Freethought Archives > Walter R. Cassels > Supernatural Religion 

FOOTNOTES

Part 2, Chapter 10 (pp. 407-434)


[408:1] Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 46. Dr. Westcott, with greater caution, says: "He quoted words of our Lord recorded by St. Matthew, the prologue of St. John's Gospel, etc." (On the Canon, p. 267).

[408:2] Wann wurden u.s.w., p. 46 f.

[408:3] On the Canon, p. 263.

[408:4] Ib., p. 264, note 2.

[409:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 43. "Valentinus, der um 140 aus Aegypten nach Rom kam und darauf noch 20 Jahre gelebt haben mag."

[409:2] Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3:4, § 3; Eusebius, H. E., 4:11.

[410:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 47.

[410:2] Ib., p. 48.

[410:3] Ipsius Ptolemaei et Heracleonis, et reliquorum omnium qui eadem opinantur (Adv. Haer., 2:4, § 1).

[410:4] Ref. Hom. Haer., 6:35.

[410:5] Cf. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanius, 1865.

[410:6] Indeed, the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus himself upon the work of Irenaeus deprives the Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority.

[411:1] Eusebius, H. E., 5:1, Praef., § 1, 3, 4.

[411:2] Baronius, (Ann. Eccles.) sets the death of Pothinus in AD 179.

[411:3] Cf. Adv. Haer., 5. Praef.; Massuet, Dissert. in Iren., ii., art. ii., § 49; Lardner, Works, ii., p. 157.

[412:1] Adv. Haer., 1. Praef., § 2 (see the passage quoted, p. 332 f.).

[412:2] Ib., 3, § 3.

[412:3] Ib., § 2.

[412:4] Adv. Haer., 3:3, § 3; Eusebius, H. E., 5:6.

[412:5] Adv. Haer., 3:21, §1; Euseb., H. E., 5:8.

[412:6] De Ponderib. et Mens., 17.

[412:7] Dissert. in Iren., ii., art. 2, 97, § 47.

[413:1] Cf. Credner, Beiträge, ii., p. 253 f.; De Wette, Einl. A. T., 1852, p. 61 f., p. 62, anm. d.; Lardner, "He also speaks of the translation of Theodotion, which is generally allowed to have been published in the reign of Commodus." Works, ii., p. 156 f.; Massuet, Dissert. in Iren., ii., art. 2, 97, § 47.

[413:2] Massuet, Dissert. in Iren., ii., art. 2, 97 (§ 47), 99 (§ 50); Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 24; cf. De Wette, Einl. A. T., p. 62, anm. d. ("Er schrieb zw., 177-192"); cf. Credner, Beiträge, ii., p. 255. The late Dr. Mansel places the work "between A. D. 182-188." The Gnostic Heresies, p. 240. This date is partly based upon the mention of Eleutherus (cf. p. 240, note 2), which, it must be remembered, however, occurs in the third book. Jerome says: "Hoc ille scripsit antes annos circiter trecentos" (Epist. ad Theod., § 53, al. 29). If, instead of "trecentos," which is an evident slip of the pen, we read "ducentos," his testimony as to the date exactly agrees.

[413:3] Dr. Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that "The history of Heracleon, the great Valentinian commentator, is full of uncertainty. Nothing is known of his country or parentage" (On the Canon, p. 263). And in a note, "The exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain" (p. 264, note 2). 

[414:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 48 .

[414:2] Si autem non prolatum est, sed a se generatum est; et simile est, et fraternum, et ejusdem honoris id quod est vacuum, ei Patri qui praedictus est a Valentino: antiquius autem et multo ante exsistens, et honorificentius reliquis Aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et Heracleonis, et reliquorum omnium qui eadem opinantur  (Adv. Haer., 2:4, § 1).

[415:1] Ref. Omn. Haer., 6:29.

[415:2] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 49. We do not here enter into the discussion of the nature of this error (see Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 129 f.; Scholten, Die. ält. Zeugnisse, p. 91; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Johan., 1866, p. 79).

[415:3] Adv. Haer., 2:28, § 6.

[415:4] Ib., 2:28, § 9.

[416:1] Adv. Haer., 1:14.

[416:2] Ref. Omn. Haer., 6 § 5. There can be no doubt that a chapter on Kolarbasus is omitted from the MS. of Hippolytus which we possess. Cf. Bunsen, Hippolytus u. s. Zeit, 1852, p. 54 f.

[416:3] Ref. Omn. Haer., 6, § 55.

[416:4] Ôn eis men Kolarbasos, hos dia metrôn kai arithmôn ektithesthai theosebeian epicheirei. RefOmn. Haer. 4, § 13.

[416:5] Haer., 15.

[416:6] Ib., 43.

[416:7] Ib., 35, § 1, p. 258.

[416:8] Haer., 36, § 1, p. 262.

[416:9] Volkmar, Die Colarbasus-gnosis in Niedner's Zeitschr. hist. Theol., 1855; Der Ursprung, p. 128 f.; Baur, K. G. d. drei erst. Jahrh., p. 204; anm. 1; Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. u. Gruber's Real. Encykl.; Zur Quellenkritik des Epiph., p. 166 f., 168 f.; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 91.

[417:1] Haer., 13 f.

[417:2] Ib., 39 f.

[417:3] Ib., 32 f.

[417:4] Ref. Omn. Haer., 6, § 3, 4, 5.

[417:5] Tertullian also makes Heracleon follow Ptolemaeus (Adv. Val. 4).

[417:6] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 43.

[417:7] Adv. Haer., 3:4, § 3; Euseb., H. E., 4:11

[417:8] Wann wurden u.s.w., p. 25, p. 11.

[417:9] Ib., p. 12, Compare, however, p. 175 f.

[417:10] Ib., p. 11 f.

[418:1] P. 332 f.

[418:2] Dr. Westcott admits this (On the Canon, p. 266 f.).

[418:3] See passage quoted, p. 332 f.

[418:4] Adv. Haer., i., Praef., § 2.

[418:5] Ref. Omn. Haer., 6:35.

[418:6] Tischendorf did not refer to these passages at all originally, and only does so in the second and subsequent editions of his book, in reply to Volkmar and others in the Vorwort (p. ix. f.), and in a note (p. 49, note 2). Volkmar argues from the opening of the next chapter (36), Tauta oun ekeinoi zêteitôsan kat' autous (Let those heretics, therefore, discuss these points amongst themselves), that they are represented as contemporaries of Hippolytus himself at the time he wrote (AD 225-235), Der Ursprung, p. 23, p. 130 f. It is not our purpose to pursue this discussion, but, whatever may be the conclusion as regards the extreme deduction of Volkmar, there can be no doubt that the passage proves at least the date which was assigned to them against Tischendorf.

[419:1] Ref. Omn. Haer., 7:31.

[419:2] Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, 1864, p. 11 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 131, p. 23; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 80 ff.; Riggenbach, Die Zeugnisse f. d. Ev. Johannis, 1866, p. 78 f.; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 90.

[419:3] Adv. Val., 4; Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, p. 15; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 130 f.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81.

[419:4] Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 23 f. p. 130 f,; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 82; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 90.

[419:5] Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276.

[419:6] In Joh., T. xvi., p. 236 f.; Grabe, Spicil Patr., ii., p. 105.

[420:1] Epiphanius, Haer., 33:3-7.

[420:2] This phrase, from Leviticus 20:9, occurs further on in the next chapter.

[421:1] In the next chapter, § 7, there is ena gar monon einai agathon theon ton eautou patera ho sôtêr hêmôn apephênato, k.t.l. Cf. Matt. 19:17 ... eis estin ho agathos.

[421:2] See p. 342 ff.

[421:3] Clemens Al., Strom., 7:17.

[421:4] Epiphanius, Haer., 33:7.

[421:5] Adv. Haer., 1:8, § 1.

[421:6] Ib., 3:2, § 1.

[421:7] Ib., 3:11, § 9.

[421:8] Strom., 4:9, § 73.

[421:9] In Luce igitur Evangelium Commentaria edidit Heracleon, etc. (Grabe, Spicil Patr., ii., p. 83).

[421:10] The second reference by Clement to Heracleon is in the fragment § 25; but it is doubted by apologists (cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 264). It would, however, tend to show that the supposed Commentary could not be upon our Luke, as it refers to an apostolic injunction regarding baptism not found in our Gospels.

[422:1] Neither of the works, whatever they were, could have been written before the end of the second century. Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 22 f., 130 f., 165; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 91 f.; Ebrard, Evang,. Gesch., p. 874, § 142; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss Theol., 1867, p. 81 f.

[422:2] Clem. Al., Strom., 6:5, § 39; 6, § 48; 7, § 58; 15, § 128. Dr. Westcott says regarding Ptolemaeus: "Two statements, however, which he makes are at variance with the Gospels: that our Lord's ministry was completed in a year; and that He continued for eighteen months with His disciples after His resurrection" (On the Canon, p. 268).

[422:3] Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 80; Scholten, Die ält Zeugnisse, p. 99 f.

[423:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 74.

[423:2] Contra Cels., Praef., § 4.

[423:3] Ib., 1:8.

[424:1] Cf. Contra Cels., 1:8.

[424:2] Cf. ib., 1:10, 21; 3:75, 80; 4:36.

[424:3] Neander, K. G., 1842, i, p. 274.

[424:4] Contra Cels., 1:68.

[424:5] Ib., 4:36.

[424:6] 1:8.

[424:7] 1:68.

[424:8] 4:36.

[424:9] Isthi mentoi epangellomenon ton Kelson allo syntagma meta touto poiêsein ... Ei men oun ouk egrapsen huposchomenos ton deuteron logon, eu an echoi arkeisthai hêmas tois oktô pros ton logon autou hupagoreutheisi biblios. Ei de kakeinon arxamenos synetelese, zêtêson, kai pempson to syngramma, hina kai pros ekeino ... hupagoreusantes, kai tên en ekeinô pseudodoxian anatr' psômen, k.t.l.   Contra Cels., 8:76. We quote above the rendering of the passage referred to, p. 422, upon which Tischendorf (Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 73 f.) insists. We may mention that, in strictness, the original Greek reads: "promises" instead of "has promised"; "did not write" instead of "has not written"; and "commenced and finished" instead of "has commenced and finished." This, however, does not materially affect the argument of Volkmar.

[425:1] Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 80, cf. 165; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 100; cf. Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Johann., p. 83; Ueberweg, Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos. des Alterth., 1867, i., p. 237.

[425:2] Contra Cels., 8:76.

[425:3] Kirchhofer says that Origen himself does not assign a date to the work of Celsus: "but as he (Celsus) speaks of the Marcionites, he must, in any case, be set in the second half of the second century" (Quellensamml., p. 330, anm. 1). Lardner decides that Celsus wrote under Marcus Aurelius, and chooses to date him AD 176 (Works, viii, p. 6). Bindemann dates between 170-180 (Zeitschr. f. d. Hist. Theol., 1842, H. 2, p. 60, 107 f.; cf. Anger, Synops. Ev. Proleg., p. 40; Michaelis, Einl. N. B., 1788, i., p. 41; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Johan., p. 83; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 629). Dr. Westcott dates Celsus "towards the close of the second century" (On the Canon, p. 356). Keim dates the work about AD 178 (Celsus' Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 261 f.); so also Pelagaud, Et. sur Celse, 1878, p. 207 f.

[425:4] Works, viii, p. 6.

[425:5] Einl. N. B., i., p. 41.

[425:6] Pseudomantis, § 21.

[425:7] Contra Cels., 1:68; Neander, K. G., i., p. 275; Baur, K. G., drei erst. Jahrh. p. 383, anm. i; cf. Keim, Celsus' Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 275 f.

[426:1] Works, viii., p. 6; cf. Bindemann, Zeitschr. hist. Theol., 1842, H. 2, p. 107.

[426:2] Contra Cels., 5:62, 6:53, 74.

[426:3] Ib., 5:62.

[426:4] Irenaeus says that Marcellina came to Rome under Anicetus (157-168), and made many followers (Adv. Haer., 1:25, § 6; cf. Epiphanius, Haer., 27:6).

[426:5] Contra Cels., 3:80, 4:54.

[426:6] Ib., 1:8.

[426:7] Ib., 4:54.

[426:8] Ib., 1:32; 3:63; 4:54, 55, 83; 6:1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 47; 7:28, 31, 42, 58 f., etc.

[427:1] Inst. Hist. Eccles., lib. i., saec. ii., p. 1, cap. 2, § 8; De Rebus Christ,. saec. ii., § 19, § 27.

[427:2] Cf. Neander, K. G., i, p. 278.

[427:3] Origen, Contra Cels., 1:1, 3, 7; 8:69.

[427:4] Works, viii., p. 6.

[427:5] Euseb., H. E., 6:1, 2.

[427:6] Contra Cels., 5:54, 55.

[427:7] Ib., 7:53, 56.

[428:1] Antiquit. Ital. Med. Aevi, iii., p. 851 f.

[428:2] Volkmar considers it in reality the reverse of corrupt. After allowing for peculiarities of speech, and for the results of an Irish-English pronunciation by the monk who transcribed it, he finds the characteristic original Latin, the old lingua volgata which, in the Roman provinces, such as Africa, etc., was the written as well as the spoken language (Anhang zu Credner's Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 341 f.).

[428:3] If the fragment, as there is some reason to believe, was originally written in Latin, it furnishes evidence that it was not written till the third century. Dr. Westcott, who concludes from the order of the Gospels, etc., that it was not written in Africa, admits that "There is no evidence of the existence of Christian Latin literature out of Africa till about the close of the second century."

[429:1] Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 5:17. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 42; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 129; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 190, note 1. Cf. Schnekenburger, Beitr. Einl. N. T., 1832, p. 153 f. It will be remembered that reference is made in the Epistle to the Colossians to an Epistle to the Laodiceans which is lost (Col. 4:16).

[431:1] "Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in fine temporum potest."

[431:2] Antiq. Ital., iii., p. 854 f.; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr., 1788, ii., p. 33; Freindaller, apud Routh, Rel. Sacr., i., p. 401; cf. Hefele, Patr. Ap. Proleg., p. 43.

[431:3] Daniel secundum LXX. 1772; Dissert., iv., p. 467 f.

[431:4] Analecta Ante-Nic., 1854, i., p. 125; Hippolytus and his Age, i., p. 314.

[431:5] Versuch, u.s.w., p. 387.

[433:1] Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 202.

[433:2] The passage is freely rendered thus by Dr. Westcott: "The Gospel of Luke, it is then said, stands third in order (in the Canon), having been written by 'Luke the physician,' the companion of St. Paul, who, not being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from the birth of John" (On the Canon, p. 187).

[433:3] We do not propose to consider the Ophites and Peratici, obscure Gnostic sects towards the end of the second century. There is no direct evidence regarding them, and the testimony of writers in the third century, like Hippolytus, is of no value for the Gospels. Further on, in connection with the Acts of the Apostles, we shall state reasons for ascribing a late date for the composition of the third Gospel.

[434:1] A comparison of the three Synoptics would have confirmed this conclusion; but this is not at present necessary.
 


Return to Pt 2, Ch 10       Contents
HTML © 2002 -