Many thanks to Alin Suciu for posting a link to a talk given recently by Lorenzo Perrone on the newly discovered Origen manuscript:
I listened to the entire lecture, and it’s a pretty interesting talk. “First Impressions” is certainly a good title. Perrone gives several reasons why he believes the homilies are authentic, and also makes comments on various items from the manuscript.
Perrone notes many interesting items. The manuscript catalog, for instance, mislabeled the contents. The catalog entry, incorrectly, lists 4 psalms on Psalm 31, instead of Psalm 36.
Rufinus translates 5 homilies on psalm 36, but the 5th is not present in the manuscript. Perrone notes that no catenae preserve Greek fragments from the 5th homily. It would appear that this homily dropped out of the tradition early on.
Psalm 77 (LXX) received much attention from Origen, which Perrone believes was due to heresiological implications.
Rufinus and Jerome both provide external evidence to support Origenic authorship.
The catenae also provide support. The tacit assumption has been that catenae editors usually pull on commentaries, but here we have the catenae drawing on homilies. Perrone gives an example from a homily on Ps. 77.
There is also a good parallel between the Hom. In Ps. 77 V and Origen’s treatise “On Prayer.”
Various notes on content:
- Discussion of Origen’s youth and heresy around 45m.
- Hom. In Ps. 77 mentions a debate with Marcionites.
- Origen corrects a variant reading at beginning of Hom. In. Ps. 77.
- First Homily on 67- he comments on the use of the imperative mood rather than the optative mood.
Those, of course, are just scattered notes. If you’re interested in the manuscript, or Origen, do yourself a favor and watch the whole lecture!
ἐν αὐτῷ,
ΜΑΘΠ
Alex Poulos, PhD 
Odd that Perrone doesn’t mention the thirty years reference as it is the centerpiece to Nautin’s dating of the entire Homilies on the Psalms. Maybe he didn’t think the Greek was different enough from the Latin here. Maybe it he hadn’t had enough time with the material.
At some point he mentioned that the new material raises some historical questions, but he was going to lay that aside for that particular lecture. My guess is he just wanted to discuss authorship.
My main concern has so far been to discuss first and foremost the issue of the authenticity and not the interpretations, more or less problematic, about the chronology of the Homilies.
Thanks for your interest!