| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1672
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1662] Routh takes it as a direct assertion = It follows, then, that these two objects are of one substance, etc.
[1663] The text runs, “sed aliud alio longe differre ignorantiam pastori ascribimus;” for which we adopt the emendation, “sed alium ab alio longe differre si dicamus, ignorantiam pastori ascribimus.”
[1664] Migne reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an assault.
[1665] The text gives si causa traditus, etc. Routh suggests sive causa. Traditus, etc.; so that the sense would be, For on what creature can the shepherd of the kids and lambs pronounce judgment, seeing that he is himself proved to be in fault to them, or to be the cause of their position? For the lamb, having been given up, etc.
[1666] Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum.
[1667] Reading si quis for the simple quis of Codex Casinensis.
[1668] Reading “quæstione rejecta” for the relecta of Codex Casinensis.
[1669] This seems to be the general sense of the corrupt text here, et non longe possit ei Paulus, etc., in which we must either suppose something to have been lost, or correct it in some such way as this: “ut non longe post sit ei Paulus.” Compare what Manes says also of Paul and himself in ch. xiii. above. It should be added, however, that another idea of the passage is thrown out in Routh. According to this the ei refers to Jesus, and the text being emended thus, etsi non longe post sit ei, the sense would be: although not long after His departure He had Paul as an elect vessel, etc. The allusion thus would be to the circumstance that Manes made such a claim as he did, in spite of the fact that after Christ’s departure Paul was gifted with the Spirit in so eminent a measure for the building up of the faithful.
[1670] Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis.
[1671] 2 Cor. xiii. 3. The reading here is, “Aut documentum quæritis,” etc. The Vulgate also gives An experimentum, for the Greek ἐπεί, etc.
[1672] The text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit, or sit, or est.
[1673] Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction, qui cum nec.
[1674] Reading confutatus for confugatus.
[1675] The text gives “et ideo ut consequenter erat,” etc. Codex Casinensis omits the ut. Routh proposes, “et ideo consequenter thesaurus,” etc. = and thus, of course, the treasure was preserved, etc. Comp. ch. xxvii. and xxxiv.
[1676] The text has, “sedens ipse per se,” etc.; for which we adopt “sed et ipse,” etc.
[1677] The Codex Casinensis gives, “deinde die moriturus,” which may be either a mistake for “deinde moriturus,” or a contraction for “deinde die qua moriturus”—then on the day that he was about to die, etc.
[1678] The codex has, “Sin autem conderem se dicens, exposceret, devitarent persequi,” etc.; which is corrected to, “Sin autem cohæredem se dicens exposceret, devitarent atque,” etc., which emendation is followed in the translation.
[1679] Opus autem magis facere debere.
[1680] The same sort of argument is employed against the Montanists by Theodorus of Heracleia on John’s Gospel, ch. xiv. 17.
[1681] It is remarked in Migne, that it is only in the heat of his contention that this statement is made by Archelaus as to the date of the appearance of Manes; for from the death of Christ on to the time of this discussion there are only some 249 years. [Is it not probable that here is a token of the spurious character of not a little of this work?]
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page