Irenæus

Footnotes

Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies

^[2988] [Note this “Americanism.”]

^[2989] This passage is very obscure: we have supplied “et,” which, as Harvey conjectures, may have dropped out of the text.

Chapter II.—The world was not formed by angels, or by any other being, contrary to the will of the most high God, but was made by the Father through the Word.

^[2990] [This noble chapter is a sort of homily on Heb. i.]

^[2991] The common text has “ut:” we prefer to read “aut” with Erasmus and others.

^[2992] Vossius and others read “primus” instead of “prius,” but on defective ms. authority.

^[2993] Harvey here observes: “Grabe misses the meaning by applying to the redeemed that which the author says of the Redeemer;” but it may be doubted if this is really the case. Perhaps Massuet’s rendering of the clause, “that that man might be formed who should know Him,” is, after all, preferable to that given above.

^[2994] John i. 3.

^[2995] Ps. xxxiii. 9, Ps. 148:5.

^[2996] Gen. i. 1.

^[2997] Eph. iv. 6, differing somewhat from Text. Rec. of New Testament.

Chapter III.—The Bythus and Pleroma of the Valentinians, as well as the God of Marcion, shown to be absurd; the world was actually created by the same Being who had conceived the idea of it, and was not the fruit of defect or ignorance.

^[2998] In the barbarous Latin version, we here find utrum … an as the translation of ἤ … ἤ instead of aut … aut.

^[2999] We have translated the text as it here stands in the mss. Grabe omits spiritalem et; Massuet proposes to read et invisibilem, and Stieren invisibilem.

^[3000] In præsentia: Grabe proposes in præscientia, but without ms. authority. “The reader,” says Harvey, “will observe that there are three suppositions advanced by the author: that the world, as some heretics asserted, was eternal; that it was created in time, with no previous idea of it in the divine mind; or that it existed as a portion of the divine counsels from all eternity, though with no temporal subsistence until the time of its creation,—and of this the author now speaks.” The whole passage is most obscurely expressed.

Chapter IV.—The absurdity of the supposed vacuum and defect of the heretics is demonstrated.

^[3001] Literally, “should also possess a vacant substance”

^[3002] The text has “reliquis omnibus,” which would refer to the Æons; but we follow the emendation proposed by Massuet, “reliquorum omnium,” as the reference manifestly is to other heretics.

^[3003] “Ab eo:” some refer “eo” to the Demiurge, but it is not unusual for the Latin translator to follow the Greek gender, although different from that of the Latin word which he has himself employed. We may therefore here “eo” to “labem,” which is the translation of the neuter noun ὑστέρημα.

^[3004] Labem is here repeated, probably by mistake.

^[3005] The Latin is fieri eos: Massuet conjectures that the Greek had been ποιεῖσθαι αὐτούς, and that the translator rendered ποιεῖσθαι as a passive instead of a middle verb, fieri for facere.

Chapter V.—This world was not formed by any other beings within the territory which is contained by the Father.

^[3006] See above, chap. i.

^[3007] The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.” None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if the reading were “ab eo quod,” though, if the strict grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be, “from Him who.” But then to what does “in quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the immediate antecedent Pleroma, or to Him who is described as being beyond it.

^[3008] Chap. ii., iii., iv.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0428 times.

Contents