HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST NOETUS SAYS "...THE DISCIPLES..." WERE ( WRONG )!

In the work commonly known as “...AGAINST NOETUS...” which is generally considered to teach a tri{3}nity of sorts, by Tri{3}nitarians, there is something I want to draw your attention to.

Something that could very easily be missed or overlooked when reading this text, but is very serious when making an over-all evaluation Hippolytus' doctrine of God. 

It is a statement by this writer that, in effect, THE “...DISCIPLES...”, NO DOUBT, OF OUR LORD --- GOT IT WRONG!

According to Hippolytus' opinion.

Their teaching was deficient as regards the ( new ) Post-Biblical, Post-Apostolic ( theory ) of a tri{3}nity that was starting to emerge at the very end of the second and beginning of the third century.

According to this ( theory ) they, the Disciples, did not Gk., ( ἐπέγνωσαν ) "...recognize..." or "...acknowledge..." the "...holy spirit...". But not only that, they even Gk., ( ἠρνήσαντο ) Ltn., ( negaverunt ) "...denied..." the holy spirit's existence. Or perhaps in this context the writer means they "...denied..." the personality of, or what the later interpreter's came to call, it's "...godship..." or  "...divinity...", as being a person or a part of the multiple God "...economy...", according to his, (or perhaps the later editor of his writings), proto-tri{3}nitarian theory.

LATIN TEXT: “...Etenim Judaei Patrem glorificaverunt, sed non egerunt gratias ; siquidem non agnoverunt Filium. Discipuli agnoverunt Filium, sed non in Spiritu sancto ; idcirco negaverunt...” - (Chapter 14, “CONTRA HAERESIN NOETI,” from the Turriano MSS, Page 430, Coloumn 892, MPG.)

GREEK TEXT: “...Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γὰρ ἐδόξασαν Πατέρα, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ηὐχαρίστησαν· Υἱὸν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν. μαθηταὶ ἐπέγνωσαν Υἱόν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ· διὸ καὶ ἠρνήσαντο...” - (Chapter 14, “Contra Haeresin Noeti,” or “Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοητοῦ τινος,” MPG.)

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “...For [the] Jews glorified a Father, but [they] did not show [their] thankfulness. For they would not acknowledge with approval a Son. ((( [THE] DISCIPLES ))) RECOGNISED WITH APPROVAL A SON, BUT --- NOT --- IN HOLY SPIRIT, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH ALSO, THIS ((( THEY ))) DENIED...” - (Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 27/08/12.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: Gk., ( πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ) is grammatically in the ( neuter ) gender, an “...IT...”! Not a “...he...” or a “...him...”

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “...For the ( Jews ) glorified the Father, but were not thankful, for they acknowledged not the Son. ((( THE DISCIPLES ))) ACKNOWLEDGED THE SON, BUT --- NOT --- IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHEREFORE ALSO ((( THEY ))) DENIED HIM...” - (Page 269, Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” in “The Christian remembrancer; or, The Churchman's Biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany,” Quarterly Review, Volume XXV, January-June, London, Published by J & C. Mozley, 6 Paternoster Row, and D. Appleton & Co. 200, Broadway, New York, 1853.)

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “...For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. ((( THE DISCIPLES ))) RECOGNISED THE SON, BUT --- NOT --- IN THE HOLY GHOST; WHEREFORE ((( THEY ))) ALSO DENIED HIM...” - (Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” Translated by J.H. MacMahon. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.)

Gk., ( μαθηταὶ ) Ltn., ( Discipuli ) “...[THE] DISCIPLES...”

Gk., ( ἠρνήσαντο ) Ltn., ( negaverunt )

ἀρνέομαι Deriv. uncertain
1. Dep. opp. to φημί, to deny, disown, Hom., etc.
2. opp. to δίδωμι, to decline to give, refuse, Od., etc.
3. absol to say no, decline, refuse, Il.
4. dependent clauses are put in inf., with or without μή, to deny that, Hdt., attic
Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

nĕgo , āvi, ātum, 1 (
I. perf. subj. negāssim for negaverim, Plaut. As. 2, 4, 96.—Lengthened collat. form negumo : negumate in carmine Cn. Marci vatis significat negate, Paul. ex Fest. p. 165 Müll.; cf. Herm. Doct. Metr. p. 614), v. n. and a. [for ne-igo, ne and ajo, q. v.], to say no, to deny, refuse (opp. ajo, to say yes; v. ajo; cf.: abnuo, diffiteor, infitior).
I. In gen.: vel ai, vel nega, say yes or no, Naev. ap. Prisc. p. 473 P.: “vel tu mihi aias vel neges,” Plaut. Rud. 2, 4, 14: “negat quis? nego. Ait? aio,” Ter. Eun. 2, 2, 21: “Diogenes ait, Antipater negat,” Cic. Off. 3, 23, 91: “quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget,” id. Fin. 2, 22, 70: “quia nunc aiunt, quod tunc negabant,” id. Rab. Post. 12, 35.— With acc. and inf., to say or affirm that not, to deny that, etc.: “Demosthenes negat, in eo positas esse fortunas Graeciae, hoc, etc.,” Cic. Or. 8 fin.: “Stoici negant quidquam esse bonum, nisi quod honestum sit,” id. Fin. 2, 21, 68; id. de Or. 3, 14, 54: “nego, ullam picturam fuisse, quin abstulerit,” Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 1, § 1; Caes. B. G. 6, 31.—With quoniam (eccl. Lat.): “negat quoniam Jesus est Christus,” Vulg. 1 Joann. 2, 22.—Sometimes two propositions depend upon nego, with the latter of which an affirmative verb (dico, etc.) is to be supplied: “plerique negant Caesarem in condicione mansurum: postulataque haec ab eo interposita esse, etc.,” Cic. Att. 7, 15, 3: “negabat cessandum et utique prius confligendum,” Liv. 35, 1: “ille negat se Numidam pertimescere, virtuti suorum credere,” Sall. J. 106, 3; Vell. 2, 118, 5; Ter. Phorm. 2, 3, 6.—Sometimes another negation follows, which, however, does not destroy the first: “negat nec suspicari,” Cic. Ac. 1, 2, 7: “negato esse nec mu, nec mutuum,” Plaut. Stich. 1, 3, 101: “tu autem te negas infracto remo, neque columbae collo, commoveri,” Cic. Ac. 2, 25, 79.—
(b). Pass. with inf., they say I am not, etc.: “casta negor (sc. esse),” Ov. F. 4, 321: “saepe domi non es, cum sis quoque saepe negaris,” Mart. 2, 5, 5: “ex eo negantur ibi ranae coaxare,” Suet. Aug. 94: “ciconiae pullum qui ederit, negatur annis continuis lippiturus,” Plin. 29, 6, 38, § 128.—
II. In partic.
A. To deny a thing; “factum est: non nego,” Ter. Ad. 5, 3, 12; “opp. fateri,” Cic. Brut. 19, 76: “sed posthac omnia, quae certa non erunt, pro certo negato,” id. Att. 5, 21, 5: “negaturum aut me pro M. Fulvio, aut ipsum M. Fulvium censetis?” Liv. 38, 43: “negando minuendove,” Suet. Caes. 66: “mitto enim domestica, quae negari possunt,” i. e. the proof of which can be suppressed, Cic. Pis. 5, 11: “videant servi ne quis neget,” Juv. 10, 87.— With quin: “negare non posse, quin rectius sit, etc.,” Liv. 40, 36: “quod si negari non potest, quin, etc.,” Lact. 5, 23 init.—
B. To deny, refuse: quicquam quisquam cuiquam, quod ei conveniat, neget, Enn. ap. Auct. Her. 4, 12, 18 (Trag. v. 448 Vahl.): “numquam reo cuiquam tam praecise negavi, quam hic mihi,” Cic. Att. 8, 4, 2: “postquam id obstinate sibi negari videt,” Caes. B. G. 5, 6: “alicui impune negare,” Ov. M. 13, 741: “patriae opem,” id. H. 3, 96: “miseris,” id. Tr. 5, 8, 13: “civitatem alicui,” Suet. Aug. 40: “non ego me vinclis verberibusque nego,” Tib. 2, 3, 80; Luc. 8, 3: “exstingui primordia tanta negabam,” Sil. 9, 532: “neque enim negare tibi quidquam potest,” Vulg. 3 Reg. 2, 17.—
b. Se, to refuse (ante class.): “obsecrat, Ut sibi ejus faciat copiam: illa enim se negat,” Ter. Phorm. 1, 2, 63; id. Hec. 1, 2, 45.—
C. E s p., to decline an invitation: “invitatus ad haec aliquis de ponte negabit,” Juv. 14, 135.—
2. Transf., of inanim. things (poet.): “poma negat regio,” i. e. does not yield, produce, Ov. Tr. 3, 10, 73: “nec mihi materiam bellatrix Roma negabat,” id. ib. 2, 321: “pars ventis vela negare,” i. e. to furl the sails, Ov. M. 11, 487: “si dextra neget,” Stat. Th. 6, 553: “saxa negantia ferro,” opposing, id. Silv. 3, 1: “illi membra negant,” his limbs fail him, id. Th. 2, 668.—
D. To deny any knowledge of, to reject (with acc. of persons; “eccl. Lat.): negaverunt Dominum,” Vulg. Jer. 5, 12: “qui me negaverit,” ib. Matt. 10, 33: Christum negantes, ib. Judae, 4.
A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnego

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts