| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 25
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[15] See pp. 126–157, tom. ii., of Epiphanius’ collected works, edited by Dionysius Petavius.
[16] Those who are desirous of examining it for themselves may consult Gieseler’s paper on Hippolytus, etc., in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1853; Hergenröther, Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1852; Bunsen’s Hippolytus and His Age; Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus; Dr. Döllinger’s Hippolytus und Kallistus: oder die Römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte des dritten Jahrhunderts, 1853; and Cruice’s Études sur de Nouveaux Documents Historiques empruntés au livre des φιλοσοφούμενα, 1853. See also articles in the Quarterly Review, 1851; Ecclesiastic and Theologian, 1852, 1853; the Westminster Review, 1853; the Dublin Review, 1853, 1854; Le Correspondent, t. xxxi.; and the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1865.
[17] It settles the period of the composition of St. John’s Gospel only, of course, on the supposition that Hippolytus is giving a correct account as regards Basilides’ work. The mode, however, in which Hippolytus introduces the quotation, appears to place its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. He represents Basilides (see book vii. chap. 10) as notifying his reference to St. John’s Gospel thus, “And this,” he says, “is what has been stated in the Gospels: ‘He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.’” Now this is precisely the mode of reference we should expect that Basilides would employ; whereas, if Hippolytus had either fabricated the passage or adduced it from hearsay, it is almost certain he would have said “in the Gospel of St. John,” and not indefinitely “the Gospels.” And more than this, the formulary “in the Gospels,” adopted by Basilides, reads very like a recognition of an agreed collection of authorized accounts of our Lord’s life and sayings. It is also remarkable that the word “stated” (λεγόμενον) Basilides has just used in quoting (Gen. i. 3) as interchangeable with “written” (γέγραπται), the word exclusively applied to what is included within the canon of Scripture.
[18] For instance, St. Irenæus, whom Hippolytus professes to follow, Epiphanius, Theodoret, St. Augustine, etc.
[19] The translator desires to acknowledge obligations to Dr. Lottner, Professor of Sanskrit and sub-librarian in Trinity College, Dublin,—a gentleman of extensive historical erudition as well as of accurate and comprehensive scholarship.
[20] The four of the mss. of the first book extant prior to the recent discovery of seven out of the remaining nine books of The Refutation, concur in ascribing it to Origen. These inscriptions run thus: 1. “Refutation by Origen of all Heresies;” 2. “Of Origen’s Philosophumena…these are the contents;” 3. “Being estimable (Dissertations) by Origen, a man of the greatest wisdom.” The recently discovered ms. itself in the margin has the words, “Origen, and Origen’s opinion.” The title, as agreed upon by modern commentators, is: 1. “Book I. of Origen’s Refutation of all Heresies” (Wolf and Gronovius); 2. “A Refutation of all Heresies;” 3. “Origen’s Philosophumena, or the Refutation of all Heresies.” The last is Miller’s in his Oxford edition, 1851. The title might have been, “Philosophumena, and the Refutation (therefrom) of all Heresies.” There were obviously two divisions of the work: (1) A résumé of the tenets of the philosophers (books i., ii., iii., iv.), preparatory to (2) the refutation of heresies, on the ground of their derivative character from Greek and Egyptian speculation. Bunsen would denominate the work “St. Hippolytus’ (Bishop and Martyr) Refutation of all Heresies; what remains of the ten books.”
[21] Most of what follows in book i. is a compilation from ancient sources. The ablest résumé followed by Cicero in the De Nat. Deor., of the tenets of the ancient philosophers, is to be found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The English reader is referred to the Metaphysics, book i. pp. 13–46 (Bohn’s Classical Library), also to the translator’s analysis prefixed to this work, pp. 17–25. See also Diogenes’ Lives of the Philosophers, and Tenneman’s Manual of Philosophy (translated in Bohn’s Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum; Lewes’ Biographical History of (Ancient) Philosophy; and Rev. Dr. F. D. Maurice’s History of (Ancient) Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy. The same subject is discussed in Ritter’s History of Philosophy (translated by Morrison).
[22] This word is variously given thus: Academian, Academeian, Academaic, Academe, Cademian, and Cadimian. The two last would seem to indicate the character rather than the philosophy of Pyrrho. To favour this view, the text should be altered into καὶ ἄδημος, i.e., ἀπόδημος = from home, not domestic.
[23] Some hiatus at the beginning of this sentence is apparent.
[24] An elaborate defence of this position forms the subject of Cudworth’s great work, The True Intellectual System of the Universe.
[25] This statement has been urged against Origen’s authorship, in favour of Epiphanius, who wrote an extended treatise on the Heresies, with an abridgment.
[26] That is, their esoteric mysteries, intended only for a favoured few, as contrasted with the exoteric, designed for more general diffusion.
[27] One ms. has—“the profane opinion and unreasonable attempt.”
[28] “To learn” (Roeper).
[29] “And those that are irrational animals do not attempt,” (or) “because irrational,” etc. The last is Sancroft’s reading; that in the text, Roeper’s.
[30] “Ascend up to” (Roeper).
[31] This passage is quoted by those who impugn the authorship of Origen on the ground of his never having been a bishop of the Church. It is not, however, quite certain that the words refer to the episcopal office exclusively.
[32] The common reading is in the future, but the present tense is adopted by Richter in his Critical Observations, p. 77.
[33] It might be, “any opinion that may be subservient to the subject taken in hand.” This is Cruice’s rendering in his Latin version. A different reading is, “we must not be silent as regards reasons that hold good,” or, “as regards rational distinctions,” or, “refrain from utterances through the instrument of reasoning.” The last is Roeper’s.
[34] Another reading is, “bringing into a collection.”
[35] Or, “the Spirit.”
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page