I. GENESIS 1:9–10 IN HOMILY 4

58.16–20 καὶ … θαλάσσας. As is to be demonstrated, this was not the text that Basil would have originally intended, rather he would have read: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός· συναχθήτω τὰ ὕδατα εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν, καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσε θαλάσσας.

This citation of Genesis 1:9–10 follows immediately upon the long sentence in 58.6–15 that ends: ἐκ τῶν ἀρτίως ἡμῖν ἀνεγνωσμένων κατόψει, which could be translated: ‘from what will have just been read by us [that is, Basil], you will behold’, or ‘from what has just been read to us, you will behold’. If the first interpretation were preferred, then the text that follows in 58.16–20 would be the promised reading. The trouble is that 58.6–15 naturally refers not just to Genesis 1:9–10 but also to the preceding verses of Genesis 1. This fact points to the second interpretation, whereby these words would point to a reading of a longer portion of Genesis 1 from earlier in the church service. This prior reading, however, would not prevent Basil from rereading the relevant section.Footnote ² The upshot is that there is no need to suppose that the text of Genesis 1:9–10 was originally placed earlier by Basil and then moved here by a stenographer or later scribe.

It is unclear how the form of the biblical text of 58.16–20 crept into our manuscripts. The wealth of details makes it unlikely that Basil preached these sermons completely ex tempore,Footnote ³ but 129.12–13 (Hex. 8.2) does show clear evidence of a transcript of a preached sermon. It is, therefore, most likely that the texts represent not simply the version that was prepared, but rather the version that was preached and noted down, though the possibility of further revisions after the delivery cannot be ruled out.Footnote ⁴ It may be the case that this version of Genesis 1:9–10 was introduced when the shorthand transcript was incorrectly written out, but there is no way to know. Even if this were the case, however, there is no need to limit our critical faculties to an early written out text. Rather, by using internal evidence, we can clearly discern the text that Basil intended.

Thanks to Basil's quotation on page 64, it is easy to reconstruct the proper text. The first part of the text is found at 64.3–4 (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός· συναχθήτω τὰ ὕδατα εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά.), then Basil records what comes next at 64.11 (καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.). Basil provides the text he believes should be deleted in 64.14–15 (καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά), and then shows how the text should continue in 64.20–1 (καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν, καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσε θαλάσσας.). The differences should be clearly visible in the following tables:

In addition to page 64, the necessity of the change in 58.16–17 from τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν to τὰ ὕδατα εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν is also abundantly proved by every other citation of this verse in this homily. For τὰ ὕδατα (instead of τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), see 59.2, 60.4,9–10,23 and 61.15–16. For συναγωγὴν μίαν (instead of τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν), which A3 and other manuscripts recorded in Naldini and in GietFootnote ⁵ correctly transmit, consider Basil's discussion at 59.15,19 and the further quotations at 60.10,23–4 and 61.16.

As alluded to above, although Basil was aware of the reading in 58.17–19 (καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά), he would not have quoted it here. This becomes clear at 64.11–19, where he explicitly rejects this variant. The arguments that Basil uses in this section reveal that he derived this conclusion from a commentary: in 64.16–17 he says that the other translators and the Hebrew lack these words and in 64.18–19 he says that the precise copies mark these words for deletion. Since it is reasonable to assume that he would not have collated copies of manuscripts, it is clear that he derived this conclusion from a commentary that also had information about readings from the Hexapla. In fact, John Philoponus, De opificio mundi 4.4 makes it very likely that the source is Origen's commentary on Genesis.Footnote ⁶

As already alluded to, the text as printed by the editors of the GCS and contained in many of the manuscripts seems to have found its way into Basil's textual tradition from an external form of the biblical text. 58.16–17 (τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν [LXX:Footnote ⁷ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν]) could have arisen in the non-Basilian form of the biblical text through a harmonization with 58.18 (τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν  =  LXX). This harmonization prevents a contradiction (that is found in the Septuagint manuscripts) in the wording between what God orders and what happens afterwards. In other words, in the Septuagint text, God first commands the water to gather εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, but then it says that the water gathered εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν.

An easy fix was just to get rid of συναγωγὴν μίαν, especially since Genesis 1:10 again uses the plural when it says καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας. Basil, however, never conceived of this solution. Rather, by rejecting 58.17–19 outright, he saves himself from having to explain the possible contradiction between what God orders (in 58.16–17) and what happens afterwards (in 58.17–18, which, however, in my reconstruction of Basil's text ends up merely being καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως).

It should be noted that the Göttingen Septuagint does not record the variants found in Basil's text.Footnote ⁸

64.23 [ὤφθη ξηρά] This is a vexing textual problem, but most likely these two words were not in Basil's text. They were, however, very likely in the texts from which the extant manuscripts were copied, and crept in because they represented the dominant form of the biblical text at that time. In fact, the reading was probably ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά, and the article was later omitted owing to haplography. Nevertheless, this does not settle the issue of Basil's text. Since Basil had just rejected this reading (64.11–19), it is improbable that he would have forgotten this and included it. In fact, A3 also correctly omits it. It seems, though, that the scribe of A3 noticed this problem and made a correct emendation, since elsewhere in this homily he proves himself to be attentive and prone to make small corrections; see, for example, 59.3, 60.20, 61.18, 62.25 and 67.4. In other words, A3 likely represents a correction to, and not a preservation of, the proper text; cf. 58.16–20 καὶ … θαλάσσας. In sum, despite the reading of the manuscripts, these words were not part of Basil's text.

II. GENESIS 1:11 IN HOMILY 5

69.2–4 καὶ … αὐτῷ. The form of the text of Genesis 1:11 is likely correctly preserved here, but it is different in the subsequent quotations in the homily.Footnote ⁹ In order to make the issues clearer, the Septuagint text of Genesis 1:11 printed by WeversFootnote ¹⁰ (which, of course, does not necessarily represent the text of reference for Basil or for the medieval scribes) and all of the significant forms of the text from this homily (the variant in 126.10–11 [Hex. 8.1] is not relevant here) are listed below:

It is clear that Basil included καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός from his discussion of πρόσταγμα in 69.5–10. It is, however, impossible to know from Basil's works what the end of the biblical text that Basil had before him was. It is also obvious that he did not read καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως to his congregation because he did not comment on it and none of the manuscripts has it. This, however, would not give sufficient grounds to conclude that his copy of the Bible lacked these words. Basil also never quotes Genesis 1:12–13 in the Hexaemeron. It is conceivable that Genesis 1:12 (except for καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν) would seem redundant in light of the last part of Genesis 1:11 (καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως; cf. 64.11–19), or possibly vice versa, but there is no way of knowing from Basil's works what, if anything, was left out of Basil's copy of the Bible.

In 73.7–8 καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα is added to the first κατὰ γένος, and in 77.18 καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα is added to the second κατὰ γένος. In light of the fact that Basil never explicitly discusses these words or calls attention to the potential redundancy or similarity between κατὰ γένος and καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, it is better to view them as a secondary harmonization with the Septuagint by a later scribe (cf. 73.7–8 βλαστησάτω … κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα.). In light of this decision, it is more likely that the text of 77.18 is secondary and that κατὰ γένος rightly comes between καρπὸν and οὗ (cf. 77.17–18 ‘ξύλον κάρπιμον’, φησί, ‘ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.’).

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς comes at the end of the scriptural quotation in both 77.17–18 and 85.1. It seems very likely that Basil shortened the quotation at 85.1 and intentionally left out the cumbersome οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος (as he had also omitted βοτάνην χόρτου, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος). At 78.8–9, however, the text is similar to 69.2–4, except that κατὰ γένος is lacking and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς stands in its place. The text at 78.8–9, however, is a paraphrase put in the mouth of an imaginary opponent and Basil may have changed the order since he wanted to avoid *ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκδοῦναι ἡ γῆ; cf. 78.8–9 ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. Therefore, it is best to take ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς as the concluding words of the sentence in Basil's copy of the Bible. There is no need, however, to add them to the text here, because there is no reason why he could not end the quotation before the actual end of the sentence.

73.7–8 βλαστησάτω … κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα. All of the manuscripts recorded in the GCS edition have καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα here, but lack these words at 69.3.Footnote ¹¹ Although one may wonder why a later scribe would bother adding καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα to a partial quotation of Genesis 1:11, the fact that all of the manuscripts of the Septuagint recorded in Wevers's apparatus criticus (except ὁμοίωσιν, 121) also have these words does give rise to the suspicion that the text of Basil has been brought in line with the dominant text form. Furthermore, it is noticeable that Basil never explicitly discusses these words or calls attention to the potential redundancy or similarity between κατὰ γένος and καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα. Since Basil did not have these words at 69.3, and since he never discusses them in the Hexaemeron, it is best to view this as a harmonization with the dominant text form of the Septuagint and to delete them from this passage (cf. 69.2–4 καὶ … αὐτῷ.).

Interestingly, the same textual problem is found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica. These words (καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα) are not present in any of the manuscripts recorded in the GCS edition at 7.10.5, but they are present at 7.11.2. Finally, it should be noted that the Göttingen Septuagint does not record the variants found in Basil's Hexaemeron or in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica for Genesis 1:11.Footnote ¹²

77.17–18 ‘ξύλον κάρπιμον’, φησί, ‘ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς’. The text here is not certain, despite the fact that there are no recorded differences among the manuscripts. For Basil's current purposes, he does not really need any words after ξύλον κάρπιμον. Nevertheless, it is likely that he quoted more extensively, because this is the first time since the very beginning of this homily (69.2–4) that he has quoted this part of the verse. It is unlikely that the text contained καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα since Basil never discusses these words or calls attention to the potential redundancy or similarity between κατὰ γένος and καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα (cf. 73.7–8 βλαστησάτω … κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα.).

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς was not quoted in 69.2–4, but there is ultimately no reason to remove it here (it is also present in the two paraphrases at 78.8–9 and 85.1). At first sight, Eustathius’ Latin translation might seem to support the omission of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς since the Latin equivalent (for example, super terram) never appears.Footnote ¹³ If, however, it is correct to reject καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα, then the preserved text of Eustathius is already unreliable at this point, as it reads inter haec praecepit quoque lignum nasci fructuosum faciens fructum cuius semen in ipso est secundum genus et similitudinem. Footnote ¹⁴

The final difficulty is whether κατὰ γένος should remain where it is or should come between καρπὸν and οὗ. If it is correct that καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα does not belong in the original text, then it is already clear that the text here has been altered. It is safer, then, to suppose that the text in 69.3 is original, and that the text here has been adapted to the form of the Septuagint that a later scribe considered accurate. The reconstructed text that should be read is the following: ‘ξύλον κάρπιμον’, φησί, ‘ποιοῦν καρπὸν κατὰ γένος, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς’.

78.8–9 ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. There is no reason to view these words as a quotation, since Basil explicitly offers them as an objection from an imaginary interlocutor. It is, of course, possible that these words were corrupted in transmission, but, barring new evidence, there is no reason to assume this.Footnote ¹⁵ Basil may have simply found it stylistically better to avoid *ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκδοῦναι ἡ γῆ. It is best, then, to let the text stand as it is, but not to use it as evidence for the text of Basil's Septuagint. Cf. 69.2–4 καὶ … αὐτῷ.

III. HOMILY 4

58.6 ἱστώμενον. It is unclear why the GCS editors choose the later form here (from ἱστάω) instead of ἱστάμενον, which we should read. Perhaps it is simply because the previous editors made the opposite decision? At least in the Hexaemeron, however, Basil always uses the classical forms of ἵστημι. Cf. 3.14 (Hex. 1.2), 124.5 (Hex. 7.6), 143.19 (Hex. 8.8) and 148.3 (Hex. 9.2), which is decisive because there we find ἱσταμένη without variant.

58.8 ἀέρα κεχυμένον. It is better to read ἀέρα δὲ κεχυμένον with B1,Footnote ¹⁶ as the structure of the list necessitates this connector. As printed, the list has four components with the first marked by μέν (58.6) and the second (58.7) and fourth (58.13) by δέ.Footnote ¹⁷ It would be quite odd not to mark the third component. It is probable that the perfect participle beginning in κε- led to the loss of the preceding δέ.Footnote ¹⁸

66.22 [οὐ] πρὸς τὸ ὄρθιον. The better reading lacks οὐ since it is both the lectio difficilior and the variant which the great majority of the manuscripts preserve. It is unlikely that a scribe would feel the need to remove οὐ if it were present. Rather, οὐ was added to avoid the apparent contradiction with σκολιαῖς (66.22), thus making the two phrases synonymous. ὄρθιος, however, does not mean simply ‘straight’ but rather ‘straight up, steep, uphill’. See LSJ s.v. ὄρθιος: ‘ὄρθιον or πρὸς ὄρθιον ἰέναι, march uphill’. Furthermore, this meaning is necessary for the argument, as the idea is that the wind pushes the water up through the surface of the earth (66.23–4). Finally, ἐπειδὰν σκολιαῖς καὶ [οὐ] πρὸς τὸ ὄρθιον φερομέναις ἐναποληφθῇ διεξόδοις is translated as cum aliquibus montuosis obstaculis retardata fuerit in Eustath. Bas. hex. 4.6.4. This is obviously not a literal translation, but it does support deleting οὐ since mountainous obstacles not only are crooked but also rise upward.

IV. HOMILY 5

70.10 διακεκόσμητο. A1, A3 and C1 all have the augmented form (διεκεκόσμητο), and B1 and G1 have διεκόσμητο, which also leads one to suspect an original augmented form that was mutilated by haplography. The external evidence is, then, more or less evenly divided. There are a number of examples of the properly augmented pluperfect in the Hexaemeron: ἐπήρτητο (29.10, Hex. 2.5), προειλήφει (89.19, Hex. 6.2), διεκέκριτο (90.1, Hex. 6.2) and συνήθροιστο (90.2, Hex. 6.2). Furthermore, it is not hard to find examples from Basil's other works: κατεκέχρητο,Footnote ¹⁹ ἐκεκώφωτο (ἐκκεκώφητο Y),Footnote ²⁰ ἐδεδοίκειν,Footnote ²¹ ἐκέκριτοFootnote ²² and ἐκέχρητο.Footnote ²³ On the other hand, there are (at least) two examples in the Hexaemeron, where the pluperfect is unaugmented and the manuscripts do not offer any variants: δεδημιούργητο (89.19–90.1, Hex. 6.2) and πεπλήρωτο (90.3, Hex. 6.2). In light of the three properly augmented pluperfects in the immediate vicinity (listed above: 89.19, 90.1.2), one should not be too quick to regularize, as it is possible that Basil intentionally omitted the augment in these two instances for the sake of variety. Furthermore, it is possible that words like εἴρητο (58.24, Hex. 4.2, though E3 has the perfect, εἴρηται),Footnote ²⁴ where the two forms are always only distinguished by the ending, make it easier not to miss the augment in the pluperfect. Nevertheless, there is not any apparent reason why he would have chosen to omit the augment in our passage. On balance, then, the evidence slightly favours the conclusion that Basil did not omit the augment and that we should read διεκεκόσμητο.

70.21–2 ὥστε … ἀφώρισται. belongs before the quotation of Genesis (70.20–1), as the end of the previous paragraph (70.19). This is clear from the fact that it fits thematically and logically with what precedes and not with what follows. The repeated use of ὥστε (70.21 and then 71.1) is likely responsible for the displacement. The Bible verse must have been omitted at some point and then was reinserted before the wrong ὥστε. For other examples in this homily of ὥστε marking the end of a section, cf. 73.5, 76.1 and 76.16.

Eustathius’ Latin also confirms that the Greek text as printed is problematic, even though it too does not fully and properly reflect Basil's thought. The two texts are reproduced continuously, but side-by-side, to help display the differences:

It is immediately apparent that the Latin is relatively close to the Greek, though not fully literal. The first sentence need not be discussed but is provided merely to make clear that the Latin lacks the quotation of Genesis 1:11 from 70.20–1. No one would miss the quotation from the Latin at this point and this fact supports the impression that it is not fitting in the Greek. Furthermore, the Latin indicates that the scriptural quotation was probably missing from an early Greek version. If one were tempted simply to delete it from the Greek on the basis of the Latin, then one should consider the problematic way in which the Latin continues. First, ὥστε has been translated simply by et. Furthermore, hunc, which is used to translate τοιοῦτον, has been moved to the beginning of the clause and refers backwards to the explanation that Basil just gave. In the Greek, however, τοιοῦτον clearly points forward and ὥστε refers backward. It was necessary to change the meaning of ὥστε to et since what preceded was lost. Second, Basil's paraphrase is marked as if it were simply a scriptural quotation. It is correct that Basil often marks new subsections with partial quotations,Footnote ²⁷ but the phrase pabuli et semen seminans does not match the text form, rather it is a paraphrase, not only in the Greek originalFootnote ²⁸ but also in the Latin translation.Footnote ²⁹ Finally, if there are not two forms of the text, then nunc (νῦν) does not have a point of reference since it is used to contrast the original form of the text with the paraphrased version. Therefore, in the Latin, Genesis 1:11 was omitted early and never properly re-added, whereas in the Greek it was omitted but re-added before the wrong ὥστε.

71.1–2 ὥστε εἶναι τὸν νοῦν … ‘βλαστησάτω … γένος’. The quotation marks should be removed and this should not be seen as an example of textual criticism.Footnote ³⁰ As is clear from 64.11–19, Basil was prepared to accept changes to the Greek text of the Septuagint. In contrast to that passage, however, his use of the word νοῦν here makes clear that he is not interested in changing the wording of the text. Rather, he seeks to make sense of it by paraphrasing it. A fragment from Origen's commentary on Genesis addresses the same problem.Footnote ³¹ Origen argues for a change in punctuation by reading a raised dot between χόρτου and σπέρμα, and Basil is essentially doing the same thing by paraphrasing the text with καί. He differs from Origen, however, in that he changes the order of σπεῖρον and σπέρμα. This is, again, a paraphrase to make clear that σπέρμα is modified by σπεῖρον and βλαστησάτω. Origen interpreted σπέρμα as the object of σπεῖρον which modifies γένος. The fact that Origen, while contemplating interpretative possibilities, left the text intact also makes it less likely that Basil would change it. Notice that Basil, like Origen, hedges his critique of the wording with δοκούσης (71.4). Finally, it should be noted that, when the scriptural quotation is repeated (73.7–8), καί is not present and it reads σπεῖρον σπέρμα, not σπέρμα σπεῖρον.

73.21 καλάμων. This might be a typographical slip on the part of the editors (GCS, but also Naldini [(n. 5), 138.17], Giet [(n. 3), 290.3] and Garnier [PG 29, 100C]), but, as accented, this form is derived from κάλαμος (as it is also listed in the GCS Wortregister, 199).Footnote ³² It is better to read καλαμῶν, from καλάμη (‘stalk’), which is found in the immediate context (cf. 73.14,24, 74.6) and makes better sense, because this passage is discussing the development of plants from a seed (73.15–16) and κάλαμος (‘reed’) was an example of a plant that lacked a seed (71.8). Furthermore, the proper balanced opposition is obviously between roots and stalks, not between roots and reeds.

75.1–2 ἔδει ἢ μὴ … ἢ παραχθὲν ἄναιμον. The text as printed is the most clear and readable (and, therefore, also the most suspicious), but is only found in one manuscript, and as a correction at that. Consider the following table:

It is likely that the omission of the first ἤ is due to the fact that it is preceded by –ει and followed by μή. It seems safe to assume, then, that the original text had the first ἤ and that it was omitted owing to the similarity of the surrounding sounds. After the scribe of A3 overlooked the first ἤ, he may have felt the need to add παραχθέν in order to make the text more readable (though, of course, B2, E1 and G2 did not). The second scribe to work on A1 is not likely to be an independent witness and may well have added παραχθέν after looking at A3. Amand de Mendieta and Rudberg describe C1 as a contaminated manuscript that, nevertheless, adheres closely to the A group.Footnote ³³ It is, of course, unlikely that the scribes of A3 and C1 would independently make the same correction. This passage would, therefore, support the hypothesis that C1 is dependent on A3.Footnote ³⁴ In any event, despite the remote possibility that παραχθέν was omitted because it seemed redundant, it is more likely that Basil did not write παραχθέν. Therefore, we should read ἔδει ἢ μὴ … ἢ ἄναιμον.

75.6 σοὶ δέ. Three manuscripts have γε after δέ (which answers μέν in 75.4). It seems more likely that scribes would omit γε rather than add it. Furthermore, it is fitting to the context that a determinative γε would be added to the pronoun.Footnote ³⁵ In short, read σοὶ δὲ γε.

75.9 οὐδὲν ἀχρήστως. A3, E1, E3 and E2Footnote ³⁶ all correctly read οὐδὲ instead of οὐδέν.Footnote ³⁷ The medieval scribes may have added the letter ν in order to avoid hiatus. Furthermore, the fact that οὐδέν immediately precedes may have led them to repeat the same word accidentally. One might prefer the text as printed in the GCS edition on the grounds that the repeated οὐδέν is more emphatic. Yet, the text reads much more smoothly with οὐδέ. If οὐδέν is read, there are two asyndetically joined subjects that have been made in synonymous ways. If οὐδέ is read, there is one subject that has been made in a way that is described by two synonyms. The second option fits the context better.

For οὐδὲν … οὐδέ in the Hexaemeron, see 12.9 (Hex. 1.7), 65.13–14 (Hex. 4.5), 154.20–1 (Hex. 9.5) and 156.20 (Hex. 9.5).Footnote ³⁸ The usage of other authors of ἀργ– and ἄχρηστ– also favours οὐδέ; consider the following: οὐ μὴν ἀργῶς οὐδὲ ἀχρήστως ἐμνημόνευσε καὶ τῆς ἀποφάσεως,Footnote ³⁹ τὸ τῆς γῆς στοιχεῖον οὐκ εἰς ἀργὸν οὐδὲ εἰς ἄχρηστον κατεσκεύασα,Footnote ⁴⁰ οὐκ ἀργὸν οὐδὲ ἄχρηστον εἰς ἔκπληξιν,Footnote ⁴¹ καὶ ταῦτα δ’ οὐ τελέως ἀργὰ οὐδ’ ἄχρηστα,Footnote ⁴² πλήθει γὰρ ἀχρήστῳ καὶ ἀργῷ προεξαναλώθη τὰ τοῖς μαχίμοις διαρκεῖν δυνάμενα,Footnote ⁴³ and ἡ γένεσις ἀέρος, ὅσον ἤμελλεν ἄλλως ἀργὸν καὶ ἄχρηστον ἐκπνεῖσθαι.Footnote ⁴⁴

76.8 διδασκάλιον. The graphical difference between διδασκάλιον (‘lesson’) and διδασκαλεῖον (‘school’) is, of course, extremely slight. Nevertheless, the fact that, among the reported Greek manuscripts,Footnote ⁴⁵ only C1 has διδασκάλιον makes it possible that C1's scribe introduced διδασκάλιον as a correction to the prima facie erroneous reading that he had in his ‘Vorlage’—namely, διδασκαλεῖον.Footnote ⁴⁶ The meaning is that the command is instructive for nature, or that the command teaches nature. The command is not something that is once given and then disappears, but rather something that remains present in the earth (cf. 69.7–10 and 86.1–10). The continuing presence of the command makes the sense ‘lesson’ (διδασκάλιον) inappropriate. The idea of a school (διδασκαλεῖον) allows the command to be something that nature can continually look to or, in keeping with the metaphor, visit. Furthermore, there is a parallel in Hippocrates for the metaphorical use of διδασκαλεῖον: τὸ γὰρ ἔθος τῇσι χερσὶ κάλλιστον διδασκαλεῖον.Footnote ⁴⁷ The manuscripts of Hippocrates are also not in agreement and have both διδασκάλιον and διδασκαλεῖον, but Jouanna has made a convincing case for διδασκαλεῖον.Footnote ⁴⁸ In light of these considerations, it is clear that διδασκαλεῖον is the better reading (pace Garnier, PG 104A, n. 37).

80.5 σαρκίνην. On balance, it is better to follow A1, A3 and G3 and read σαρκικήν in light of the entries in LampeFootnote ⁴⁹ and BDAG.Footnote ⁵⁰

80.18 [ἐπ]ανέδραμε. The prefix ἐπ(ί) does not fit in this context, as there is no sense of returning. ἀνατρέχω, however, fits perfectly (see LSJ s.v. ἀνατρέχω II.3.). The prefix probably was mistakenly added by a later scribe as a result of ἐπανέλθωμεν (80.17) still ringing in his ear. Therefore, it is better to follow E1, E2 and G2 in reading ἀνέδραμε.Footnote ⁵¹

83.5 προσβλαβής. This word does not exist,Footnote ⁵² but is a false division of πρὸς βλάβης.Footnote ⁵³ LSJ cite one example: προσβλαβὴς ἂν γένοιτο.Footnote ⁵⁴ It is immediately clear that in both Basil and Philodemus, the letters προσβλαβησ are taken as a predicate nominative with γί(γ)νομαι. The examples in which πρὸς βλάβης (and not προσβλαβῆ or προσβλαβεῖς) is the predicate for an accusative singular or for a neuter plural or for a masculine nominative plural show, however, that the proper reading is πρὸς βλάβης (and not προσβλαβής). The following five passages are presented as evidence: 1) συννοήσας δὲ Καῖσαρ τὴν ἀπάτην πρὸς βλάβης μὲν ἔγνω τὸν ἐν πολέμοις ἔλεον,Footnote ⁵⁵ 2) ὁ δὲ Τίτος ὡς ἑώρα τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἱεροῖς φειδὼ πρὸς βλάβης τοῖς στρατιώταις γινομένην καὶ φόνου, τὰς πύλας προσέταξεν ὑφάπτειν,Footnote ⁵⁶ 3) ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον πάντα ταῦτα πρὸς βλάβης μᾶλλόν ἐστι,Footnote ⁵⁷ 4) ἂν δὲ πολλοὶ ὦσιν, ἀσύμφοροι ἀλλήλοις ἔσονται καὶ πρὸς βλάβης,Footnote ⁵⁸ 5) τὸ δὲ παρερρίφθαι τὰ τῶν Ἀπολιναρίων Χριστιανικὰ ποιήματα καὶ πάλιν τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς τὴν Ἑλλήνων μανθάνειν παιδείαν, οὐκέτι τοῦτο λυσιτελεῖν τῷ Χριστιανισμῷ· πρὸς βλάβης γὰρ <μᾶλλον> εἶναι τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν παιδείαν πολυθεΐαν διδάσκουσαν.Footnote ⁵⁹

83.10 πῶς < ἂν > ἀνθρώπινος. We should follow Renehan in adding ἄν here.Footnote ⁶⁰ It is clear that ἄν, which is, of course, postpositive,Footnote ⁶¹ has been omitted owing to haplology. The fact that TrunkFootnote ⁶² has noted a few places where ἄν is omitted in Basil does not negate this observation, since the examples are indeed few and not based on critical texts. Furthermore, the examples from the Hexaemeron that he gives—namely, in 18.12 (Hex. 1.11) and 22.10 (Hex. 2.1)—are not relevant either because they represent an exceptional fixed formula or, more likely, because Basil actually did include ἄν and we should follow the manuscripts that read κἄν instead of καί. Finally, this reading is confirmed by the fact that all of the optatives in the immediate context also have ἄν (83.9,18; also in this homily, cf. 78.16, 81.5,20 and 84.20).