| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 638
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[630] χωρίον (i.e., locality) is the reading in Miller, which Cruice ingeniously alters into χόριον, the caul in which the fœtus is enclosed, which is called the “after-birth.”
[632] This rendering follows Cruice, who has succeeded in clearing away the obscurity of the passage as given in Miller.
Chapter X.—Simon’s Explanation of the First Two Books of Moses.
[633] Odyssey, x. 304 et seq. [See Butcher and Lang, p. 163.]
Chapter XI.—Simon’s Explanation of the Three Last Books of the Pentateuch.
[635] Matt. iii. 10; Luke iii. 9.
Chapter XII.—Fire a Primal Principle, According to Simon.
[636] In the Recognitions of Clement we have this passage: “He (Simon) wishes himself to be believed to be an exalted power, which is above God the Creator, and to be thought to be the Christ, and to be called the standing one” (Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinburgh, vol. iii. p. 196).
[637] The expression stans (standing) was used by the scholastics as applicable to the divine nature. Interpreted in this manner, the words in the text would be equivalent with “which was, and is, and is to come” (Rev. i. 8). The Recognitions of Clement explain the term thus: “He (Simon) uses this name as implying that he can never be dissolved, asserting that his flesh is so compacted by the power of his divinity, that it can endure to eternity. Hence, therefore, he is called the standing one, as though he cannot fall by any corruption” (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. iii. p. 196). [To be found in vol. viii. of this series, with the other apocryphal Clementines.]
[639] Homer, for instance (See Epiphanius, Hæres., xxi. 3).
[640] μιαρὸς, Bunsen’s emendation for ψυχρὸς, the reading in Miller and Schneidewin. Some read ψυδρὸς, i.e., lying; others ψευδόχριστος, i.e., counterfeit Christ. Cruice considers Bunsen’s emendation unnecessary, as ψυχρὸς may be translated “absurd fellow.” The word, literally meaning cold, is applied in a derived sense to persons who were heartless,—an import suitable to Hippolytus’ meaning.
[641] [See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 348, and Bunsen’s ideas, p. 50 of his first volume.]
[642] This rendering is according to Bunsen’s emendation of the text.
[643] Cruice omits the word δεδοκηκέναι, which seems an interpolation. The above rendering adopts the proposed emendation.
[644] Bunsen thinks that there is an allusion here to the conversation of our Lord with the woman of Samaria, and if so, that Menander, a disciple of Simon, and not Simon himself, was the author of The Great Announcement, as the heretic did not outlive St. Peter and Paul, and therefore died before the period at which St. John’s Gospel was written.
[645] Miller reads φύσιν, which makes no sense. The rendering above follows Bunsen’s emendation of the text. [Here it is equally interesting to the student of our author or of Irenæus to turn to Bunsen (p. 51), and to observe his parallels.]
[646] The Abbe Cruice considers that the statements made by Origen (Contr. Celsum, lib. i. p. 44, ed. Spenc.), respecting the followers of Simon in respect of number, militates against Origen’s authorship of The Refutation.
[647] This rendering follows the text of Schneidewin and Cruice. The Clementine Recognitions (Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinb., vol. iii. p. 273) represent Simon Magus as leaving for Rome, and St. Peter resolving to follow him thither. Miller’s text is different and as emended by him, Hippolytus’ account would harmonize with that given in the Acts. Miller’s text may be thus translated: “And having been laid under a curse, as has been written in the Acts, he subsequently disapproved of his practices, and made an attempt to journey as far as Rome, but he fell in with the apostles,” etc. The text of Cruice and Schneidewin seems less forced: while the statement itself—a new witness to this controverted point in ecclesiastical history concerning St. Peter—corroborates Hippolytus’ authorship of The Refutation.
[648] Justin Martyr mentions, as an instance of the estimation in which Simon Magus was held among his followers, that a statue was erected to him at Rome. Bunsen considers that the rejection of this fable of Justin Martyr’s, points to the author of The Refutation being a Roman, who would therefore, as he shows himself in the case of the statue, be better informed than the Eastern writer of any event occurring in the capital of the West. [Bunsen’s magisterial decision (p. 53) is very amusingly characteristic.] Hippolytus’ silence is a presumption against the existence of such a statue, though it is very possible he might omit to mention it, supposing it to be at Rome. At all events, the very precise statement of Justin Martyr ought not to be rejected on slight or conjectural grounds. [See vol. i., this series, pp. 171 ,172, 182, 187, and 193. But our author relies on Irenæus, same vol., p. 348. Why reject positive testimony?]
Chapter XVI.—Heresy of Valentinus; Derived from Plato and Pythagoras.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page