Rauer. [GCS 35] Origenes Werke Bd. IX: Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars. 1930.

Origenes Werke Bd.9

Die Homilien zu Lukas

in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus


Die Griechischen Reste der Homilien

und des Lukas-Kommentars

Provenance: Wielkopolska Biblioteka Cyfrowa
Publisher: J. C. Hinrichs Leipzig
Identifier: oai:www.wbc.poznan.pl:137915
Institution: Wielkopolska Biblioteka Cyfrowa
Provider: Federacja Bibliotek Cyfrowych
Providing Country: Poland
First Published In Europeana: 2014-07-13
Last Updated In Europeana: 2017-04-29

Item available in the Europeana Collections.

The volume 8 is available in this previous post. All the other are gathered here.

Origenes Werke Bd. VIII

Baehrens. [GCS 33]. Origenes Werke Bd. VIII: Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. 1925.

Origenes Werke Bd. VIII:

Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten.

Kommentar zum Hohelied, in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzung.

(GCS 33).


Author: Origen; Baehrens, Wilhelm A., 1885-1929
Publication date 1925
Usage http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
Topics Patrology, Origen, Bible, genealogy
Publisher J.C. Hinrichs
Collection opensource
Language Latin
Volume 33

The thirty-third volume of Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, usually abbreviated GCS and also known as the Berlin Corpus. This volume is also the eighth volume of the GCS’s series on Origen, containing Latin translations (by St. Jerome or Rufinus) of his homilies on Song of Songs, 1 Samuel, and several other prophets as well as his Commentary on the Song of Songs.

Item available in the Archive.org

The first 7 volumes of the Origenes Werke can be accessed in this previous post.

Robinson. Texts and studies: contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. Volume 1. 1891.

Previously announced here, the 4 issues of the first volume has been published by Internet Archive, and may be now accessed through the Bibliotheca Pretiosa and Scribd too.

3 items has been digitized at full color, and one of them [THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA] is available only as microfilm, in b/w images.

The handwritten note in the front-cover of the issue 4 was done not to correct an ‘errata’, but as a misplaced warning to help the readers. The back-cover show that a single page is attached to the 4th. issue, as a main front-page of the whole volume 1; that’s the reason the 4 issues appear listed there:

Vol. I.

No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES : by J. Rendel Harris, M. A. : with an Appendix by the editor.
No. 2. THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA, with an Appendix on the Scillitan Martyrdom : by the editor.
No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON : by A. E. Brooke, M. A.

Harris, Robinson. The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians : from a Syriac ms. preserved on Mou… by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Robinson. The Passion of S. Perpetua [microform]. 1891. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Chase. The Lord's prayer in the early church. 1891. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Robinson. Texts and studies : contributions to Biblical and Patristic literature. 1891. Volume 1. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Quote. Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction. 1981.

Out of the large number of heresiologists who wrote during the first centuries, why concentrate on the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus, the Elenchos of Hippolytus, and the Panarion of Epiphanius? The answer, in a nutshell, is that these works are available ; they are typical ; and they each took on ‘all the heresies’ of their own day.

They are available – that is, they survived. Justin wrote a Syntagma dealing also with all heresies and so did Hippolytus. Unfortunately, both are lost, and efforts to reconstruct them have obviously not succeeded in giving them back to us in their entirety. At best we might identify generically the heresies they refuted and infer something of the influence of these now lost works on the history of heresiology. It is not possible, however, to gain a clear idea of the arguments they used to counter their opponents.

Second, the Adversus haereses, the Elenchos, and the Panarion are typical representatives of the literary genre called ‘heresiology’. These works offer us excellent illustrations of what heresiology was in three successive centuries, and they allow us to follow the development of heresiology in that period. Moreover, they had a decisive and lasting influence on the fixing of the style of Christian polemics. (Their respective sources or their interdependence are not of primary concern here, although at times it will be useful to indicate the probable source of their ideas ; but our main interest is in the authors themselves. Each is seen as representing one major moment in the heresiological tradition).

Third, all three did battle with all heresies they knew, not only with particular heresies. This distinguishes them from heresiologists like Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, or Origen who took aim at one or another chosen target (Marcion or the Valentinians).

After Epiphanius heresiology betrays a depletion of energies. Pseudo-Tertullian, Filastrius of Brescia, Theodoret of Cyrus, also writing against all heresies, rely primarily for their information on Hippolytus’s Syntagma. Filastrius and Theodoret do not directly depend on Epiphanius ; they rather parallel him, and do not expand our knowledge of early heresies. The same may be said of Augustine ; he knew the ‘Anakephalaioseis’ of the Panarion and it is on them that he based his information in his De haeresibus. After Epiphanius no fresh knowledge of ancient heresies can be expected. New methods of dealing with heretics will indeed be developed. (But a study of these methods would include medieval heresiology up to the Reformation, which is beyond the scope of the present study. We are interested here in understanding the methods of dealing with ancient heresies).

Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction; in “Studies in Christianity and Judaism: 1”, pp. 4-6. Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1981.

Quote. Kato. Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. 2013.

Jerome is well known as one of the greatest Church Fathers who studied Hebrew and biblical exegesis under his Jewish teachers in Bethlehem and translated the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text into Latin. This image of Jerome, however, can easily change when we examine the history of research related to him.

Gustave Bardy suggested that while Jerome claimed that his Jewish teachers had taught him their exegesis, he, in fact, had plagiarized it from Greek predecessors such as Origen and Eusebius. Jerome, who mastered Greek while living in Syria and Asia Minor, spent a lot of time reading the works of Origen and Eusebius and translated some of them into Latin. According to Bardy, Jerome learned Jewish interpretations of the Bible from their works but pretended to have learned them from his Jewish teachers in order to boast about his knowledge of Hebrew. Moreover, Pierre Nautin considered Jerome’s linguistic competence in Hebrew to be quite low. According to Nautin, Jerome knew so little Hebrew that he had no choice but to depend on his Greek predecessors. Nautin was generally sceptical about Jerome’s statements. For instance, he concluded that Jerome’s correspondence with Pope Damasus I was a complete fiction created to lend authority to his own remarks. In addition, Nautin believed that the Latin Bible which Jerome claimed to have translated from the original Hebrew text was no more than a second-hand translation from the Hexaplaric (recension of the) LXX.

On the other hand, especially from the viewpoint of the Jewish studies, Jay Braverman and Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein noted that Jerome was deeply indebted to his Jewish teachers for his exegesis. Further, contrary to Nautin’s view, they estimated Jerome’s competence in Hebrew to be high. Kedar-Kopfstein, for instance, indicated that some interpretations of rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish exegetes were reflected in the passages of the Vulgate, which Jerome seemed to have mistranslated. In other words, it was not Jerome’s low competence in Hebrew but his rather close relationship with Jewish teachers of the time that made passages different in the Vulgate from what they were in the Masoretic text. Furthermore, scholars of Biblical studies, such as Edmund F. Sutcliffe and James Barr, tried to restore the ancient pronunciations of Hebrew words as they were before the Masoretic text by using Jerome’s Latin transliteration. They obviously could not have conducted their research without being convinced of Jerome’s competence in Hebrew.

Following the history of research on Jerome, we are confronted by two questions. First, were all of Jerome’s exegeses plagiarized from his Greek predecessors? Second, what was Jerome’s competence in Hebrew? To answer these questions we first need to consider Jerome’s understanding of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament (hereafter Quot.). When passages of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament, the wordings of some differ from those of the LXX which was the Old Testament for Christians in antiquity. Regarding these passages, Jerome claimed that their sources were not the LXX but the original Hebrew text. According to him, whenever the Evangelists and Paul quoted any passages of the Old Testament, they always chose the Hebrew text and translated it into Greek. If this assertion is correct and is based on an accurate knowledge of Hebrew, Jerome’s originality of exegesis and his competence in Hebrew is likely to be confirmed. Accordingly, we will analyse seven texts of Jerome (See section II), especially his Ep. 57, or Liber de optimo genere interpretandi, written c.395. In these texts, Jerome provides examples which indicate that the source of the Quot. was not the LXX but the Hebrew text.

Teppei Kato. ‘Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament‘, in Vigiliae Christianae 67, pp. 289-292. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013.

Charpentier. Etudes sur les Peres de l’Eglise. 1853.

Etudes sur les Peres de l’Eglise (1853)

Author: Charpentier, Jean Pierre, 1797-1878
Volumes: 2
Subject: Littérature chrétienne primitive; Pères de l’Église
Publisher: Paris : Veuve Maire-Nyon
Language: French
Call number: br67.c463
Digitizing sponsor: University of Toronto
Book contributor: University of Ottawa
Collection: universityofottawa; toronto

Charpentier. Etudes sur les Peres de l'Eglise. 1853. Volume 1. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

Charpentier. Etudes sur les Peres de l'Eglise. 1853. Volume 2. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis

De Montfaucon. Sancti Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera dogmatica selecta. 1853.

Sancti Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini
Opera dogmatica selecta (1853)

Author: Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria, d. 373; Montfaucon, Bernard de, 1655-1741; Thilo, Johann Karl, 1794-1853; Goldhorn, David Johann Heinrich
Publisher: Lipsia, Weigel
Language: Ancient Greek; Latin
Call number: AFE-6935
Digitizing sponsor: University of Toronto
Book contributor: Robarts – University of Toronto
Collection: robarts; toronto

Volume I of the Bibliotheca Patrum Graecorum Dogmatica. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edendam. Joannes Carolus Thilo, ed..

Montfaucon. Sancti Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera dogmatica selecta. 1853. by Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis on Scribd

Quote. Einar Thomassen. Valentinian Ideas About Salvation as Transformation. 2009.

In his violent attack on the Valentinians in Book 31 of the Panarion, Bishop Epiphanius, amongst other grievances, also ridicules their views on resurrection:
They deny the resurrection of the dead, uttering some senseless fable about it not being this body that rises, but another one which comes from it and which they call “spiritual” (μὴ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο ἀνίστασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον μὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ὃ δὴ πνευματικὸν καλοῦσι). But [salvation belongs?] only to those among them who are spiritual, and to those called “psychic” –provided, that is, the psychics act justly. But those called “material”, “carnal” and “earthly” perish utterly and are in no way saved. Each substance proceeds to what emitted it: the material is given over to matter and what is carnal and earthly to the earth. (Pan. 31.7.6–7; trans. P. R. Amidon)
It is somewhat amusing that what Epiphanius here calls a “senseless fable” of the Valentinians in fact seems to be sound Pauline doctrine. The spiritual body that rises from the present one as a new and transformed being is precisely what Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 15:44: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. In other words, the Valentinians appear to have held a view of the resurrection that was more in agreement with Paul than was the doctrine professed by the heresy-hunting bishop.

Einar Thomassen. ‘Valentinian Ideas About Salvation as Transformation’. In “Ekstasis – Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, 1 – ‘Metamorphoses’, p. 169. 2009.

Gumerlock. Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions. 2007.

Trinity Journal 28 (2007):205-213
Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance:
Four Patristic Solutions


Referring to the time of His Second Coming, Jesus is recorded as saying, “But of
that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
alone” (Mark 13:32, NASB. The word alone is italicized because it was supplied by the
translator). The church fathers spilled much ink explaining this statement of the Lord,
most often because of its import regarding Christology.2 Since the passage allegedly
presents Christ as ignorant, the Arians of the early church, who denied that the Son was
consubstantial with the Father, used it as a proof-text for their belief in a less-than-divine
Son of God.3 On the other hand, those who held to Nicene orthodoxy and believed that
Jesus was fully God and possessed all the attributes of divinity, including omniscience,
responded to the Arians with Colossians 3:2, “In Him are all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge.” The adherents of Nicene orthodoxy, besides asserting Christ’s omniscience,
also had to make sense out of Mark 13:32, which seemed to teach that Jesus was ignorant
of at least one detail concerning the future, i.e. the time of His return. To solve the
theological dilemma of the omniscient Son of God not knowing the time of His own
Second Coming, the church fathers proposed a variety of explanations. This article
presents and evaluates four of their solutions—the philological solution of Basil of
Caesarea, two “figures of speech” solutions offered by Augustine of Hippo and Gregory
of Tours respectively, and the anthropological solution of Athanasius of Alexandria.

Article kindly provided by Francis X. Gumerlock, through his website.

Cureton. Corpus Ignatianum : a complete collection of the Ignatian epistles, genuine, interpolated, and spurious. 1849.

Corpus Ignatianum :

a complete collection of the Ignatian epistles,

genuine, interpolated, and spurious …


Author: Ignatius, Saint, Bishop of Antioch, d. ca. 110
Publisher: Berlin : Asher
Language: English
Call number: ALG-4438
Digitizing sponsor: University of Toronto
Book contributor: PIMS – University of Toronto
Collection: pimslibrary; toronto

Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller: Some updates in our Scribd collection.

Published the October 28, 2010, the collection regarding the Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller was assembled with few items, mainly taken from Google Books service, and some other from Internet Archive.
This week, some other volumes, belonging to the PIMS digitazions has been added too, increasing the number of volumes directly available to read and consult.

The items added are [not sorted in any way]:


  1. GCS 24 Eusebius Werke VII/1. Hieronymi chronicon (1. Aufl. 1913: Rudolf Helm)
  2. GCS 23 Eusebius Werke VI. Demonstratio euangelica (1. Aufl. 1913: Ivar A. Heikel)
  3. GCS 20 Eusebius Werke V. Die Chronik, aus dem Armenischen übersetzt (1. Aufl. 1911: Josef Karst)
  4. GCS 14 Eusebius Werke IV. Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia (1. Aufl. 1906: Erich Klostermann)
  5. GCS 11/1 Eusebius Werke III/1. Onomasticon (1. Aufl. 1904: Erich Klostermann)
  6. GCS 9/1 Eusebius Werke II/1. Historia ecclesiastica (1. Aufl. 1903: Eduard Schwartz/Theodor Mommsen)
  7. GCS 19 Theodoretus Cyri, Historia ecclesiastica (1. Aufl. 1911: Léon Parmentier)
  8. GCS 27 Methodius, Olympius, Werke (1. Aufl. 1917: Georg Nathanael Bonwetsch)
  9. GCS 4 Anonymus (Adamantius). De recta in Deum fide (1. Aufl. 1901: W.H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen)
  10. GCS 16 Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (1. Aufl. 1906: Charles Henry Beeson)
  11. GCS 18 Die Esra- Apokalypse I (IV. Esra) (1. Aufl. 1910: Bruno Violet)
  12. GCS 31 Epiphanius II. Panarion haer. 34-64 (1. Aufl. 1922: Karl Holl)
  13. GCS 25 Epiphanius I. Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1-33 (1. Aufl. 1915: Karl Holl)


The PLGO.org Community will be working updating the list available here.