| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1490
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1480] Ex pueris suis.
[1481] Epiphanius, under this Heresy, num. 7, says that this was a fort situated on the other side of the river Stranga, between Persia and Mesopotamia.
[1482] The section extending from this point on to ch. xii. is found word for word in the Greek of Epiphanius, num. 25.
[1483] μιξιν δὲ ητοι σύγκρασιν.
[1484] προβάλλειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν. But the Codex Bobiensis gives produxit ex virtute, put forth from His power one, etc. The Codex Casinensis has produxerit et esse virtutem, etc.
[1485] The text is simply καὶ αὐτὴν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, τὰ πέντε στοιχεια. The Latin, with emendations from the Codex Bobiensis and Epiphanius, gives quâ virtute circumdedit primum hominem, quæ sunt quinque elementa, etc., = with which power He begirt the first man, which is the same as the five elements, etc. With slight differences the Codex Bobiensis reads quâ circumdedit, and the Codex Casinensis, quæ virtute.Petavius pointed out that there is probably an omission in the text here. And from a passage in Epiphanius, Hær., lxvi. n. 45, it has been proposed to fill out the sentence thus: προβάλλειν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ αὐτὴν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς τόν τε πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα. The sense might then be that the good Father put forth from Himself a power called the Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life put forth the first man, and that the said Mother of Life and the first man put forth (or constituted) the five elements. See the note in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, v. p. 49.
[1486] The Codex Bobiensis omits the ventus, wind.
[1487] The Greek gives ἐστερέωσεν ἐν τῷ στερεώματι. The Latin version has, “crucifixit eos in firmamento.” And Routh apparently favours the reading ἐσταύρωσεν = crucified them, etc. Valesius and the Codex Bobiensis have, “descendens eduxit principes Jesu, exiens in firmamentum quod est,” etc.
[1488] εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ. The Latin however, gives et sunt octo, “and they are eight;” thus apparently having read εἰσὶ δὲ ὀκτώ, instead of εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ.
[1489] i.e., one who bears on his shoulders, the upholder.
[1490] Reading ἐκ τῶν κόλπων, de sinibus suis. But the Codex Bobiensis gives de finibus, from His own territories.
[1491] The Greek text is, ὅπως αὐτῷ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἐπιτιμίαν δῷ. The Latin gives, “quo illum, ut par erat, coerceret.” The Codex Bobiensis reads, “quod illum, ut pareret, coerceret.” It is clear also that Petavius read correctly ἐπιτιμίαν for ἐπιθυμίαν in Epiphanius.
[1492] τὰ φυτά.
[1493] ἔδησεν. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “vexit animam in eo.”
[1494] But certain codices read et parebat, “and was obedient,” in stead of apparebat.
[1495] κάδους.
[1496] πορθμεῖν.
[1497] ἀπόκρουσιν. The Codex Casinensis has apocrisin; but the Codex Bobiensis gives apocrusin.
[1498] The text gives τῆς ψυχῆς. But from the old Latin version, which has animarum, we may conjecture that τῶν ψυχῶν was read.
[1499] The Latin version has “vir perfectus,”—a reading which is due apparently to the fact that the author had mistaken the ἀήρ of the Greek for ἀνήρ. [See note 2, p. 176, supra.]
[1500] ὁ θερισμὸς ἀρχων. The version of Petavius has, “Sic et princeps alter, messor appellatus.” Perhaps the reading should be ὁ θερισμοῦ ἄρχων.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page