76 Dan Batovici manuscripts of Jn 1:13. The class generally regarded as the better one does not have the note. Jeauneau considers this to be the purer text: the note would simply throw off the rhythm of the otherwise very careful Eriugenian style. One particular manuscript, however, has readings from both classes, including this note. Jeauneau argues that it represents a tradition anterior to the separation of the two classes, rather than being a manuscript contaminated by both classes. Furthermore, engaging specifically the textual questions from Nestle’s article, he considers this phrase to be most likely Eriugenian, on the count that it is definitely an observation Eriugena would write, as he does on many occasions in the Homily and the Commentary on John. In Jeauneau’s words: “Si j’ai enfermé cette remarque dans des parenthèses, ce n’est pas que je la considère comme inauthentique. … J’ai mis entre parenthèses les mots In antiquis-nati sunt, parce que je les considère comme une glose, inscrite par Jean Scot lui-même en marge de son homélie, qu’un copiste aura voulu, par la suite, incorporer au texte.”21 Jeauneau then shows how the model he proposes is not without parallel: a manuscript of Eriugena’s main work, Periphyseon, displays plenty of marginal notes which have been identified as autographs and which, in later manuscripts, have been incorporated in the main text.22 I would follow Jeauneau in considering this a highly probable Eriugenian note; the introductory formula is similar enough to other instances. For example, in chapter VI of the homily, it reads: Sed significantius ex graecorum exemplaribus potest intelligi. We have here the same vocabulary in mentioning Greek manuscripts: in or ex graecorum exemplaribus. It is also a rather unlikely thing to add to Eriugena’s text. Given that Eriugena is known to have worked with the text of a number of Greek fathers, a further question would be: could he have found this reading in their texts? It is altogether possible. Yet, to our knowledge, from the list of Greek authors Eriugena read and used, only Epiphanius is mentioned as offering shorter versions of Jn 1:13. However, he only “cuts” one part or the other, never both “flesh will” and “man will,” so far as we know.23 I would then propose that it is not unreasonable to regard the phrase qvi non ex sangvinibus sed ex deo nati svnt as a Patristic variant reading for Jn. 1:13. It should perhaps make it into an apparatus of John that 21 Jeauneau, SC 151, 339. 22 Jeauneau, CCCM 166, lii, n. 74. 23 See the discussion concerning Jn 1:13 (which does not include Eriugena) in P. Lamarche, “Le prologue de Jean,” Recherches de science religieuse 52 (1964) 497-537, reprinted in his Christ vivant: essai sur la christologie du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1966) 87-140, esp. 94-100.