| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1622
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1612] The codex gives “hic enim qui exstruis.” It is proposed to read “sic enim qui exstruit” = For in this very way he who constructs.
[1613] The text gives “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus; Deus qui Creator,” etc. The Codex Casinensis reads Deum. We adopt the emendation Deo and the altered punctuation, thus: “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus Deo qui creator est animæ,” etc.
[1614] Reading “per conjunctionem” for the simple conjunctionem.
[1615] Reading “natus est et creatus.” The Codex Casinensis has “natus est creatus.”
[1616] Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2.
[1619] Codex Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to the Gentiles we read introducerent.
[1620] Matt. xxiii. 25; Luke xi. 39.
[1622] Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46.
[1623] The Codex Casinensis gives a strangely corrupt reading here: “primos discipulos subitos in cœnis, quod scientes Dominus.” It is restored thus: “primos discubitus in cœnis, quos sciens Dominus,” etc.
[1625] Dividitur.
[1626] Reading majus for the inept malus of the Codex Casinensis.
[1627] Routh refers us here to Maximus, De Natura, § 2. See Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 89–91.
[1628] The text is “multo inferior virtutis humanæ,” which is probably a Græcism.
[1629] Reading ceu for the eu of the Codex Casinensis.
[1630] The Codex Casinensis gives “nec quæ vellem quidem,” for which “nec æqualem quidem,” etc., is suggested, as in the translation.
[1632] The text gives a quo si, etc. Routh suggests atqui si, etc.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page