" Not that I for a moment conceive the passage under
consideration to have come in its Latin dress from the pen of Jerome;
for my conviction being that it is an interpolation of a much later
date, I mention the circumstance to show, that even when Jerome, with
his professed accuracy, is the translator, we can in no case feel sure
that we are reading the exact and precise sentiments of Origen.
[Footnote 58: The Latin word "notarius" (notary) does not come
so near as our own English expression, "short-hand writer," to
the Greek word used by Eusebius,--"tachygraphus,"
"quick-writer." The report of Eusebius as to the homilies of
Origen having been delivered extempore, and taken down by these
"quick-writers," is confirmed by Pamphilus the martyr, as quoted
by Valesius, in the annotations on this passage of
Eusebius.--Apol. Orig. lib. i.]
[Footnote 59: Cui in vertendis Graecis sciunt eruditi solemne
esse nonnulla interdum de suo inserere.] {157}
Ruffinus, his celebrated contemporary, accused Jerome of many
inaccuracies in his translations; and yet what were the principles of
translation adopted by Ruffinus himself, as his own, we are not left to
infer; for we learn it from his own pen. His voluntary acknowledgment in
the peroration which he added to Origen's Comment on the Epistle of St.
Paul to the Romans, strongly and painfully exhibits to us how little
dependence can safely be placed on such translations whenever the
original is lost; how utterly insufficient and unsatisfactory is any
evidence drawn from them, as to the real genuine sentiments and
expressions of the author.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193