{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn35.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn35.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn35.htm","text":"236 The opening sentences of this chapter are given in a very corrupt form in our Codex Casinensis. Its text stands thus: \"Tuum et ipsius indicio comprehensus es; haec enim versum te locutus, ignorans, qui dum, me vis probra conjicere majori culpae se succumbit. Dic age mihi studias qua Tiberio usque ad Probum defuncti sunt, dicent ad Jesum nolite nos judicare,\" etc. We have adopted these emendations: tuimet for tuum et; adversum for versum; ignoras for ignorans; in me for me; succumbis for se succumbit; si, ut ais, qui a, for studias qua; and noli for nolite.\n237 Supplying missurum, which is not in the codex.\n238 Reading \"noli nos tradere tormentis,\" instead of the meaningless \"noli nostra de tormentis\" of the codex.\n239 Reading ut ais instead of ut eas.\n241 Nec quemquam vivificat. 2 Cor. iii. 6.\n247 Reading reliqui per ordinem for the qui per ordinem of the codex.\n250 Reading \"per hunc modum.\" But the Codex Casinensis gives \"per hunc mundum\"-through this world.\n256 The text is \"sufficit tibi haec sunt an habes et alia.\" Routh proposes \"sufficientia tibi haec sunt,\" etc.\n257 Routh would make it = You will come under the condemnation...you will have to bear: he suggests eris ergo for ero ego, and feras for feram.\n260 Nec aliter nisi essent ingenita. Routh, however, would read esset for essent, making it = and that death could be nothing else than unbegotten.\n261 Reading ex tempore for the corrupt exemplo re of the codex.\n264 The text gives discere, to learn; but dicere seems the probable reading.\n265 Reading inquam for the iniquam of the Codex Casinensis. But Routh suggests iniquae, in reference to what has been said towards the close of ch. xxviii.\n266 The codex gives, \"cum eas inimica semper memoriae ineresis sed oblivio;\" which is corrected thus, \"cum eis inimica semper memoriae inhaesisset oblivio.\"\n269 This would appear to be the meaning of these words, \"transferens semper usque ad tempus in similes illius,\" if we suppose the speaker still to be keeping Rom. v. 12-14 in view. Routh suggests transiens.\n270 Referring perhaps to Ps. cv. 15.\n271 Reading interitui tradens for the interit ut tradens of the codex.\n272 Reading pacti for the acti of the codex.\n276 Recte videre. But perhaps we should read \"recte vivere,\" to lead a righteous life.\n277 The phrase is imaginariam legem. On this expression there is a note in Migne, which is worth quoting, to this effect: Archelaus calls the Old Testament an emblematic or imaginary law, because it was the type or image of a future new law. So, too, Petrus de Vineis, more than once in his Epistles, calls a messenger or legate a homo imaginarius, as Du Cange observes in his Glossary, because he represents the person by whom he is sent, and, as it were, reflects his image. This word is also used in a similar manner by the old interpreter of Evagrius the monk, in the Disputation between Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and Simon the Jew, ch. 13, where the Sabbath is called the requies imaginaria of that seventh day on which God rested. Hence Archelaus, in his answer to the presbyter Diodorus, ch xli. beneath, devotes himself to proving that the Old Testament is not to he rejected, because, like a mirror, it gives us a true image of the new law.\n279 Reading \"invisibilia autem et intrinsecus.\" The Codex Casinensis has \"invisibili autem et trinsecus.\"\n280 Absurdam, standing probably for a@topon, which may also be = flagitious.\n281 The codex reads, \"ultionem fecerat retorquebat.\" We adopt either \"ultionem quam fecerat retorquebat,\" or \"ultionem fecit retorqueri.\"\n286 This is one of those passages in which we detect the tendency of many of the early fathers to adopt the peculiar opinions of the Jewish rabbis on difficult points of Scripture. See also the Disputation between Theophilus of Alexandria and the Jew Simon, ch. 13. In accordance with the opinion propounded here by Archelaus, we find, for instance, in the Scemoth Rabba, p. 157, col. 1, that the making of the golden calf is ascribed to the Egyptian proselytes. See the note in Migne. [The passage is a note of antiquity and in so far of authenticity.]\n287 The text is in quo nec scelerum poenas aliquando rependeret.\n289 Reading commonens for communis ne. Communiens is also suggested.\n291 We have another instance here of a characteristic opinion of the Jewish rabbis adopted by a Christian father. This notion as to the intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men was a current interpretation among the Jews from the times of Philo and Josephus, and was followed in whole or in part by Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, etc. Consult the note in Migne; [also p. 131, note 2, supra].\n292 We give the above as a possible rendering. Routh, however, understands the matter otherwise. The text is, \"alii vero in felicitate hominum filiabus admisti a dracone afflicti,\" etc. Routh takes the phrase in felicitate as = \"adhuc in statu felici existentes:\" so that the sense would be, \"others, while they still abode in the blessed estate, had intercourse,\" etc. [Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 118-122.]\n293 Archelaus seems here to assign a twofold etymology for the name devil, deriving the Greek dia/boloj, accuser, from diaba/llw, in its two senses of trajicere and traducere, to cross over and to slander.\n298 Reading a nobis for the a vobis of the codex.\n301 The sense is obscure here. The text runs, \"Interimere debes judicii ratione ut quis nostrum fallat appareat.\" Migne proposes to read rationem, as if the idea intended was this: That, consistently with his reasonings, Manes ought not to admit the fact of a judgment, because the notions he has propounded on the subject of men and angels are not reconcilable with such a belief.-If this can be accepted as the probable meaning, then it would seem that the use of the verb interimere may be due to the fact that the Greek text gave a0na=irei=n, between the two senses of which-viz to kill and to remove-the translator did not correctly distinguish. Routh, however, proposes to read interimi, taking it as equivalent to condemnari, so that the idea might be = on all principles of sound judgment you ought to be condemned, etc.\n302 The codex reads simply, Dei servare mandata. We may adopt either Dei non servare mandata, as above, or, Dei servare vel non servare mandata, in reference to the freedom of will, and so = they may or may not keep the commandments.\n303 The codex has praecedit, for which procedit is proposed.\n304 Reading \"laederet-illuderetur.\" But might it not rather be \"laederet-illidertur,\" not to bruise, but rather to be bruised, etc.?\n306 This appears to be general sense of the very corrupt passage, \"Quo videntur ostenso nulli dubium est unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem propria usus arbitrii potestate.\" In Migne it is amended thus: \"Quo evidenter ostenso, nulli dubium est, quod unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem, propria usus fuerit arbitrii potestate.\"\n307 Adopting the emendation, \"si a Deo bonus, ut asseris, mendacem esse dixisti Jesum.\" In the Codex Casinensis it stands thus: \"sic a Deo bonus ut as mendacem esse dixisti Jesus.\" But Routh woud substitute \"si a Deo diabolus\" = if the devil is from God.\n308 The argumentation throughout this passage seems to rest on the fact that, in support of the dogma of the evil deity, Manes perverted, among other passages, our Lord's words in John viii. 44, as if they were not only \"Ye are of your father the devil\" but possibly also, \"Ye are of the father of the devil;\" and again, \"He is a liar, and the father of him is the same.\" Thus what Manes urges against Archelaus is this: If only what is good proceeds from the Deity, and if He is the Supreme Good Himself, you make out Jesus to have spoken falsely, when in John's Gospel He uses expressions which imply that the devil's father is a liar, and also the Creator of the lying devil.\n309 There are some words deficient in this sentence. The text reads, \"Manes dixit:... dico: et adjecit, Omnis qui conditor est vel Creator aliquorum pater eorum...condiderit appellatur.\" It is proposed to supply jam before dico, and quae before condiderit.\n310 Reading et effectum for the ut effectum of the codex.\n311 Or it may be \"cogitations,\" reading cogitata for agitata.\n312 Conceptis in se doloribus.\n314 The text gives parturies. Routh suggests parturiens. The sense then might be, But if you repent, you will also deliver yourself of your burden like one who brings to the birth.\n315 Reading Domine for Dominum, which is given in the text.\n316 The quotation may refer to Isa. xxvi. 18. [A curious version.]\n321 Paenitentia. [2 Cor. vii. 10.]\n322 Aetatis ac temporis privilegio.\n325 The text gives \"inter unius anni spatium,\" for which intra, etc., is proposed. With certain others of the fathers, Archelaus seems to assign but one year to the preaching of Christ and to His working of miracles. See ch. xlix. [Vol. i. p. 391, this series.]\n326 Referring probably to Heb i. 3.\n327 Migne gives this sentence as a direct statement. We adopt the interrogative form with Routh.","title":"Fn35","type":"page"}