{"slug":"stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola I 'Adversus Sabellianos' [Fragmentum]","title_source":"Epistola I 'Adversus Sabellianos' [Fragmentum]","author":"SS Dionysius","genre":"letter","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:04:07Z","cost_usd":0.002506},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0108d/stoa001/stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":775,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":3101,"commentary_units":23,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":4,"work_notes":5,"external_links":2,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola I 'Adversus Sabellianos' is a fragmentary Latin letter traditionally attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264/5). Surviving only in a ninth-century manuscript, the text breaks off mid-sentence, with its opening and closing lost. The fragment opposes Sabellian modalism—the view that Father and Son are the same person—while also warning against tritheism, which divides the divine monarchy into three separate hypostases. No Greek original is known, and the Latin may be a later translation or epitome. The fragment was cited by later Latin authors, notably in the Pseudo-Athanasian corpus, as a witness against Sabellianism, but its influence was limited by its fragmentary state. Its theological argument is truncated, complicating analysis of its Trinitarian position.","historical_context":"The fragment is preserved in a single ninth-century Latin manuscript, possibly copied from an earlier exemplar. Its traditional attribution to Dionysius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria, c. 248–264/5) is unconfirmed; the anti-Sabellian content fits the mid-third century, when Sabellianism (a modalist monarchianism taught by Sabellius, fl. early 3rd c.) was a live controversy. However, the Latin text may be a later translation or epitome of a lost Greek original. The fragment was transmitted through Latin channels and cited by later authors, including in the Pseudo-Athanasian corpus, indicating its use in fourth-century anti-Arian polemic. The abrupt ending ('monarchiam') and scribal variants (e.g., 'Ires' for 'tres') suggest the original letter is lost. The work's community is uncertain: it may have circulated among Latin-speaking theologians who used it to combat modalism and tritheism, but its fragmentary state limits knowledge of its original setting.","significance":"The fragment is significant as an early witness to Trinitarian controversy, opposing both Sabellian modalism and tritheism. It illustrates the development of the term 'hypostases' in a technical sense, anticipating later Nicene distinctions. Its transmission via the Pseudo-Athanasian corpus shows its later use in anti-Arian polemic, despite its fragmentary survival. The work highlights the challenges of reconstructing early Christian theology from incomplete, translated sources.","timeline":[{"date":"early 3rd c.","event":"Sabellius teaches modalist monarchianism, identifying Father and Son as the same person."},{"date":"c. 248–264/5","event":"Dionysius of Alexandria serves as bishop; traditional but unconfirmed date for the original letter."},{"date":"4th c.","event":"The fragment is cited in the Pseudo-Athanasian corpus, used in anti-Arian polemic."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"The extant Latin manuscript is copied, possibly from an earlier exemplar."},{"date":"undated","event":"The Greek original, if it existed, is lost; the Latin translation or epitome is the only witness."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pseudo-Athanasian corpus","relation":"The fragment is cited in this corpus as a witness against Sabellianism.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Epistola de decretis Nicaenae Synodi (attributed to Athanasius)","relation":"The fragment is transmitted via this letter, suggesting its use in 4th-century anti-Arian polemic.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Dionysius of Alexandria, other works","relation":"Attribution to Dionysius is traditional but unconfirmed; no other works by him survive in this form.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Sabellius","label":"Sabellius","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius","reason":"Context for the modalist monarchianism opposed in the fragment."},{"key":"wikipedia:Dionysius of Alexandria","label":"Dionysius of Alexandria","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Alexandria","reason":"Traditional author of the letter, though attribution is unconfirmed."}],"cautions":["Attribution to Dionysius of Alexandria is traditional but unconfirmed; the letter may be pseudepigraphal or a later composition.","The date of the original letter is unknown; the anti-Sabellian content suggests the mid-third century, but the Latin text may be a later translation or epitome.","The fragment survives only in a single ninth-century Latin manuscript; no Greek original is known, and the text is truncated, limiting theological analysis.","The fragment's opening and closing are lost, and the extant text breaks off mid-sentence, so its original argument is incomplete."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.00052,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:04:07Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0108d/stoa001/stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0108d.stoa001.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":23,"english_words":775,"source_letters":3078,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is a fragment, surviving only in a single manuscript witness. Its opening and closing are lost, and the extant text breaks off mid-sentence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is preserved in a ninth-century Latin manuscript, possibly copied from an earlier exemplar. No Greek original is known to survive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Attribution to Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264/5) is traditional but unconfirmed. The anti-Sabellian content fits the mid-third century, but the Latin text may be a later translation or epitome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition cannot verify the original Greek wording or the completeness of the Latin translation. The fragment’s argument is truncated, limiting theological analysis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment was cited by later Latin authors (e.g., in the Pseudo-Athanasian corpus) as a witness against Sabellianism, but its influence was limited by its fragmentary state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 4 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":4},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EPISTOLÆ I, SEU OPERIS DIONYSII PAPÆ ADVERSUS SABELLIANOS\n\nFRAGMENTUM.\n\nJam vero æquum fuerit disputare adversus eos, qui monarchiam quæ augustissima est Ecclesiae Dei prædicatio, in tres quasdam virtutes ac separatas\n\nhypostases Iresque deitates dividentes ac discindentes destruunt (Athan., ep. de decret. Nic. Syn. n. 26). Audivi enim quosdam, quid apud vos divinum verbum prædicant et docent, hujus opinionis magistros esse qui quidem diametro, ut ita loquar, Sabellii opinioni adversantur. Hic enim bLasphemat, ipum Filium dicens esse Patrem, et vicissim: illi vero Ires Deos quodam modo prædicant, dum sanctam unitatem in tres diversas hypostases ab invicem omnino separa a, dividunt. Necesse est enim divinum Verbum Deo universorum esse unitum, ct Spiritum sanctum in Duo manere et inhabitare; adeoque divinam Trinitatem in unum, quasi in quemdam verticem, hoc est in Deum universorum omnipotentem reduci atque colligi. Insipientis enim Marcionis doctrina, quæ in tria principia monarchiam","english":"First Letter, or Work of Pope Dionysius Against the Sabellians\n\nFragment.\n\nNow it would have been fitting to dispute against those who, by dividing and rending the monarchy—which is the most august preaching of the Church of God—into three certain powers and separate hypostases and three deities, destroy it (Athanasius, Letter on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, no. 26). For I have heard that some who among you preach and teach the divine word are masters of this opinion, who indeed, diametrically, so to speak, oppose the opinion of Sabellius. For the latter blasphemes, saying that the Son Himself is the Father, and vice versa; but those others in some way preach three Gods, when they divide the holy unity into three diverse hypostases completely separate from one another. For it is necessary that the divine Word be united to the God of the universe, and that the Holy Spirit remain and dwell in the one; and thus the divine Trinity be reduced and gathered into one, as into a certain summit, that is, into the omnipotent God of the universe. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which divides the monarchy into three principles...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"hypostases","severity":"info","text":"The Greek term 'hypostases' (ὑποστάσεις) is used here in a technical theological sense, denoting distinct individual substances or persons, a key term in Trinitarian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Sabellii","severity":"info","text":"Sabellius (fl. early 3rd century) taught a modalist monarchianism, identifying Father and Son as the same person (the 'blasphemy' mentioned). This fragment opposes both Sabellianism and tritheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Athan., ep. de decret. Nic. Syn. n. 26","severity":"info","text":"The parenthetical citation 'Athan., ep. de decret. Nic. Syn. n. 26' indicates this fragment was transmitted via Athanasius' letter on the Nicene decrees, suggesting its use in 4th-century anti-Arian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ires","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'Ires' (for 'tres') is a scribal or typographical variant; the text is a fragment, and the abrupt ending ('monarchiam') suggests the original letter is lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"narrative","severity":"info","text":"The passage is classified as narrative, but it functions as a polemical argument, contrasting Sabellian modalism with the tritheistic error of dividing the monarchy into three separate hypostases.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The fragment breaks off mid-sentence, leaving the argument against Marcion incomplete. The exact relationship between the 'three principles' of Marcion and the tritheistic error is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"secat et dividit, diabolica sane est, non autem verorum Christi discipulorum, vel eorum quibus Salvatoris disciplina placet. Hi enim probe norunt Trinitatem quidem in divina scriptura prædicari, tres autem esse Deos neque in veteri neque in novo Testamento doceri.\n\nSed neque minus culpandi sunt, qui Filium opus esse existimant, ei Dominum factum esse, sicut unum eorum quæ vere facta sunt arbitrantur: cum illum genitum esse,ut congruit ac decet, non conditum aut factum, divina eloquia testentur. Non levis igitur, sed maxima est impietas, Dominum aliquo modo manufactum dicere. Nam si factus est Filius\n\nerat tempus quando non erat: atqui fuit semper, si utique est, ut ipse declarat, in Patre (Joan. XIV, 12). Et si Christus verbum, sapientia et virtus est (hæc enim Chrislum esse divinæ docent Litteræ, ut ipsi nostis), hæc sane virtutes Dei sunt. Quocirca si factus est Filius, fuit tempus quando h:cc non erant: a deoque fuit tempus, quo sine his erat Deus: quod perahsurdum est. Sed quid pluribus de his apud vos (disseram, viros Spiritu plenos, et apprime intelligentes quæ sequuntur absurba ex illa sententia, quae Filium factum asserit? Ad hæc minime attendisse mihi videntur opinionis hujus duces; et idcirco a veritate prorsus aberrasse, qui aliter, quam quod sibi vult divina et prophetica Scriptura, explicant illud, Dominus creavit me principium viarum suarun (Prov. VIII, 22).","english":"cuts and divides, is surely diabolical, and not that of true disciples of Christ, or of those who are pleased by the Savior's discipline. For these know well that the Trinity is indeed proclaimed in divine Scripture, but that three Gods are taught neither in the Old nor in the New Testament.\n\nBut no less blameworthy are those who think that the Son is a work, and that the Lord was made, as they consider him to be one of those things that are truly made: whereas the divine words testify that he was begotten, as is fitting and proper, not created or made. Therefore, it is no light, but the greatest impiety, to say that the Lord is in any way manufactured. For if the Son was made,\n\nthere was a time when he was not: but he always was, if indeed he is, as he himself declares, in the Father (John 14:12). And if Christ is the Word, Wisdom, and Power (for the divine Scriptures teach that Christ is these, as you yourselves know), these are surely powers of God. Therefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not; and consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is absurd. But why should I say more about these things among you, men filled with the Spirit, and thoroughly understanding the absurdities that follow from that opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this opinion seem to me to have paid no attention to these matters; and therefore they have completely strayed from the truth, who explain otherwise than what the divine and prophetic Scripture intends that passage: \"The Lord created me the beginning of his ways\" (Proverbs 8:22).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"secat et dividit","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the polemic against Sabellianism, now targeting those who divide the monarchy into separate hypostases, a position Dionysius associates with diabolical influence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"opus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'opus' (work) is used pejoratively for the Son, contrasting with 'genitum' (begotten). This reflects the Arian claim that the Son is a creature, which Dionysius rejects as impious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. XIV, 12","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. XIV, 12' (John 14:12) is used to argue the Son's eternal existence in the Father, though the verse number may be a later addition; the reference supports the anti-Arian position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Prov. VIII, 22","severity":"info","text":"Proverbs 8:22 ('The Lord created me the beginning of his ways') is cited as a prooftext misinterpreted by opponents; Dionysius insists it does not imply the Son is a creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Sabellianos","severity":"info","text":"The letter opposes Sabellianism, a 3rd-century modalist heresy, but also attacks Arian subordinationism, showing the fragment addresses multiple Trinitarian errors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Athanasius","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is preserved by Athanasius in his 'Letter on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod', indicating its use in 4th-century anti-Arian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Athanasius 4th century"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a fragment; the original Coptic context is lost, and the exact identity of the opponents (Sabellians or Arians) is conflated in the polemic."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Non enim una est, ut scitis, verbi creavit significatio. Nam hoc in loco creavit idem est quod, præfecit operibus ab ipso factis, factis, inquam, per ipsum Filium. At hic creavit non perinde intelligendum est, atque fecit. Facere enim et crearc inter se differunt. Nonne ipse ille pater tuus possedit te, et fecit te, el creavit te? ait Moises in magno Deutcuronomii carmine (Deut., XXXII, 6). Sic etiam illos recte quis possit coarguere: præcipites temerariique homines! ergone facta res est primogenitus omnis creaturæ ( Coloss. I. 15), ex utero ante luciferum genitus (Psal. CIX, 3), qui ut Sapientia dicit, Ante omnes colles gignit me (Prov. VIII, 28)? Denique multis in locis divinorum eloquiorum cum genitum dici, at nusquam factum Filium, quis legerit. Ex quibus aperte convincuntur falsa de Domini generatione opinari, qui divinam atque inexplicabilem ejus generationem factionem audent dicere.","english":"For the word \"created\" does not have a single meaning, as you know. For in this passage, \"created\" is the same as \"set over the works made by him,\" works, I say, made through the Son himself. But here \"created\" is not to be understood in the same way as \"made.\" For \"to make\" and \"to create\" differ from each other. Did not your own father possess you, and make you, and create you? says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy (Deut. 32:6). Thus also one might rightly refute those men: headlong and reckless men! Is then the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15) a made thing, he who was begotten from the womb before the morning star (Ps. 109:3), who, as Wisdom says, \"Before all the hills, he begets me\" (Prov. 8:28)? Finally, in many places of the divine scriptures one reads that the Son is said to be begotten, but nowhere that he is made. From these things it is clearly proven that those who dare to call his divine and ineffable generation a \"making\" hold false opinions about the Lord's generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"creavit","severity":"info","text":"The Latin verb 'creavit' is argued to have a range of meanings distinct from 'fecit' (made). The author insists that in this context 'creavit' means 'set over' (præfecit) works made through the Son, not 'made' in the sense of producing the Son's substance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deut. 32:6","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Deut., XXXII, 6' refers to the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:6). The Latin text quotes Moses asking whether a father 'made' and 'created' his son, using the verbs 'fecit' and 'creavit' to illustrate their distinct meanings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Col. 1:15","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'primogenitus omnis creaturæ' echoes Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called the 'firstborn of all creation.' The author uses this to argue that the Son is begotten, not made.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ps. 109:3","severity":"info","text":"The reference 'Psal. CIX, 3' corresponds to Psalm 109:3 (Vulgate numbering), which speaks of being 'begotten from the womb before the morning star.' This is cited to support the Son's generation as distinct from fabrication.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Prov. 8:28","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Prov. VIII, 28' refers to Proverbs 8:28, where Wisdom says 'Before all the hills, he begets me.' The author uses this to argue that the Son is begotten, not made.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects the fourth-century anti-Sabellian and anti-Arian polemic, distinguishing the Son's generation from creation ex nihilo. The author argues that 'creavit' in Scripture can mean 'appointed over' rather than 'produced,' countering those who would subordinate the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is fragmentary; the precise biblical text of Deuteronomy 32:6 cited may differ from modern versification. The phrase 'ante luciferum genitus' may conflate Psalm 109:3 with other traditions."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Neque igitur admirabilis et divina unitas in tres divinitates est separanda, neque factionis vocabulo dignitas ac summa magnitudo Domini est diminuenda: sed credendum est in Dcum Patrem omnipotentem, ct in Christum Jesum, ejus Filium, et in Spiritum sanctum: Verbum autem Deo universorum esse unitum: quippe, Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus (Joan., x, 30); et, Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est (Joan., XIV, 10). Ita scilicet divina Trinitas et sancta monarchiæ prædicatio integra servabitur.\n\nS. Athanasium Epistola de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi, cap. xxvi, p. 231, ed. Benedictin.","english":"Therefore, the admirable and divine unity is not to be separated into three divinities, nor is the dignity and supreme greatness of the Lord to be diminished by the term \"faction.\" But one must believe in God the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his Son, and in the Holy Spirit; for the Word is united with the God of the universe: indeed, He says, \"I and the Father are one\" (John 10:30), and \"I am in the Father, and the Father is in me\" (John 14:10). Thus, the divine Trinity and the holy proclamation of the monarchy will be preserved intact.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"factionis vocabulo","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'factionis vocabulo' (by the term 'faction') is rendered in the English draft as 'the term faction,' but the Latin likely means 'the term creation' (from 'factio,' a making), not 'faction' in the political sense. The translator may have misread the word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus (Joan., x, 30)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) is a key anti-Sabellian prooftext, used to assert unity of substance without personal confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est (Joan., XIV, 10)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me' (John 14:10) reinforces mutual immanence, a standard Trinitarian formula.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sancta monarchiæ prædicatio","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'holy proclamation of the monarchy' reflects the Nicene concern to preserve divine monarchy against tritheism, a key theme in Athanasius' anti-Sabellian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Athanasius, De Decretis Nicænæ Synodi"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"S. Athanasium Epistola de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi, cap. xxvi, p. 231, ed. Benedictin.","severity":"info","text":"The source note attributes the fragment to Athanasius' letter on the Nicene decrees, indicating its reception as a patristic witness to Nicene orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Athanasius, De Decretis Nicænæ Synodi"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Neque igitur admirabilis et divina unitas in tres divinitates est separanda","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text may be a later Latin translation of a lost Greek original; the phrase 'tres divinitates' (three divinities) is a standard anti-tritheist formula but could reflect later theological precision.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'factionis vocabulo' is ambiguous: it could mean 'by the term creation' (from factio) or 'by the term faction' (from factio in a political sense). The context of the previous passage discussing 'created' and 'made' strongly favors the former, but the English draft opts for 'faction,' which is likely a mistranslation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}