| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 336
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[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.
[337] Or, “creation.”
[338] Or, “Apis.” See Diodorus Siculus, iii. 58, 59. Pausanias, vii. 20, writes the word Attes. See also Minucius Felix, Octav., cap. xxi.
[339] Or, “forbidden.”
[340] Gal. iii. 28, and Clement’s Epist. ad Rom., ii. 12. [This is the apocryphal Clement reserved for vol. viii. of this series. See also same text, Ignatius, vol. i. p. 81.]
[341] See 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi 15.
[343] ἀλάλῳ; some read ἄλλῳ.
[345] These words do not occur in the “Gospel of Thomas concerning the Saviour’s infancy,” as given by Fabricius and Thilo.
[346] The Abbe Cruice mentions the following works as of authority among the Naasseni, and from whence they derived their system: The Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Eve, The Questions of Mary, Concerning the Offspring of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel according to (1) Thomas, (2) the Egyptians. (See Epiphanius, Hæres., c. xxvi., and Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 30, p. 296, ed. Spenc.) These heretics likewise make use of the Old Testament, St. John’s Gospel, and some of the Pauline epistles.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page