| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1757
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[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.
[1761] There are some words deficient in this sentence. The text reads, “Manes dixit:…dico: et adjecit, Omnis qui conditor est vel Creator aliquorum pater eorum…condiderit appellatur.” It is proposed to supply jam before dico, and quæ before condiderit.
[1762] Reading et effectum for the ut effectum of the codex.
[1763] Or it may be “cogitations,” reading cogitata for agitata.
[1764] Conceptis in se doloribus.
[1766] The text gives parturies. Routh suggests parturiens. The sense then might be, But if you repent, you will also deliver yourself of your burden like one who brings to the birth.
[1767] Reading Domine for Dominum, which is given in the text.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page