Ὅσον δ’ οὖν ἐκ τῶν ἡμῖν ἐφικτῶν, ὁ μὲν ὤν, καὶ 17, 1 ἔδοσαν] ἔδωκαν f || 6 πώποτε ὀλὸν f || 7 παντελῶς θεοῦ eg || 9 ἄλλου] ἄλλης b ΙΙ 12 ἔαν] ἀν’ def || 14 ὀνομάσωμεν ag ’tres Reg.’ 1. χαρακτῆρσιν ἰδίοις] ‘ with special and peculiar characters.' Gr.'s account of the matter somewhat confused. While it is well known that the Jews never pronounced the name, there seems to be no ground for saying that it was written in a peculiar script. 3. ἀκοινώνητον] ‘ not right that God should be put on a level us. ’ 5. λυομένη] Cp. ii 13. The sound is uttered and melts away and perishes ; it is therefore unsuitable for expressing the indissoluble, imperishable nature of God. 6. ἰδιάζουσαν] This epithet is added in a not strictly logical position. The fact that God's nature is unique is no reason why it should not be expressed in fleeting sounds. The word is added in ref. to the custom mentioned, of using a special character. 8. περὶ αὐτόν] contrasted with κατ’ αὐτόν. For Gr.'s use of περί with ace. see iii 10, 12. Certain facts in connexion with God are known to us, and from these we dimly and tentatively draw for ourselves pictures of what He actually is. 9. ἄλλην ἀπ’ ἄλλου] We put our mental image together, deriving part of it from one quarter, part from another. 11. ὁ δεσμός] Elias is, no doubt, right in understanding the bond which binds the soul to the body. Cp. iii 8. 12. φαντασθῇ πλόον] Cp. ii 17. 13. ἴνδαλμα] Cp. ii 20. 18. Two names come neatest to expressing His nature, I AM, and GOD. Of these, however, God, and Lord also, is after all a relative term, I AM is a less inadequate name, because it is positive and absolute. 15. ἐκ τῶν ἡμ. ἐφικτῶν] sc. ὀνομάτων. ὁ θεός, μᾶλλόν πὼς τῆς οὐσίας ὀνόματα· καὶ τούτων μᾶλλον ὁ ὤν· οὐ μόνον ὅτι τῷ Μωυσεῖ χρηματίζων ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους, καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν ἀπαιτούμενος, ἥ τίς ποτε εἴη, τοῦτο προσεῖπεν ἑαυτόν, ’Ο ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με, τῷ λαῷ κελεύσας εἰπεῖν· ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ κυριωτέραν ταύτην εὐρίσκομεν. ἢ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ, κἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν, ἢ αἴθειν, ἠτυμολόγηται τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα κομψοῖς, διὰ τὸ ἀεικίνητον καὶ δαπανητικὸν τῶν μοχθῇρῶν ἕξεων, — καὶ γὰρ πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐντεῦθεν λέγεται, — ἀλλ’ οὖν τῶν πρός τι λεγομένων ἐστί, καὶ οὐκ ἄφετος· ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ κύριος φωνή, ὄνομα εἶναι θεοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ λεγομένη· Ἐγὼ γάρ, φησι, κύριος ὁ θεός σου· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν ὄνομα. καί, κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ. ἡμεῖς δὲ φύσιν ἐπιζητοῦμεν, ᾗ τὸ εἶναι καθ’ ἑαυτό, καὶ οὐκ ἄλλῳ συνδεδεμένον· τὸ δὲ ὂν ἴδιον ὄντως θεοῦ, 18, 3 η] ει ’unus Reg.' || 11 ἀυτὴ] αὕτη ac || 12 μου] μοι b ‘ Reg. Cypr.’ || 13 η] ἢ f || 14 ἄλλω] ἄλλο af || ὂν] ὢν b 1. τῆς οὐσίας] as contrasted with τῆς ἐξουσίας etc. § 19. 2. χρηματίζων] ‘ dealing with'; or perh. ’delivering His oracles to.’ Cp. Or. xxxviii 7. 4. ö ὢν ἄπεστ’. με] Ex. iii 14. 5. κυριωτέραν] The word is used in the sense of ‘ proper ’ literally correct,' as distinguished from τροπικός. Cp. κυρίως in iii 14. 6. ἀπὸ τοῦ θ. ἢ αἴθ’.] The first is ’s etymology (Crat. 397 c). It is not known whence Gr. took the second. The tract de Definitionibus, printed among the works of Athanasius from which it is quoted by Suicer, is of later date. 8. δαπανητικόν] Cp. § 6. ib. πῦρ καταναλ.] Heb. xii 29 ; Deut. iv 24. 9. ἀλλ’ οὖν τῶν πρός τι λ. ἑ.] ’ is nevertheless a relative word, not absolute one.' Cp. iii 12. 11. ἐγὼγάρ...ὄνομα] Α combination of Ex. xx 2 and Is. xlii 8. 12. κύριος ὄν. αὐτῷ] Ex. xv 3. 13. φύσιν ἐπιζ. κτλ.] ‘are in quest of a nature (i.e. of a which will properly denote a nature) ; and a nature is a thing dependent upon connexion with something else.' Gr. does not in these words mean to describe a property which distinguishes the divine nature from others. It is a common property of all natures. ‘Man,’ for ex., is not the name of a relationship, but of a substantive thing ; while ’husband,’ ’slave,’ 'Cappadocian, ’ which express a relationship, are not the names of a nature. 14. ἴδιον ὄντως θεοῦ] so ἐστίν. What we are in quest of, we find in the name ὁ ὤν ; for τὸ ὂν is the special property of God, and belongs to Him in its entirety, not partially, as it does to other beings, who only have a share in existence. It is a little surprising that Gr. does not say τὸ δὲ εἶναι, instead of τὸ δὲ ὄν. Perhaps it is because he has used τὸ εἶναι immediately before in a somewhat different sense (viz. of what a thing is, rather than that it is) ; and whereas τὸ εἶναι represents existence as a purely conceptual thing, τὸ ὂν represents it as actually existing, and so is better suited to denote the fulness of the divine nature. καὶ ὅλον, μήτε τῷ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, μήτε τῷ μετ’ αὐτόν, οὐ γὰρ ἢν, ἢ ἔσται, περατούμενον ἢ περικοπτόμενον.