Hippolytus

Footnotes

^[717] Or, “the multitudes.”

Chapter XXXII.—Valentinus Convicted of Plagiarisms from Plato.

^[718] Cruice thinks that the following extract from Plato’s epistles has been added by a second hand. [Cf. vol. iii. p. 181, this series.]

^[719] There are some verbal diversities between the texts of Plato and Hippolytus, which a reference will show (see Plat., Epist., t. ix. p. 76, ed. Bekker).

^[720] Some forty lines that follow in Plato’s letter are omitted here.

^[721] Here likewise there is another deficiency as compared with the original letter.

^[722] Miller’s text is, καὶ πᾶσι γῆν, etc. In the German and French edition of Hippolytus we have, instead of this, καὶ Προαρχὴν. The latter word is introduced on the authority of Epiphanius and Theodoret. Bernays proposes Σιγὴν, and Scott Πλάστην. The Abbe Cruice considers Πλάστην an incongruous word as applied to the creation of spiritual beings.

^[723] The word “limit” occurs twice in this sentence, and Bunsen alters the second into “Pleroma,” so that the words may be rendered thus: “Valentinus supposes to be second all the Æons that are within the Pleroma.”

^[724] This is a Gnostic hymn, and is arranged metrically by Cruice, of which the following is a translation:—

All things whirled on by spirit I see,

Flesh from soul depending,

And soul from air forth flashing,

And air from æther hanging,

And fruits from Bythus streaming,

And from womb the infant growing.

^[725] The text here is corrupt, but the above rendering follows the Abbe Cruice’s version. Bunsen’s emendation would, however, seem untenable.

Chapter XXXIII.—Secundus’ System of Æons; Epiphanes; Ptolemæus.

^[726] Concerning Secundus and Epiphanes, see Irenæus, i. 11; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 5–9; Epiphanius, xxxii. 1, 3, 4; Tertullian, Adv. Valent., c. xxxviii.; and St. Augustine, Hær., xi. Hippolytus, in his remarks on Secundus and Epiphanes, borrows from St. Irenæus.

^[727] Concerning Ptolemæus, see Irenæus, i. 12; Tertullian, De Præscript., c. xlix.; and Advers. Valent., c. viii.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxiii. 3–7; and Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 8.

Chapter XXXIV.—System of Marcus; A Mere Impostor; His Wicked Devices Upon the Eucharistic Cup.

^[728] Concerning Marcus, see Irenæus, i. 12–18; Tertullian, Præscript., c. l.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxiv.; Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 9; St. Augustine, Hær., c. xiv.; and St. Jerome’s 29th Epistle.

^[729] ἐνεργῶν: Bunsen reads δρῶν, which has the same meaning. Cruice reads αἰωρῶν, but makes no attempt at translation. Miller’s reading is δώρων, which is obviously corrupt, but for which δόλων has been suggested, and with good show of reason.

^[730] [The lost book upon the Witch of Endor, possibly. “Against the Magi” is the title of the text, and is taken to refer to book iv. cap. xxviii. p. 35, supra: the more probable opinion.

Chapter XXXV.—Further Acts of Jugglery on the Part of Marcus.

^[731] Or, “had given thanks.”

^[732] ἀναλυομένου: some read ἀναδυομένου, which is obviously untenable.

^[733] [Here was an awful travesty of the heresy of a later day which introduced “the miracle of Bolsena” and the Corpus-Christi celebration. See Robertson, Hist., vol. iii. p. 604.]

Chapter XXXVI.—The Heretical Practices of the Marcites in Regard of Baptism.

^[734] [Bunsen (vol. i. p 72–75) makes useful comments.]

Chapter XXXVII.—Marcus’ System Explained by Irenæus; Marcus’ Vision; The Vision of Valentinus Revealing to Him His System.

^[735] Hippolytus has already employed this word, ἁδρομέστερον, in the Proœmium. It literally means, of strong or compact parts. Hippolytus, however, uses it in contrast to the expression λεπτομέρης, in reference to his Summary of Heresies. Bunsen thinks that Hippolytus means to say that Irenæus expressed himself rather too strongly, and that the Marcosians, on meeting with Irenæus’ assertions, indignantly repudiated them. Dr. Wordsworth translates ἁδρομερῶς (in the Proœmium), “with rude generality,”—a rendering scarcely in keeping with the passage above.

^[736] The largest extract from Irenæus is that which follows—the explanation of the heresy of Marcus. From this to the end of book vi. occurs in Irenæus likewise. Hippolytus’ text does not always accurately correspond with that of his master. The divergence, however, is inconsiderable, and may sometimes be traceable to the error of the transcriber.

^[737] Hippolytus uses two words to signify letters, στοιχεῖον and γράμμα. The former strictly means an articulate sound as the basis of language or of written words, and the latter the sound itself when represented by a particular symbol or sign.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0196 times.

Contents