| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3774
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[3764] Or, perhaps, “cray-fish,” locusta.
[3765] The ms. reads quidem—“indeed,” retained by the first four edd., but changed into quia—“because,” by Elmenhorst, LB., and Orelli, while Oehler suggests very happily si quidem—“if indeed,” i.e., because.
[3766] Lit., “from.”
[3767] Rationes.
[3768] Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p. 416, supra.].
[3769] Orelli, retaining this as a distinct sentence, would yet enclose it in brackets, for what purpose does not appear; more especially as the next sentence follows directly from this in logical sequence.
[3770] Lit., “the constitutions of things.”
[3771] Lit., “did not choose the souls of the human race to be mixtures of the same purity,” noluit, received from the margin of Ursinus by all except the first four edd., which retain the ms. voluit—“did choose,” which is absurd. Arnobius here refers again to the passage in the Timæus, p. 41 sq., but to a different part, with a different purpose. He now refers to the conclusion of the speech of the Supreme God, the first part of which is noticed in ch. 36 (cf. p. 447, n. 20). There the Creator assures the gods He has made of immortality through His grace; now His further invitation that they in turn should form men is alluded to. That they might accomplish this task, the dregs still left in the cup, in which had been mixed the elements of the world’s soul, are diluted and given to form the souls of men, to which they attach mortal bodies.
[3772] Lit., “things not principal.” Orelli here quotes from Tertullian, de Anim., xxiii., a brief summary of Gnostic doctrines on these points, which he considers Arnobius to have followed throughout this discussion.
[3773] Siwas first inserted in LB., not being found in the ms., though demanded by the context.
[3774] Lit., “have begun to leave.”
[3775] The ms. and first three edd., read vobis—“you,” corrected nobis, as above, by Ursinus.
[3776] So the ms.; but most edd., following the Brussels transcript, read dominum—“Lord.”
[3777] Utis omitted in the ms., first four edd., and Hild.
[3778] So LB., reading p-uncta for the ms. c-uncta.
[3779] So the ms., Hild., and Oehler, reading imman-ior; LB., from the margin of Ursinus, major—“greater;” the rest, inanior—“more foolish.”
[3780] The difficulty felt by Arnobius as to the origin of evil perplexed others also; and, as Elmenhorst has observed, some of the Fathers attempted to get rid of it by a distinction between the evil of guilt and of punishment,—God being author of the latter, the devil of the former (Tertullian, adv. Marcionem, ii. 14). It would have been simpler and truer to have distinguished deeds, which can be done only if God will, from wickedness, which is in the sinful purpose of man’s heart.
[3781] i.e., ills.
[3782] Lit., “with all the ages, in steady continuance.”
[3783] The ms., followed by Oehler alone, reads ducetis—“and you will think;” while all the other edd. read, as above, ducentes.
[3784] Here, too, there has been much unnecessary labour. These words—per voluntatem—as they immediately follow sine deo dicere nihil fieri—“to say that without God nothing is made”—were connected with the preceding clause. To get rid of the nonsense thus created, LB. emended dei…voluntate—“without God’s will;” while Heraldus regards them as an explanation of sine deo, and therefore interprets the sentence much as LB. Orelli gets rid of the difficulty by calling them a gloss, and bracketing them. They are, however, perfectly in place, as will be seen above.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page