti seque verberanti pro tribunalibus Christo dixerat, « Si unquam legero, vel habuero Gentilium codices, te negavi; » nunc non solum legere vel; habere, verum etiam omnem suae doctrinae jactantiam in his eum gerere demonstravi [demonstravit], in tantum ut etiam per Isagogen impiissimi Porphyrii inductum se esse glorietur ad Logicam. Et cum Gentilium dogmata esse diceret, quoquo modo sentire vel de anima, vel de caeteris creaturis, ipsum multo foedius Gentilibus dixisse, quod Deus socrum haberet, ostendi. Sed et cum se dixisset in duabus tantum Praefatiunculis Origenis meminisse, ut ingeniosi magis quam apostolici viri, brevitatis caussa decem solas Praefatiunculas protuli, in quibus eum non solum ut apostolicum virum, sed alterum post Apostolos Ecclestarum magistrum, et quod eum cum omnibus prudentibus sequeretur, asserui. ### English translation (Claude) In each of the points also on which he said he was censuring Origen, so that he might be believed to be striking at us and defaming the work of our translation, I showed from his own commentaries, from which he had said his faith ought to be looked for and proved, that he himself wrote the same things he blames in him about the state of the soul, the restoration of all things, and the devil and the fugitive angels. I convicted him also of having said that souls are held bound in this body as in a prison. I proved that he wrote in these very commentaries that the whole rational creation, that is, angels and souls, is one body. I showed that the league of perjury dwells, most sacredly kept, with no one as with him. I convicted him of teaching in these very commentaries that the truth and the more perfect doctrine are not to be published to all. Next, I demonstrated that the secular books about which he had said to Christ, as he sat on the tribunal and had him beaten, "If ever I read or possess books of the Gentiles, I have denied you," he now not only reads and possesses but also places in them all the boast of his learning, so much so that he even boasts of having been introduced to logic through the Isagoge of the most impious Porphyry. And while he said that it was the doctrines of the Gentiles to think in any way about the soul or the other creatures, I showed that he himself said something much fouler than the Gentiles, that God has a mother-in-law. And when he had said that he mentioned Origen in only two short prefaces, as a man of genius rather than an apostolic man, I brought forward for brevity's sake only ten short prefaces, in which he asserted him not only as an apostolic man but as the second teacher of the churches after the apostles, and one whom he followed together with all prudent men. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Ep. 22.30 (Letters): quotation, high confidence - Porphyry, Porphyry, Chr. (Porphyry, Against the Christians (fragments)): allusion, low confidence ### Translation notes - The summary refers to 1.25–1.43, 2.1–2.12, and 2.13–2.24. - The oath is from Jerome, Ep. 22.30. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.42 (PL 21:618c–619b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-42). ## Apology against Jerome 2.43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-43 - Source: PL 21:619b–620a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus ends his summary with Jerome's attacks on clergy, monks, Ambrose, Didymus, and martyrs, and his alteration of the Scriptures. ### Latin text Praeterea evidenter ostendimus, ex more huic esse, ut bonis omnibus deroget, et in hoc se putet aliquid esse, si opinatos quosque viros, et qui aliquid nominis in literis habuerint, reprehendat. Ostendi etiam quam indigne ministros et Sacerdotes Christi laceraverit. Sed ne monachis quidem ac virginibus ipsis quas laudaverat, vel continentibus pepercerit, atque omnem Christianorum ordinem et gradum libellis foedis infamaverit. Sanctum quoque virum Ambrosium, cujus adhuc praeclarae vitae memoria in animis omnium viget, quam indigne et turpiter laceraverit. Didymum etiam, quem dudum inter videntes Prophetas et Apostolos posuerat, nunc inter cos, qui diversa ab Ecclestis doceant, collocarit: et omnes omnino vel antiquos vel novellos scriptores quod nunc imperitiae, nunc ineptiae notet: ad ultimum quod nec Martyribus parcat. Et haec omnia, ut superius dixi, non extraneis aliquibus, sed suis literis et se ipso teste, convici, per singula quaeque ex his ipsis probatissimis sibi libris testimonia proferens: quos libros etiam cum de caeteris omnibus dictis, vel scriptis suis poenitere se dicat, non quo vere poeniteat, sed quo angustatus in hoc venerit, ut aut poenitentia sibi esset simulanda, aut non posset mordere vel loedere quem vellet, illos tamen, ut dixi, libros sibi excepit solos, tanquam minime poenitendos. Et ideo nolui ejus nunc extera scripta contingere, ut de istis pene solis convinceretur, de quibus ipse sibi jam locum clauserat poenitendi. Post omnia vero ostendi, quod sacros Libros, quos Apostoli Ecclestis tanquam Spiritus Sancti fidele depositum commendaverant, permutaverit, et quod is, qui audaciam vocet in hominum opusculis vertendis, ipse majore piaculo eloquia divina subverterit. ### English translation (Claude) Besides, we have plainly shown that it is his habit to disparage all good men, and to think himself somebody by censuring every man of repute and anyone who has some name in letters. I showed also how unworthily he tore the ministers and priests of Christ; that he did not spare even the monks and the very virgins whom he had praised, or the continent, and defamed every order and rank of Christians in foul books; how unworthily and basely he tore the holy man Ambrose, the memory of whose splendid life still flourishes in all minds; that he has placed Didymus, whom he had once set among the seeing prophets and apostles, now among those who teach things contrary to the churches; and that he marks all writers whatever, old or new, now with lack of skill, now with folly; and finally that he does not spare even martyrs. And all these things, as I said above, I proved not by outsiders but by his own writings and by his own testimony, bringing forward testimonies on each point from those very books most approved by him: books which, though he says he repents of all his other sayings or writings (not because he truly repents, but because, hard pressed, he came to this, that either repentance had to be feigned or he could not bite or wound whom he wished), he nevertheless, as I said, excepted for himself alone, as least to be repented of. And therefore I did not wish now to touch his other writings, so that he might be convicted almost solely from these, for which he had himself already closed off the place of repentance. After all this, I showed that he has changed the sacred books which the apostles had entrusted to the churches as the faithful deposit of the Holy Spirit, and that he who calls it audacity to translate the works of men has himself, with a greater sacrilege, overturned the divine oracles. ### Translation notes - The summary refers to 2.5, 2.22–2.25, 2.30, and 2.32–2.35. - "Sacerdotes" here means bishops and presbyters; rendered "priests." ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.43 (PL 21:619b–620a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-43). ## Apology against Jerome 2.44 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-44 - Source: PL 21:620a–621b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus appeals to readers, and especially to Pammachius, to judge fairly, contrasting Pammachius's discreet handling of Jerome's books with his sending Rufinus's stolen drafts to Jerome. ### Latin text Superest jam ut unusquisque qui haec cognoscit, tali judicio favorem suum alteri nostrum conferat, quali judicio se a Deo cupit ipse judicari, nec suam laedat animam, dum alteri favorem praestat injustum. Cognoscat etiam per te, fili carissime Aproniane, sanctus vir ille Pammachius, cujus Epistolam amicus meus (Hieronymus) in Invectione vel accusatione sua protulit, in Christi adjutorio, non studiis, sed innocentiae favendum, nec in caussa veritatis studiose agendum esse magis quam religiose. Praeceptum est enim Domini, ut non secundum faciem, sed rectum judicemus judicium. Quia sicut in unoquoque minimorum suorum Christus est, qui esurit et sitit et nudus est, et ipse est qui reficitur et induitur: ita in his, qui judicantur injuste, ipse est qui inique judicatur. Et pro his qui odio habentur gratis, ipse dicturus est, Odistis me gratis. Quomodo aestimat hanc caussam et hoc factum suum in tribunalibus Christi judicandum, cum habeat sua conscientia, quod codices illius contra Jovinianum scriptos, qui jam publice legebantur et reprehendebantur, subtraxerit de manibus legentium, et culpantes prohibuerit, atque culpaverit; remiserit vero ad ipsum auctorem libros suos, insinuans ea, quae ad reprehensionem venirent, ut vel emendaret, vel rem, quoquo modo posset, curaret; meos vero non codices, sed schedulas imperfectas, inemendatas, furto cujusdam nebulonis et fraude subtractas, sibique delatas, cum me inibi haberet praesentem, mihi quidem non offerret, neque conquereretur, sed ne increpare quidem, aut etiam arguere dignaretur, vel per amicum certe aliquem, aut etiam per inimicum; sed ad Orientem mitteret, et instigaret linguam ejus hominis, qui eam temperare non noverat. Quid contra religionem faceret, si me praesentem potius convenisset? in tantumne colloquio ejus videbamur indigni, ut ab eo nec argui mereremur? Et pro nobis Christus mortuus est, et pro nostra redemptione sanguinem suum fudit. Peccatores quidem, sed de ipsius grege sumus, et inter ejus oviculas numeramur. Verum quia propter Deum contemsit nobilitatem suam, et totum se exaequavit humilibus, optimum quidem opus ejus in fide Christi, et quod exemplo caeteris esse debeat, confitemur: idcirco noluimus eum humanis studiis, contentionibusque raptari, ne in aliquo fidei suae sentiret detrimentum. Certe cum legerit, quod ea ipsa, de quibus caeteros arguit magister ille Hieronymus, in ipsius electis etiam post poenitentiam Commentariis docuerit, quod sua non sint, quam verum judicium servet, videbimus. Putabitur enim prior error fuisse ignorantiae, si eum emendarit agnitio. Nos autem quamvis necessitate compulsi, respondere nisi sumus ei, qui nos amarissime pulsaverat; attamen pro hoc ipso veniam petimus, si quid forte asperius prosecuti sumus, quia Deus conscientiae nostrae testis est, quod multo plura reticuimus quam protulimus; penitum autem silere contra conscientiam criminanti minime potuimus, cum ipsius pene fidei suae nonnulli jacturam ducerent silentium nostrum. ### English translation (Claude) It remains now that everyone who learns these things give his favour to one or other of us with such judgment as he himself desires to be judged with by God, and not hurt his own soul by giving unjust favour to another. Let that holy man Pammachius too know through you, my dearest son Apronianus, whose letter my friend (Jerome) brought forward in his invective or accusation, that with Christ's help one should favour innocence, not partisanship, and that in the cause of truth one should act not with zeal for a side but with religion. For it is the Lord's command that we judge not by appearance but judge with right judgment. For as in each of the least of his own it is Christ who hungers and thirsts and is naked, and it is he who is refreshed and clothed, so in those who are judged unjustly it is he who is wickedly judged; and for those who are hated without cause he will say: "You hated me without cause." How does he think this cause, and this deed of his, will be judged at the tribunal of Christ, when his conscience holds that he withdrew from the hands of readers Jerome's books written against Jovinian, which were already being publicly read and censured, and restrained and rebuked those who blamed them, and sent his books back to the author himself, pointing out what came under censure, so that he might correct it or remedy the matter as best he could; but my sheets, not books, unfinished and uncorrected, taken away by the theft and fraud of some rascal and brought to him, when he had me present there, he neither offered to me nor complained of, nor deigned even to rebuke or censure me, even through some friend, or even through an enemy, but sent them to the East and stirred up the tongue of a man who did not know how to restrain it? What would he have done against religion if he had rather met me face to face? Were we so unworthy of his conversation that we did not deserve even to be censured by him? For us too Christ died, and for our redemption shed his blood. Sinners indeed, but we are of his flock, and are counted among his little sheep. But since for God's sake he despised his nobility and made himself wholly equal to the lowly, we confess his work in the faith of Christ to be excellent indeed, and such as ought to be an example to others; therefore we did not wish him to be carried away by human partisanship and contentions, lest he suffer any loss in his faith. Certainly, when he reads that the very things for which that master Jerome censures others he himself taught in his chosen commentaries, even after his repentance, we shall see how true a judgment he keeps. For his former error will be thought to have been one of ignorance if knowledge corrects it. We, though compelled by necessity, have tried to answer him who struck us most bitterly; yet for this very thing we ask pardon if we have perhaps pursued anything rather harshly, because God is witness of our conscience that we have kept silent about many more things than we have brought out; but we could not keep wholly silent, against our conscience, before one who accused us, since some would have counted our silence almost a loss to their faith. ### Scripture references - John 7:24: quotation, high confidence - Matt 25:35–40: allusion, high confidence - John 15:25: quotation, high confidence - Ps 35:19 (34:19 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Jerome, Jov. (Against Jovinian): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The names in parentheses are explanatory insertions printed in the edition. - "Judge not by appearance…": John 7:24; Christ in the least: Matt 25:35–40; "You hated me without cause": John 15:25 (Ps 35:19). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.44 (PL 21:620a–621b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-44). ## Apology against Jerome 2.45 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-45 - Source: PL 21:621b–621c - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus takes up a further objection reported from Rome: that his preface praised Jerome's translations of Origen as free of offence, so his own should have been too. ### Latin text Posteaquam ista dictavi, frater aliquis, qui ex Urbe a vobis ad nos venerat, cum relegenti mihi assisteret, ait praetermissum unum adhuc excusationis locum, quem ibi audisset ab obtrectatoribus incusari. Dicebat autem de eo, quod scriptum est in Praefatiuncula mea, quia dixerim de isto, qui me nunc persequitur et accusat, quod in his, quae de Origene interpretatus est, nonnulla offendicula esse videantur in Graeco, quae ita tamen interpretando purgaverit, ut nihil in his, quod a fide nostra discrepet, Latinus Lector inveniat. Aiunt, inquit, de hoc capitulo: Vides quomodo et collaudavit interpretationem ejus, et testimonium ei dedit ipse, quod sine offendiculo sint ea, quae Ille interpretatus est, et ipsum secuturum se esse promisit. Cur ergo non et ea, quae ipse transtulit, absque offensione sunt, sicut illius scripta esse ipse testatus est? ### English translation (Claude) After I had dictated these things, a certain brother who had come to us from you in the City, sitting by me as I read it over, said that one further point of defence had been left out, which he had heard charged by the detractors there. He was speaking of what is written in my short preface, where I said of this man who now persecutes and accuses me, that in what he translated of Origen there seemed to be some stumbling blocks in the Greek, which he so cleansed in translating that the Latin reader would find nothing in them at variance with our faith. "They say," he said, "of this chapter: 'You see how he both praised his translation and himself bore witness that what that man translated is without stumbling block, and promised that he would follow him. Why, then, are not the things he himself translated free from offence, as he himself testified the other's writings were?'" ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Princ. pref. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rufinus's preface to On First Principles, Book 1 (pref. 2). ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.45 (PL 21:621b–621c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-45). ## Apology against Jerome 2.46 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-46 - Source: PL 21:621d–622b - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus replies that he praised Jerome for the same corrective method he himself used, citing Jerome's softening of Origen's seraphim passage on Isaiah. ### Latin text Non mira res, quod ibi semper culpari mereor, ubi istum laudavero. Et recte quidem. Tamen veniamus ad rem. Dixi eum purgasse in Latina translatione, si qua offendicula fidei videbantur in Graeco, et non immerito: ita tamen, ut eadem etiam a me comprobem gesta. Nam sicut ille in Homiliis de Isaia duo Seraphim, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum esse interpretatus est, et addens de suo: « Nemo existimet in Trinitate naturae esse differentiam, cum nominum discernuntur officia; » per hoc curare se offendicula credit potuisse; ita et nos vel ademptis, vel immutatis quibusdam, vel additis, sensum auctoris adducere conati sumus ad intelligentiae tramitem rectiorem. Quid hic diversum, aut quid contrarium, aut quid non idem fecimus? Sed quia ego de scriptis illius absque malitia et calumnia judicabam, non quid obtrectationi pateret, sed quid prospectus fuerit interpretantis, aspexi. Ille autem, qui occasiones ad calumniam querit, ea reprehendit in meis scriptis, quae ante me prior ipse conscripsit. Et revera ego culpandus sum, si secundum meam quidem sententiam, quae scripsit, recta sunt; secundum suum vero judicium condemnanda. Hoc quantum ad Trinitatis fidem pertinet, ubi utique blasphemiae crimen ducitur, quod dixit duo Seraphim, Filium esse et Spiritum Sanctum, si secundum suam sententiam, qua adversum me agit, ipse judicetur. Secundum vero meum judicium, quod in scriptis ejus absque proposito calumniae judicavi, absolvitur pro his, quae de suo ad explanandum sensum auctoris adjecit. ### English translation (Claude) It is no wonder that I always deserve to be blamed wherever I have praised this man. And rightly so. Yet let us come to the point. I said that in his Latin translation he cleansed whatever seemed stumbling blocks to the faith in the Greek, and not undeservedly; yet so that I may show that the same things were done by me. For just as he, in the Homilies on Isaiah, translated the two seraphim as the Son and the Holy Spirit, and, adding of his own, "Let no one think there is a difference of nature in the Trinity when the offices of the names are distinguished," believed he could thereby remedy the stumbling blocks; so we too, by taking away some things, changing others, or adding, tried to bring the author's sense to a more correct path of understanding. What did we do here that was different, or contrary, or not the same? But because I judged his writings without malice and slander, I looked not at what was open to detraction but at what the translator had intended. But he, who seeks occasions for slander, censures in my writings what he himself wrote before me. And indeed I am to be blamed, if what he wrote is right by my judgment but to be condemned by his. This, so far as concerns the faith of the Trinity, where certainly a charge of blasphemy is involved, that he said the two seraphim are the Son and the Holy Spirit, if he is judged by his own judgment, which he uses against me. But by my judgment, which I passed on his writings without intent of slander, he is absolved for what he added of his own to explain the author's sense. ### Scripture references - Isa 6:2–3: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Origen, Hom. Isa. 1.2 (Homilies on Isaiah): quotation, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Jerome's translation of Origen's Homilies on Isaiah 1.2 (see 2.27). Isa 6:2–3. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.46 (PL 21:621d–622b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-46). ## Apology against Jerome 2.47 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-47 - Source: PL 21:622c–624a - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rufinus closes: if a synod condemns books containing Origen's views with their authors, Jerome's commentaries must fall too, and Rufinus will follow the judgment of the catholic church either way. ### Latin text De resurrectione autem carnis puto in translatione nostra eadem contineri, quae in Ecclestis praedicantur. Caetera vero quae de creaturarum rationibus dicta sunt, quod nihil ad fidem Deitatis pertineant, jam superius diximus. Sed si iste haec modo ad calumniam vocat, quae ante offendiculum non habebant, non prohibeo, si ei placeat, revocare sententiam meam illam qua potuisset absolvi, et proferre suam, qua debebat alligari. Non ergo mea de eo sententia culpabilis putanda est, sed sua, quae reprehendit in aliis, quod in semetipso probat. Novum autem hoc judicii genus est, ubi accusatorem meum ego ipse defendo: et ubi tum demum me ille superatum putat, si semetipsum reum probarit. Veruntamen ponamus, quod Episcoporum Synodus sequatur sententias tuas, et jubeat omnes libros, qui haec talia continent, cum auctoribus suis, ut aiunt, debere damnari. Damnabuntur isti libri prius in Graecis: et quod in Graecis damnatur, sine dubio damnatum est in Latinis. Veniatur ad tuos libros, invenientur eadem continere secundum sententiam tuam: necesse est ut cum suo auctore damnentur. Et sicut nihil profuit Origeni, quod a te laudatus est: Ita nec tibi proderit, quod a me excusatus est. Me enim sequi necesse est Ecclestae Catholicae sententiam, sive adversus Origenis libros, sive adversus tuos datam. ### English translation (Claude) On the resurrection of the flesh, I think our translation contains the same things that are preached in the churches. The other things, said about the reasons of created beings, we have already said above do not belong to faith in the Godhead. But if he now calls into slander things which before had no stumbling block, I do not forbid him, if it pleases him, to revoke that judgment of mine by which he could have been absolved, and to put forward his own, by which he ought to be bound. My judgment of him, then, is not to be thought blameworthy, but his, who censures in others what he approves in himself. It is a new kind of judgment in which I myself defend my accuser, and in which he thinks me overcome only when he has proved himself guilty. Yet let us suppose that a synod of bishops follows your judgments and orders all books containing such things to be condemned with their authors, as they say. These books will be condemned first in Greek; and what is condemned in Greek is without doubt condemned in Latin. Let them come to your books: they will be found to contain the same things, according to your own judgment; they must be condemned with their author. And just as it profited Origen nothing that he was praised by you, so it will profit you nothing that you were excused by me. For I must follow the judgment of the catholic church, whether given against Origen's books or against yours. ### Translation notes - The closing title of the book in the edition ("End of Book 2 of the Controversies of Rufinus against Jerome") is removed from the text. ### Citation (SBL) Rufinus, Apol. Hier. 2.47 (PL 21:622c–624a; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/rufinus-apologia-hieronymum/2-40/#p-2-47).