Summary of the Chapters

Sections 1 to 3. A criticism of Rufinus’s Apology to Anastasius. His excuses for not coming to Rome are absurd: his parents are dead, and the journey is easy. No one ever heard before that he had been imprisoned or exiled for the faith. Sections 4 to 8. His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen’s teachings on the resurrection, on the origin of souls, and on whether Satan can be saved. On the resurrection and on Satan he is ambiguous. On souls he professes ignorance. Section 9. What Latin! The poor souls must be tormented by his barbarisms. Section 10. You are not permitted to be ignorant of a matter that all the churches know. Section 11. As to translating On First Principles, the issue is not a question raised but a charge: that you altered the book without any right to do so. Sections 12 and 13. Origen asserts that Christ is a creature, and he maintains that all things will be restored. Where has he contradicted this? [a]

Section 14. The question is the one Anastasius puts to John of Jerusalem: with what motive did you translate On First Principles? [c] Section 15. You pretend not to be Origen’s defender, yet you publish the Apology for him and enlarge it, and you allege that heretics falsified his works. Section 16. Your defense gains no support from Eusebius or Didymus, who, each for his own reason, defend On First Principles as it stands. [d] Section 17. If we may allege falsification at every turn, we turn all past literature into chaos. Section 18. The purpose of Origen’s letter, of which he translates only a part, is not to show that his writings were falsified, but to abuse the bishops who condemned him. Section 19. Origen alleges this falsification only in connection with one particular point in his dispute with Candidus. The story that Hilary was condemned because his writings had been falsified has no foundation. Section 20. What you tell about me at Damasus’s council is mere after-dinner gossip. [e]

Sections 21 and 22. The attack on Epiphanius as a plagiarist of Origen is an outrage against the bishops in general. Origen never wrote six thousand books. Section 23. I made sure at the library at Caesarea that the Apology you quote as the work of Pamphilus is the work of Eusebius. Section 24. The letter circulated falsely in Africa under my name, expressing regret for my translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, bears the mark of your hand. I have always honored the seventy translators. Sections 25 to 32. To prove this, I bring forward the prefaces to my translation of the books from Genesis to Isaiah. Section 33. As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew. Section 34. A defense of the importance of the Hebrew text of Scripture. Section 35. Though the Septuagint has been of great value, we should be grateful for fresh translations from the original.