Anti-Marcion

Footnotes

^[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.

^[8407] Phaneroseis. Oehler refers to de Præscr. c. xxx. q. v.

^[8408] φιλουμένη, “loved one.”

Chapter VII.—Tatian, Cataphrygians, Cataproclans, Catæschinetans.

^[8409] Salvi. Perhaps if it be questionable whether this word may be so rendered in a correct Latinist, it may be lawful to render it so in so incorrect a one as our present author.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0697 times.

Contents