| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1716
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[1708] Matt. xvii. 5. [It may be convenient for some to turn to the Oxford translation of Bishop Bull’s Defensio, part i. pp. 193–216, where Tertullian and Hippolytus are nobly vindicated on Nicene grounds. The notes are also valuable.]
[1709] Matt. xxvii. 29. στεφανοῦται κατὰ διαβόλου, [i.e., with thorns].
[1710] [Hippolytus confirms Tertullian’s testimony. Compare vol. iii. pp. 35 and 58.]
[1711] κατὰ στοιχεῖον. The Latin title in the version of Anastasius renders it “ex sermone qui est per elementum.”
[1712] περὶ θεολογίας.
[1713] For ῞Ηλικοςthe Codex Regius et Colbertinus of Nicephorus prefers “῝Ηλικίωνος. Fabricius conjectures that we should read ηλικιωτῶ αἱρετικῶν, so that the title would be, Against Beron and his fellow-heretics. [N.B. Beron = "Vero".]
[1714] αὐτῷ τῷ…Θεῷ.
[1715] τοῖς ἕκαστα φυσικοις διεξαγόμενα νόμοις. Anastasius makes it naturalibus producta legibus; Capperonnier, suis quæque legibus temperata vel ordinata.
[1716] τροπὴ γὰρ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπείρου, κινεῖσθαι μὴ πεφυκότος, ἡ κίνησις; or may the sense be, “for a change in that which is in its nature infinite would just be the moving of that which is incapable of movement?”
[1717] μηδ᾽ ἑνὶ παντελῶς ὃ ταυτόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ γενόμενος ταυτὸν τῇ σαρκὶ διὰ τὴν κένωσιν. Thus in effect Combefisius, correcting the Latin version of Anastasius. Baunius adopts the reading in the Greek Codex Nicephori, viz., ἕνωσιν for κένωσιν, and renders it, “In nothing was the Word, who is the same with the Father, made the same with the flesh through the union:” nulla re Verbum quod idem est cum Patre factum est idem cum carne propter unionem.
[1718] δίχα σαρκὸς, i.e., what He was before assuming the flesh, that He continued to be in Himself, viz., independent of limitation.
[1719] θεϊκῶς.
[1720] Or existence, ὕπαρξιν. Anastasius makes it substantia.
[1721] οὐσίαν.
[1722] ἐνεργείας.
[1723] φυσικῆς ἰδιότητος.
[1724] κατὰ σύγκρισιν. Migne follows Capperonnier in taking σύγκρισις in this passage to mean not “comparison” or “relation,” but “commixture,” the “concretion and commixture” of the divine and human, which was the error of Apollinaris and Eutyches in their doctrine of the incarnation, and which had been already refuted by Tertullian, Contra Praxeam, c. xxvii.
[1725] Or, “for that would be to speak of the same being as greater and less than Himself.”
[1726] υποστασιν.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page