| << | Contents | >> |
Anti-Marcion
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 8378
Introduction, by the American Editor.
[8368] Mundi.
[8369] Or, Sethoites.
[8370] “Dicerent;” but Routh (I think) has conjectured “disceret” “when she learned,” etc., which is very simple and apt.
[8371] See 1 Pet. iii. 20.
[8372] Cf. Gen. ix. 1-2, 7, 19.
Chapter III.—Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebion.
[8373] Mundum.
[8374] Mundum.
[8375] “Ab illis” is perhaps an error for “ab angelis,” by absorption of the first syllable. So Routh has conjectured before me.
[8376] “Ab angelis:” an erroneous notion, which professed probably to derive support from John i. 17, Acts vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19, where, however, the Greek prepositions should be carefully noted, and ought in no case to be rendered by “ab.”
[8377] Al. Hebion.
[8378] Al. Hebion.
[8379] See Matt. x. 24; Luke iv. 40; John xiii. 16.
[8380] i.e., as Rig.’s quotation from Jerome’s Indiculus (in Oehler) shows, “because in so far as, Christ observed it.”
Chapter IV.—Valentinus, Ptolemy and Secundus, Heracleon.
[8381] Conjugationes. Cowper uses our word “conjugation” in this sense in one of his humorous pieces. [“Pairing-time.”] The “syzygies” consisted of one male and one female Æon each.
[8382] Oehler separates “in primis;” but perhaps they ought to be united—“inprimis,” or “imprimis”—and taken as ="primo ab initio.”
[8383] Bythus.
[8384] Hominem.
[8385] “Sermone:” he said “Verbum” before.
[8386] In defectione fuisse.
[8387] Cf. adv. Valent. cc. x. xiv. [Routh says that this IAO (see note 8) is wanting in the older editions. It was borrowed from the Adv. Valentin. to eke out a defect.]
[8388] Such appears to be the meaning of this sentence as Oehler gives it. But the text is here corrupt; and it seems plain there must either be something lost relating to this “Achamoth,” or else some capital error in the reading, or, thirdly, some gross and unaccountable confusion in the writer: for the sentence as it stands is wholly irreconcilable with what follows. It evidently makes “Achamoth” identical with “the thirtieth Æon” above-named; and yet, without introducing any fresh subject, the writer goes on to state that this despondent Œon, who “conceived and bare,” was itself the offspring of despondency, and made an infirm world out of the infirm materials which “Achamoth” supposed it with. Now it is apparent from other sources—as, for instance, from Tert. adv. Valentin, above referred to—that the “thirtieth Æon” was supposed to be female, Sophia (Wisdom) by name, and that she was said to be the parent of “Achamoth,” or “Enthymesis” (see adv. Valentin. cc. ix. x. xi. xiv. xxv.), while “Achamoth” herself appears by some accounts to be also called κάτω Σοφία. The name “Achamoth” itself, which Tertullian (adv. Valentin. c. xiv. ad init.) calls an “uninterpretable name,” is believed to be a representation of a Hebrew word meaning “wisdom;” and hence, possibly, some of the confusion may have arisen,—from a promiscuous use, namely, of the titles “Achamoth” and “Sophia.” Moreover, it would appear that some words lower down as to the production by “Achamoth” of “Demiurgus,” must have dropped out. Unless these two omissions be supplied, the passage is wholly unintelligible. Can the fact that the Hebrew word which “Achamoth” represents is a fem. pl. in any way explain this confused medley, or help to reconcile conflicting accounts? The ἄνω and κάτω Σοφία seem to point in some degree to some such solution of some of the existing difficulties. “Iao,” again, is a word which has cause much perplexity. Can it possibly be connected with ἰάομαι, “to heal?” [See note 8.]
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0697 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page