| << | Contents | >> |
ANF Pseudo-Clementine The Clementine Homilies
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1056
Introductory Notice to The Clementine Homilies.
[1046] [See Homily IV. 6, footnote.—R.]
[1047] [The introduction of the letters is an ingenious literary device. Much of the mythological matter is given in Recognitions, x.—R.]
Chapter XI.—“All Uncleanness with Greediness.”
[1048] We have adopted the punctuation of Wieseler.
Chapter XII.—Jupiter’s Amours.
[1049] [Comp. Recognitions, x. 20–23, for a parallel to chaps. 12–15.—R.]
[1050] I have no doubt that this is the general meaning; but the text is hopelessly corrupt.
Chapter XVIII.—The Philosophers Advocates of Adultery.
[1051] This from a marginal reading.
Chapter XXI.—Answer to Appion’s Letter.
[1052] I suspect it should rather be impellers, reading φερόντων for ἐρώντων.
Chapter XXIII.—The Gods No Gods.
[1053] [Compare the different use of these details in Recognitions, x. 24; also in Homily VI. 21.—R.]
Chapter II.—The Myths are Not to Be Taken Literally.
[1054] [Compare in general, with chaps. 2–22, the mythological statements in Recognitions, x. 17–41.—R.]
[1055] [Compare Recognitions, x. 17, 31.—R.]
[1056] The passage seems to be corrupt.
[1057] The common story about Dionysus is, that he was the unborn son, not of Metis, but of Semele. Wieseler supposes that some words have fallen out, or that the latter part of the sentence is a careless interpolation.
[1058] [Compare, on “the supper of the gods,” chap. 15, and Recognitions, x. 41.—R.]
Chapter III.—Appion Proceeds to Interpret the Myths.
[1059] [With this discourse and its cosmogony compare the discourse of Clement and his brothers in Recognitions, x. 17–19, 30–34.—R.]
[1060] Iliad, vii. 99.
[1061] L. 116.
[1062] This is the emendation of Davisius. The Greek has ἐξ ἀκουστοῦ; the Latin, “mirum in modum.” Wieseler suggests ἐξακοντιστόν.
[1063] This is Wieseler’s emendation for “received.”
Chapter V.—Kronos and Rhea Explained.
[1064] [Comp. Recognitions, x. 17, 31, 32.—R.]
[1065] Wieseler corrects to “some such being,” etc.; and below, “of him who appeared,” etc.; and “he took his seat.”
[1066] The first word of this quotation gives no sense, and has been omitted in the translation. Lobeck suggests “at its prime;” Hermann, “Heracapeian;” Duentzer, “ancient;” and Wieseler, “white.”
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0046 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page