{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn29.htm","path":"chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn29.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn29.htm","text":"135 adiakritoi, \"mixed,\" or \"dark.\"\n137 In Gallandi, from Anastasius Sinai', quest. 41, p 320.\n138 In Gallandi, from a codex of the Coislin Library, Num. 193, fol. 36.\n139 [Here we have the blunder (noted supra, p. 175) repeated as to Rome, which must be here taken as meaning the Roman Province, not the See. The word\"Bishop,\" which avoids the ambiguity above noted, I have therefore put into parenthesis.]\n142 Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.]\n143 The text is evidently corrupt: Kurion de ton Logon, nefelhn de koufhn to kaqarwtaton skhnoj, etc. The reference must be to ch.xix. I.\n144 Hippolytus wrote on Isaiah with the view of making the most of the favourable disposition entertained by the Emperor Alexander Severus towards the Christians, and particularly on that part where the retrogression of the sun is recorded a:i .:i n of an extension of life to Hezekiah.\n145 That Hippolytus wrote on Jeremiah is recorded, so far as I know, by none of the ancients; For the quotation given in the Catenaof Greek fathers on Jer. xvii. 11is taken from his book On Antichrist, chap. 1v. Rufinus mentions that Hippolytus wrote on a certain part of the prophet Ezekiel, viz., on those chapters which contain the description of the temple of Jerusalem; and of that commentary the following fragments are preserved.-De Magistris.\n148 Simon de Margistris, Daniel secundum Septuaginta, from the Codex Chrisianus, Rome, 1772; and Mai, Script. vet. collectio nova, i. iii. ed. 1831, pp. 29-56.\n149 Shallum. See 1 Chron. iii. 15.\n151 2 Kings xxv. 27. Note the confusion between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in what follows.\n153 Others trimhnion/= three months.\n154 arximageiroj, \"chief cook.\"\n157 The same method o( explaining the two visions is also adopted by Jacobus Nisibenus, serm. v., and by his illustrious disciple Ephraem Syrus on Dan. vii. 4. [Let me again refer to Dr. Pusey's work an Daniel, as invaluable in this connection. The comments of our author on this book and on \"the Antichrist,\" infra, deserve special attention, as from a disciple of the disciples of St. John himself.]\n159 [True in A.D. 1885. A very pregnant testimony to our own times.]\n160 This is what Photius condemned in Hippolytus. Irenaeus, however, held the same opinion (book v. c. 28 and 29). The same view is expressed yet earlier in the Epistle of Barnabas (sec. 15). It was an opinion adopted from the rabbis.\n165 Migne thinks we should read diakosia triakonta, i.e., 230, as it is also in Julius Africanus, who was contemporary with Hippolytus. As to the duration of the Greek empire, Hippolytus and Africanus make it both 300 years, if we follow Jerome's version of the latter in his comment on Dan. ix. 24. Eusebius makes it seventy years longer in his Demonstr. Evag., viii. 2.\n166 Literally, \"a man of desires.\" [Our author plays on this word, as it' the desire o( knowledge were referred to. Our Authorized Version is better, and the rendering might be \"a man of loves.\"]\n172 Isa. lxi. 1 ; Luke iv. 18.\n179 In the text, the word ewj,\"until,\" is introduced, which seems spurious.\n181 In the text, musthriwn(of\" mysteries\"), for which musthriwdwjor mustikwj, \"mystically,\" is proposed.\n182 The Latin translation renders: His body was perfect.\n183 \"Thares\" (Qarseij) in Hippolytus. The Septuagint gives Qarsijas the translation of the Hebrew #$a#$dt\n, rendered in our version as \"beryl\" (Dan. x. 6).","title":"Fn29","type":"page"}