Archelaus

Footnotes

^[2123] This may express with sufficient nearness the original, “nec Manem sed Manes.”

^[2124] The Codex Casinensis gives sexaginta regularly. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads septuaginta, seventy.

^[2125] Transfert eos. It may be also “translated them.”

^[2126] The text gives, “edictum proposuit in vita,” etc. For in vita it is proposed to read invitans; and that is confirmed by the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat.

^[2127] We adopt the reading “qui cubum, quod nomen est tali, ludere solent.” The text gives, “qui cibum quod nomen est tale eludere solent.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. seems to read, “qui cubum quod nomen est aleæ ludere solent.”

^[2128] Ferri talento.

^[2129] The text gives, “quique fugientes licet nunquam cessarunt,” etc. Codex Reg. Alex. Vat has, “licet nunquam cessarent” etc.

Chapter LIV

^[2130] Reading “dicebam.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “dicebant,” and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has “decebat”—as became them.

^[2131] Reading “converti ad salutem,” for “conventi,” etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis.

^[2132] Conscribebantur. [Note this concerning the Christian books.]

^[2133] Nuntios. But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives “novitios,” novices.

^[2134] The text gives “fatigarent.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives “fugarent”—expel.

^[2135] The text gives “invenientes.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. more correctly has “inveniens”—when he came upon.

Chapter LV

^[2136] But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “Stracum fluvium.”

^[2137] The text gives, “evadere potuit dum nemo eum insequeretur. Sed populus, cum Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione teneretur,” etc. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “evadere potuit dum ne eum insequeretur is populus, et Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione tenerentur.” Routh suggests, “dum eum nemo insequeretur, sed populus Archelai,” etc.

^[2138] The same Codex Vat. reads Adrabion here.

^[2139] The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. ends with these words.

^[2140] [See p. 177, supra. A fair discussion as to authenticity.]

^[2141] Inscripsi.

^[2142] Codex Casinensis reads, “non ex Manen originem mali hujus Manes esse.” We adopt the conjecture, “non ex Mane originem mali hujus manasse.”

^[2143] The following note on this Basilides may be given from Migne:—“Although Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., iv. 7) tells us that the Basilides who taught heresy shortly after the times of the apostles was an Alexandrian, and opened schools of error in Egypt, the Basilides mentioned here by Archelaus may still be one and the same person with that Alexandrian, notwithstanding that it is said that he taught his heresy among the Persians. For it may very well be the case that Basilides left Alexandria, and made an attempt to infect the Persians also with his heretical dogmas. At the same time, there is no mention among ancient authorities, so far as I know, of a Persian Basilides. The Alexandrian Basilides also wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel, as the same Eusebius testifies; and these do not appear to be different from those books of Tractates which Archelaus cites, and from the Exegetics, from the twenty-third book of which certain passages are given by Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of his Stromateis.It is not clear however, whether that Gospel on which Basilides wrote was the Gospel of the Apostles, or another which he made up for himself, and of which mention is made in Origen’s first Homily on Luke, in Jerome’s prologue to his Commentary on Matthew, and in Ambrose’s prologue to the Gospel of Luke.” We may add that Gieseler (Studien und Kritiken, i. 1830, p. 397) denies that the person meant here is Basilides the Gnostic, specially on account of the peculiar designation, Basilides quidam antiquior.But his objections are combated by Baur and Neander. See the Church History of the latter, ii. p. 50, ed. Bohn.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0166 times.

Contents