{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn5.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn5.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn5.htm","text":"2 kalo/n, for which Hoeschelius has a0gaqo/n.\n3 a#peiroj, for which Hoeschelius has a0na/skhtoj.\n4 a0kwlu/tw|, for which Bengel suggests a0kolou/qw|.\n5 eu0eidei=, for which Ger. Vossius gives a0yeudei=.\n6 [See my introductory note, supra. He refers to Caius, Papinian, Ulpian; all, probably, of Syrian origin, and using the Greek as their vernacular.]\n7 sugkei/me/noi, which is rendered by some conduntur, by others confectae sunt, and by others still componantur, harmonized,-the reference then being to the difficulty experienced in learning the laws, in the way of harmonizing those which apparently oppose each other.\n8 a0kribei=j, for which Ger. Vossius gives eu0sebeij, pious.\n9 [A noteworthy estimate of Latin by a Greek.]\n10 ei0 kai\\ boulhto/n, etc., for which Hoeschelius gives ou#te boulhto/n, etc. The Latin version gives, non enim aliter sentire aut posse aut velle me unquam dixerim.\n12 xarakth=raj tw=n th=j yuxh=j tu/pwn.\n13 aspasa/menoi h9de/wj, e0pei kai\\ perifronh/santej. The passage is considered by some to be mutilated.\n14 The text is, a0lla\\ ga\\r e0k tri/twn au[qij a#llwj kwlu/ei,, etc. For a#llwj Hoeschelius gives a#lla dh/, Bengel follows him, and renders it, sed rursum, tertio loco, aliud est quod prohibet. Delarue proposes, a/lla\\ ga\\r e#n tri/ton au[qij a#llwj kwlu/ei.\n16 This is the rendering according to the Latin version. The text is, a0peskeuasme/nou h=dh mei/zoni paraskeuh=| metanasta/sewj th=j pro\\j to qei=on. Vossius reads, met' a0nasta/sewj.\n17 w[n h#ttwn fronti\\j kat' a0ci\\an te kai\\ mh\\, legome/nwn.\n18 The text is, mh0 kai\\ yuxro\\n h# perperon h|[, where, according to Bengel, mh/ has the force of ut non dicam.\n19 But the text reads, ou=k eu0lo/gwj.\n20 a0safw=n. But Ger. Voss has a0sfalw=n, safe.\n21 Reading o#tw, with Hoeschelius, Bengel, and the Paris editor, while Voss. reads o#ti.\n23 panagei=, which in the lexicons is given as bearing only the good sense, all-hallowed, but which here evidently is taken in the opposite.\n24 e0kperiw/n in the text, for which Bengel gives e0kperii#w/n, a word used frequently by this author. In Dorner it is explained as = going out of Himself in order to embrace and encompass Himself. See the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, A. II. p. 173 (Clark).\n26 [The unformed theological mind of a youth is here betrayed.]\n27 The text gives melhgorei=n, for which others read megalhgorei=n.\n28 Gen. xlviii. 15. [Jacob refers to the Jehovah-Angel.]\n29 The text gives e0moi\\, etc.,...sumferon ei\\nai katafai/netai.. Bengel's idea of the sense is followed in the translation.\n30 ta\\ pa/tria e#qh ta\\ peplanhme/na.\n31 [The force of the original is not opprobrious.]\n32 Reading h$ dh/. Others give h$ dh/; others, h[dh; and the conjecture h$ h/bh \"or my youth,\" is also made.\n35 The text, however, gives a0le/ktrw|.\n37 Reading tou/yw| e0pi\\ nou=n ba\\w/n.\n39 The text is a0poxe/ousa. Hoeschelius gives a0pe/xousa.\n41 The text is, ou0de\\n ou#twj a0nagkai=on h[n o#son e0pi\\ toi=j no/moij h9mw=n, du/ato\\n o#n kai\\ e0pi\\ th\\n 9Rwmai/wn a0podhmh=sai po/lin. Bengel takes o#son as pare/lkon. Migne renders, nullam ei fuisse necessitatem huc veniendi, discendi leges causa, siquidem Romam posset proficisci. Sirmondus makes it, nulla causa adeo necessaria erat qua possem per leges nostras ad Romanorum civitatem proficisci.\n42 The text gives e0kponh/santej. Casaubon reads e0kpoih/sontej.\n45 di/ au0tou=. Bengel understands this to refer to the soldier.\n46 The text is, thn a0lhqh= di' au0tou= peri ta\\ tou= logou maqh/mata. Bengel takes this as an ellipsis, like th\\n e9autou=, th\\n emh\\n mi/an, and similar phrases, gnw/mhn or o\\do/n, or some such word, being supplied. Casaubon conjectures kai\\ a0lhqh=, for which Bengel would prefer ta a0lhqh=.\n48 [I think Lardner's inclination to credit Gregory with some claim to be an alumnus of Berytus, is very fairly sustained.]\n50 The text here is, tau=q' a#per h9ma=j a0ne/swiw, ma/lista le/gwn kai ma/la texnikw=j, tou= kuriwta/tou, fhsi\\, tw=n e0n h9mi=n lo/gou, a0melh/santaj.\n51 The text gives e0k prw/thj h9liki/aa, which Bengel takes to be an error for the absolute e0k prw/thj, to which h9meraj would be supplied. Casaubon and Rhodomanus read o9mili/aj for h9liki/aj.\n55 The text gives sumblu/santa w9j, for which Casaubon proposes sumfu/santa ei0j e#n, or w9j e#n. Bengel suggests sumbru/sanra w9j e#/n.\n57 The text gives e0kei=, for which Hoeschelius and Bengel read ei/kh=.\n58 teleiousqai de\\ th|= bla/syh|.\n61 The words a0lla\\ kekrumme/na are omitted by Hoeschelius and Bengel.\n62 e0i ti 9Ellhniko\\n h@ ba/rbaro/n e0sti th|= fwnh|=.\n63 The text is, kai mh\\ tou=q' o@per ei[doj dialektikh\\ katorqou=n monh ei@lhxe.\n64 pa=n to\\ filo/sofon. Hoeschelius and Bengel read pw=j, etc.\n65 The text gives u9f' e0auth=j, for which Bengel reads e0f' e9auth=j.\n68 ta\\ prw=ta Qew|= i[son ei[nai ton sofo\\n a@nqrwpon .\n69 filotimi/a, for which filoneiki/a is read.\n70 The text is, n@ kakw=n a@n e@legon, etc. The Greek h@ and the Latin aut are found sometimes thus with a force bordering on that of alioqui.\n71 a0frai/nomen. The Paris editor would read a0frai/nw me/n.","title":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn5.htm","type":"page"}