τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν ταῦτα διῆλθον, καὶ περιεργότερον ἴσως ἢ κατὰ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἀκοάς, καὶ κατὰ τὸν νῦν κεκρατηκότα τύπον τῶν λόγων, ὃς τὸ γενναῖον καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἀτιμάσας τὸ σκολιὸν καὶ γριφοειδὲς ἐπεισήγαγεν· ὡς ἐκ 2 ει δε] ουδ e || 5 η] ει f || 9 om εἰ ‘Reg. Cypr.’ 11. 12 καὶ om κάτα b 1. καὶ που] ’And, still assuming that τὸ θεῖον is located in the universe, where was it,’ etc. 2. οὐδέν ἢν τὸ δ.] Gr. turns to the other horn of his first dilemma, and asks, What is there (if τὸ θεῖον is above the universe) to divide between tween the universe and it? The past tense ἦν, ἐνοήθη) in the preg- nant Greek idiom refers back to the moment when the opponent is supposed to have adopted the con- clusion. 3. τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο] i.e. ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν. 4. τὸ ὑπεραῖρον κ. ὒ.] ὑπεραίρειν ‘to transcend’ (cp. § 3) represents εἶναι ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν. The single art., not repeated before ὑπεραιρόμενον, shews, of course, that the difficulty lies not in conceiving of the two things themselves, but in conceiving their relation to each other. 5. ἢ χρή] In English we say, ’Must there not be?’; in Greek there any alternative,) or must there be?’ 6. καὶ ᾧ π.] Καὶ here adds another description of τὸ μέσον, not a separate thing; and in τὸ μ. the art. is used as in τὸ διορίζον just above. 7. τοῦτο] sc. τὸ μέσον. 8. ἐφύγομεν] when we asked ποῦ τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν]. ib. καὶ οὔπω λοῶ κτλ.] ‘And I do not now insist upon the fact that τὸ π. εἶναι).’ 9. ἐν γάρ] ’for comprehension is one form of circumscription.’ 11 The purpose of the digression was to exemplify the barren dialectic of the Eunomians, as well as to shew that God is incomprehensible. He is so, not because He grudges the knowledge to man, whom He loves. 14. γριφοειδές] from γρῖφος, ‘a crab-pot,’ and so ‘a conundrum.’ is a hit at the Eunomian style of argument. ib. ὡς]=ὥστε. The tree is known by its fruits (Matt, vii 20) and the absence of light among the Eunomian theologians by the obscurity of their language. τῶν καρπῶν τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεσθαι, λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν τὰ τοιαῦτα δόγματα σκότος ἐκ τοῦ ζόφου τῶν λεγομένων; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς παράδοξα λέγειν δόξω, καὶ περιττὸς φαίνωμαι τὴν σοφίαν, πλέκων συνδέσμους καὶ διαλύων κρατούμενα· τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μέγα θαῦμα τοῦ Δανιήλ· ἀλλ’ ἵν ἐκεῖνο δηλώσαιμι, ὅ μοι λέγειν ὁ λόγος ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὥρμησεν. τοῦτο δὲ ἦν τί; τὸ μὴ ληπτὸν εἶναι ἀνθρωπίνῃ διανοίᾳ τὸ θεῖον, μηδὲ ὅλον ὅσον ἐστὶ φαντάζεσθαι· καὶ τοῦτο οὔτε διὰ φθόνον,—μακρὰν γὰρ τῆς θείας φύσεως φθόνος, τῆς γε ἀπαθοῦς καὶ μόνης ἀγαθῆς καὶ κυρίας, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ κτισμάτων περὶ τὸ τιμιώτατον· τί γὰρ Λόγῳ πρὸ τῶν λογικῶν; ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ὑποστῆναι τῆς ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος·—οὔτε εἰς τιμὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ δόξαν τοῦ πλήρους, ἵνα τῷ ἀνεφίκτῳ τὸ τίμιον ἔχῃ καὶ τὸ σεβάσμιον. τοῦτο γὰρ πάντως σοφιστικὸν καὶ ἀλλότριον, μὴ ὅτι θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπου μετρίως ἐπιεικοῦς, καί τι δεξιὸν ἑαυτῷ συνειδότος, ἐκ τοῦ κωλύειν ἑτέρους τὸ πρωτεῖον πορίζεσθαι.