| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 7
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[4] In pseudo-Chrysost. called γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος. See Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus, etc., p. 92.
[5] A very good representation of it may be seen in Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, as a frontispiece to vol. i. London, 1852.
[6] The learned Dr. Wordsworth deals with all the difficulties of the case with judicial impartiality, but enforces his conclusions with irrefragable cogency. See also Dr. Jarvis, learned Introduction, p. 339.
[7] The valuable treatise of Dr. Bunsen must be compared with the luminous reviewal of Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1853; enlarged 1880.
[9] A Bibliographical account of all the ante-Nicene literature, from the learned pen of Dr. M. B. Riddle, will be given in the concluding volume of this series.
[10] Vol. i. pp. 415, 460, this series.
[11] See Eusebius, Hist., v. 28; also Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc., vol. ii. pp. 153–160.
[13] In addition to Miller, the translator has made use of the Göttingen edition, by Duncker and Schneidewin, 1859; and the Abbe Cruice’s edition, Paris, 1860.
[14] An Arian bishop of the first half of the fourth century.
[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.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page