¹ Cf. J. Lebon, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, XXI, pp. 525 ff.; XXIII, pp. 15 ff.

² Ath also omits the preceding μεταποιεῖ.

³ Minor changes in the context support the structure of the sentence.

⁴ Ath adds δν after ɸημι οὐχ.

⁵ The sentence έκείνου γὰρ κτλ. (85.42 ff.) has been considerably and characteristically reduced in Ath, which reads, καθάπερ τοίνυν ἐκείνου παρόντος καὶ πρὸς πάντας τὸν ὀɸθαλμὸν τείνοντος ἑπόμενοι πάντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν τάξιν άποτελοῦσιν καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐπί τὴν γεωργίαν οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑδραγωγοὺς ὑδρευόμενοι σπεύδουσιν καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν βουλὴν βαδίζει ὁ δέ δικαστὴς ἐπὶ τὸ δικάζειν προέρχεται κτλ.

⁶ The terms ‘Long Recension’ and ‘Short Recension’ will be used to distinguish the text of S (Cod. Coislin. 45) and its allies from that of Ath. An unfortunate inconsistency between the presentation of evidence for Contra Gentes and that for De Incarnatione has been unavoidable. The collation of the former is made with the Benedictine edition as reprinted in Migne. This is an eclectic text, based on S and some other manuscripts; since all these manuscripts represent the Long Recension, it has seemed advisable not to confuse the reader by constant corrections of the printed text so as to conform with that of S. Most of the important readings of S which are not adopted can be found in the apparatus in Migne. For De Incarnatione, Robertson's edition of the text of S has been used, and it is worth noting that Robertson's guess that H (Cod. Toblerianus, Brit. Mus., Harl. 5579) is an independent witness to the archetype of S is right, for in a number of instances where H differs from S, it agrees with Ath. It must also be remembered that whereas Ath is the only known witness to the Short Recension of Contra Gentes, Doch (Dochiariou 78) and Vat. Syr. 104 also supply texts of the Short Recension of De Incarnatione. With Professor Lebon's kind permission I have made occasional use of Doch and the Syriac to distinguish singular readings.

⁷ The sentence in Ath reads, δι' ἤν τὰ καθ' ἑαυτὰ μηδέποτε συνελθόντα καὶ συναɸθἐντα διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἂλληλα τῆς ɸύσεως ἐναντιότητα. ὂμως συνάπτεται, τὸ μὲν γὰρ κτλ.

⁸ Ath omits τοῦτο in 77.22.

⁹ Cf. above, note 7.

¹⁰ Cf. above, note 5.

¹² In Ath, Doch, and the Syriac, the following sentence begins ἢ διὰ τί πρίν κτλ.

¹³ The Syriac reads (f. 26 a. 10–12) , which represents καὶ μόνον (τὸν?) θεὸν άληθινὸν (τὸν?) λόγον τοῦ κυρίου (τοῦ?) πατρός.

¹⁴ Doch reads 27.7 πιστεύσητε, 27.8 om μοι post πιστεύσητε, 27.8 πιστεύσηται, 27.9 om μου, 27.9 πιστεύετε 27.9 γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε. Therefore Doch may give an expansion of the quotation independent of the text of the Long Recension.

¹⁵ Ath reads 12.30 πάντας for πάντως.

¹⁶ The succeeding phrase in Ath reads περὶ τοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγῳ, but in Doch the awkward τοῦ before τῆς is omitted.

¹⁷ In all these cases Doch agrees with Ath, except in 22.12, where, in agreement with the Syriac, it misreads περὶ πολλῶν for περιπολῶν.

¹⁸ The punctuation of the manuscript has been followed, but not its frequent omissions of accents and breathings.