| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 326
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[316] Miller has ἀποκαλύψας for παραλείψας. This, however, can bear no intelligible meaning, except we add some other word, as thus: “not even have I failed to disclose.” Schneidewin’s correction of ἀποκαλύψας into παραλείψας is obviously an improvement.
[317] Μεταλαβόντες; some read μετασχόντες, which it is presumed might be rendered, “sharing in the opinions which gave occasion to these heterodox doctrines.”
[318] i.e., ὄφις. This term has created the title “Ophites,” which may be regarded as the generic denomination for all the advocates of this phase of Gnosticism.
[319] The heresy of the Naasseni is adverted to by the other leading writers on heresy in the early age of the Church. See St. Irenæus, i. 34; Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 28 (p. 291 et seq. ed. Spenc.); Tertullian, Præscr., c. 47; Theodoret, Hæretic. Fabul., i. 14; Epiphanius, Advers. Hæreses., xxv. and xxxvii.; St. Augustine, De Hæres., xvii.; Jerome, Comment. Epist. ad Galat., lib. ii. The Abbe Cruice reminds his readers that the Naasseni carried their doctrines into India, and refers to the Asiatic Researches (vol. x. p. 39).
[320] The Hebrew word is נָחָשׁ (nachash).
[321] παρὰ τὸν αὐτῶν λόγον. Bernaysius suggests for these words, πατέρα τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ. Schneidewin regards the emendation as an error, and Bunsen partly so. The latter would read, πατέρα τὸν αὐτῶν Λόγον, i.e., “The Naasseni honour the Father of all existent things, the Logos, as man and the Son of Man.”
[322] See Irenæus, Hær., i. 1.
[323] Geryon (see note, chap. iii.) is afterwards mentioned as a synonyme with Jordan, i.e., “flowing from earth” (γῆ ῥύων).
[324] γνῶσις,—a term often alluded to by St. John, and which gives its name “Gnosticism” to the various forms of the Ophitic heresy. The aphorism in the text is one that embodies a grand principle which lies at the root of all correct philosophy. In this and other instances it will be found that the system, however wild and incoherent in its theology, of the Naaseni and of some of the other Gnostic sects, was one which was constructed by a subtle analysis of thought, and by observation of nature.
[325] The Abbe Cruice remarks on this passage, that, as the statement here as regards Jesus Christ does not correspond with Origen’s remarks on the opinions of the Naasseni in reference to our Lord, the Philosophumena cannot be the work of Origen.
[326] The Abbe Cruice observes that we have here another proof that the Philosophumena is not the work of Origen, who in his Contra Celsum mentions Mariamne, but professes not to have met with any of his followers (see Contr. Cels., lib. v. p. 272, ed. Spenc.). This confirms the opinion mostly entertained of Origen, that neither the bent of his mind nor the direction of his studies justify the supposition that he would write a detailed history of heresy.
[328] Or ἀδιάφορον, equivocal.
[329] This has been by the best critics regarded as a fragment of a hymn of Pindar’s on Jupiter Ammon. Schneidewin furnishes a restored poetic version of it by Bergk. This hymn, we believe, first suggested to M. Miller an idea of the possible value and importance of the ms. of The Refutation brought by Minöides Mynas from Greece.
[330] The usual form is Alalcomenes. He was a Bœoian Autocthon.
[331] Or, “Iannes.” The Abbe Cruice refers to Berosus, Chald. Hist., pp. 48, 49, and to his own dissertation (Paris, 1844) on the authority to be attached to Josephus, as regards the writers adduced by him in his treatise Contr. Apion.
[332] The Rabbins, probably deriving their notions from the Chaldeans, entertained the most exaggerated ideas respecting the perfection of Adam. Thus Gerson, in his Commentary on Abarbanel, says that “Adam was endued with the very perfection of wisdom, and was chief of philosophers, that he was an immediate disciple of the Deity, also a physician and astrologer, and the originator of all the arts and sciences.” This spirit of exaggeration passed from the Jews to the Christians (see Clementine Homilies, ii.). Aquinas (Sum. Theol., pars i. 94) says of Adam, “Since the first man was appointed perfect, he ought to have possessed a knowledge of everything capable of being ascertained by natural means.”
[333] Or, “vanquishing him” (Roeper).
[334] This is known to us only by some ancient quotations. The Naasseni had another work of repute among them, the “Gospel according to Thomas.” Bunsen conjectures that the two “Gospels” may be the same.
[335] αὐτογενοῦς. Miller has αὐτοῦ γένους, which Bunsen rejects in favour of the reading “self-begotten.”
[336] Schneidewin considers that there have been left out in the ms. the words “or Attis” after Endymion. Attis is subsequently mentioned with some degree of particularity.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page