| << | Contents | >> |
Anti-Marcion
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 8396
Introduction, by the American Editor.
[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.]
[8389] Mundum.
[8390] Oehler’s suggestion is to vary the pointing so as to give this sense: “The resurrection of this flesh he denies. But of a sister-Law and prophets,” etc. But this seems even more harsh than the other.
[8391] “Alter,” i.e., perhaps another of the same class.
[8392] It seems almost necessary to supply some word here; and as “Monade” follows, it seemed simple to supply “Monada.”
Chapter V.—Marcus and Colarbasus.
[8393] See Rev. i. 7; xxi. 6; xxii. 13.
[8394] Denique Jesum Christum descendisse. So Oehler, who does not notice any conjectural emendation, or various reading, of the words. If correct, his reading would refer to the views of a twofold Jesus Christ—a real and a phantasmal one—held by docetic Gnostics, or to such views as Valentine’s, in whose system, so far as it is ascertainable from the confused and discrepant account of it, there would appear to have been one Æon called Christ, another called Jesus, and a human person called Jesus and Christ, with whom the true Jesus associated Himself. Some such jumble of ideas the two heretics now under review would seem to have held, if Oehler’s be the true reading. But the difficulties are somewhat lessened if we accept the very simple emendation which naturally suggests itself, and which, I see, Semler has proposed and Routh inclines to receive, “in Jesum Christum descendisse,” i.e. “that Christ descended on Jesus.”
[8395] See Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke iii. 21-22; John i. 29-34.
[8396] Habere secum numerum DCCCI. So Oehler, after Jos. Scaliger, who, however, seems to have read “secum hunc numerum,” for the ordinary reading, “habere secundum numerum,” which would mean, “represents, in the way of numerical value, DCCCI.”
Chapter VI.—Cerdo, Marcion, Lucan, Apelles.
[8397] Initia duo.
[8398] Sævum.
[8399] Mundi.
[8400] “Ponticus genere,” lit. “a Pontic by race,” which of course may not necessarily, like our native, imply actual birth in Pontus. [Note—“son of a bishop:” an index of early date, though not necessarily Ante-Nicene. A mere forgery of later origin would have omitted it.]
[8401] Rig., with whom Oehler agrees, reminds us that neither in the de Præscr. nor in the adv. Marc., nor, apparently, in Irenæus, is any such statement brought forward.
[8402] See Matt. vii. 17.
[8403] See de Præscr. c. xxx., and comp. with it what is said of Marcion above.
[8404] Mundum.
[8405] Mundi.
[8406] “Aëream,” i.e., composed of the air, the lower air, or atmosphere; not “aetheream,” of the upper air, or ether.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0697 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page