| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1750
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1741] Reading commonens for communis ne. Communiens is also suggested.
[1743] We have another instance here of a characteristic opinion of the Jewish rabbis adopted by a Christian father. This notion as to the intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men was a current interpretation among the Jews from the times of Philo and Josephus, and was followed in whole or in part by Tertullian, Justin, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, etc. Consult the note in Migne; [also p. 131, note 2, supra].
[1744] We give the above as a possible rendering. Routh, however, understands the matter otherwise. The text is, “alii vero in felicitate hominum filiabus admisti a dracone afflicti,” etc. Routh takes the phrase in felicitate as ="adhuc in statu felici existentes:” so that the sense would be, “others, while they still abode in the blessed estate, had intercourse,” etc. [Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 118–122.]
[1745] Archelaus seems here to assign a twofold etymology for the name devil, deriving the Greek διάβολος, accuser, from διαβάλλω, in its two senses of trajicere and traducere, to cross over and to slander.
[1750] Reading a nobis for the a vobis of the codex.
[1752] Ex uno.
[1753] The sense is obscure here. The text runs, “Interimere debes judicii ratione ut quis nostrum fallat appareat.” Migne proposes to read rationem, as if the idea intended was this: That, consistently with his reasonings, Manes ought not to admit the fact of a judgment, because the notions he has propounded on the subject of men and angels are not reconcilable with such a belief.—If this can be accepted as the probable meaning, then it would seem that the use of the verb interimere may be due to the fact that the Greek text gave ἀνᾶιρεῖν, between the two senses of which—viz. to kill and to remove—the translator did not correctly distinguish. Routh, however, proposes to read interimi, taking it as equivalent to condemnari, so that the idea might be = on all principles of sound judgment you ought to be condemned, etc.
[1754] The codex reads simply, Dei servare mandata. We may adopt either Dei non servare mandata, as above, or, Dei servare vel non servare mandata, in reference to the freedom of will, and so = they may or may not keep the commandments.
[1755] The codex has præcedit, for which procedit is proposed.
[1756] Reading “læderet—illuderetur.” But might it not rather be “læderet—illidertur,” not to bruise, but rather to be bruised, etc.?
[1758] This appears to be general sense of the very corrupt passage, “Quo videntur ostenso nulli dubium est unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem propria usus arbitrii potestate.” In Migne it is amended thus: “Quo evidenter ostenso, nulli dubium est, quod unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem, propria usus fuerit arbitrii potestate.”
[1759] Adopting the emendation, “si a Deo bonus, ut asseris, mendacem esse dixisti Jesum.” In the Codex Casinensis it stands thus: “sic a Deo bonus ut as mendacem esse dixisti Jesus.” But Routh would substitute “si a Deo diabolus” = if the devil is from God.
[1760] The argumentation throughout this passage seems to rest on the fact that, in support of the dogma of the evil deity, Manes perverted, among other passages, our Lord’s words in John viii. 44, as if they were not only “Ye are of your father the devil” but possibly also, “Ye are of the father of the devil;” and again, “He is a liar, and the father of him is the same.” Thus what Manes urges against Archelaus is this: If only what is good proceeds from the Deity, and if He is the Supreme Good Himself, you make out Jesus to have spoken falsely, when in John’s Gospel He uses expressions which imply that the devil’s father is a liar, and also the Creator of the lying devil.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page