| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1677
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[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?]
[1684] Reading “sed absit hoc a Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore omnis animæ,” instead of the codex’s “sed absit hanc a Domino Jesu Christo Salvatore omne animæ.”
[1685] If the reference, however, is to 2 Pet. iii. 9, as Routh suggests, it may rather be = He was not slack concerning His promises. The text is, “non enim moratus est in promissionibus suis.” [A noteworthy reference to the second Epistle of St. Peter. For, if this work be a mere romance, yet its undoubted antiquity makes it useful, not only in this, but in many other critical matters.]
[1687] Reading “abundantius vero conferens Paulo,” instead of the corrupt text in the Codex Casinensis, “abundantibus vero confitens Paulo.”
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page