| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1950
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1940] Reading “prævaricator” instead of “prædicator.” The sense would seem strictly to require, a debtor to the law.
[1941] Atramentum.
[1943] The Codex Bobiensis gives, “figuli opus aufers aut fictilium.” The Codex Casinensis has, “figuli opus et ars aut fictilium.” We adopt “figuli opus aut ars fictilium.”
[1944] Adopting “nequaquam” for “nec quemquam.”
[1945] By this he means the Epistle to the Romans, to which the first place among the epistles of Paul was assigned from the most ancient times. In Epiphanius, under heresy 42, it is alleged as an offence against Marcion, that he put the Epistle to the Romans in the fourth place among Paul’s epistles. See a note in Migne. [Again, this expression is a note of genuine antiquity.]
[1946] Reading “propositus” for “propheticus.”
[1947] The Codex Casinensis has formatum; the other codex gives firmatum.
[1949] The text gives, “neque vero omnigene in ignobilitatem redigitur,” etc. The Codex Bobiensis has, “neque vero omni genere in nobilitate.”
[1950] Reading “scisse se differentias gloriæ,” etc. Codex Bobiensis gives scis esse, etc. = you know that there are differences.
[1952] Sicut et verbi ipsius natura persuadet. Reading “natura persuadet.” But the Codex Bobiensis gives demonstrat, demonstrates.
[1954] Non revelatur quia in Christo destruitur.
[1956] Ex. xxxiv. 33; 2 Cor. iii. 13.
[1957] The text is, “hoc est velamen, quod erat positum super faciem Moysi, quod est testamentum ejus,” etc.
[1959] The reading in the text is, “non deficiet princeps ex Juda, neque dux de femoribus ejus usquequo veniat,” etc. Codex Bobiensis coincides, only giving “de femore ejus.” On the whole quotation, which is given in forms so diverse among the old versions and fathers, see Novatian, De Trin., ch. 9 [vol. v. p. 618], and Cyprian, Adv. Judæos, i. 21 [vol. v. p. 513].
[1960] The text gives, “veniat, cujus est,” etc. Prudentius Maranus on Justin’s Apology, i. § 32 [vol. i. p. 173, this series], thinks this was originally an error of transcription for cui jus est, which reading would correspond very much with the ᾧ ἀπόκειται of some of the most ancient authorities. See Cotelerius on the Constitut. Apostol., i. 1, and the note in Migne.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page