243243 Ex. xxviii. 3.—There is no mention of the number of the bells in Scripture.
244244 Ex. xxiv. 4.
245245 Josh. iv. 3.
246246 Josh. iii. 12.
247247 1 Kings xviii. 31.
248248 Gen. vi. 15.
249249 1 Sam. ix. 22.
250250 1 Sam. xx. 5.
251251 Ex. xxvi. 8. Numbers appear to have been often capriciously introduced by these heretics to give a colour of support to their own theories.
252252 Isa. i. 3.
253253 Hos. iv. 1.
254254 Rom. iii. 11; Ps. xiv. 3.
255255 Ex. xxxiii. 20.
256256 Dan. xii. 9, 10. The words in the above quotation not occurring in the Hebrew text of the passage, seem to have been interpolated by these heretics.
257257 [From the Protevangel of Thomas. Compare the curious work of Dominic Deodati, De Christo Graece loquente, p. 95. London, 1843.]
258258 Luke ii. 49.
259259 Mark x. 17.
260260 Luke xviii. 18.
261261 Matt. xxi. 23.
262262 Taken from some apocryphal writing.
263263 Luke xix. 42, loosely quoted.
264264 Matt. xi. 28.
265265 The translator evidently read tw`n for thvn, in which case the rendering will be “proof of those most high,” but the Greek text seems preferable.
266266 Matt. xi. 25–27.
267267 Comp. chap. xiii. 6.
268268 The Latin reads “Christ.”
269269 Luke xii. 50. The text was probably thus corrupted by the heretics.
270270 Mark x. 38.
271271 We have given these words as they stand in the Greek text: a very different list, but equally unmeaning, is found in the Latin.
272272 The Latin reads zonis, “zones,” instead of “lives,” as in the Greek.
273273 Here, again, are many variations.
274274 The Greek text, which has hitherto been preserved almost entire, ends at this point. With only brief extracts from the original, now and then, we are henceforth exclusively dependent on the old Latin version, with some Syriac and Armenian fragments recently discovered.
275275 The Latin here begins with the words “cum teneamus,” and the apodosis is found afterwards at “facile arguimus.” But we have broken up the one long sentence into several.
276276 Ps. xxxiii. 6.
277277 John i. 3.
278278 The text is here uncertain and obscure: eternal things seem to be referred to, not as regarded substance, but the forms assigned them.
279279 This word would perhaps be better cancelled.
280280 Acts viii. 9–11.
281281 Acts viii. 20, 21, 23.
282282 Comp. Just. Mart., Apol., i. 26. It is generally supposed that Simon Magus was thus confounded with the Sabine god, Semo Sancus; but see our note, loc. cit. [And mine at end of the First Apology. Consult Orelli’s Inscriptions there noted.]
283283 A lyric poet of Sicily, said to have been dealt with, as stated above, by Castor and Pollus.
284284 Matt. xviii. 12.
285285 1 Tim. vi. 20.
286286 Gen. i. 26.
287287 [1 Tim. iv. 3.]
288288 The ordinary text reads, “three hundred and seventy-five,” but it should manifestly be corrected as above.
289289 This sentence is wholly unintelligible as it stands in the Latin version. Critics differ greatly as to its meaning; Harvey tries to bring out of it something like the translation given above. [This name is manufactured from a curious abuse of (wql wq
) Isaiah xxviii. 10–13, which is variously understood. See (Epiphanius ed. Oehler, vol. i.) Philastr., p. 38.]
290290 So written in Latin, but in Greek ÆAbrasax, the numerical value of the letters in which is three hundred and sixty-five. [See Aug. (ed. Migne), vol. viii. p. 26.] It is doubtful to whom or what this word refers; probably to the heavens.
291291 [I note again this “Americanism.”]
292292 Such seems to be the meaning of the Latin, but the original text is conjectural.
293293 [See cap. xxvii. 3.]
294294 The text is here defective, but the above meaning seems to be indicated by Epiphanius.
295295 Rom. iii. 8.
296296 [Isaiah v. 20. Horne Tooke derives our word Truth from what any one troweth.]
297297 The text here has greatly puzzled the editors. We follow the simple emendation proposed by Harvey.
298298 Matt. v. 25, 26; Luke xii. 58.
299299 The meaning is here very doubtful, but Tertullian understood the words as above. If sinning were a necessity, then it could no longer be regarded as evil.
300300 [This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.]
301301 We here follow the text as preserved by Hippolytus. The Latin has, “a certain man in Asia.”
302302 [This is disputed by other primitive authorities.]
303303 Rev. ii. 6.
304304 [Comp. cap. xxv. 2.]
305305 We here follow the amended version proposed by the Benedictine editor.
306306 A promise never fulfilled: comp. book iii. 12, and Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 8.
307307 [Rev. xii. 9.]
308308 [The whole casuistical system of the Trent divines, De Matrimonio, proceeds on this principle: marriage is licensed evil.]
309309 Harvey supposes this name to be derived from two Syriac words, meaning “God in a Tetrad.” Matter again derives it from two Hebrew words, denoting “Daughter of the Lord.”
310310 Both the text and meaning are here altogether doubtful.
311311 Harvey refers to the cabbalistic books in explanation of this and the following names, but their meanings are very uncertain.
312312 Harvey refers to the cabbalistic books in explanation of this and the following names, but their meanings are very uncertain.
313313 Ex. xx. 5; Isa. xlv. 5, 6.
314314 The punctuation is here difficult and doubtful.
315315 The probable meaning of this and the following names is thus given by Harvey: Ialdabaoth, Lord God of the Fathers; Iao, Jehovah; Oreus, Light; Astanphaeus, Crown; Sabaoth, of course, means Hosts; Adoneus, Lord; and Eloeus, God. All the names are derived from the cabbalistic theology of the Jews.
316316 Hence their name of Ophites, from ofe", a serpent.
317317 The Latin has evertisse, implying that thus Nous was more degraded.
318318 Gen. i. 26.
319319 That is, from Ialdabaoth, etc. [Philastr. (ut supra), Oehler, i. p. 38.]
320320 There is constant reference in this section to rabbinical conceits and follies.
321321 A name probably derived from the Hebrew hr[n
, girl, but of the person referred to we know nothing.
322322 We here follow the emendation of Grabe: the defection of Prunicus is intended.
323323 The Latin here is “ex quibus,” and the meaning is exceedingly obscure. Harvey thinks it is the representative ex wn (cronwn) in the Greek, but we prefer to refer it to “Judaeos,” as above. The next sentence seems unintelligible: but, according to Harvey, “each deified day of the week had his ministering prophets.”
324324 The common text inserts “et incorruptibili Aeone,” but this seems better rejected as a glossarial interpolation.
325325 1 Cor. xv. 50. The Latin text reads “apprehendunt,” which can scarcely be the translation of klhronomhsai in the Greek text of the New Testament.
326326 That is, Christ and Jesus.
327327 The text of this sentence is hopelessly corrupt, but the meaning is as given above.
328328 According to Harvey, Hystera corresponds to the “passions” of Achamoth. [Note the “Americanism,” advocate used as a verb.]
329329 The text is here imperfect, and the translation only conjectural.
330330 [Cant. ii. 15; St. Luke xiii. 32.]
331331 [Let the reader bear in mind that the Greek of this original and very precious author exists only in fragments. We are reading the translation of a translation; the Latin very rude, and the subject itself full of difficulties. It may yet be discovered that some of the faults of the work are not chargeable to Irenaeus.]
11 1 Tim. vi. 20.
22 [Note this “Americanism.”]
33 [Note this “Americanism.”]
44 This passage is very obscure: we have supplied “et,” which, as Harvey conjectures, may have dropped out of the text.
55 [This noble chapter is sort of homily on Hebrews i.]
66 The common text has “ut:” we prefer to read “aut” with Erasmus and others.
77 Vossius and others read “primus” instead of “prius,” but on defective ms. authority.
88 Harvey here observes: “Grabe misses the meaning by applying to the redeemed that which the author says of the Redeemer;” but it may be doubted if this is really the case. Perhaps Massuet’s rendering of the clause, “that that man might be formed who should know Him,” is, after all, preferable to that given above.
99 John i. 3.
1010 Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlviii. 5.
1111 Gen. i. 1.
1212 Eph. iv. 6, differing somewhat from Text. Rec. of New Testament.
1313 We have translated the text as it here stands in the mss. Grabe omits spiritalem et; Massuet proposes to read et invisibilem, and Stieren invisibilem.
1414 In praesentia: Grabe proposes in praescientia, but without ms. authority. “The reader,” says Harvey, “will observe that there are three suppositions advanced by the author: that theworld, as some heretics asserted, was eternal; that it was created in time, with no previous idea of it in the divine mind; or that it existed as a portion of the divine counsels from all eternity, though with no temporal subsistence until the time of its creation,—and of this the author now speaks.” The whole passage is most obscurely expressed.
1515 Literally, “should also possess a vacant substance”
1616 The text has “reliquis omnibus,” which would refer to the Aeons; but we follow the emendation proposed by Massuet, “reliquorum omnium,” as the reference manifestly is to other heretics.
1717 “Ab eo:” some refer “eo” to the Demiurge, but it is not unusual for the Latin translator to follow the Greek gender, although different from that of the Latin word which he has himself employed. We may therefore here “eo” to “labem,” which is the translation of the neuter noun usterhma.
1919 The Latin is fieri eos: Massuet conjectures that the Greek had been poieisqai autou", and that the translator rendered poieisqai as a passive instead of a middle verb, fieri for facere.
2020 See above, chap. i.
2121 The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.” None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if the reading were “ab eo quod,” though, if the strict grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be, “from Him who.” But then to what does “in quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the immediate antecedent Pleroma, or to Him who is described as being beyond it.
2222 Chap. ii., iii., iv.
2323 This is an extremely difficult passage. We follow the reading aeternochoica adopted by Massuet, but Harvey reads aeterna choica, and renders, “They charge all other substance (i.e., spiritual) with the imperfections of the material creation, as though Aeon substance were equally ephemeral and choic.”
2424 The common reading is “aut;” we adopt Harvey’s conjectural emendation of “at.”
2626 The text has “antiquius,” literally “more ancient,” but it may here be rendered as above.
2727 Matt. xi. 27.
2828 Massuet refers this to the Roman emperor.
2929 Harvey supposes that the translator here read h[ quam instead of h qua (gloria); but Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to delete erit.
3030 Reference is here made to the supposed wretched state of Achamoth as lying in the region of shadow, vacuity, and, in fact, non-existence, until compassionated by the Christ above, who gave her form as respected substance.
3131 We have literally translated the above very obscure sentence. According to Massuet, the sense is: “There will some time be, or perhaps even now there is, some Aeon utterly destitute of such honour, inasmuch as those things which the Saviour, for the sake of honouring it, had formed after its image, have been destroyed; and then those things which are above will remain without honour,” etc.
3232 The Saviour is here referred to, as having formed all things through means of Achamoth and the Demiurge.
3333 Massuet deletes quem, and reads nun as a genitive.
3434 Matt. xxv. 41.
3535 Dan. vii. 10, agreeing neither with the Greek nor Hebrew text.
3636 This clause is exceedingly obscure. Harvey remarks upon it as follows: “The reasoning of Irenaeus seems to be this: According to the Gnostic theory, the Aeons and angels of the Pleroma were homogeneous. They were also the archetypes of things created. But things created are heterogeneous: therefore either these Aeons are heterogeneous, which is contrary to theory, or things created are homogeneous, which is contrary to fact.”
3737 Literally, “from Himself.”
3838 See above, chap. ii. and v.
3939 The text has fabricasse, for which, says Massuet, should be read fabricatam esse; or fabricasse itself must be taken in a passive signification. It is possible, however, to translate, as Harvey indicates, “that He (Bythus) formed so great a creation by angels,” etc., though this seems harsh and unsuitable.
4040 Literally, empty: there is a play on the words vacuum and vacui (which immediately follows), as there had been in the original Greek.
4141 Comp. e.g., Matt. v. 16, v. 45, vi. 9, etc.
4242 See chap xxiii. etc.
4343 Viz., the Valentinians.
4444 Rom. i. 25.
4545 Gal. iv. 8.
4646 Isa. xlvi. 9.
4747 This clause is unintelligible in the Latin text: by a conjectural restoration of the Greek we have given the above translation.
4848 Luke xviii. 27.
4949 Playing upon the doctrines of the heretics with respect to vacuity and shade.
5050 The text vacillates between “dicemus” and “dicamus.”
5151 This sentence is confused in the Latin text, but the meaning is evidently that given above.
5252 It is difficult to see the meaning of “iterum” here. Harvey begins a new paragraph with this sentence.
5353 endiaqeto"—simply conceived in the mind—used in opposition to proforiko", expressed.
5454 Harvey remarks that “the author perhaps wrote Oron (Horos), which was read by the translator” Olon (totum).
5555 Since Soter does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by Irenaeus (i. 11, 4), Grabe proposes to read Stauros, and Massuet Lytrotes; but Harvey conceives that the difficulty is explained by the fact that Horos was a power of Soter (i. 3, 3).