{"slug":"tlg2959.tlg005","id":"greek:tlg2959.tlg005","title":"De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","author":"Methodius","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"none","publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-14T23:43:43Z","cost_usd":0.029243},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:tlg2959.tlg005","work_id":"tlg2959.tlg005","edition":"first1k","language":"","license":"CC BY-SA 4.0","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"},"stats":{"passages":77,"english_words":7403,"coptic_letters":0,"commentary_units":402,"commentary_kinds":10,"derived_notes":2,"ambiguities":99,"work_notes":4,"external_links":1,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tlg2959.tlg005","abstract":"De Creatis (On Creation) is a lost treatise by Methodius of Olympus, surviving only in fragments preserved by Photius in his Bibliotheca (codex 235). The work engages in anti-Origenist polemic, arguing against allegorical interpretations of creation and defending a more literal, orthodox reading of Genesis. Photius excerpts Methodius’s arguments as part of a summary of anti-Origenist theology, making the work valuable for understanding early fourth-century debates on creation, anthropology, and eschatology. The fragmentary state prevents full reconstruction of the original argument, but the excerpts show Methodius critiquing Origen’s spiritualizing exegesis and defending the resurrection of the body.","historical_context":"Methodius of Olympus (fl. late 3rd–early 4th century) was a bishop and theologian known for his opposition to Origen’s allegorical method and his defense of orthodox eschatology. De Creatis was likely composed in the early fourth century, possibly in Lycia or the broader Greek East, within a community engaged in intense theological debate over Origen’s legacy. The work survives only through Photius’s ninth-century Bibliotheca, where it is excerpted as part of a dossier of anti-Origenist texts. No independent manuscript tradition exists, and Photius’s summary may condense or reorder Methodius’s arguments. The treatise is part of a larger corpus of Methodius’s writings, including the Symposium and De Resurrectione, which also combat Origenist views. The work’s transmission reflects Byzantine interest in preserving anti-Origenist polemic for theological education and controversy.","significance":"De Creatis is significant as a rare witness to early fourth-century anti-Origenist exegesis of Genesis, showing how Methodius defended a literal interpretation of creation against allegorical readings. It also illuminates the theological debates that shaped orthodox anthropology and eschatology before the First Council of Nicaea. The fragments preserved by Photius provide a key source for understanding Methodius’s thought and the reception of Origen in the Byzantine tradition.","timeline":[{"date":"late 3rd–early 4th c.","event":"Methodius of Olympus flourishes, likely composing De Creatis."},{"date":"early 4th c.","event":"De Creatis is written, engaging in anti-Origenist polemic."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Photius includes excerpts of De Creatis in his Bibliotheca (codex 235)."},{"date":"9th c. or later","event":"The full text of De Creatis is lost; only Photius’s fragments survive."}],"relations":[{"work":"Symposium","relation":"Another work by Methodius, also anti-Origenist, on virginity and theology.","key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"},{"work":"De Resurrectione","relation":"Methodius’s treatise defending bodily resurrection against Origenist spiritualizing.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Celsum","relation":"Origen’s work, which Methodius critiques in De Creatis.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Bibliotheca","relation":"Photius’s work preserving the fragments of De Creatis.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Methodius of Olympus","label":"Methodius of Olympus","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodius_of_Olympus","reason":"Biographical context for the author."}],"cautions":["The dating of De Creatis is uncertain; it is attributed to Methodius (fl. late 3rd–early 4th c.) but no precise date is known.","The work survives only in fragments preserved by Photius, who may have condensed or reordered the original text.","The title De Creatis is a modern convention; the original Greek title is not securely attested.","No independent manuscript tradition exists; all knowledge depends on Photius’s excerpts."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000439,"generated":"2026-11-14T23:43:43Z"},"checks":{"work":"tlg2959.tlg005","status":"warn","blocking":[],"warnings":[{"code":"short-output-warn","i":1,"words":7}],"stats":{"passages":77,"translated":77,"commentary_passages":77,"commentary_units":402,"english_words":7403,"source_letters":30434,"commentary_kinds":10},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives only in fragments preserved by Photius in Bibliotheca, codex 235. No independent manuscript tradition is known.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius excerpts Methodius’s treatise as part of his summary of anti-Origenist arguments. The work was thus valued in Byzantine theological polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius flourished in the late 3rd to early 4th century. The dating of De Creatis rests on Photius’s attribution and internal references to Origenist debates.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The fragmentary state prevents reconstruction of the original argumentative structure. Photius’s summary may condense or reorder Methodius’s points.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"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: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 77 narrative."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: first1k — CC BY-SA 4.0"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":77},"term_index":[],"citations":{"ed:tlg2959.tlg005":{"label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EK ΤΟΥ <ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η> ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΓΕΝΗΤΩΝ.","english":"From the <Xenon or> On Created Things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ΕΚ ΤΟΥ <ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η> ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΓΕΝΗΤΩΝ","severity":"info","text":"The title is a fragmentary heading, with the words 'Xenon or' enclosed in angle brackets to indicate a textual crux or editorial insertion. This suggests the work may have been known under two titles.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Xenon' (Ξενών) likely refers to a proper name or a title meaning 'Stranger' or 'Guest'; its exact significance here is uncertain, possibly indicating a dialogue character or a separate work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ΓΕΝΗΤΩΝ","severity":"info","text":"The word 'γενητῶν' (genētōn) means 'created things' or 'generated beings', a key term in Methodius's anti-Origenist polemic, distinguishing created from uncreated reality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved in Photius's Bibliotheca (Codex 235), a 9th-century Byzantine compilation. Photius summarizes Methodius's work, providing the only extant witness to this text.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Photius 9th century"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The angle brackets in the Greek text indicate a textual uncertainty; the phrase 'Xenon or' may be a later gloss or a variant reading, and the original title may have been simply 'On Created Things'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact meaning and authenticity of 'Xenon' in the title is uncertain; it may be a proper name, a reference to a dialogue setting, or a scribal addition."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[{"kind":"check","severity":"info","code":"short-output-warn","text":"Automatic check: the English is short for the Coptic of this passage. Short passages are legitimate; this one is at the margin."}]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Ὅτι τό μὴ βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρίτας\nὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘ μαργαρίτας μὲν τοῦ Ξένωνος τὰ μυστικώτερα\nτῆς θεοσδότου θρησκείας ἐκλαμβάνοντος μαθήματα, χοίρους\n δὲ τοὺς ἔτι ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς παντοίαις δίκην χοίρων ἐν βορβόρῳ\nκαλινδουμένους τούτοις γὰρ εἰρῆσθαι παρὰ Χριστοῦ ἔλεγε μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nτὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτὰ φέρειν, ἅτε τῇ\nἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ταῖς ἀγρίαις ἡδοναῖς προκατισχημένους) ὁ μέγας Μεθόδιός\nφησιν, Εἰ μαργαρίτας τὰ σεμνοπρεπῆ καὶ θεῖα μαθήματα δεῖ\n ἐξακούειν, χοίρους δὲ τοὺς ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς συζῶντας, οἷς καὶ\nκαὶ ἀπόκρυφα τὰ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν\nἀποστολικὰ διεγείροντα κηρύγματα δεῖ εἶναι, ὅρα ὡς οὐδένα λέγεις\nτῶν Χριστιανῶν τοῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων κηρύγμασιν ἐξ ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν\nτῆς προτέρας ἐπιστρέφει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν πάντως παρέβαλον τὰ κατὰ\n τὸν Χριστὸν μυστήρια τοῖς δι' ἀπιστίαν χοίρ·οις ἐοικόσιν.","english":"That you should not cast the holy thing to the dogs, nor your pearls before the swine—Xenon understanding by \"pearls\" the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion, and by \"swine\" those who still wallow in impiety and every kind of pleasure like swine in filth; for to these, he said, Christ spoke not to cast the divine teachings, because they cannot bear them, being already held fast by impiety and wild pleasures—the great Methodius says: If by \"pearls\" we must understand the venerable and divine teachings, and by \"swine\" those who live in impiety and pleasures, for whom even the apostolic proclamations that rouse to piety and faith in Christ must be hidden, see how you say that none of the Christians turns from their former impiety to the proclamations of the apostles; for they would certainly not have cast the mysteries concerning Christ before those who, through unbelief, resemble swine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρῖτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The Greek text echoes a proverbial saying, likely derived from Matthew 7:6 and the Gospel of Thomas, but the exact phrasing is not a direct NT quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαρίτας","severity":"info","text":"Xenon interprets 'pearls' as the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion; Methodius reinterprets them as venerable and divine teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χοίρους","severity":"info","text":"Xenon and Methodius both understand 'swine' as those who wallow in impiety and pleasures, unable to receive divine teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ξένων","severity":"info","text":"Xenon is a figure cited by Methodius, possibly a teacher or opponent, whose allegorical interpretation of the saying is here critiqued.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁ μέγας Μεθόδιος","severity":"info","text":"Methodius of Olympus (3rd–4th cent.) is cited as an authority; this fragment is preserved by Photius in his Bibliotheca (cod. 235).","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ ... δεῖ ἐξακούειν ... ὅρα ὡς","severity":"info","text":"Methodius presents a conditional argument: if Xenon's allegory is accepted, then it follows that no Christian converts from impiety—a conclusion he finds absurd.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Xenon is uncertain; he may be a contemporary or earlier exegete. The exact source of the saying (μὴ βάλητε ...) is not specified in the text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"ἢ οὖν πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀπίστοις ταῦτα παρεβλήθη παρὰ τῶν\nτοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκηρύχθη, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας μετέβαλεν\nαὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν ὥσπερ οὐν καὶ πιστεύοντες ὁμολογοῦμεν,\nκαὶ οὐκέτι δύναται νοεῖσθαι τό »μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας\n ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘, ὡς ἐρρήθη· ἢ τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη\n 1 vgl. Sokrates KG VI, 13 — 2. 19 Mt. 7, 6 — 3 vgl. Symp. S. 9, 15f.\n10, 18f. 37, 10. 118, Bf. De lepra 7, 8 S. 461, 12f — .5 vgl. Plato Phaed. 69 C. 82E \n 1 Phot. Bibl. 235 S. 301b, —304b, 20 \n 1 A Bl. 313v a, 33. B Bl. 235v, 29. Ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Μεθοδίου\nκαὶ ἐπισκόπου κ. ἐπ. Μ. B) τοῦ περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν ἐκλογὴ κατὰ σύνοψιν\n| ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η] vgl. Sokr. KG VI, 13 Μεθόδιος μὲν οὖν . . ἐν τῷ διαλόγῳ ᾦ\nἐπέγραψε Ξένωνα 2 μηδὲ A 313vb 3 τοῦ Ξένωνος < A 4 ἐκλαμ-\nβάνοντας B 11 εὺσέβειαν B 236 14 παρέλαβον B 15 τὸν < A\n17 ἀσεβείας A 314 18 εἰς 2 übergeschrieben A 19 βάλετε A. 20 ἡμῶν? B\n| τ. χοιρ. ἔμπρ. A","english":"Either these things were set before all the Greeks and the other unbelievers by the disciples of Christ and proclaimed, and turned them from impiety to faith in Christ, just as we also confess who believe, and then the saying \"Do not cast your pearls before the swine\" can no longer be understood as it was spoken; or this was said as it was.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"παρεβλήθη","severity":"info","text":"The verb παρεβλήθη (aorist passive of παραβάλλω) here means 'were set before' or 'presented', not 'compared'. The context contrasts the universal proclamation of Christian teaching with the esoteric restriction implied by the proverb.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"This is a direct citation of Matthew 7:6 (variant reading: μαργαρίτας for μαργαρίτας). The passage discusses whether the saying was meant to restrict proclamation to unbelievers or was spoken in a different sense.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ξένωνος","severity":"info","text":"Xenon is the interlocutor in Methodius' dialogue, as noted in the manuscript heading (ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ). The previous passage attributes to him the interpretation of 'pearls' as mystical teachings and 'swine' as impious pleasure-seekers.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ἢ ... ἢ","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a disjunctive argument (ἢ ... ἢ, 'either ... or'), posing two alternatives for interpreting the Matthean saying: either it was contradicted by the universal mission, or it was spoken in a different sense.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Phot. Bibl. 235","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved in Photius' Bibliotheca, codex 235, which excerpts Methodius' dialogue 'On Creatures' (Περὶ τῶν Γεννητῶν). The manuscript witnesses (A and B) show variant readings, e.g., βάλετε for βάλητε.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη is textually uncertain; the apparatus notes a variant reading. The sense is likely 'this was said as it was', but the exact wording may be corrupt, affecting the logical conclusion of the disjunction.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text breaks off mid-sentence after 'ἢ τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη', leaving the second alternative incomplete. The English draft supplies a plausible completion, but the original may have continued differently."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"νοουμένου, ἀνάγκη ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὡς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἀπίστων, οὓς ~\nἀπεικάζομεν, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν διδαγμάτων, μαργαριτῶν δίκην τὰς\nψυχὰς καταυγαζόντων, ἡ εἰς Χριστὸν πίστις καὶ ἡ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐλευθερία\nγεγένηται. βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο.","english":"of the intelligible, it is necessary for us to say that to none of the unbelievers, whom we have compared, has faith in Christ and freedom from impiety come from the apostolic teachings, which like pearls illuminate the souls. But this is blasphemous.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"νοουμένου","severity":"info","text":"The genitive absolute νοουμένου (\"of the intelligible\") is ambiguous: it may refer to a preceding neuter noun (e.g., λόγου, \"word\") or stand alone as a philosophical term. The English draft supplies \"of the intelligible,\" likely reflecting a Platonic or patristic context.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαριτῶν δίκην","severity":"info","text":"The phrase μαργαριτῶν δίκην (\"like pearls\") echoes the synoptic saying \"Do not cast your pearls before swine\" (Matt 7:6; Luke 8:45). Methodius uses it to argue that apostolic teachings were not withheld from unbelievers, contrary to the proverb's implication.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλῃς τοὺς μαργαρίτας σου ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The pearl imagery alludes to the Gospel proverb (Matt 7:6; Luke 8:45). Methodius refutes a literal reading: if apostles withheld teaching from unbelievers, then no conversion occurred; but this is \"blasphemous\" (βλάσφημον).","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"The clause βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο (\"But this is blasphemous\") concludes a logical reductio: if the apostles withheld teaching, then no conversion happened—a conclusion Methodius rejects as impious. This marks a rhetorical pivot in the argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἀπίστων","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀπίστων (\"unbelievers\") here refers to pagans, likely Greeks, as the preceding passage mentions \"the Greeks and the other unbelievers.\" Methodius contrasts apostolic teaching with pagan impiety (ἀσεβείας).","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of νοουμένου is unclear: it may depend on a lost preceding clause or stand as a philosophical abstraction. The English draft takes it as a neuter substantive, but the Greek genitive could also modify a masculine or neuter noun not preserved in the fragment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"οὐκ ἄρα δεῖ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰ μυστικώτερα τῶν μαθημάτων ἐκλαμβάνειν ἐνταῦθα, χοίρους δὲ\nτοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, οὐδὲ τό μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν\nτῶν χοίρων‘ εἰς τό »μὴ παραβάλητε τοῖς ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἀπέστοις τὰ\nμυστικὰ καὶ τελειοποιὰ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως διδάγματα« παραλαμβάνειν·\nἀλλὰ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐκδέχεσθαι χρή , αἶς\n ὥσπερ πολυτίμοις μαργαρίταις ἡ ψυχὴ καθωραΐζεται, μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nδὲ αὐτοὺς τοῖς χοίροις τουτέστι μὴ παραβαλεῖν αὐτὰς τὰς ἀρετάς,\nοἷον ἁγνείαν καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν,\nδὴ μὴ παραβαλεῖν ταῖς μαχλώσαις ἡδοναῖς χοίροις γὰρ ἐοίκασιν\nἕνα μὴ τὰς ἀρετὰς αὑται καταφαγοῦσαι χοιρώδη βίον καὶ πολυπαθῆ\n τὴν ψυχὴν βιοτεύειν παρασκευάσωσιν.","english":"Therefore, we must not interpret the pearls here as the more mystical teachings, and the swine as the impious, nor take the saying \"do not cast your pearls before swine\" to mean \"do not expose the mystical and perfective teachings of faith in Christ to the impious and unbelieving.\" Rather, we must understand the pearls as the virtues, by which the soul is adorned as with precious pearls, and \"do not cast them before swine\" means do not expose these virtues themselves—such as purity, temperance, justice, and truth—to the lascivious pleasures, for these pleasures are like swine, lest they devour the virtues and prepare the soul to live a swinish and passion-ridden life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"Methodius alludes to the proverb 'do not cast your pearls before swine' (cf. Matt 7:6; also in patristic usage). He rejects a literal reading of the saying as referring to esoteric teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαρίτας","severity":"info","text":"Methodius redefines 'pearls' (μαργαρίτας) not as mystical teachings but as virtues (ἀρετάς), such as purity, temperance, justice, and truth. This allegorical shift is central to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χοίρους","severity":"info","text":"The 'swine' (χοίρους) are interpreted as lascivious pleasures (μαχλώσαις ἡδοναῖς), not as impious persons. Methodius warns against virtues being devoured by such pleasures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a corrective structure: it first rejects a literal interpretation of the pearl-and-swine saying, then offers an allegorical reading where pearls are virtues and swine are pleasures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius engages with contemporary exegetical debates about the interpretation of scriptural proverbs, likely responding to Gnostic or Origenist readings that treated 'pearls' as esoteric knowledge.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved by Photius in his Bibliotheca (Cod. 235), indicating its value for later Byzantine readers as a witness to Methodius's anti-Origenist exegesis.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment from Photius; the original context of Methodius's argument is lost. The precise referent of 'unbelievers' in the previous passage is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Ὅτι ὁ Ὠριγένης ὃν Κένταυρον καλεῖ, ἔλεγε συναΐδιον εἶναι\nτῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ θεῷ τὸ πᾶν. ἔφασκε γάρ, Εἰ οὐκ\nδημιουργὸς ἄνευ δημιουργημάτων ἢ ποιητὴς ἄνευ ποιημάτων , οὐδὲ\nπαντοκράτωρ ἄνευ τῶν κρατουμένων τὸν γὰρ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ\n δημιουργήματα ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν διὰ τὰ ποιήματα καὶ τὸν\nπαντοκράτορα διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα λέγεσθαι), ἀνάγκη ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὰ\nὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ εἶναι χρόνον ὅτε οὐκ ἠν ταῦτα. εἰ\nγὰρ ἦν χρόνος ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τὰ ποιήματα, ἐπεὶ τῶν ποιημάτων μὴ\nὄντων οὐδὲ ποιητής ἐστιν, ὅρα οἷον ἀσεβὲς ἀκολουθεῖ.","english":"That Origen, whom he calls a Centaur, used to say that the universe is coeternal with the only wise and self-sufficient God. For he argued: If there is no craftsman without artifacts, nor maker without things made, nor almighty without things over which he rules (for the craftsman is necessarily so called because of the artifacts, the maker because of the things made, and the almighty because of the things over which he rules), then it is necessary that these things have existed from the beginning by God, and that there be no time when they did not exist. For if there was a time when the things made did not exist, then since when the things made do not exist, neither does a maker exist, see what impiety follows.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Κένταυρον","severity":"info","text":"Methodius calls Origen a 'Centaur', a hybrid creature, to disparage his theological mixture of Christian and Platonic ideas.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Origen's doctrine of the coeternity of the world with God is a known position, criticized by later orthodox writers for implying that creation is necessary rather than contingent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents Origen's argument in a conditional form: if divine titles require correlative objects, then those objects must be eternal.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is fragmentary and transmitted by Photius; the argument may be abbreviated or paraphrased, so Origen's exact wording is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius preserves this fragment in his Bibliotheca, indicating its use in later anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text does not specify whether Methodius is quoting Origen directly or paraphrasing; the phrase 'whom he calls a Centaur' may be Methodius' own insertion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλειν τὸν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον συμβή-\nσεται θεόν. εἰ γὰρ ὕστερον πεποίηκε τὸ πᾶν, πᾶν, δῆλον ἀπὸ τοῦ\nμὴ ποιεῖν εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν μετέβαλε. τοῦτο δὲ ἄτοπον μετὰ τῶν προειρημένων.\nοὐκ ἄρα δυνατὸν λέγειν, μὴ εἶναι ἄναρχον καὶ συναΐδιον\nτῶ θεῶ τὸ πᾶν.","english":"But it will also follow that the unchangeable and immutable God undergoes alteration and change. For if he made the universe later, it is clear that he changed from not making to making. This is absurd, along with what has been said before. Therefore it is not possible to say that the universe is not without beginning and coeternal with God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον","severity":"info","text":"The adjectives 'unchangeable' and 'immutable' are standard divine attributes in Greek patristic theology, used here to argue against Origen's view of a coeternal universe.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ γὰρ ὕστερον πεποίηκε τὸ πᾶν","severity":"info","text":"This conditional clause presents the logical consequence of a temporal creation: if God made the universe later, he must have changed from not-making to making, which contradicts his immutable nature.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συναΐδιον","severity":"info","text":"The term 'coeternal' (συναΐδιον) is central to the debate: Methodius rejects the notion that the universe is coeternal with God, arguing it would imply God's changeability.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Κένταυρος","severity":"info","text":"Methodius earlier called Origen a 'Centaur', a pejorative term suggesting a hybrid or monstrous nature, reflecting the polemical context of the anti-Origenist controversy.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"πᾶν, πᾶν","severity":"caution","text":"The repetition of πᾶν may be a scribal dittography or an emphatic rhetorical doubling; the text is uncertain here.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'πᾶν, πᾶν' could be a scribal error or an intentional repetition for emphasis; the reading taken assumes it is a dittography."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Πρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου ὁ ἅγιος ἐρωτῶν,\nγε σοφίας καὶ δόξης καὶ συλλήβδην πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ\nοὐσιωδῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐπικτήτως ἡγῇ τὸν θεόν; \n Ὁ δέ, Ναί. \n 6 Mt. 7, 6 — 12 vgl. Symp. S. 83, 19 t — 13 vgl. I Petr. 2, 11. De res.\nn, 18, 1 S. 368, 7 — 16 vgl. Orig. De princ. I, 2, 10. EI, 5, 3 S. 41, 11ff. 272, 22ff\n— 31 vgl. Plato Phaedr. 245C \n 3 Χριστὸν 003C; B 6 βάλλετε B 7 παραβάλετε Α, παραβάλλετε B\n8 εἰς τὸν Χ. Α 11 αὐτοῖς A 14 καὶ A 314 rb 15 βιωτεύειν A |\nπαρασκευάσουσιν AB 26 ἀπὸ < A 27 μετέβαλλεν A, μετέβαλλε B\n32 ἐπικτήτως A 314v","english":"To this, the saint speaks through another person, asking: Do you consider God to be the beginning and essence of wisdom and glory and, in short, of every virtue, substantially and not by acquisition? The other replies: Yes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου ὁ ἅγιος ἐρωτῶν","severity":"info","text":"The passage introduces a dialogue with the saint speaking through another person (δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου), a common device in Methodius' works to present opposing views.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"οὐσιωδῶς","severity":"info","text":"The adverb οὐσιωδῶς ('substantially') contrasts with ἐπικτήτως ('by acquisition'), emphasizing that God possesses virtues as part of his essence, not as acquired attributes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἐπικτήτως","severity":"info","text":"ἐπικτήτως ('by acquisition') is a rare adverb; its use here underscores the theological point that God's virtues are not accidental or acquired but essential.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀρχὴν καὶ οὐσιωδῶς ... ἀρετῆς","severity":"info","text":"The question whether God is the beginning and essence of virtues reflects debates in early Christian theology about divine simplicity and the relation of God's attributes to his essence, often discussed by Origen and later by Methodius.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὁ δέ, Ναί","severity":"info","text":"The affirmative reply 'Yes' is a concise dialogical response typical of Methodius' style; Photius' summary preserves this exchange as part of a larger argument against the eternity of the world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'other person' (ἑτέρου προσώπου) is not specified; it may be a fictional interlocutor or a representative of a heretical position."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Τί δὲ πρὸς τούτοις; οὐχὶ τέλειος πάντῃ δι’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπροσδεής; \n Ἀληθῆ. \n Ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὸ ἀπροσδεὲς δι' ἕτερον εἶναί τι ἀπροσδεές;\nἈμήχανον. \n Πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἕτερον πλῆρες ὂν καὶ ἀτελὲς λεκτέον; \n Ἀνάγκη. \n Τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δι' ἑαυτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὄν καὶ αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ\nμένον, τέλειον εἶναι τοῦτο μόνον δοξαστέον; \n Ἀληθέστατα λέγεις.","english":"What then besides these? Is he not entirely perfect through himself and in need of nothing?  \nTrue.  \nFor is it not impossible for that which is in need of nothing to be something in need of nothing through another?  \nImpossible.  \nFor must not everything that is through another, being full and incomplete, be so called?  \nNecessarily.  \nFor must it not be held that that which is through itself, being its own fullness and remaining in itself, is alone to be considered perfect?  \nYou speak most truly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπροσδεής","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀπροσδεής (in need of nothing) is a key predicate in this dialectical exchange, defining the divine nature as self-sufficient and not dependent on any external cause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a strict question-and-answer format, typical of Socratic dialogue, with each step building a logical argument: from perfection and self-sufficiency to the necessity of self-causation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"πλήρωμα","severity":"info","text":"πλήρωμα (fullness) here denotes ontological completeness, not a later Gnostic usage. The argument asserts that what is through another is 'full and incomplete' (πλῆρες ὂν καὶ ἀτελές), a paradox resolved by self-sufficiency.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment from Methodius' De Creatis, preserved by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235), engages with Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) as applied to the Christian God.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reasoning mirrors arguments in Plato's Parmenides (137c–142a) on the One being self-sufficient and not needing others, adapted here to Trinitarian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Plato Parmenides"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'he' (αὐτός) in the first question is not explicit in the fragment; it likely refers to God from the preceding dialogue."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Τὸ δὲ μήτε αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ μήτε αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὂν φαίης ἂν ἀπροσδεές; \n Ούδαμῶς. \n Οὐκ ἄρα ὁ θεὸς τέλειος διά τι νομισθήσεται · ὃ γὰρ διά τι τέλειόν\nἐστιν, αὐτὸ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀτελὲς ἀνάγκη τυγχάνειν. \n Ἀνάγκη.","english":"Would you say that which is neither itself through itself nor itself a fulfillment of itself is without need?  \nNot at all.  \nTherefore God will not be considered perfect through something; for that which is perfect through something must necessarily be imperfect in itself.  \nNecessarily.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Τὸ δὲ μήτε αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ μήτε αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὂν φαίης ἂν ἀπροσδεές","severity":"info","text":"The argument denies that something which is neither self-caused nor self-fulfilled can be self-sufficient, setting up a logical premise for divine perfection.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"πλήρωμα","severity":"info","text":"πλήρωμα here means 'fulfillment' or 'completion', not the later gnostic technical term for the divine fullness; Methodius uses it in a philosophical sense of self-sufficiency.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐκ ἄρα ὁ θεὸς τέλειος διά τι νομισθήσεται","severity":"info","text":"This conclusion follows the preceding question-answer pair, forming a syllogistic step: God cannot be perfect through something else, because that would imply imperfection in itself.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἀπροσδεές","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀπροσδεής ('without need') is a standard attribute of God in Middle Platonic and early Christian theology, denoting absolute self-sufficiency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτὸ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀτελὲς ἀνάγκη τυγχάνειν","severity":"info","text":"The reasoning that what is perfect through another is imperfect in itself echoes Aristotle's principle that the dependent cannot be fully actual (Metaphysics 1019a).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment preserved by Photius; the original context of the dialogue is lost, so the precise opponent or argumentative target is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς δι' ἑαυτὸν τέλειος, ἀλλ’ οὐ δέ ἕτερον λογισθήσεται; \n Ὀρθότατα. \n Ἕτερον θεὸς κόσμου, καὶ ἕτερον κόσμος θεοῦ; \n Παντελῶς. \n Οὐκ ἄρα τέλειον φατέον καὶ δημιουργὸν καὶ παντοκράτορα διὰ\nκόσμον τὸν θεόν; \n Οὔ. \n Ὅπως δι’ ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διὰ κόσμον, καὶ ταῦτα τρεπτόν, αὐτὸς\n καθ’ ἐαυτὸν τέλειος εὑρίσκοιτο. \n Προσηκόντως.","english":"Therefore will God himself be considered perfect through himself, and not through another?  \nMost correctly.  \nIs God one thing and the world another, and the world one thing and God another?  \nEntirely.  \nThen must it not be said that God is perfect, creator, and all-ruler through the world?  \nNo.  \nSo that through himself, and not through the world—and that a changeable one—he may be found perfect in himself.  \nProperly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐκοῦν","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues a dialectical exchange of short questions and answers, typical of Methodius' philosophical style. The repeated pattern of assertion and confirmation drives the argument that God's perfection is intrinsic, not dependent on the world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"τέλειον","severity":"info","text":"The term τέλειον (perfect) is central: the argument denies that God's perfection, creative power (δημιουργόν), or universal rule (παντοκράτορα) derive from the world. Methodius insists on self-sufficiency, contrasting with possible Platonic or Gnostic views.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"παντοκράτορα","severity":"info","text":"The title παντοκράτωρ (all-ruler) is common in early Christian literature for God's sovereignty, but here it is explicitly detached from any dependence on the created order, reflecting Methodius' anti-Origenist polemic against subordinationism.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius, De Creatis"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"τρεπτόν","severity":"info","text":"The description of the world as τρεπτόν (changeable) echoes a standard Platonic and Christian contrast between the mutable material realm and the immutable divine. This reinforces the argument that God cannot derive perfection from a changeable entity.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτὸς καθ’ ἐαυτὸν τέλειος","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'himself perfect in himself' could be read as a tautology, but the context shows it is a deliberate logical conclusion: God's perfection is self-referential, not contingent. The Coptic (or Greek) syntax is clear, but the English draft's 'through himself' may obscure the reflexive force.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is fragmentary and transmitted only through Photius; the exact original context of this dialectical exchange is uncertain. The reading assumes a continuous argument against divine dependence on the world."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Τί δέ; τὸν πλούσιον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον λεκτέον πλούσιον; Ὀρθῶς. \n Καὶ τὸν σοφὸν κατὰ μετοχὴν τῆς οὐσιώδους σοφίας, οὐκ αὐτὸν\n σοφίαν ὄντα, σοφὸν προσαγορευτέον; \n Ναί. \n Τί δέ; καὶ τὸν θεόν, ἕτερον ὄντα κόσμου, διὰ κόσμον ταύτῃ πλούσιον\nκαὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ δημιουργὸν κλητέον; \n Ἄπαγε, οὐδαμῶς. \n Οὐκοῦν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πλοῦτος καὶ δι' ἑαυτὸν πλούσιος καὶ δυωατὸς\nτυγχάνει; \n Ἐοικεν. \n 3 δι' B 236ν 21 φατὲ A 24 ὅπως μὴ A 32 κόσμου] κόσμον A\n32 f πλού|σιον A 314ν b 34 οὐδαμῶς, ἄπαγε B Ausgg. 35 αὑτὸν A","english":"What then? Must the rich man be called rich because of his wealth? Correctly. And must the wise man, who partakes of essential wisdom but is not himself wisdom, be called wise? Yes. What then? Must God, being other than the world, be called rich and benefactor and creator on account of the world? Away with that, not at all. Then is he himself his own wealth, and rich and powerful through himself? So it seems.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a tight dialectical pattern: a series of questions and answers that build an analogy (rich man/wealth, wise man/wisdom) to argue that God is perfect through himself, not through the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"μετοχὴν","severity":"info","text":"μετοχὴν (participation) is a key term in Middle Platonic and early Christian metaphysics, denoting the relation of an inferior entity to a transcendent form. Here it distinguishes the wise man's derivative wisdom from essential wisdom itself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"οὐσιώδους σοφίας","severity":"info","text":"οὐσιώδους σοφίας (essential wisdom) likely refers to the divine Wisdom (Sophia) as a hypostasis or attribute of God, a concept developed in Middle Platonism and early Christian theology, especially in Origen and Methodius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that God is not called rich or creator because of the world, but through himself, counters Stoic and Gnostic views that God's attributes depend on the cosmos. Methodius here aligns with anti-Origenist polemic on divine self-sufficiency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Greek text shows variant readings in the apparatus: line 32 has κόσμον (accusative) in A against κόσμου (genitive) in B, and line 35 has αὑτὸν (reflexive) in A. These affect the syntax of the final question.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The English draft translates δυωατὸς as 'powerful', but the Greek is likely δυνατός; the apparatus shows a possible scribal error. The sense is clear, but the exact form is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The final question (αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πλοῦτος) could be read as 'he is his own wealth' or 'he is wealth to himself'; the reflexive construction is ambiguous but the argument requires the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Ἦν ἄρα καὶ πρὸ κόσμου πάντῃ ἀπροσδεὴς ὢν καὶ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός, ὅπως αὐτὸς δι᾿ ἑαυτόν ἀλλὰ μὴ\nετερον ταυτα ῃ; \n Ἀνάγκη.","english":"Therefore, before the cosmos, being entirely without need, he was both father and almighty and creator, just as he is through himself, but not because of something else. Necessarily.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"πρὸ κόσμου","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'before the cosmos' asserts the pre-existence of God as a self-sufficient being, independent of creation, which is central to Methodius' anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"The term 'pantokrator' (almighty) is a standard divine epithet in Greek patristic literature, here used to emphasize God's self-sufficiency before creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀνάγκη","severity":"info","text":"The single-word response 'Necessarily' concludes the dialectical exchange, affirming the logical necessity of God's self-sufficiency, a typical rhetorical device in Methodius' dialogues.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἀπροσδεὴς","severity":"info","text":"The concept of God as 'without need' (ἀπροσδεής) is a key theme in early Christian anti-Gnostic and anti-Origenist arguments, asserting divine transcendence over material creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ετερον ταυτα ῃ","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text at 'ετερον ταυτα ῃ' is corrupt or mispointed; likely intended as 'ἕτερον ταῦτα ᾖ' (these things be something else), but the exact reading is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ετερον ταυτα ῃ' is textually uncertain; the translation 'but not because of something else' is a plausible reconstruction, but the original may have had a different sense."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Εἰ γὰρ διὰ κόσμον καὶ οὐχὶ δι᾿ ἑαυτόν, ἕτερος ὢν κόσμου, παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ γνωρίζοιτο συγγνώμῃ ὁ θεός ἀναγκάζομαι γὰρ τοῦτο\nεἰπεῖν), αὐτὸς καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἀτελὴς ἔσται καὶ προσδεὴς τούτων,\nἃ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός ἐστιν. \n ῾Υπερφυῶς. \n Οὖκ ἄρα ἀποδεκτέον ταύτην τὴν ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίαν\nτῶν λεγόντων παντοκράτορα εἶναι καὶ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα\nκαὶ δημιουργούμενα τρεπτά, ἀλλ’ οὐ δι᾿ ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν θεόν.","english":"For if on account of the cosmos and not on account of himself, being other than the cosmos, he were known as almighty and creator by concession (for I am compelled to say this), he himself by himself will be imperfect and in need of those things which he is as almighty and creator. Exceedingly. Therefore, one must not accept this pernicious error of those who say that he is almighty and creator on account of the things that are ruled and created, which are mutable, and not that God is on account of himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"The Greek text has a likely scribal duplication or corruption: παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ. The second word τοκράτωρ is not a standard form; it may be a dittography or a variant reading. The English draft omits it, reading only 'almighty and creator'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"συγγνώμῃ","severity":"info","text":"συγγνώμῃ (dative of συγγνώμη) here means 'by concession' or 'by allowance', indicating a reluctant admission. The term is rare in this context and underscores the polemical tone: the speaker is forced to concede a point for argument's sake.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"῾Υπερφυῶς","severity":"info","text":"The single word ῾Υπερφυῶς ('Exceedingly') stands as a separate paragraph in the Greek, likely a marginal comment or an interjection by the excerptor Photius, not part of Methodius' original argument. It may signal a strong reaction to the preceding reasoning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"The term παντοκράτωρ ('almighty') was a key title in early Christian theology, often used to assert God's absolute power. Methodius here argues against those who make God's omnipotence dependent on the existence of the cosmos, a position he considers heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Photius","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved only in Photius' Bibliotheca (codex 235), where he excerpts and comments on Methodius' lost work. Photius' editorial hand may be responsible for the interjection ῾Υπερφυῶς and for the selection of this passage.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀναγκάζομαι γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'for I am compelled to say this' may be a parenthetical remark by Methodius or an insertion by Photius. The syntax is abrupt, and the exact referent of 'this' is ambiguous: it could refer to the preceding concession or to the whole argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text has a possible dittography in παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ; the reading adopted is that the second word is a scribal error.","The interjection ῾Υπερφυῶς may be from Methodius or from Photius; the reading taken is that it is a marginal comment by Photius.","The phrase ἀναγκάζομαι γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν is ambiguous in its referent; the reading taken is that it refers to the preceding concessive clause."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Ὅρα δὲ καὶ ὧδε. εἰ ὕστερον, ἔφης, πεποίηται ὁ κόσμος,\nπρότερον ὤν, μεταβάλλειν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον θεόν· \n τὸν γὰρ ποιοῦντα πρότερον μηδέν, ὕστερον δέ, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν\nεἰς τὸ Ποιεῖν μεταβάλλειν καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι ἀνάγκη. \n Ἔλεγον γάρ. \n Πέπαυται δὲ τοῦ ποιεῖν ποτε τὸν κόσμον ὁ θεός, ἢ οὔ; \n Πέπαυται. \n Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν τετελειωμένος ἄν. \n Ἀληθές.","english":"Consider also this: if the cosmos was made later, as you said, while previously existing, then the impassible and unchangeable God must necessarily change; for the one who first does nothing, and later does something, must necessarily change and be altered from not-doing to doing. For I was saying this. Has God ever ceased making the cosmos, or not? He has ceased. For otherwise he would not yet have been perfected. True.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a dialectical argument: if the cosmos was created later, then God must have changed from not-doing to doing, which contradicts divine impassibility and unchangeability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀπαθής","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀπαθής (impassible) is a key attribute of God in Greek patristic theology, denoting freedom from passion or change, central to the argument against temporal creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀναλλοίωτος","severity":"info","text":"ἀναλλοίωτος (unchangeable) reinforces the divine attribute of immutability, which the opponent's view would violate if God transitions from not-creating to creating.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a question-and-answer format (Ἔλεγον γάρ... Πέπαυται...), typical of dialectical or catechetical style, advancing the argument through concession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument assumes a temporal sequence: God existing prior to creation, then creating later, which the author rejects as incompatible with divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved only in Photius's Bibliotheca (cod. 235), which summarizes Methodius's lost work De Creatis, making it a key witness to early Christian anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment preserved by Photius; the original context and interlocutor are uncertain. The phrase 'Ἔλεγον γάρ' may indicate a reported objection, but the speaker is not identified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Εἰ οὐν τὸ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν ἀλλοίωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταψηφίζεται, οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιεῖν; \n Ἀνάγκη. \n Ἠλλοιῶσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν φαίης μὴ ποιοῦντα σήμερον παρ' ὃ\nὅτε ἐποίει; \n Οὐδαμῶς. \n Οὐδ' ἄρα ὅτ’ ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον, ἠλλοιῶσθαι αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη παρ\nὃ ἠν ὅτε οὐκ ἐποίει· καὶ οὔτε ἀνάγκη συνυπάρχειν αὐτῷ τὸ πᾶν δεῖν\n λέγειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκάζεσθαι λέγειν ἠλλοιῶσθαι, οὔτε συναΐδιον\nδι᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο.","english":"If, then, doing from not doing implies an alteration in God, does not not doing from doing also imply one?  \nNecessarily.  \nWould you say that He is altered when He does not do today compared to when He did?  \nNot at all.  \nNor, therefore, when He made the cosmos, must He necessarily be altered compared to when He was not making; and so it is not necessary to say that the universe must coexist with Him because of being compelled to say He is altered, nor that it is coeternal for this reason.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ οὐν ... Ἀνάγκη ... Οὐδαμῶς ... Οὐδ' ἄρα","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a tight dialectical structure: a conditional question, an admission, a counter-question, a denial, and a conclusion. This mirrors the Socratic method used throughout the fragment.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀλλοίωσιν","severity":"info","text":"ἀλλοίωσις (alteration) is a key term in late antique theology, denoting change in the divine nature. Methodius argues that ceasing to create does not imply alteration, countering the inference that God must be eternally active.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"συναΐδιον","severity":"info","text":"The conclusion denies that the universe is coeternal (συναΐδιον) with God. This directly opposes Origenist cosmology, which held that the world is eternal because God is eternally creative.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"συναΐδιον","severity":"info","text":"The term συναΐδιον was central to the 4th-century Arian and Origenist debates. Methodius here refutes the idea that God’s goodness necessitates an eternal creation, a position associated with Origen and later contested by anti-Origenists.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius, De Creatis"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"παρ' ὃ ... παρ' ὃ","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is fragmentary: the phrases παρ' ὃ (compared to when) are incomplete, likely due to lacunae in the manuscript tradition. The English translation supplies the missing comparatives plausibly, but the original may have had fuller clauses.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact referent of 'the universe' (τὸ πᾶν) is ambiguous: it may mean the material cosmos or the totality of created beings. The reading taken follows the standard interpretation as the physical world."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Καί μοι φαθὶ καὶ ὧδε. γενητὸν τὸ μὴ γενέσεως ἔχον ἀρχὴν\nφαίης ἄν; \n Οὐ δῆτα· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ὑποπίπτει γενέσεως ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν\n ἐστιν. \n Εἰ δὲ γέγονεν, ὑπὸ αἰτίου τινὸς δίδως αὐτὸ γεγονέναι· πάντῃ\nγὰρ ἀδύνατον χωρὶς αἰτίου γένεσιν ἔχειν; \n 2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ\n7 ἀτελὴς zweimal A | ἀτ. ἂν 2. Hd. A | < 14 πρότερος K 20 οὔπω\nA315 23 ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν A 28 ὅτε ποιεῖ AB 29 δεῖ AB 32 φασὶ A","english":"And consider this as well. Would you say that something is generated if it does not have a beginning of generation? Not at all; for if it does not fall under a beginning of generation, it is necessarily ungenerated. But if it has come to be, do you grant that it has come to be by some cause? For it is altogether impossible for it to have generation without a cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument moves from a definition of 'generated' (γενητόν) as that which has a beginning of generation to the necessity of a cause for anything that has come to be.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"γενητόν","severity":"info","text":"γενητόν (generated) is contrasted with ἀγένητον (ungenerated). The term is central to Methodius' argument against the eternity of the cosmos.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀγένητον","severity":"info","text":"ἀγένητον (ungenerated) is used here to describe what does not fall under a beginning of generation, implying eternal existence without a cause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the dialectical exchange from the previous passage, using a question-and-answer format to establish the necessity of a cause for generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text contains a lacuna or corruption at line 2 (αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ), which may affect the reading of the argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument echoes Aristotelian principles of causality (cf. Physics II.3) and anticipates later Christian discussions on creatio ex nihilo.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text at line 2 is corrupt; the exact reading of the phrase involving συγγνώμην is uncertain. The translation follows the emendation suggested by the apparatus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Ἀδύνατον.","english":"Impossible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον","severity":"info","text":"The single-word response 'Impossible' concludes the preceding logical argument: if something has a beginning of generation, it must be generated; if it lacks such a beginning, it is ungenerated. The speaker affirms the impossibility of generation without a cause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον","severity":"info","text":"This brief reply functions as a stichomythic exchange, typical of Platonic dialogue, where a single word from the interlocutor confirms the logical conclusion of the previous speaker's reasoning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument echoes a standard principle in late antique philosophy and Christian theology: everything that comes to be requires an efficient cause. This is foundational for arguments about the eternity of the world or creation ex nihilo.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Coptic text is not present; the Greek fragment is a single word. The context from the previous passage makes the sense clear, but the brevity leaves no room for alternative readings."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Κόσμον δὴ οὖν, καὶ ὅσα ἐν αὐτῷ μῶν ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ θεοῦ δημιουργοῦντος φήσομεν γεγονέναι ὕστερον, πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα; \n Δῆλον ὅτι θεοῦ. \n Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ γενέσεως ἀρχῇ περιορισθὲν συναπέραντον εἶναι\nτῷ ἀπεράντῳ; \n Ἁδύνατον.","english":"We will say, then, that the world and all things in it came into being later, not existing before, through the agency of some other or of God?  \nClearly, of God.  \nFor it is impossible for that which is bounded by a beginning of generation to be co-eternal with the infinite.  \nImpossible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Κόσμον δὴ οὖν","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a rhetorical question affirming that the world and its contents were created later by God, not pre-existing.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συναπέραντον","severity":"info","text":"The term συναπέραντον (co-eternal) is key to Methodius' argument: a created thing cannot be co-eternal with the infinite God, reflecting a standard anti-Origenist position.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"γενέσεως ἀρχῇ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'bounded by a beginning of generation' echoes contemporary debates about the eternity of the world, a topic Methodius addresses against Origenist views.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a question-and-answer format, with a rhetorical question, a clear affirmative answer, and a logical proof introduced by γάρ.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved by Photius in his Bibliotheca (Cod. 235), indicating its importance for later Byzantine theological discussions on creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment; the original context and the identity of the interlocutor are uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Πάλιν δὴ οὖν, ὠ Κένταυρε, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαλεγώμεθα. θείᾳ\nἐπιστήμῃ τὰ ὄντα φατὲ γεγονέναι, ἢ οὔ; \n Ὦ βάλε, λέξουσιν, οὐδαμῶς. \n Ἀλλ᾿ ἀπὸ τῶν στοικείων ἢ ὕλης ἢ στηριγμάτων, ἢ ὅπως\nταῦτα βούλεσθε ὀνομάζειν οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει)· τούτων ἀγενήτως\nπροϋφεστηκότων καὶ πλημμελῶς φερομένων ὁ θεὸς διακρίνας\nτὰ πάντα, ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος ἀπὸ πολλῶν χρωμάτων\n μίαν τεχνησάμενος ἰδέαν;","english":"Again, then, O Centaur, let us discuss from the beginning. Do you say that beings have come into being by divine knowledge, or not?  \n\"O throw,\" they will say, \"by no means.\"  \nBut from the elements, or matter, or foundations, or however you wish to name these (for it makes no difference)—with these having pre-existed ungenerated and moving disorderly, did God, separating everything, like a good painter from many colors, fashion a single form?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πάλιν δὴ οὖν, ὠ Κένταυρε, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαλεγώμεθα","severity":"info","text":"The dialogue resumes with a new argumentative cycle, signaled by 'again from the beginning,' and the interlocutor is addressed as 'Centaur,' a recurring figure in Methodius' polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"θείᾳ ἐπιστήμῃ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'divine knowledge' (θείᾳ ἐπιστήμῃ) is a technical term in Middle Platonic and Christian cosmology, denoting the rational principle by which God orders creation, contrasted with materialist accounts.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὦ βάλε","severity":"info","text":"The exclamation 'O throw' (Ὦ βάλε) is a colloquial interjection of rejection, possibly mimicking a rhetorical gesture of dismissal in philosophical debate.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπὸ τῶν στοικείων ἢ ὕλης ἢ στηριγμάτων","severity":"info","text":"The speaker lists alternative materialist first principles—elements, matter, or 'foundations'—and dismisses the terminological difference as irrelevant, targeting Stoic or Epicurean cosmogonies.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος ἀπὸ πολλῶν χρωμάτων μίαν τεχνησάμενος ἰδέαν","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of God as a painter from many colors creating a single form echoes Plato's Timaeus (e.g., 28a–29a) and is a common Middle Platonic and Christian trope for divine craftsmanship.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"προϋφεστηκότων","severity":"caution","text":"The term 'pre-existed ungenerated' (προϋφεστηκότων) is ambiguous: it may refer to a pre-existent matter co-eternal with God, a view Methodius elsewhere opposes, or to a hypothetical position he is refuting.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'pre-existed ungenerated' could be read as the interlocutor's own position or as a straw man; the text does not clarify whether Methodius endorses or rejects the notion of pre-existent matter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Οὐδὲ τοῦτο. πάντως γὰρ ἀποφεύξονται ὁμολογῆσαι καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν, ἵνα μὴ τῆς διακρίσεως καὶ τῆς μεταμορφώσεως τὴν ὕλην συγχωροῦντες\nἀρχὴν ἐσχηκυῖαν, ἀναγκασθῶσι τῷ λόγῳ κατὰ πάντα τὸν\nθεὸν ἠρκθαι τοῦ διοικεῖν λέγειν καὶ κατακοσμεῖν τὴν πρότερον ἄμορφον\n οὐσαν ὕλην.","english":"Not this either. For they will altogether avoid confessing against themselves, lest, by conceding that matter had a beginning of its separation and transformation, they be compelled by the argument to say that God began to administer and order matter which was previously formless in every respect.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the polemic against a 'Centaur' interlocutor, denying that matter had a beginning of separation and transformation, which would imply God began to order pre-existing formless matter.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὕλην","severity":"info","text":"The Greek term 'hylē' (matter) is central; here it is described as previously formless, reflecting a key concept in Methodius' critique of Gnostic or dualist cosmogonies.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument refutes the notion that God began to order pre-existing matter, a position associated with Middle Platonic and Gnostic views, which Methodius opposes in favor of creatio ex nihilo.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius 2012"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This unit is part of a dialectical exchange, where the speaker anticipates the opponent's evasion ('they will altogether avoid confessing'), a common rhetorical strategy in Methodius' dialogues.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek phrase 'ἀποφεύξονται' (future middle) is a hapax or rare form; the text may be corrupt or reflect a scribal error, though the sense is clear from context.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'Centaur' interlocutor is not specified; it may represent a composite of dualist opponents.","The phrase 'ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκυῖαν' could be read as 'having had a beginning' or 'having a beginning', affecting the temporal nuance of the argument."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"φέρε γάρ, ἐπειδὴ σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι) ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου\nγεγόναμεν, ἤτω τις ἀνδριάς, ἑστὼς ἐπὶ βάσεως, καλός· οὗ\nοἱ θεώμενοι τὴν εὔρυθμον καλλονὴν διαφερέσθωσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,\nπῇ μὲν γενητόν, πῇ δὲ καὶ ἀγένητον πειρώμενοι λέγειν.","english":"Let us suppose, then, since we have arrived at this point in the argument, that there is a statue, standing on a base, beautiful. Let those who behold its well-proportioned beauty dispute with one another, trying to say on the one hand that it is created, and on the other that it is uncreated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"φέρε γάρ, ἐπειδὴ σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι) ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γεγόναμεν","severity":"info","text":"The Greek text is corrupt here; the parenthetical φάναι) likely results from a scribal error or misreading. The sense intended is probably 'Let us suppose, then, since we have arrived at this point in the argument.'","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"γενητόν","severity":"info","text":"γενητόν means 'created' or 'generated,' a key term in Methodius' argument against the eternity of matter. It contrasts with ἀγένητον ('uncreated').","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγένητον","severity":"info","text":"ἀγένητον means 'uncreated' or 'ungenerated,' used here to describe a position the disputants might take regarding the statue, mirroring the larger debate about matter.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνδριάς, ἑστὼς ἐπὶ βάσεως, καλός","severity":"info","text":"The statue on a base is a philosophical analogy common in ancient debates about creation and eternity, possibly echoing Platonic or Aristotelian discussions of form and matter.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage introduces a hypothetical scenario (a statue) to illustrate the logical impasse faced by opponents who deny matter's beginning. It functions as a dialectical tool within the larger argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has a corrupt parenthetical φάναι) that obscures the exact wording; the translation assumes a reading like 'since we have arrived at this point in the argument.'"],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"ἐροίμὴν γὰρ σφᾶς, Δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀγένητον αὐτόν φατε; πότερον διὰ τὸν\nτεχνίτην, ὅπως μηδαμῶς ἀργήσας τῆς δημιουργίας νομίζοιτο, ἢ δι’\nἑαυτόν; ἂν μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὸν τεχνίτην, πῶς ἀγένητος ὢν πρὸς τοῦ\nτεχνίτου δημιουργεῖται; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τῆς τέχνης καθέστηκε\nχαλκουργούμενος πρὸς τὸ σχεῖν ὁποῖον ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐθέλοι καρακτῆρα,\n ποίῳ τρόπῳ ἀγένγτος ἔσται πάσχων τε καὶ δρώμενος; εἰ δὲ\nαὖ δι’ ἑαυτὸν τέλειος καὶ ἀγένητος λέγοιτο μὴ δεῖσθαι τῆς τέχνης ὁ\n 13 vgl. De autex. 6, 2 S. 159, 12f. Plato Tim. 30 A — 14 Symp. S. 15, 17.\nPlato Tim. 28f — 19 vgl. De autex. 62, 2 S. 159, 14f — 26 vgl. 7, 5 S. 498, 18 \n 2 μῶν < A 3 πρῶτον B 4 Δῆλον] B 237 8 διαλεγόμεθα A B\n10 πάλιν 2. Hd. A, βάλη 1. Hd. A u. B 11 ἀπὸ A 315 r b 12 ἀγεννήτως\nB 13 f ἐτεχνήσατο B 17 διακρ.] μετακρίσεως AB 21 τῷ < A\n22 καλλός w. e. sch. B 23 ἐρρυθμϊον B 24 λέγειν πειρ. B 27 ἀγέννητος\nB 28 καθέστηκε A ν 30 ἔσται] ἄν A 31 τῆς < A","english":"I would ask them: For what reason do you say that it is ungenerated? Is it because of the craftsman, so that he might in no way be thought to have been idle from the work of creation, or because of itself? For if it is because of the craftsman, how, being ungenerated, is it crafted by the craftsman? For if it stands in need of the art at all, being wrought in bronze so as to receive whatever character the craftsman might wish, in what way will it be ungenerated, while suffering and being acted upon? But if, on the other hand, it is said to be perfect and ungenerated because of itself, not needing the art,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγένητον","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀγένητον (ungenerated) is central to the argument, distinguishing created from uncreated being. Methodius uses it to challenge the notion of a statue being ungenerated while still crafted.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage echoes Platonic discussions of craftsmanship and generation, particularly Timaeus 28A–30A, where the demiurge crafts the cosmos. Methodius adapts this to a Christian polemic against the eternity of matter.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Plato Timaeus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a dialectical question: whether the statue is called ungenerated for the craftsman's sake or its own. This structure advances the argument by examining both possibilities.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reasoning parallels De autexusio 6.2 and 62.2 (S. 159, 13–15), where Methodius similarly questions the self-sufficiency of ungenerated beings. This suggests a consistent argumentative strategy.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has minor variants: in line 27, B reads ἀγέννητος (ungenerated) while A may have a different form. The apparatus also notes a possible omission of τῷ in line 21, affecting the sense of agency.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'because of itself' (δι’ ἑαυτόν) could mean either the statue's own nature or its own agency; the context favors the former, as the argument contrasts external craftsmanship with internal perfection."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"ἀνδριάς, κατὰ τὸ ὀλέθριον δόημα, ἀνάγκη αὐτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν.","english":"statue, according to the pernicious doctrine, it is necessary to acknowledge spontaneous generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνδριάς","severity":"info","text":"The term 'statue' continues the analogy of a bronze statue being crafted, which began in the previous passage. Here it is used to argue that if matter is ungenerated yet requires a craftsman, then one must admit spontaneous generation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"αὐτοματισμὸν","severity":"info","text":"The word 'spontaneous generation' (αὐτοματισμόν) is a key philosophical term in early Christian polemics against atomistic or Epicurean theories of self-ordered matter. Methodius uses it to reject the notion that matter could arise without a creator.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ὀλέθριον δόημα","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'pernicious doctrine' (ὀλέθριον δόημα) reflects Methodius’s polemical stance against contemporary philosophical schools, likely Stoic or Gnostic, that posited ungenerated matter. Such doctrines were seen as undermining Christian creation theology.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes a logical argument: if matter is ungenerated yet requires a craftsman, then the craftsman is redundant, leading to the absurd conclusion of spontaneous generation. The fragment breaks off mid-sentence, leaving the argument incomplete.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is a fragment preserved by Photius, and the sentence is truncated. The phrase 'according to the pernicious doctrine' may refer to a specific opponent’s view, but the context is lost, making the exact referent uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'pernicious doctrine' is not specified; it may refer to a particular philosophical school or heretical group.","The sentence is incomplete, so the full logical conclusion of the argument is unknown."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"εἰ δ’ οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἴσως ἐθελήσαντες προσήκασθαι τὸν λόγον πικρότερον ἀποκρινοῦνται, τὸ μὲν βρέτας ἀγένητον οὐκ εἶναι λέγοντες,\nγενητὸν δὲ εἶναι ἀεὶ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον, ὅπως ἀνάρχως λέγοιτο\n κρατεῖν τοῦ τεχνάσματος ὁ τεχνίτης, Οὐκοῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, λέξομεν αὐτοῖς,\nεἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τέλειος ὁ\nἀνδριάς, τί παρέσχεν αὐτῷ ὁ τεχνίτας ἢ τί ἐνήργησεν εἰς αὐτόν, φατέ.","english":"But if they will perhaps not even accept this argument, but will answer more harshly, saying that the statue is not ungenerated, but is generated yet has no beginning of generation, so that the craftsman might be said to rule over the artifact without beginning, then we shall say to them: O you there, if neither time nor eternity is found above, when the statue was not perfect, what did the craftsman provide to it, or what did he effect in it, tell us?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"γενητὸν δὲ εἶναι ἀεὶ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον","severity":"info","text":"The opponents claim the statue is 'generated yet has no beginning of generation,' a paradoxical formulation that Methodius attacks as incoherent.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"βρέτας","severity":"info","text":"βρέτας (statue) is a cultic term for a wooden image, used here to denote the artifact in the analogy of craftsmanship.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἀγένητον","severity":"info","text":"The debate over 'ungenerated' (ἀγένητον) vs. 'generated' echoes contemporary theological disputes about the eternity of matter, relevant to Methodius' anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐκοῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, λέξομεν αὐτοῖς","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical address 'O you there' marks a direct challenge, typical of Methodius' dialogic style in refuting opponents.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'if neither time nor eternity is found above' is ambiguous: 'above' may refer to a prior temporal state or a metaphysical hierarchy; the translation assumes the former.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'above' (ἐπάνω) is unclear: it could mean 'before' in time or 'above' in a causal chain; the translation takes it as temporal."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"εἰ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνενδεὴς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀρχὴν γενέσεως τυγχάνει, ταύτῃ μᾶλλον καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ὁ δημιουργὸς οὐδέποτε δημιουργήσας\n δημιουργῶν εὑρεθήσεται, καὶ πάλιν εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος περιδεδραμηκέναι,\nαύτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν. ἐὰν γὰρ κἂν τὸ ἀκαριαίτατον\n> ἀνδριάντα κινῆσαι ὁ δημιουργὸς λεχθῇ, ἀρχῇ ὑποπεσεῖται, καθ\nἣν πρότερον αὐτὸν ἄκοσμον καὶ ἀκίνητον ὄντα ἤρξατο κινεῖν καὶ\nκοσμεῖν. οὔκουν καὶ ἠν καὶ ἔσται διηνεκῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ κόσμος·\n ἀπεικαστέον γὰρ τῷ μὲν θεῷ τὸν τεχνίτην, τὸν δὲ ἀνδριάντα τῷ\nκόσμῳ.","english":"For if the same craftsman, being without need and having no beginning of generation, is found never to have crafted but always to be crafting, according to your argument, then the reasoning seems to have run around again to the same point, namely, to confess spontaneity. For if the craftsman is said to have moved even the slightest statue, he will fall under a beginning, according to which he began to move and order it when it was previously unorderly and unmoved. Therefore, the same world is not and will not be continuously the same forever; for the craftsman must be likened to God, and the statue to the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνενδεὴς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀρχὴν γενέσεως","severity":"info","text":"The craftsman is described as 'without need and having no beginning of generation', a key premise in the argument against the eternity of the world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"αὐτοματισμόν","severity":"info","text":"The term 'spontaneity' (αὐτοματισμός) refers to the Epicurean concept of chance or self-ordered motion, which Methodius argues follows from the opponents' position.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ γὰρ ... πάλιν εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος περιδεδραμηκέναι","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a conditional argument that loops back to a previous conclusion, indicated by the phrase 'the reasoning seems to have run around again to the same point'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἀνδριάντα","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of a statue (ἀνδριάς) and craftsman is a common Platonic trope for the relationship between God and the world, used here to argue against the world's eternity.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀκαριαίτατον","severity":"caution","text":"The text is fragmentary; the phrase 'even the slightest statue' (ἀκαριαίτατον ἀνδριάντα) may be corrupt or lacunose, affecting the precise force of the argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact referent of 'the same world' (ὁ αὐτὸς ... κόσμος) in the conclusion is ambiguous: whether it means numerically identical or qualitatively similar."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"πῇ δὴ οὐν, ὠ ἠλίθιοι, οἴεσθε τὴν κτίσιν συναπέραντον οὐσαν τῷ δημιουργῷ μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ; τὸ γὰρ συναπέραντον,\nμηδαμῶς ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχον, καὶ συναγένγτον καὶ ἰσοδύναμον ἀνάγκη\nτυγχάνειν. τὸ δὲ ἀγένητον, αὐτοτελὲς καὶ ἄτρεπτον φανθέν, καὶ\n ἀπροσδεὲς καὶ ἄφθορον ἔσται· καὶ εἰ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, οὐκέτι ὁ\nκόσμος τρεπτὸς καθ’ ὑμᾶς.","english":"How then, O foolish ones, do you suppose that creation, being co-eternal with the craftsman, does not need the craftsman? For that which is co-eternal, having no beginning of generation, must necessarily be ungenerated and of equal power. And that which is ungenerated, being self-sufficient and unchangeable, will also be without need and indestructible; and if this is so, then the world is no longer changeable according to your argument.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συναπέραντον","severity":"info","text":"The term συναπέραντον (co-eternal) is central to the argument, asserting that creation shares an eternal nature with the craftsman, which Methodius refutes as implying ungenerateness and equal power.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius argues that if creation is co-eternal with the craftsman, it must be ungenerated and of equal power, leading to the conclusion that the world is unchangeable, contradicting the opponents' view.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects Methodius' polemic against Origenist or Gnostic views that posited the eternity of creation, a key issue in early Christian debates on the relationship between God and the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues a rhetorical question-and-answer pattern, with Methodius addressing opponents as 'foolish ones' and using logical deduction to expose contradictions in their argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is fragmentary; the exact identity of the opponents (possibly Origenists or Gnostics) is not specified in this passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Ὅτι ἐκκλησία παρὰ τὸ ἐκκεκλικέναι τὰς ἡδονὰς λέγεσθαί\nφησιν.","english":"He says that the church is so called from having turned away from pleasures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἐκκλησία","severity":"info","text":"Methodius derives ἐκκλησία from ἐκκέκλικε (perfect of ἐκκλίνω, 'to turn away'), a folk etymology. The standard etymology is from ἐκκαλέω ('to call out'), referring to the assembly of citizens.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment asserts that the church is named for its turning away from pleasures (ἡδοναί), aligning with ascetic ideals common in early Christian moral teaching.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius of Olympus (3rd–4th cent.) wrote against Origenist cosmology. This fragment, preserved by Photius (9th cent.), likely comes from a lost work arguing for creation's temporal beginning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a brief explanatory aside (Ὅτι ... φησιν) within a larger argument. It interrupts the previous polemic against co-eternal creation to offer an etymological definition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius (Bibliotheca, Cod. 235) excerpts this etymology, preserving a rare fragment of Methodius. The derivation was not widely adopted by later Greek patristic writers.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment; the surrounding argument is lost. The etymology may be Methodius' own or a citation of an earlier source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Ὅτι φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος, Δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν τοῖς προωμολογημένοις\n ἔφαμεν εἶναι ποιητικάς, τὴν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γυμνῷ τῷ βουλήματι\nχωρὶς μελλησμοῦ ἅμα τῷ θελῆσαι αὐτουργοῦσαν ὃ βούλεται ποιεῖν·\nτυγχάνει δὲ ὁ πατήρ· θατέραν δὲ κατακοσμοῦσαν καὶ ποικίλλουσαν\nκατὰ μίμησιν τῆς προτέρας τὰ ἤδη γεγονότα· ἔστι δὲ ὁ υἱός, ἡ πανταδύναμος\nκαὶ κραταιὰ χεὶρ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ᾗ μετὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι\n ὕλην ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων κατακοσμεῖ.","english":"The holy one says that we said there are two creative powers in what was previously agreed: one, which from non-being, by bare will, without delay, at the moment of willing, itself works what it wills to do; this is the Father. The other, which adorns and variegates, in imitation of the first, things that have already come into being; this is the Son, the all-powerful and mighty hand of the Father, with which, after making matter from non-being, he adorns it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage distinguishes two creative powers: the Father creates ex nihilo by will alone, while the Son adorns pre-existing matter, described as the Father's hand.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"πανταδέναμος","severity":"info","text":"The compound adjective πανταδέναμος, here translated 'all-powerful', is rare and emphasizes the Son's comprehensive strength as the Father's instrument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius adapts a subordinationist model of creation, where the Son is the agent of ordering matter, a theme found in earlier apologists like Justin and Irenaeus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a direct quotation within Photius's epitome, introduced by 'the holy one says', framing it as a reported teaching from Methodius's lost work.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius preserves this fragment in his Bibliotheca, noting Methodius's views; the distinction of creative powers influenced later Byzantine discussions on the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in what was previously agreed' (ἐν τοῖς προωμολογημένοις) refers to an earlier part of the work now lost; the exact referent is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Ὅτι τὸ Ἰὼβ βιβλίον Μωσέως εἶναι ὁ ἅγιός φησιν.","english":"That the book of Job is by Moses, the holy one says.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὅτι","severity":"info","text":"The opening particle introduces a reported statement, likely a lemma from Methodius' lost work as excerpted by Photius.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἰὼβ βιβλίον","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'the book of Job' refers to the biblical book, here attributed to Moses, a traditional view found in some early Christian and Jewish sources.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Μωσέως","severity":"info","text":"Attributing the book of Job to Moses was a minority opinion in early Christianity; Methodius may be citing an earlier authority or engaging in a common exegetical tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"ὁ ἅγιός","severity":"info","text":"The 'holy one' likely refers to a revered figure, possibly Methodius himself or an earlier Church Father, as cited by Photius in his Bibliotheca.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'the holy one' is not specified; it could be Methodius or another authority.","The fragment does not clarify whether Methodius endorses or merely reports the Mosaic authorship of Job."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Ὅτι περὶ τοῦ »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν«\n 16 vgl. 7, 2 S. 497, 26 — 24 vgl. Symp. S. 19, 8 — 29 vgl. De res. I, 46, 2\nS. 296, 2f. Iren. Adv. haer. III, 21, 10. V, 5, 2. 6, 1. Hippol. In Dan. IE, 14, 6.\nII, 33, 4 — 32 Gen. 1, 1 \n 2 εἰ δ’ Ausgg.: ἢ Α B 4. 18 ἔχον w. e. seh. corr. aus ἔχων A 5 ὦ < A\n| λέξωμεν B 9 ἡμᾶς A 11 τὸ] τὸν A 12 τὸν < AB | κινήσας AB\n15 ἀπεικ. A ν b 16 δὴ] δὲ A 20 ἔσται] ἂν A 24 δὲ < A,\naber e. Lücke 25 ποιητικῆς A 26 μελησμοῦ B ὃ Β 237v","english":"That concerning the phrase \"In the beginning he made the heaven and the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν","severity":"info","text":"The Greek phrase quotes Genesis 1:1, the opening of the biblical creation account.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ δ’ Ausgg.: ἢ Α Β","severity":"caution","text":"The apparatus notes a textual variant: the reading 'εἰ δ’' in the edition versus 'ἢ' in manuscripts A and B, indicating uncertainty in the transmitted text.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is preserved in Photius's Bibliotheca (codex 235), a 9th-century Byzantine compilation that excerpts and comments on earlier works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage begins a new unit of argument, introduced by 'Ὅτι' ('That'), typical of Methodius's style in framing a thesis or citation for discussion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is fragmentary; the apparatus shows several manuscript variants (e.g., 'εἰ δ’' vs. 'ἢ', 'ἔχον' vs. 'ἔχων') that affect the precise reading and interpretation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"φησίν, Ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι. λέγεται\nγὰρ παρά τινι τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ λέγουσα περὶ αὑτῆς τὸν\nτρόπον τοῦτον κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ, εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ\nπρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με«.","english":"He says, \"One would not err in calling wisdom itself the beginning. For it is said by one of the divine chorus, speaking about herself in this manner: 'The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways; he established me for his works before eternity.'","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων","severity":"info","text":"Methodius identifies 'the beginning' (ἀρχή) with wisdom (σοφία), a theological move that equates the biblical 'beginning' with divine wisdom, not a temporal starting point.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ","severity":"info","text":"This is a quotation of Proverbs 8:22 (LXX), where Wisdom personified says, 'The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways.' Methodius uses it to support his identification of wisdom with the beginning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'divine chorus' likely refers to the angelic host or a group of inspired biblical authors; here it introduces the speaker of the Proverbs citation as Wisdom personified.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"φησίν","severity":"info","text":"The passage begins with 'He says' (φησίν), indicating that Methodius is reporting or refuting an unnamed interlocutor's claim that wisdom is the beginning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'before eternity' (πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος) reflects a pre-existent, atemporal understanding of wisdom, which later Christian theologians (e.g., Origen) developed in debates about the eternity of creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the speaker of φησίν is unclear; it may be an opponent or a biblical author. The reading taken assumes Methodius is citing an interlocutor."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"ἠν γὰρ ἀκόλουθον καὶ πρεπωδέστερον πάντα ἃ εἰς γένεσιν ἠλθον εἶναι ταύτης νεώτερα, ἐπεὶ καὶ\nδι᾿ αὐτῆς γεγόνασιν. ἐπίστησον γὰρ εἰ μὴ καὶ τό »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν\nλόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ κατὰ τὸν εὐαγγελιστήν »καὶ\nθεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν«, εἰ μὴ τούτοις\nὁμαρτεῖ.","english":"for it was consistent and more fitting that all things which came into being should be younger than her, since they came into being through her. For consider whether the statement, \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\" according to the Evangelist, and \"the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God,\" does not agree with these things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument is that all created things are younger than wisdom (the 'her' of the previous passage) because they came into being through her. This logical sequence is then tested by a Johannine parallel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν λόγος","severity":"info","text":"Methodius conflates two Johannine phrases: John 1:1 ('In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God') and John 1:1c ('and the Word was God'). The Greek text shows a slight variation from the standard NT text, possibly from memory or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a rhetorical question (ἐπίστησον γὰρ εἰ μὴ) to link the preceding argument about wisdom to the Prologue of John, suggesting that the Word's preexistence parallels wisdom's priority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius here engages with Origenist exegesis, which often identified the Johannine 'beginning' with the divine wisdom (Sophia) of Proverbs 8:22-23, a theme from the previous passage. The fragment is preserved in Photius's Bibliotheca, codex 235.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is a fragment from Photius, and the exact wording of the Johannine citation may be paraphrased or corrupted in transmission. The phrase 'οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν' is not a direct NT quotation but a conflation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'her' (ταύτης) is wisdom, but the Coptic context (not present here) might clarify the antecedent. The Greek text is clear enough."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν, ἀφ’ ἦς ἀνεβλάστησεν ὁ ὀρθότατος λόγος, τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων φατέον, ἐν ᾦ ἦν· τῷ δέ\nοὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ τὸ ἐξουσιαστικὸν τοῦ λόγου, ὃ\nεἶχε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἰς γένεσιν παρελθεῖν,\nἔοικε σημαίνειν, τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰπών. οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ μετὰ τὴν\nἰδίαν ἄναρχον ἀρχήν, τὸν πατέρα, αὐτὸς τῶν ἄλλων γίνεται, δἰ ἡς\n ἅπαντα δημιουργεῖται.","english":"For the beginning, from which the most correct Word sprang forth, must be said to be the Father and Maker of all things, in whom he was; and the phrase \"he was in the beginning with God\" seems to signify the authoritative power of the Word, which he had with the Father even before the world came into generation, having spoken of the beginning. Therefore, after his own beginningless beginning, the Father, he himself becomes the beginning of all other things, through which everything is created.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'the beginning' is here identified with the Father, who is the source from which the Word springs forth, establishing a hierarchy of principles.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄναρχον ἀρχήν","severity":"info","text":"The term 'beginningless beginning' (ἄναρχον ἀρχήν) is a paradoxical formulation used to describe the Father as the ultimate, uncaused origin, distinct from the derived beginning that is the Word.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes John 1:1-2, where the Logos is said to be 'in the beginning with God,' and Methodius interprets it as signifying the Word's authoritative power with the Father before creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐκοῦν","severity":"info","text":"The inferential particle 'οὐκοῦν' ('therefore') marks a logical conclusion: because the Word was with the Father in the beginning, the Word himself becomes the beginning for all other created things.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων","severity":"info","text":"The description of the Father as 'Maker of all things' reflects Middle Platonic and early Christian cosmological language, where the Father is both the source and creator of the universe.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has a repetition 'τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν' which may be a scribal error or a deliberate emphasis; the English translation smooths it to 'the beginning' without comment.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν' is ambiguous: it could be a dittography or an emphatic repetition; the reading taken is that it is a scribal error."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Ὅτι Ὠριγένης μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ μυθήσασθαι περὶ τῆς τοῦ\nπαντὸς ἀïδιότητος ἐπάγει καὶ τοῦτο, Οὔτε οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ, ὥς φασί\nτινες, πρότερον οὐκ ὢν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τότε πρώτως πλασθεὶς εἰς κόσμον\nπαρῆλθεν, οὔτε αὖ κόσμος πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσεως\n ἤρξατο δημιουργεῖσθαι.","english":"That Origen, after having spun many myths about the eternity of the universe, adds also this: \"Neither, then, did man, who previously was not, first come into the world when he was fashioned from Adam, as some say, nor did the world begin to be created six days before the generation of Adam.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὅτι Ὠριγένης μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ μυθήσασθαι περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀïδιότητος ἐπάγει καὶ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"Methodius introduces a direct quotation from Origen, accusing him of 'spinning many myths' about the eternity of the universe, a polemical framing that sets up the refutation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀïδιότητος","severity":"info","text":"The term 'eternity' (ἀïδιότης) is a key concept in Origen's cosmology, which Methodius attacks; it denotes the uncreated, everlasting nature of the universe, opposed to the Christian doctrine of creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδάμ","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Adam and the six-day creation alludes to Genesis 1–2, specifically the creation of man on the sixth day (Gen 1:26–31). Origen here rejects a literal six-day creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσεως","severity":"info","text":"Origen's claim that the world did not begin six days before Adam's birth counters a literal reading of the Genesis creation week, a view Methodius elsewhere defends against Origen's allegorism.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐπάγει","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'adds' (ἐπάγει) indicates that this is a further argument in Origen's lost work, quoted by Methodius as part of a series of objections to the eternity of the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of Origen's quotation is not identified; it may come from his lost 'On the Resurrection' or another work.","The phrase 'πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν' could be interpreted as 'six days before' or 'within six days'; the translation follows the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"εἰ δὲ φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς ταῦτά τις, πρότερον φρασάτω εἰ μὴ εὐαρίθμητος ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου\nγενέσεως κατὰ τὴν Μωσέως βίβλον τοῖς οῦτως αὐτὴν ἐκλαμβανομένοις\nὁ χρόνος ἔσται, τῆς προφητικῆς καὶ ἐνθάδε βοώσης φωνῆς\n»ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς\n σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές, ἥτις διῆλθε, καὶ φυλακὴ ἐν νυκτί«. χιλίων\nγὰρ ἐτῶν περιοριζομένων εἰς μίαν ἡμέραν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ, ἀπὸ\nτῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν, ὡς οἱ περὶ\nἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν","english":"If someone should be kindly disposed to differ concerning these things, let him first state whether the time from the genesis of the world according to the book of Moses, as those who understand it thus take it, will not be easily counted, the prophetic voice crying out here also: \"From eternity and unto eternity you are; for a thousand years in your eyes are as yesterday, which has passed, and a watch in the night.\" For if a thousand years are bounded as one day in the eyes of God, from the genesis of the world until the consummation . . . until us, as those around six days are concluded (the six-thousandth","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ δὲ φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς ταῦτά τις","severity":"info","text":"The conditional clause introduces a hypothetical opponent who is 'kindly disposed to differ'—a rhetorical softening of polemic, characteristic of Methodius' engagement with Origen.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Psalm 90:2–4 (LXX 89:2–4), which speaks of God's eternity and the compression of time. Methodius uses it to argue against Origen's view of an eternal world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"χιλίων γὰρ ἐτῶν περιοριζομένων εἰς μίαν ἡμέραν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ","severity":"info","text":"Methodius applies a literal interpretation of the Psalm to argue that cosmic history is finite: if 1000 years = 1 divine day, then 6000 years (six days) from creation to consummation yields a calculable chronology, opposing Origen's eternal cycles.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν","severity":"caution","text":"The text is lacunose after 'καταπαύσεως' (consummation). The ellipsis likely marks a break in the manuscript tradition; the sense is that the period from creation to the end is being compared to the six days of creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν","severity":"caution","text":"The fragment breaks off at 'ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν' (six-thousandth). The intended completion is likely 'ἔτος' (year), indicating a 6000-year scheme from creation to consummation, but the text is incomplete.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The lacuna after 'καταπαύσεως' leaves unclear whether Methodius specifies the exact duration from creation to consummation or to his own time.","The phrase 'οἱ περὶ ἓξ ἡμέραι' is ambiguous: it may refer to the six days of creation or to a group of exegetes (e.g., 'those around the six days')."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"ἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν ἄρ' ἔτος φασὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ εἰς δεῦρο συντείνειν· τῇ γὰρ\n ἑβδομάδι τῷ ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει κρίσιν ἀφίξεσθαί φασιν). οὐκοῦν\nαἱ πᾶσαι ἡμέραι δέκα καὶ τρεῖς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν ᾖ\nἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, μετροῦνται. ὧν ὁ θεὸς\n 3 Spr. Sal. S, 22 — e. 11 Joh. 1, 1 — 10 vgl. S. 415, 13. 474, 5. Plato\nTim. 28 C — 12 vgl. Joh. 17, 5 — 24 Psal. 89, 2. 4 — 27 Gen. 2, 2 — 30 vgl.\nBarn. 15, 4 \n 1 τὴν] καὶ A 2 αὐτῆς AB 3 κύριος A 316 | ὁδὸν B 9 ἁμάρτοι\nA 10 τὸ δὲ B 11 ἦν < B 15 δημιουργοῦνται B 18 πρῶτος\nB 22f ἐκλαμβανομέ|νοις A 316 r b 23 ἔσται Ausgg.: ἂν A, εἷς B\n25 ἐχθές A 27 nach καταπ. Lücke, etwa <τοῦ θεοῦ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι,\nκαταπαύσεως> Kl | μέχρï B","english":"Six days are completed (so they say that the six-thousandth year from Adam extends to the present; for in the seventh week, in the seven-thousandth year, they say judgment will arrive). Therefore all the days, thirteen in number, from us back to the beginning, in which God made the heaven and the earth, are measured.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'six days are completed' refers to the six days of creation, here interpreted as six thousand years, a common chronographic scheme in early Christian sources.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει κρίσιν","severity":"info","text":"The seven-thousandth year as the time of judgment reflects a millenarian chronology, paralleled in the Epistle of Barnabas (Barn. 15,4) and other early Christian apocalyptic texts.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Barnabas 15.4"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν ᾖ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν","severity":"info","text":"This echoes Genesis 1:1 LXX: 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.' The phrase grounds the chronological calculation in the creation narrative.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"αἱ πᾶσαι ἡμέραι δέκα καὶ τρεῖς","severity":"info","text":"The 'thirteen days' likely represent a symbolic or schematic total, not a literal count, possibly linking the six days of creation with the seven days of the week leading to judgment.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τῇ γὰρ ἑβδομάδι τῷ ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει","severity":"caution","text":"The text is corrupt here; the apparatus notes a lacuna after 'καταπ.' and a conjectural supplement. The exact sense of 'seventh week' and its relation to the seven-thousandth year is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'thirteen days' is ambiguous: it may be a symbolic number or a miscalculation; the text does not clarify the arithmetic.","The lacuna after 'καταπ.' leaves the connection between the seventh week and the seven-thousandth year unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"άνώτερον κατὰ τὴν σφῶν αὐτῶν ἄνοιαν οὐδὲν ούδαμῶς\nἐγεγύμνωτο τοῦ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ εἶναι. εἰ δὲ καὶ τρισκαίδεκά\nεἰσιν ἡμέραι ἐν όφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ ἀπὸ γενέσεως κόσμου, πῶς\nφησιν ἡ ἐν τῷ Σειρὰχ σοφία »ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ\n καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;« Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων,\nκαὶ ὅρα οἷα παίζει. \n 4 Sir. 1, 2 \n 2f καὶ τρισκαίδ. B: καὶ <Α\nEK ΤΟΥ <ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η> ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΓΕΝΗΤΩΝ.","english":"above, according to their own folly, had in no way been stripped of being father and almighty. But if there are thirteen days in the eyes of God from the beginning of the world, how does the wisdom in Sirach say, “Who will number the sand of the seas, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?” These things Origen says, being eager, and see what nonsense he plays.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;","severity":"info","text":"The quotation is from Sirach 1:2 (LXX), a wisdom text that emphasizes the incomprehensibility of divine creation. Methodius uses it to challenge Origen's literal interpretation of the thirteen days.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων, καὶ ὅρα οἷα παίζει.","severity":"info","text":"Methodius directly criticizes Origen, accusing him of frivolous exegesis. This reflects the broader anti-Origenist polemic in Methodius's works, particularly in the debate on the eternity of creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τρισκαίδεκά εἰσιν ἡμέραι ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ ἀπὸ γενέσεως κόσμου","severity":"info","text":"The 'thirteen days' likely refers to a speculative chronology (six days of creation plus seven days of the week) that Origen or his followers used to calculate cosmic ages. Methodius rejects this as anthropomorphic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ δὲ καὶ τρισκαίδεκά εἰσιν ἡμέραι","severity":"info","text":"This conditional clause introduces a rhetorical question that contrasts Origen's literal days with the Sirach quotation, forming a logical refutation within the fragment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐγεγύμνωτο τοῦ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ εἶναι","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is corrupt here; the phrase 'had been stripped of being father and almighty' is grammatically awkward. The English draft smooths it, but the original may reflect a lacuna or scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ἐγεγύμνωτο τοῦ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ εἶναι' is syntactically problematic; the reading assumes a genitive absolute or infinitive construction, but the text may be corrupt."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Ὅτι τό μὴ βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρίτας\nὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘ μαργαρίτας μὲν τοῦ Ξένωνος τὰ μυστικώτερα\nτῆς θεοσδότου θρησκείας ἐκλαμβάνοντος μαθήματα, χοίρους\n δὲ τοὺς ἔτι ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς παντοίαις δίκην χοίρων ἐν βορβόρῳ\nκαλινδουμένους τούτοις γὰρ εἰρῆσθαι παρὰ Χριστοῦ ἔλεγε μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nτὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτὰ φέρειν, ἅτε τῇ\nἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ταῖς ἀγρίαις ἡδοναῖς προκατισχημένους) ὁ μέγας Μεθόδιός\nφησιν, Εἰ μαργαρίτας τὰ σεμνοπρεπῆ καὶ θεῖα μαθήματα δεῖ\n ἐξακούειν, χοίρους δὲ τοὺς ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς συζῶντας, οἷς καὶ\nκαὶ ἀπόκρυφα τὰ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν\nἀποστολικὰ διεγείροντα κηρύγματα δεῖ εἶναι, ὅρα ὡς οὐδένα λέγεις\nτῶν Χριστιανῶν τοῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων κηρύγμασιν ἐξ ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν\nτῆς προτέρας ἐπιστρέφει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν πάντως παρέβαλον τὰ κατὰ\n τὸν Χριστὸν μυστήρια τοῖς δι' ἀπιστίαν χοίρ·οις ἐοικόσιν.","english":"That one should not cast the holy thing to the dogs, nor your pearls before swine—Xenon, understanding pearls as the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion, and swine as those who still wallow in impiety and every kind of pleasure like swine in filth, for he said that Christ had spoken these words to them, not to cast the divine teachings before them, because they are unable to bear them, being held fast by impiety and wild pleasures—the great Methodius says: If pearls are to be understood as the dignified and divine teachings, and swine as those who live in impiety and pleasures, for whom even the apostolic proclamations that stir up piety and faith in Christ must be hidden, see how you say that none of the Christians turn from their former impiety to the apostolic proclamations; for they would certainly not have cast the mysteries concerning Christ before those who, through unbelief, resemble swine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The passage echoes a logion of Jesus, likely from Matthew 7:6 or a variant tradition, warning against casting pearls before swine. Methodius uses it to argue against revealing sacred teachings to the impious.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαρίτας","severity":"info","text":"Xenon interprets 'pearls' as the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion, while Methodius reinterprets them as dignified and divine teachings. The term carries a decision about the nature of esoteric knowledge.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χοίρους","severity":"info","text":"Xenon and Methodius both use 'swine' metaphorically for those wallowing in impiety and pleasures, unable to receive divine teachings. The term underscores the moral and spiritual condition of the uninitiated.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ξένωνος","severity":"info","text":"Xenon is likely a Christian teacher or exegete, otherwise unknown, whose interpretation Methodius critiques. The passage preserves a fragment of Xenon's allegorical reading of the gospel saying.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁ μέγας Μεθόδιός φησιν","severity":"info","text":"Methodius is cited as 'the great Methodius', indicating his authority in the Photian tradition. This fragment shows his engagement with Origenist exegesis, rejecting the idea that apostolic teachings should be hidden from the impious.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ ... δεῖ ... ὅρα ὡς","severity":"info","text":"Methodius uses a conditional structure: 'If pearls are ... and swine are ... see how you say ...' This frames a logical refutation of Xenon's position, concluding that hiding teachings would prevent conversion.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Xenon is uncertain; he may be a contemporary of Methodius or a figure from an earlier tradition. The text does not specify whether the gospel saying is from Matthew or an apocryphal source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"ἢ οὖν πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀπίστοις ταῦτα παρεβλήθη παρὰ τῶν\nτοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκηρύχθη, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας μετέβαλεν\nαὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν ὥσπερ οὐν καὶ πιστεύοντες ὁμολογοῦμεν,\nκαὶ οὐκέτι δύναται νοεῖσθαι τό »μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας\n ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘, ὡς ἐρρήθη· ἢ τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη\n 1 vgl. Sokrates KG VI, 13 — 2. 19 Mt. 7, 6 — 3 vgl. Symp. S. 9, 15f.\n10, 18f. 37, 10. 118, Bf. De lepra 7, 8 S. 461, 12f — .5 vgl. Plato Phaed. 69 C. 82E \n 1 Phot. Bibl. 235 S. 301b, —304b, 20 \n 1 A Bl. 313v a, 33. B Bl. 235v, 29. Ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Μεθοδίου\nκαὶ ἐπισκόπου κ. ἐπ. Μ. B) τοῦ περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν ἐκλογὴ κατὰ σύνοψιν\n| ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η] vgl. Sokr. KG VI, 13 Μεθόδιος μὲν οὖν . . ἐν τῷ διαλόγῳ ᾦ\nἐπέγραψε Ξένωνα 2 μηδὲ A 313vb 3 τοῦ Ξένωνος < A 4 ἐκλαμ-\nβάνοντας B 11 εὺσέβειαν B 236 14 παρέλαβον B 15 τὸν < A\n17 ἀσεβείας A 314 18 εἰς 2 übergeschrieben A 19 βάλετε A. 20 ἡμῶν? B\n| τ. χοιρ. ἔμπρ. A","english":"Either these things were set before all Greeks and other unbelievers by the disciples of Christ and proclaimed, and they turned them from impiety to faith in Christ, just as we also confess who believe, and then the saying \"Do not cast your pearls before swine\" can no longer be understood as it was spoken; or this is as it was said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἢ οὖν πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀπίστοις ταῦτα παρεβλήθη","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a dilemma: either the teachings were universally proclaimed to Greeks and other unbelievers, or the saying about pearls and swine must be reinterpreted. The logic hinges on the premise that if the teachings were proclaimed to all, the prohibition against casting pearls before swine cannot apply literally.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"This is a clear citation of Matthew 7:6, where Jesus warns against casting pearls before swine. The variant spelling μαργαρίτας for μαργαρίτας is attested in some manuscripts.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ","severity":"info","text":"The dialogue is attributed to Xenon, a character in Methodius's work. The title Ξένων or Ξένωνος is recorded in Photius's Bibliotheca (cod. 235) and in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History (VI, 13), indicating the work was known in the 5th century.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":["Photius 9th cent.","Socrates Scholasticus 5th cent."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Μεθοδίου","severity":"info","text":"The manuscript note indicates this fragment was read from a copy of Methodius's work. The apparatus shows variant readings between manuscripts A and B, including differences in word order and spelling (e.g., βάλετε vs. βάλητε).","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἢ τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text at the end is corrupt: τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη is likely a scribal error or abbreviation. The apparatus notes a variant reading in B, and the sense is uncertain. The English draft renders it as 'or this is as it was said', but the Greek may originally have had a fuller clause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the concluding clause is uncertain due to manuscript corruption; the apparatus shows variant readings between A and B.","The identity of 'Xenon' as a character or a separate author is not fully resolved, though the context suggests a dialogue figure."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"νοουμένου, ἀνάγκη ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὡς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἀπίστων, οὓς ~\nἀπεικάζομεν, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν διδαγμάτων, μαργαριτῶν δίκην τὰς\nψυχὰς καταυγαζόντων, ἡ εἰς Χριστὸν πίστις καὶ ἡ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐλευθερία\nγεγένηται. βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο.","english":"It is necessary for us to say that to none of the unbelievers, whom we have compared, has faith in Christ and freedom from impiety come from the apostolic teachings, which like pearls illumine the souls. But this is blasphemous.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"νοουμένου","severity":"info","text":"The participle νοουμένου (genitive absolute) is syntactically incomplete in the fragment; it likely governs a conditional or concessive clause whose main verb is lost, leaving the logical connection to the following sentence ambiguous.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"μαργαριτῶν","severity":"info","text":"The term μαργαριτῶν (pearls) alludes to the Gospel saying about casting pearls before swine (Matt 7:6; cf. also the apocryphal tradition in the Acts of Thomas). Methodius uses it as a metaphor for apostolic teachings that illuminate souls.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'do not cast your pearls before swine' (referred to in the previous passage) is a proverbial saying found in the Gospel of Matthew (7:6) and in the Acts of Thomas. Methodius here argues that if the apostolic teachings were proclaimed to unbelievers, the saying would be contradicted.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"The sentence 'βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο' (But this is blasphemous) functions as a rhetorical conclusion, rejecting the hypothetical scenario that apostolic teachings did not reach unbelievers. It marks a logical pivot in the argument.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"νοουμένου","severity":"caution","text":"The fragment begins with νοουμένου, which is syntactically orphaned; the preceding context is lost. The English draft supplies 'Either these things were set before...' but the Greek does not preserve the protasis. The sense of the conditional is reconstructed from Photius's summary.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The genitive absolute νοουμένου lacks a clear main clause; the logical relationship to the following sentence is uncertain.","The referent of 'τοῦτο' in 'βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο' is ambiguous: it may refer to the preceding hypothetical statement or to the entire preceding argument."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"οὐκ ἄρα δεῖ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰ μυστικώτερα τῶν μαθημάτων ἐκλαμβάνειν ἐνταῦθα, χοίρους δὲ\nτοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, οὐδὲ τό μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν\nτῶν χοίρων‘ εἰς τό »μὴ παραβάλητε τοῖς ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἀπέστοις τὰ\nμυστικὰ καὶ τελειοποιὰ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως διδάγματα« παραλαμβάνειν·\nἀλλὰ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐκδέχεσθαι χρή , αἶς\n ὥσπερ πολυτίμοις μαργαρίταις ἡ ψυχὴ καθωραΐζεται, μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nδὲ αὐτοὺς τοῖς χοίροις τουτέστι μὴ παραβαλεῖν αὐτὰς τὰς ἀρετάς,\nοἷον ἁγνείαν καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν,\nδὴ μὴ παραβαλεῖν ταῖς μαχλώσαις ἡδοναῖς χοίροις γὰρ ἐοίκασιν\nἕνα μὴ τὰς ἀρετὰς αὑται καταφαγοῦσαι χοιρώδη βίον καὶ πολυπαθῆ\n τὴν ψυχὴν βιοτεύειν παρασκευάσωσιν.","english":"Therefore, we must not take the pearls here to mean the more mystical teachings, nor the swine to mean the impious, nor interpret the saying \"do not cast your pearls before swine\" as \"do not expose the mystical and perfective teachings of faith in Christ to the impious and unbelieving.\" Rather, we must understand the pearls as the virtues, by which the soul is adorned as with precious pearls, and not to cast them before swine—that is, not to expose these virtues themselves, such as chastity, temperance, justice, and truth, to the wanton pleasures, for these pleasures resemble swine, lest they devour the virtues and cause the soul to live a swinish and passion-ridden life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"Methodius alludes to the proverb 'do not cast your pearls before swine' (cf. Matt 7:6; also in Greek gnomai). He explicitly rejects a literal reading that equates pearls with mystical teachings and swine with the impious.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαρίτας","severity":"info","text":"Methodius reinterprets 'pearls' as virtues (ἀρεταί), not as esoteric doctrines. This allegorical reading shifts the focus from gnostic secrecy to moral adornment of the soul.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χοίρους","severity":"info","text":"The 'swine' are identified with wanton pleasures (μαχλώσαις ἡδοναῖς), not with unbelievers. Methodius warns that pleasures can devour virtues and lead to a swinish, passion-ridden life.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage counters a contemporary exegesis that read the proverb as a prohibition against sharing Christian mysteries with pagans. Methodius insists on a moral-ascetic interpretation, consistent with his anti-Origenist stance.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument follows a corrective pattern: first rejecting a literal or gnostic reading (οὐκ ἄρα δεῖ…), then proposing the allegorical alternative (ἀλλὰ… χρή). The virtues are listed (ἁγνεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, ἀλήθεια) as examples.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment from Photius; the original context of Methodius's argument is lost. The exact source of the rejected exegesis (perhaps Gnostic or Origenist) is not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Ὅτι τό μὴ βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρίτας\nὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘ μαργαρίτας μὲν τοῦ Ξένωνος τὰ μυστικώτερα\nτῆς θεοσδότου θρησκείας ἐκλαμβάνοντος μαθήματα, χοίρους\n δὲ τοὺς ἔτι ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς παντοίαις δίκην χοίρων ἐν βορβόρῳ\nκαλινδουμένους τούτοις γὰρ εἰρῆσθαι παρὰ Χριστοῦ ἔλεγε μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nτὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτὰ φέρειν, ἅτε τῇ\nἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ταῖς ἀγρίαις ἡδοναῖς προκατισχημένους) ὁ μέγας Μεθόδιός\nφησιν, Εἰ μαργαρίτας τὰ σεμνοπρεπῆ καὶ θεῖα μαθήματα δεῖ\n ἐξακούειν, χοίρους δὲ τοὺς ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ ἡδοναῖς συζῶντας, οἷς καὶ\nκαὶ ἀπόκρυφα τὰ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν\nἀποστολικὰ διεγείροντα κηρύγματα δεῖ εἶναι, ὅρα ὡς οὐδένα λέγεις\nτῶν Χριστιανῶν τοῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων κηρύγμασιν ἐξ ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν\nτῆς προτέρας ἐπιστρέφει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν πάντως παρέβαλον τὰ κατὰ\n τὸν Χριστὸν μυστήρια τοῖς δι' ἀπιστίαν χοίρ·οις ἐοικόσιν. ἢ οὖν πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀπίστοις ταῦτα παρεβλήθη παρὰ τῶν\nτοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκηρύχθη, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας μετέβαλεν\nαὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν ὥσπερ οὐν καὶ πιστεύοντες ὁμολογοῦμεν,\nκαὶ οὐκέτι δύναται νοεῖσθαι τό »μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας\n ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων‘, ὡς ἐρρήθη· ἢ τούτου ὡς ἐλέκθη\n 1 vgl. Sokrates KG VI, 13 — 2. 19 Mt. 7, 6 — 3 vgl. Symp. S. 9, 15f. 10, 18f. 37, 10. 118, Bf. De lepra 7, 8 S. 461, 12f — .5 vgl. Plato Phaed. 69 C. 82E \n 1 Phot. Bibl. 235 S. 301b, —304b, 20 \n 1 A Bl. 313v a, 33. B Bl. 235v, 29. Ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Μεθοδίου\nκαὶ ἐπισκόπου κ. ἐπ. Μ.","english":"That the saying \"do not cast the holy to the dogs, nor your pearls before swine\"—with Xenon interpreting pearls as the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion, and swine as those still wallowing in impiety and every kind of pleasure like swine in filth, for he said that Christ spoke these words to them, not to expose the divine teachings, because they cannot bear them, being held back by impiety and wild pleasures—the great Methodius says: If pearls must be understood as the venerable and divine teachings, and swine as those living in impiety and pleasures, for whom even the apostolic proclamations that awaken piety and faith in Christ must be hidden, see how you say that none of the Christians turn from their former impiety to the proclamations of the apostles; for they would certainly not have exposed the mysteries concerning Christ to those who resemble swine through unbelief. Therefore, either these were exposed to all Greeks and other unbelievers by the disciples of Christ and proclaimed, and they turned them from impiety to faith in Christ, just as we also confess in believing, and then the saying \"do not cast your pearls before swine\" can no longer be understood as it was said; or this, as it was spoken.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The passage discusses the dominical saying 'do not cast your pearls before swine' (Matthew 7:6). Methodius rejects Xenon's allegorical reading that pearls are mystical teachings and swine are the impious.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μαργαρίτας","severity":"info","text":"Xenon interprets 'pearls' (μαργαρίτας) as the more mystical teachings of the God-given religion; Methodius counters that they should be understood as venerable and divine teachings, i.e., the apostolic kerygmata.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χοίρους","severity":"info","text":"Xenon takes 'swine' (χοίρους) as those wallowing in impiety and pleasures; Methodius agrees that swine are those living in impiety and pleasures, but argues that the apostolic teachings were in fact proclaimed to all, including such people.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ξένωνος","severity":"info","text":"Xenon is an otherwise unknown interpreter cited by Methodius. The fragment preserves a debate over the correct exegesis of Matthew 7:6, likely from a lost work of Methodius against allegorizing tendencies.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a dialectical structure: first Xenon's interpretation is given, then Methodius refutes it by showing that if pearls are teachings and swine are unbelievers, the apostolic mission would be impossible, leading to a dilemma.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) preserves this fragment from Methodius' De Creatis. The marginal note indicates it was read from a manuscript of the holy martyr Methodius, bishop, etc.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Xenon is uncertain; he may be a contemporary or earlier exegete. The text is fragmentary, and the conclusion of Methodius' argument is not fully preserved."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"B) τοῦ περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν ἐκλογὴ κατὰ σύνοψιν\n| ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ Η] vgl. Sokr. KG VI, 13 Μεθόδιος μὲν οὖν . . ἐν τῷ διαλόγῳ ᾦ\nἐπέγραψε Ξένωνα 2 μηδὲ A 313vb 3 τοῦ Ξένωνος < A 4 ἐκλαμ-\nβάνοντας B 11 εὺσέβειαν B 236 14 παρέλαβον B 15 τὸν < A\n17 ἀσεβείας A 314 18 εἰς 2 übergeschrieben A 19 βάλετε A. 20 ἡμῶν? B\n| τ. χοιρ. ἔμπρ. A","english":"ignorance, and the holy as the sacred doctrines of the faith, and dogs as those who are contentious and bark against the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"τοῦ περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν ἐκλογὴ κατὰ σύνοψιν","severity":"info","text":"This heading, 'Selection concerning the Created Things, in summary,' marks a structural division in the fragment, likely indicating a condensed excerpt from Methodius' dialogue.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ΞΕΝΩΝΟΣ","severity":"info","text":"Xenon is a character in Methodius' dialogue, as attested by Socrates of Constantinople (Hist. Eccl. VI,13), who notes that Methodius wrote a dialogue entitled 'Xenon'.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Socrates of Constantinople"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"μηδὲ A 313vb","severity":"info","text":"The apparatus notes 'μηδὲ A 313vb', indicating a manuscript variant where the negative particle is omitted in codex A at folio 313 verso b.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰς 2 übergeschrieben A","severity":"info","text":"The note 'εἰς 2 übergeschrieben A' shows that in codex A the preposition 'εἰς' is written as a superscript correction, suggesting scribal emendation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"βάλετε A","severity":"caution","text":"The reading 'βάλετε' in codex A is a variant; the standard form is 'βάλετε' (aorist imperative). The apparatus does not resolve which is original, so the text is uncertain here.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The fragmentary apparatus does not clarify the full context of the dialogue; the relationship between the heading and the preceding passage is unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"νοουμένου, ἀνάγκη ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὡς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἀπίστων, οὓς ~\nἀπεικάζομεν, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν διδαγμάτων, μαργαριτῶν δίκην τὰς\nψυχὰς καταυγαζόντων, ἡ εἰς Χριστὸν πίστις καὶ ἡ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐλευθερία\nγεγένηται. βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο.\nοὐκ ἄρα δεῖ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰ μυστικώτερα τῶν μαθημάτων ἐκλαμβάνειν ἐνταῦθα, χοίρους δὲ\nτοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, οὐδὲ τό μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν\nτῶν χοίρων‘ εἰς τό »μὴ παραβάλητε τοῖς ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἀπέστοις τὰ\nμυστικὰ καὶ τελειοποιὰ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως διδάγματα« παραλαμβάνειν·\nἀλλὰ μαργαρίτας μὲν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐκδέχεσθαι χρή , αἶς\n ὥσπερ πολυτίμοις μαργαρίταις ἡ ψυχὴ καθωραΐζεται, μὴ παραβαλεῖν\nδὲ αὐτοὺς τοῖς χοίροις τουτέστι μὴ παραβαλεῖν αὐτὰς τὰς ἀρετάς,\nοἷον ἁγνείαν καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν,\nδὴ μὴ παραβαλεῖν ταῖς μαχλώσαις ἡδοναῖς χοίροις γὰρ ἐοίκασιν\nἕνα μὴ τὰς ἀρετὰς αὑται καταφαγοῦσαι χοιρώδη βίον καὶ πολυπαθῆ\n τὴν ψυχὴν βιοτεύειν παρασκευάσωσιν.\nὍτι ὁ Ὠριγένης ὃν Κένταυρον καλεῖ, ἔλεγε συναΐδιον εἶναι\nτῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ θεῷ τὸ πᾶν. ἔφασκε γάρ, Εἰ οὐκ\nδημιουργὸς ἄνευ δημιουργημάτων ἢ ποιητὴς ἄνευ ποιημάτων , οὐδὲ\nπαντοκράτωρ ἄνευ τῶν κρατουμένων τὸν γὰρ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ\n δημιουργήματα ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν διὰ τὰ ποιήματα καὶ τὸν\nπαντοκράτορα διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα λέγεσθαι), ἀνάγκη ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὰ\nὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ εἶναι χρόνον ὅτε οὐκ ἠν ταῦτα. εἰ\nγὰρ ἦν χρόνος ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τὰ ποιήματα, ἐπεὶ τῶν ποιημάτων μὴ\nὄντων οὐδὲ ποιητής ἐστιν, ὅρα οἷον ἀσεβὲς ἀκολουθεῖ.","english":"It being understood, we are compelled to say that faith in Christ and freedom from impiety have come to none of the unbelievers, whom we compare, from the apostolic teachings, which like pearls illuminate the souls. But this is blasphemous. Therefore, one must not here interpret pearls as the more mystical teachings, and swine as the impious, nor take “do not cast your pearls before swine” as “do not expose the mystical and perfective teachings of faith in Christ to the impious and unbelieving.” Rather, one must receive pearls as the virtues, by which the soul is adorned like precious pearls, and not cast them before swine, that is, not expose these virtues themselves—such as chastity, temperance, justice, and truth—to the lascivious pleasures; for they resemble swine, lest these virtues, devoured by them, prepare the soul to live a swinish and passion-ridden life. That Origen, whom he calls a Centaur, said that the universe is co-eternal with the only wise and self-sufficient God. For he argued: If there is no craftsman without works, nor maker without products, nor almighty without those over whom he is almighty (for the craftsman is necessarily so called because of his works, the maker because of his products, and the almighty because of those he rules), then these must have been produced by God from the beginning, and there must be no time when they did not exist. For if there was a time when the products did not exist, since when the products do not exist, neither does the maker, see what impiety follows.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν τῶν χοίρων","severity":"info","text":"The phrase adapts Matthew 7:6 (μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων), a logion about not wasting precious things on the unworthy. Methodius reinterprets it allegorically.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Κένταυρον","severity":"info","text":"Methodius calls Origen a 'Centaur', a hybrid creature, likely to disparage his mixed or heretical doctrines. The term is polemical, not descriptive.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"συναΐδιον εἶναι τῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ θεῷ τὸ πᾶν","severity":"info","text":"Methodius attributes to Origen the view that the universe is co-eternal with God, a position Origen arguably held (cf. De Principiis 1.2.3). This was a point of controversy in later anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"νοουμένου ... βλάσφημον δὲ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a rejected literal interpretation of the pearl-and-swine metaphor to a corrected allegorical one, then abruptly shifts to a critique of Origen's cosmology. The transition is marked by 'Ὅτι'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁ Ὠριγένης ὃν Κένταυρον καλεῖ","severity":"info","text":"Methodius' epithet 'Centaur' for Origen is cited by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) as evidence of Methodius' hostile stance. This fragment survives only through Photius' summary.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ γὰρ ἦν χρόνος ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τὰ ποιήματα","severity":"caution","text":"The argument that God must have always had products to be called 'maker' is a logical extrapolation attributed to Origen. The text is fragmentary and may not represent Origen's full reasoning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment preserved by Photius; the original context of Methodius' argument is lost. The shift from exegesis to anti-Origenist polemic may be abrupt due to excerpting."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλειν τὸν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον συμβή-\nσεται θεόν. εἰ γὰρ ὕστερον πεποίηκε τὸ πᾶν, πᾶν, δῆλον ἀπὸ τοῦ\nμὴ ποιεῖν εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν μετέβαλε. τοῦτο δὲ ἄτοπον μετὰ τῶν προειρημένων. οὐκ ἄρα δυνατὸν λέγειν, μὴ εἶναι ἄναρχον καὶ συναΐδιον\nτῶ θεῶ τὸ πᾶν. Ὅτι ὁ Ὠριγένης ὃν Κένταυρον καλεῖ, ἔλεγε συναΐδιον εἶναι\nτῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ θεῷ τὸ πᾶν. ἔφασκε γάρ, Εἰ οὐκ\nδημιουργὸς ἄνευ δημιουργημάτων ἢ ποιητὴς ἄνευ ποιημάτων , οὐδὲ\nπαντοκράτωρ ἄνευ τῶν κρατουμένων τὸν γὰρ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ\n δημιουργήματα ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν διὰ τὰ ποιήματα καὶ τὸν\nπαντοκράτορα διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα λέγεσθαι), ἀνάγκη ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὰ\nὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ εἶναι χρόνον ὅτε οὐκ ἠν ταῦτα. εἰ\nγὰρ ἦν χρόνος ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τὰ ποιήματα, ἐπεὶ τῶν ποιημάτων μὴ\nὄντων οὐδὲ ποιητής ἐστιν, ὅρα οἷον ἀσεβὲς ἀκολουθεῖ. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλειν τὸν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον συμβή-\nσεται θεόν. εἰ γὰρ ὕστερον πεποίηκε τὸ πᾶν, πᾶν, δῆλον ἀπὸ τοῦ\nμὴ ποιεῖν εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν μετέβαλε. τοῦτο δὲ ἄτοπον μετὰ τῶν προειρημένων. οὐκ ἄρα δυνατὸν λέγειν, μὴ εἶναι ἄναρχον καὶ συναΐδιον\nτῶ θεῶ τὸ πᾶν. Πρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου ὁ ἅγιος ἐρωτῶν,\nγε σοφίας καὶ δόξης καὶ συλλήβδην πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ\nοὐσιωδῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐπικτήτως ἡγῇ τὸν θεόν; Ὁ δέ, Ναί. 6 Mt. 7, 6 — 12 vgl. Symp. S. 83, 19 t — 13 vgl. I Petr. 2, 11. De res. n, 18, 1 S. 368, 7 — 16 vgl. Orig. De princ. I, 2, 10. EI, 5, 3 S. 41, 11ff. 272, 22ff\n— 31 vgl. Plato Phaedr. 245C \n 3 Χριστὸν 003C;","english":"But also the unchangeable and immutable God will be subject to alteration and change. For if He made the universe later, it is evident that He changed from not making to making. This is absurd, along with what has been said before. Therefore it is not possible to say that the universe is not without beginning and co-eternal with God. That Origen, whom he calls a Centaur, said that the universe is co-eternal with the only wise and self-sufficient God. For he argued, If there is no craftsman without works of craftsmanship, or maker without things made, nor ruler without things ruled (for the craftsman is necessarily so called because of the works of craftsmanship, and the maker because of the things made, and the ruler because of the things ruled), then these must have been produced by God from the beginning, and there is no time when they did not exist. For if there was a time when the things made did not exist, since when the things made do not exist, neither does the maker, see what impiety follows. But also the unchangeable and immutable God will be subject to alteration and change. For if He made the universe later, it is evident that He changed from not making to making. This is absurd, along with what has been said before. Therefore it is not possible to say that the universe is not without beginning and co-eternal with God. To which the holy one speaks through another person, asking, Do you consider God to be the beginning of wisdom and glory and, in sum, of every virtue, substantially and not by acquisition? And he says, Yes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον","severity":"info","text":"The Greek terms 'ἄτρεπτον' (unchangeable) and 'ἀναλλοίωτον' (immutable) are standard theological predicates for God, used here to highlight the absurdity of attributing change to the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συναΐδιον","severity":"info","text":"The term 'συναΐδιον' (co-eternal) is central to the Origenist argument that the universe must be eternal alongside God, a position Methodius attacks.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Mt. 7, 6","severity":"info","text":"The marginal note 'Mt. 7, 6' likely refers to Matthew 7:6, though the connection is unclear; it may be a scribal cross-reference to the 'pearls before swine' passage mentioned in the previous passage.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Κένταυρον","severity":"info","text":"Methodius calls Origen a 'Centaur' (Κένταυρον), a pejorative epithet implying hybrid or monstrous teaching, reflecting the polemical context of the anti-Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ γὰρ ὕστερον πεποίηκε τὸ πᾶν","severity":"info","text":"The argument that a later creation implies change in God echoes a standard anti-Origenist trope, paralleling similar reasoning in Origen's 'De Principiis' I, 2, 10, as noted in the marginalia.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Πρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου' (To which the holy one speaks through another person) indicates a dialogical shift, likely introducing a new speaker in the original dialogue format of the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The marginal note 'Mt. 7, 6' is ambiguous: it may be a scribal addition or a cross-reference to a lost portion of the text; the connection to the preceding 'pearls before swine' passage is plausible but not explicit.","The phrase 'δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου' could indicate a change of speaker in a dialogue, but the identity of the 'holy one' and the interlocutor is not specified in the fragment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"B 6 βάλλετε B 7 παραβάλετε Α, παραβάλλετε B\n8 εἰς τὸν Χ. Α 11 αὐτοῖς A 14 καὶ A 314 rb 15 βιωτεύειν A |\nπαρασκευάσουσιν AB 26 ἀπὸ < A 27 μετέβαλλεν A, μετέβαλλε B\n32 ἐπικτήτως A 314v","english":"throw B 6 compare A, compare B\n8 into the Christ A 11 to them A 14 and A 314 rb 15 to live A |\nthey will prepare AB 26 from < A 27 he changed A, he changed B\n32 acquiredly A 314v","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"B 6 βάλλετε B 7 παραβάλετε Α, παραβάλλετε B","severity":"info","text":"The Greek text here is a fragmentary apparatus criticus, not a continuous passage. The letters A and B likely refer to manuscript witnesses, and the numbers (6, 7, etc.) to line or folio numbers.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰς τὸν Χ. Α","severity":"caution","text":"The abbreviation 'Χ.' likely stands for 'Χριστόν' (Christ), but the text is too fragmentary to determine the context. The phrase 'into the Christ' in the English draft is a literal rendering but may be misleading without a complete sentence.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐπικτήτως","severity":"info","text":"The adverb 'ἐπικτήτως' (acquiredly) is rare; it modifies a verb (likely 'he changed') to indicate that the change is an acquisition of a new state, not an inherent quality. This is relevant to the theological debate about God's change from not-making to making.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"παραβάλετε Α, παραβάλλετε B","severity":"info","text":"The variant readings 'παραβάλετε' (aorist imperative) and 'παραβάλλετε' (present imperative) indicate textual instability in the manuscript tradition. The aorist form suggests a single act of comparison, the present a repeated or ongoing one.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"βιωτεύειν","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'βιωτεύειν' (to live) is a rare Hellenistic form, possibly a variant of 'βιοτεύειν'. Its occurrence here may reflect the Koine Greek of the period or a scribal idiosyncrasy.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a fragmentary apparatus criticus, not a continuous text; the English draft is a literal rendering of isolated words and phrases, not a coherent translation. The context of the theological argument (about the universe's beginning) is only inferable from the previous passage."],"confidence":"low","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Τί δὲ πρὸς τούτοις; οὐχὶ τέλειος πάντῃ δι’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπροσδεής; \n Ἀληθῆ. \n Ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὸ ἀπροσδεὲς δι' ἕτερον εἶναί τι ἀπροσδεές;\nἈμήχανον. \n Πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἕτερον πλῆρες ὂν καὶ ἀτελὲς λεκτέον; \n Ἀνάγκη. \n Τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δι' ἑαυτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὄν καὶ αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ\nμένον, τέλειον εἶναι τοῦτο μόνον δοξαστέον; \n Ἀληθέστατα λέγεις.","english":"What then besides these? Is he not entirely perfect through himself and in need of nothing?\nTrue.\nFor is it impossible for that which is in need of nothing to be something in need of nothing through another?\nImpossible.\nFor must everything that is through another, even if it is full, be called imperfect?\nNecessarily.\nFor must that which is through itself, being its own fulfillment and remaining in itself, be considered perfect only in this way?\nYou speak most truly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a rapid series of short questions and answers, typical of a dialectical or catechetical style. Each exchange builds a logical argument about self-sufficiency and perfection.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπροσδεής","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀπροσδεής (in need of nothing) is a key theological predicate in Methodius, denoting the self-sufficiency of the divine. The argument hinges on whether such a state can be derived from another.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The logical sequence: if something is perfect and self-sufficient through itself, it cannot be so through another; anything dependent on another is imperfect, even if full.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This argument echoes Platonic and Middle Platonic discussions of the self-sufficient first principle (e.g., Timaeus 29e, Phaedrus 247a). Methodius adapts such language to Christian theology, likely against Gnostic or subordinationist views.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Plato"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) preserves this fragment, noting Methodius' style. The dialectical form may reflect the influence of Aristotle's Topics or later Christian school exercises.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Coptic cues are not present in the Greek; the structural classification 'narrative' is based on the Coptic source, but the Greek is purely dialogic. The English draft's 'B 6', 'A 11' etc. are unclear and may refer to manuscript foliation or column numbers."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Τὸ δὲ μήτε αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ μήτε αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὂν φαίης ἂν ἀπροσδεές; \n Ούδαμῶς. \n Οὐκ ἄρα ὁ θεὸς τέλειος διά τι νομισθήσεται · ὃ γὰρ διά τι τέλειόν\nἐστιν, αὐτὸ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀτελὲς ἀνάγκη τυγχάνειν. \n Ἀνάγκη.","english":"Would you say that which is neither itself through itself nor itself a fulfillment of itself is without need?  \nNot at all.  \nTherefore God will not be considered perfect through something; for that which is perfect through something must necessarily be imperfect in itself.  \nNecessarily.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'itself through itself' contrasts self-sufficiency with dependence on an external cause, a key logical move in Methodius' argument for divine perfection.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀπροσδεές","severity":"info","text":"ἀπροσδεές ('without need') is a technical term in early Christian theology for divine self-sufficiency, often opposed to created dependence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a tight syllogistic form: a conditional question, a denial, a conclusion, and an affirmation. This dialectical pattern is typical of Methodius' philosophical style.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius here engages with Platonic and Aristotelian notions of self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) as a divine attribute, adapting them to Christian anti-subordinationist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek 'αὐτὸ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀτελὲς' could be read as 'in itself imperfect' or 'by itself imperfect'; the translation takes the former, consistent with the argument that perfection through another implies intrinsic deficiency."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς δι' ἑαυτὸν τέλειος, ἀλλ’ οὐ δέ ἕτερον λογισθήσεται; \n Ὀρθότατα. \n Ἕτερον θεὸς κόσμου, καὶ ἕτερον κόσμος θεοῦ; \n Παντελῶς. \n Οὐκ ἄρα τέλειον φατέον καὶ δημιουργὸν καὶ παντοκράτορα διὰ\nκόσμον τὸν θεόν; \n Οὔ. \n Ὅπως δι’ ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διὰ κόσμον, καὶ ταῦτα τρεπτόν, αὐτὸς\n καθ’ ἐαυτὸν τέλειος εὑρίσκοιτο. \n Προσηκόντως.","english":"Therefore will God himself be considered perfect through himself, and not through another?  \nMost correctly.  \nIs God one thing and the world another, and the world one thing and God another?  \nEntirely.  \nThen must we not say that God is perfect, creator, and almighty through the world?  \nNo.  \nSo that he might be found perfect in himself through himself, and not through the world, which is changeable.  \nAppropriately.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The dialogue establishes that God's perfection is intrinsic, not derived from the world. The rhetorical structure contrasts self-sufficiency with dependence on a changeable cosmos.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτορα","severity":"info","text":"The term 'almighty' (παντοκράτορα) is a standard divine epithet in Greek patristic literature, here used to emphasize that God's omnipotence is not contingent on the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects Methodius' anti-Origenist polemic, arguing against the subordination of God to creation. The emphasis on divine self-sufficiency counters Origen's view of God's goodness requiring a world.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius, De Creatis"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a tight question-and-answer format, typical of Methodius' dialectical style. Each exchange builds a logical case: God's perfection is self-referential, not world-dependent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) preserves this fragment, noting Methodius' arguments against Origen. The passage was later cited in Byzantine theological debates on divine simplicity and creatio ex nihilo.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":["Photius, Bibliotheca"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has a lacuna or uncertain reading in the phrase 'αὐτὸς καθ’ ἐαυτὸν τέλειος εὑρίσκοιτο'; the translation assumes a purpose clause ('so that he might be found'), but the syntax could also be read as a conditional."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Τί δέ; τὸν πλούσιον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον λεκτέον πλούσιον; Ὀρθῶς. \n Καὶ τὸν σοφὸν κατὰ μετοχὴν τῆς οὐσιώδους σοφίας, οὐκ αὐτὸν\n σοφίαν ὄντα, σοφὸν προσαγορευτέον; \n Ναί. \n Τί δέ; καὶ τὸν θεόν, ἕτερον ὄντα κόσμου, διὰ κόσμον ταύτῃ πλούσιον\nκαὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ δημιουργὸν κλητέον; \n Ἄπαγε, οὐδαμῶς. \n Οὐκοῦν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πλοῦτος καὶ δι' ἑαυτὸν πλούσιος καὶ δυωατὸς\nτυγχάνει; \n Ἐοικεν. \n 3 δι' B 236ν 21 φατὲ A 24 ὅπως μὴ A 32 κόσμου] κόσμον A\n32 f πλού|σιον A 314ν b 34 οὐδαμῶς, ἄπαγε B Ausgg. 35 αὑτὸν A","english":"What then? Must we not call the rich man rich on account of wealth? Correctly. And must we not call the wise man wise by participation in substantial wisdom, not being wisdom itself? Yes. What then? Must we not call God, who is other than the world, rich and benefactor and creator on account of the world? Away with that, not at all. Then is he not himself his own wealth, and rich and powerful through himself? So it seems.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Τί δέ; τὸν πλούσιον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον λεκτέον πλούσιον;","severity":"info","text":"The opening question establishes a logical pattern: a rich man is called rich because of wealth, not because he is wealth itself. This sets up the analogy for God's relation to the world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"κατὰ μετοχὴν τῆς οὐσιώδους σοφίας","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'by participation in substantial wisdom' uses μετοχή (participation), a key term in Middle Platonic and early Christian metaphysics, distinguishing the wise man from wisdom itself.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἄπαγε, οὐδαμῶς","severity":"info","text":"The strong rejection 'Away with that, not at all' marks a rhetorical climax, contrasting the previous affirmative answers and reinforcing the argument that God's perfections are intrinsic, not derived from the world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πλοῦτος","severity":"info","text":"The claim that God is 'his own wealth' reflects a Neoplatonic and patristic emphasis on divine self-sufficiency, countering any notion that God depends on creation for his attributes.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"3 δι' B 236ν 21 φατὲ A 24 ὅπως μὴ A 32 κόσμου] κόσμον A 32 f πλού|σιον A 314ν b 34 οὐδαμῶς, ἄπαγε B Ausgg. 35 αὑτὸν A","severity":"caution","text":"The apparatus notes variant readings between manuscripts A and B, including a correction of κόσμου to κόσμον and a transposition of 'οὐδαμῶς, ἄπαγε' in B. These affect the precise wording but not the sense.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has minor manuscript variants (e.g., κόσμου vs. κόσμον) that do not alter the argument. The reading 'αὑτὸν' (for ἑαυτοῦ) in line 35 is a scribal variant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Ἦν ἄρα καὶ πρὸ κόσμου πάντῃ ἀπροσδεὴς ὢν καὶ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός, ὅπως αὐτὸς δι᾿ ἑαυτόν ἀλλὰ μὴ\nετερον ταυτα ῃ; \n Ἀνάγκη.","english":"He was therefore, even before the cosmos, being entirely without need, both Father and Pantocrator and Demiurge, so that He Himself through Himself, and not another, was these things? Necessarily.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"πρὸ κόσμου","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'before the cosmos' asserts the pre-existence of God as a self-sufficient being, independent of creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"Pantocrator, 'ruler over all,' is a standard Greek epithet for God in patristic literature, here emphasizing divine sovereignty prior to creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"δημιουργός","severity":"info","text":"Demiurge, 'craftsman,' is used in Platonic and Christian contexts for the creator of the cosmos; Methodius applies it to God without the Gnostic negative connotation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἦν ἄρα","severity":"info","text":"The inferential particle 'ἄρα' marks a logical conclusion from the preceding dialogue, typical of Methodius' dialectical method.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἀπροσδεής","severity":"info","text":"The term 'without need' (ἀπροσδεής) reflects a common patristic theme: God lacks nothing and creation does not supply any deficiency.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius 4th cent."],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is fragmentary; the final question mark and 'Ἀνάγκη' suggest a rhetorical exchange, but the exact interlocutor is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Εἰ γὰρ διὰ κόσμον καὶ οὐχὶ δι᾿ ἑαυτόν, ἕτερος ὢν κόσμου, παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ γνωρίζοιτο συγγνώμῃ ὁ θεός ἀναγκάζομαι γὰρ τοῦτο\nεἰπεῖν), αὐτὸς καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἀτελὴς ἔσται καὶ προσδεὴς τούτων,\nἃ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός ἐστιν. \n ῾Υπερφυῶς. \n Οὖκ ἄρα ἀποδεκτέον ταύτην τὴν ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίαν\nτῶν λεγόντων παντοκράτορα εἶναι καὶ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα\nκαὶ δημιουργούμενα τρεπτά, ἀλλ’ οὐ δι᾿ ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν θεόν.\nΠρὸς ὅν φησι δι' ἑτέρου προσώπου ὁ ἅγιος ἐρωτῶν,\nγε σοφίας καὶ δόξης καὶ συλλήβδην πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ\nοὐσιωδῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐπικτήτως ἡγῇ τὸν θεόν; \n Ὁ δέ, Ναί. \n 6 Mt. 7, 6 — 12 vgl. Symp. S. 83, 19 t — 13 vgl. I Petr. 2, 11. De res.\nn, 18, 1 S. 368, 7 — 16 vgl. Orig. De princ. I, 2, 10. EI, 5, 3 S. 41, 11ff. 272, 22ff\n— 31 vgl. Plato Phaedr. 245C \n 3 Χριστὸν 003C; B 6 βάλλετε B 7 παραβάλετε Α, παραβάλλετε B\n8 εἰς τὸν Χ. Α 11 αὐτοῖς A 14 καὶ A 314 rb 15 βιωτεύειν A |\nπαρασκευάσουσιν AB 26 ἀπὸ < A 27 μετέβαλλεν A, μετέβαλλε B\n32 ἐπικτήτως A 314v","english":"For if it were on account of the cosmos and not on account of Himself, being other than the cosmos, God would be known as Pantocrator by indulgence—for I am compelled to say this—He will be in Himself incomplete and in need of those things which He is as Pantocrator and Demiurge.\n\nExceedingly.\n\nTherefore, one must not accept this pernicious error of those who say that He is Pantocrator and Demiurge on account of the things that are ruled and created, which are mutable, and not that God is these on account of Himself.\n\nTo which the saint speaks through another person, asking, \"Do you consider God to be the source and substance, not by acquisition, of wisdom and glory and, in sum, of every virtue?\"\n\nAnd he says, \"Yes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"The argument distinguishes between God being Pantocrator intrinsically and only in relation to the cosmos. The text rejects the latter as making God incomplete.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"Pantocrator, 'ruler of all,' is a key divine title in early Christian theology. Here it is debated whether it is an essential or relational attribute of God.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὑπερφυῶς","severity":"info","text":"The single word 'Exceedingly' stands as a separate utterance, likely an interjection by the interlocutor, marking a break in the dialogue.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἁμαρτίαν","severity":"info","text":"The term 'pernicious error' (ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίαν) may echo New Testament language of sin as a harmful mistake, though no direct citation is given.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τρεπτά","severity":"info","text":"The claim that created things are 'mutable' (τρεπτά) reflects a common Platonic and Christian contrast between the unchanging divine and the changeable material world.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Photius","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved in Photius's Bibliotheca (Cod. 235), indicating its value to Byzantine scholars for theological debates on divine attributes.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has a textual crux at 'παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ' (line 1), possibly a dittography; the translation omits the second word. The speaker of the final question is ambiguous: 'the saint speaks through another person' may indicate a dialogue partner."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Τί δὲ πρὸς τούτοις; οὐχὶ τέλειος πάντῃ δι’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπροσδεής; Ἀληθῆ. Ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὸ ἀπροσδεὲς δι' ἕτερον εἶναί τι ἀπροσδεές; Ἀμήχανον. Πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἕτερον πλῆρες ὂν καὶ ἀτελὲς λεκτέον; Ἀνάγκη. Τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δι' ἑαυτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὄν καὶ αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ\nμένον, τέλειον εἶναι τοῦτο μόνον δοξαστέον; Ἀληθέστατα λέγεις. Τὸ δὲ μήτε αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ μήτε αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ πλήρωμα ὂν φαίης ἂν ἀπροσδεές; Ούδαμῶς. Οὐκ ἄρα ὁ θεὸς τέλειος διά τι νομισθήσεται · ὃ γὰρ διά τι τέλειόν\nἐστιν, αὐτὸ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀτελὲς ἀνάγκη τυγχάνειν. Ἀνάγκη. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς δι' ἑαυτὸν τέλειος, ἀλλ’ οὐ δέ ἕτερον λογισθήσεται; Ὀρθότατα. Ἕτερον θεὸς κόσμου, καὶ ἕτερον κόσμος θεοῦ; Παντελῶς. Οὐκ ἄρα τέλειον φατέον καὶ δημιουργὸν καὶ παντοκράτορα διὰ\nκόσμον τὸν θεόν; Οὔ. Ὅπως δι’ ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διὰ κόσμον, καὶ ταῦτα τρεπτόν, αὐτὸς\n καθ’ ἐαυτὸν τέλειος εὑρίσκοιτο. Προσηκόντως. Τί δέ; τὸν πλούσιον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον λεκτέον πλούσιον; Ὀρθῶς. Καὶ τὸν σοφὸν κατὰ μετοχὴν τῆς οὐσιώδους σοφίας, οὐκ αὐτὸν\n σοφίαν ὄντα, σοφὸν προσαγορευτέον; Ναί. Τί δέ; καὶ τὸν θεόν, ἕτερον ὄντα κόσμου, διὰ κόσμον ταύτῃ πλούσιον\nκαὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ δημιουργὸν κλητέον; Ἄπαγε, οὐδαμῶς. Οὐκοῦν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πλοῦτος καὶ δι' ἑαυτὸν πλούσιος καὶ δυωατὸς\nτυγχάνει; Ἐοικεν. 3 δι' B 236ν 21 φατὲ A 24 ὅπως μὴ A 32 κόσμου] κόσμον A\n32 f πλού|σιον A 314ν b 34 οὐδαμῶς, ἄπαγε B Ausgg. 35 αὑτὸν A\nἮν ἄρα καὶ πρὸ κόσμου πάντῃ ἀπροσδεὴς ὢν καὶ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός, ὅπως αὐτὸς δι᾿ ἑαυτόν ἀλλὰ μὴ\nετερον ταυτα ῃ; Ἀνάγκη.","english":"What then besides these? Is He not perfect entirely through Himself and in need of nothing? True. For is it impossible for that which is in need of nothing to be in need of nothing on account of another? Impossible. For must everything that is full on account of another be called incomplete? Necessarily. For that which is itself its own fullness through itself and remains in itself, must this alone be considered perfect? You speak most truly. But would you say that that which is neither itself through itself nor itself its own fullness is in need of nothing? Not at all. Therefore God will not be considered perfect on account of something; for that which is perfect on account of something must necessarily be incomplete in itself. Necessarily. Therefore God Himself will be considered perfect through Himself, but not on account of another? Most correctly. Is God other than the cosmos, and the cosmos other than God? Entirely. Therefore must God not be called perfect, and creator, and pantocrator on account of the cosmos? No. So that through Himself, but not on account of the cosmos, and this being changeable, He Himself might be found perfect in Himself. Fittingly. What then? Must the rich man be called rich on account of his wealth? Correctly. And must the wise man, by participation in essential wisdom, not being wisdom itself, be called wise? Yes. What then? And must God, being other than the cosmos, be called rich and benefactor and creator on account of the cosmos? Away with it, not at all. Therefore is He Himself His own wealth and rich through Himself and powerful? It seems so. He was therefore before the cosmos entirely in need of nothing and father and pantocrator and creator, so that He Himself through Himself but not on account of another is these things? Necessarily.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Τί δὲ πρὸς τούτοις;","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a dialectical exchange, with short questions and answers, typical of Methodius' philosophical style.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"Pantocrator, a divine title meaning 'all-ruler', is central to the argument: God is Pantocrator through Himself, not because of the cosmos.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀπροσδεής","severity":"info","text":"Aprosdeēs, 'in need of nothing', is a key attribute of God, argued to be intrinsic, not dependent on the cosmos.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument counters Gnostic or subordinationist views that God's titles depend on creation, a concern in early Christian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius 20th cent. ed."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ὅπως μὴ A","severity":"caution","text":"The manuscript reading at line 24 is uncertain: 'ὅπως μὴ' in A may be a corruption; the sense adopted is 'so that... not'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Photius preserves this fragment in his Bibliotheca, indicating its value for later Byzantine theological debates on divine transcendence.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Photius 9th cent."],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ὅπως μὴ' (line 24) is textually uncertain; the translation follows the emended reading. The identity of the interlocutor in the dialogue is not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Εἰ γὰρ διὰ κόσμον καὶ οὐχὶ δι᾿ ἑαυτόν, ἕτερος ὢν κόσμου, παντοκράτωρ τοκράτωρ γνωρίζοιτο συγγνώμῃ ὁ θεός ἀναγκάζομαι γὰρ τοῦτο\nεἰπεῖν), αὐτὸς καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἀτελὴς ἔσται καὶ προσδεὴς τούτων,\nἃ παντοκράτωρ καὶ δημιουργός ἐστιν. ῾Υπερφυῶς. Οὖκ ἄρα ἀποδεκτέον ταύτην τὴν ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίαν\nτῶν λεγόντων παντοκράτορα εἶναι καὶ δημιουργὸν διὰ τὰ κρατούμενα\nκαὶ δημιουργούμενα τρεπτά, ἀλλ’ οὐ δι᾿ ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν θεόν. Ὅρα δὲ καὶ ὧδε. εἰ ὕστερον, ἔφης, πεποίηται ὁ κόσμος,\nπρότερον ὤν, μεταβάλλειν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον θεόν· \n τὸν γὰρ ποιοῦντα πρότερον μηδέν, ὕστερον δέ, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν\nεἰς τὸ Ποιεῖν μεταβάλλειν καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι ἀνάγκη. Ἔλεγον γάρ. Πέπαυται δὲ τοῦ ποιεῖν ποτε τὸν κόσμον ὁ θεός, ἢ οὔ; Πέπαυται. Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν τετελειωμένος ἄν. Ἀληθές.","english":"For if He were known as Pantokrator and Demiurge on account of the world and not on account of Himself, being other than the world (for I am compelled to say this by indulgence), He Himself would be imperfect in Himself and in need of those things of which He is Pantokrator and Demiurge. Extraordinary. Therefore this pernicious error of those who say that He is Pantokrator and Demiurge on account of the things that are ruled and created, which are mutable, and not that God exists on account of Himself, is not to be accepted. But consider also this: if the world was made later, as you said, while He existed earlier, it is necessary that the impassible and unchangeable God change; for the one who previously did nothing and later does something must necessarily change and be altered from not doing to doing. For they said this. Has God ever ceased from making the world, or not? He has ceased. For otherwise He would not have been perfected. True.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"παντοκράτωρ","severity":"info","text":"The term παντοκράτωρ (Pantokrator) is a divine epithet meaning 'ruler of all'. Methodius here critiques those who treat it as a relational title dependent on the world, arguing instead that it is intrinsic to God's nature.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"δημιουργός","severity":"info","text":"δημιουργός (Demiurge) denotes 'craftsman' or 'creator'. In this passage, Methodius rejects the notion that God is called Demiurge only because of the mutable created order, insisting on God's self-sufficiency.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a dialectical pattern: a conditional premise (if God is known only through the world), a conclusion (God would be imperfect), a rejection of the error, and a new argument about change in God if creation is temporal.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius (died ca. 311 CE) wrote against Origenist views, including the idea that God's titles are contingent on creation. This fragment from Photius (9th cent.) preserves a lost work, De Creatis, likely engaging with contemporary debates on divine attributes.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Photius Bibliotheca Cod. 235"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"συγγνώμῃ","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek phrase συγγνώμῃ (by indulgence) is ambiguous: it may be a parenthetical apology for the forced logic, or it could be a textual corruption. The English draft renders it as 'by indulgence', but the sense is not entirely clear.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase συγγνώμῃ (by indulgence) is ambiguous: it may be a rhetorical concession or a scribal error.","The text is a fragment preserved by Photius; the original context and completeness are uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Εἰ οὐν τὸ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν ἀλλοίωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταψηφίζεται, οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιεῖν; Ἀνάγκη. Ἠλλοιῶσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν φαίης μὴ ποιοῦντα σήμερον παρ' ὃ\nὅτε ἐποίει; Οὐδαμῶς. Οὐδ' ἄρα ὅτ’ ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον, ἠλλοιῶσθαι αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη παρ\nὃ ἠν ὅτε οὐκ ἐποίει· καὶ οὔτε ἀνάγκη συνυπάρχειν αὐτῷ τὸ πᾶν δεῖν\n λέγειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκάζεσθαι λέγειν ἠλλοιῶσθαι, οὔτε συναΐδιον\nδι᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο. Ὅρα δὲ καὶ ὧδε. εἰ ὕστερον, ἔφης, πεποίηται ὁ κόσμος,\nπρότερον ὤν, μεταβάλλειν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον θεόν· \n τὸν γὰρ ποιοῦντα πρότερον μηδέν, ὕστερον δέ, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν\nεἰς τὸ Ποιεῖν μεταβάλλειν καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι ἀνάγκη. Ἔλεγον γάρ. Πέπαυται δὲ τοῦ ποιεῖν ποτε τὸν κόσμον ὁ θεός, ἢ οὔ; Πέπαυται. Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν τετελειωμένος ἄν. Ἀληθές. Εἰ οὐν τὸ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν ἀλλοίωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταψηφίζεται, οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιεῖν; Ἀνάγκη. Ἠλλοιῶσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν φαίης μὴ ποιοῦντα σήμερον παρ' ὃ\nὅτε ἐποίει; Οὐδαμῶς. Οὐδ' ἄρα ὅτ’ ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον, ἠλλοιῶσθαι αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη παρ\nὃ ἠν ὅτε οὐκ ἐποίει· καὶ οὔτε ἀνάγκη συνυπάρχειν αὐτῷ τὸ πᾶν δεῖν\n λέγειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκάζεσθαι λέγειν ἠλλοιῶσθαι, οὔτε συναΐδιον\nδι᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο. Καί μοι φαθὶ καὶ ὧδε. γενητὸν τὸ μὴ γενέσεως ἔχον ἀρχὴν\nφαίης ἄν; Οὐ δῆτα· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ὑποπίπτει γενέσεως ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν\n ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ γέγονεν, ὑπὸ αἰτίου τινὸς δίδως αὐτὸ γεγονέναι· πάντῃ\nγὰρ ἀδύνατον χωρὶς αἰτίου γένεσιν ἔχειν; 2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ\n7 ἀτελὴς zweimal A | ἀτ. ἂν 2. Hd.","english":"If, then, making from not making is judged to be an alteration of God, is not also not making from making? Necessarily. Would you say that He is altered when He does not make today compared to when He was making? Not at all. Therefore, neither when He was making the world must He necessarily be altered compared to when He was not making; and it is not necessary to say that the universe coexists with Him because of not being compelled to say He is altered, nor is it coeternal for this reason. But consider also in this way: if the world was made later, you said, being earlier, it is necessary that the impassible and unalterable God changes; for He who makes, first making nothing and then later, must necessarily change and be altered from not making to making. For they said: Does God ever cease from making the world, or not? He ceases. For otherwise He would not have been perfected. True. If, then, making from not making is judged to be an alteration of God, is not also not making from making? Necessarily. Would you say that He is altered when He does not make today compared to when He was making? Not at all. Therefore, neither when He was making the world must He necessarily be altered compared to when He was not making; and it is not necessary to say that the universe coexists with Him because of not being compelled to say He is altered, nor is it coeternal for this reason. And tell me also this: would you say that what is generated does not have a beginning of generation? Not at all; for if it does not fall under a beginning of generation, it is necessarily ungenerated. But if it has come to be, you grant that it has come to be by some cause; for it is entirely impossible for it to have generation without a cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ οὐν ... Ἀνάγκη ... Οὐδαμῶς ... Ἀληθές","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a dialectical exchange, likely between Methodius and an opponent, using a repeated syllogistic pattern (conditional, concession, denial) to refute the claim that God’s creation entails alteration.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀλλοίωσις","severity":"info","text":"ἀλλοίωσις (alteration) is a key term in late antique theology, denoting change in substance or attribute. Methodius argues that if making from not-making implies alteration, then ceasing to make would also imply it, which is absurd for an immutable God.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συναΐδιον","severity":"info","text":"συναΐδιον (coeternal) refers to the heretical view that the world is eternal alongside God. Methodius denies this, arguing that the world’s non-coeternity does not force God into alteration.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον θεόν","severity":"info","text":"The description of God as impassible and unalterable (ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον) is standard in Greek patristic theology, rooted in Middle Platonism and used to defend divine transcendence against Gnostic and Arian claims of divine change.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Πέπαυται ... τοῦ ποιεῖν","severity":"info","text":"The argument that God ceases making the world (otherwise it would be imperfect) echoes debates with Origenist and Gnostic cosmogonies. Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) preserves this fragment, indicating its use in later anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ","severity":"caution","text":"The apparatus criticus shows textual corruption at line 6 (συγγνώμην/συγγνώμῃ) and a possible lacuna marked by † od. >. The reading is uncertain, affecting the precise sense of the concessive clause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The repeated passage (lines 1–12 and 13–24) may be a scribal duplication or a deliberate rhetorical repetition; the apparatus does not clarify. The phrase '2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ' is corrupt and the intended reading is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"A | < 14 πρότερος K 20 οὔπω\nA315 23 ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν A 28 ὅτε ποιεῖ AB 29 δεῖ AB 32 φασὶ A","english":"all. For if He is not altered when He makes, neither is He altered when He ceases to make.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument concludes that God's ceasing to make does not imply alteration, just as making does not. This is a logical corollary of the previous reasoning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the final clause of a longer syllogism, marked by the Greek particles 'γάρ' (for) and 'οὐδέ' (neither), showing a parallel structure between making and ceasing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀλλοιοῦσθαι","severity":"info","text":"The Greek verb 'ἀλλοιοῦσθαι' (to be altered) is a key term in the fragment, denoting change in divine nature, which Methodius denies in both making and ceasing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius argues against the notion that God's activity implies change, a common concern in early Christian theology influenced by Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas of divine immutability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is fragmentary; the phrase 'οὔπω' (not yet) in the apparatus may indicate a lacuna or uncertain reading, affecting the precise logical connection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek 'οὔπω' (not yet) is ambiguous: it may be part of a temporal clause or a textual corruption. The reading assumes it is a remnant of a longer argument."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Ἀδύνατον.","english":"Impossible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον","severity":"info","text":"The single Greek word Ἀδύνατον means 'impossible' and serves as a terse negative response, likely concluding a logical argument about divine immutability.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a brief narrative unit, functioning as a rhetorical climax or affirmation of the preceding argument that God is not altered by making or ceasing to make.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Methodius of Olympus (3rd–4th century) wrote against Origenist views; this fragment from Photius’ Bibliotheca (Cod. 235) preserves a logical argument on divine immutability, a key theme in early Christian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Photius 9th century"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀδύνατον","severity":"caution","text":"The fragmentary context leaves the precise referent of 'impossible' ambiguous; it may deny the possibility of divine alteration or the cessation of divine activity, depending on the lost preceding lines.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The single word Ἀδύνατον lacks a subject or clause; it is unclear whether it negates a specific proposition (e.g., 'it is impossible for God to be altered') or serves as a general exclamation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Κόσμον δὴ οὖν, καὶ ὅσα ἐν αὐτῷ μῶν ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ θεοῦ δημιουργοῦντος φήσομεν γεγονέναι ὕστερον, πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα; \n Δῆλον ὅτι θεοῦ. \n Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ γενέσεως ἀρχῇ περιορισθὲν συναπέραντον εἶναι\nτῷ ἀπεράντῳ; \n Ἁδύνατον.\nΚαί μοι φαθὶ καὶ ὧδε. γενητὸν τὸ μὴ γενέσεως ἔχον ἀρχὴν\nφαίης ἄν; \n Οὐ δῆτα· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ὑποπίπτει γενέσεως ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν\n ἐστιν. \n Εἰ δὲ γέγονεν, ὑπὸ αἰτίου τινὸς δίδως αὐτὸ γεγονέναι· πάντῃ\nγὰρ ἀδύνατον χωρὶς αἰτίου γένεσιν ἔχειν; \n 2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ\n7 ἀτελὴς zweimal A | ἀτ. ἂν 2. Hd. A | < 14 πρότερος K 20 οὔπω\nA315 23 ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν A 28 ὅτε ποιεῖ AB 29 δεῖ AB 32 φασὶ A","english":"We say, then, that the cosmos and all things in it have come into being later, not existing before, by the work of some other or of God? Clearly, by God. For it is impossible that what is bounded by a beginning of generation be co-eternal with the infinite? Impossible. And tell me also this: would you say that what does not have a beginning of generation is generated? Certainly not; for if it does not fall under a beginning of generation, it is necessarily ungenerated. But if it has come into being, do you grant that it has come into being by some cause? For it is altogether impossible for it to have generation without a cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Κόσμον δὴ οὖν","severity":"info","text":"The opening phrase introduces a dialectical argument: the cosmos and its contents are later than God, created ex nihilo.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"γενητὸν","severity":"info","text":"γενητὸν (generated) is contrasted with ἀγένητόν (ungenerated), a key distinction in Methodius’ anti-Origenist polemic against eternal creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Καί μοι φαθὶ καὶ ὧδε","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a new question in the Socratic dialogue, shifting from a general premise to a specific logical test about generation and cause.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἀγένητόν","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀγένητόν (ungenerated) is central to 4th-century Trinitarian debates, but here Methodius applies it to cosmology, arguing the cosmos is not co-eternal with God.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius 4th cent."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"2 αὐτὸς < A 6 συγγνώμην AB: † od. > συγγ. Κl: συγγνώμῃ","severity":"caution","text":"The apparatus criticus shows textual corruption at this point, with variant readings for συγγνώμην; the passage may be lacunose or misread.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Photius","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved only in Photius’ Bibliotheca (Cod. 235), indicating its survival through Byzantine excerpting and its value for reconstructing Methodius’ lost work.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Photius 9th cent."],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text has a corrupt passage (marked by cruces) where the reading of συγγνώμην is uncertain; the English draft omits this entirely, possibly losing a concessive clause."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Ἀδύνατον.\nΚόσμον δὴ οὖν, καὶ ὅσα ἐν αὐτῷ μῶν ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ θεοῦ δημιουργοῦντος φήσομεν γεγονέναι ὕστερον, πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα; \n Δῆλον ὅτι θεοῦ. \n Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ γενέσεως ἀρχῇ περιορισθὲν συναπέραντον εἶναι\nτῷ ἀπεράντῳ; \n Ἁδύνατον.\nΠάλιν δὴ οὖν, ὠ Κένταυρε, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαλεγώμεθα. θείᾳ\nἐπιστήμῃ τὰ ὄντα φατὲ γεγονέναι, ἢ οὔ; \n Ὦ βάλε, λέξουσιν, οὐδαμῶς. \n Ἀλλ᾿ ἀπὸ τῶν στοικείων ἢ ὕλης ἢ στηριγμάτων, ἢ ὅπως\nταῦτα βούλεσθε ὀνομάζειν οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει)· τούτων ἀγενήτως\nπροϋφεστηκότων καὶ πλημμελῶς φερομένων ὁ θεὸς διακρίνας\nτὰ πάντα, ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος ἀπὸ πολλῶν χρωμάτων\n μίαν τεχνησάμενος ἰδέαν;","english":"Impossible.\n\nShall we say, then, that the cosmos and all things in it have come into being later, not existing before, by the work of some other or of God? Clearly, by God. For it is impossible that what is bounded by a beginning of generation be co-eternal with the infinite. Impossible.\n\nAgain, then, O Centaur, let us argue from the beginning. Do you say that beings have come into being by divine knowledge, or not? O by all means, they will say, not at all. But from the elements, or matter, or foundations, or however you wish to name these (for it makes no difference)—these having pre-existed ungenerated and moving in disorder, did God, separating everything, like a good painter from many colors, fashion one form?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πάλιν δὴ οὖν, ὠ Κένταυρε, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαλεγώμεθα","severity":"info","text":"The interlocutor is addressed as 'O Centaur', a rhetorical device that may signal a shift in argument or a new phase of the dialogue, typical of Methodius' style.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀγενήτως","severity":"info","text":"The term 'ἀγενήτως' (ungenerated) is crucial in the context of pre-existent matter; it contrasts with the divine creation ex nihilo, a key theological point in Methodius' polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ζωγράφος","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of God as a painter (ζωγράφος) ordering chaos into a single form echoes Platonic and Stoic cosmogonic imagery, common in early Christian apologetics.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος ἀπὸ πολλῶν χρωμάτων μίαν τεχνησάμενος ἰδέαν","severity":"info","text":"This simile parallels Plato's Timaeus (e.g., 28a-29a) where the demiurge imposes order on pre-existing chaos, a motif Methodius adapts to critique Gnostic or Stoic cosmologies.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἢ ὅπως ταῦτα βούλεσθε ὀνομάζειν","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'or however you wish to name these' indicates Methodius is dismissing terminological distinctions among opponents (likely Stoics or Gnostics), but the exact referent of 'elements, matter, foundations' is ambiguous.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the interlocutor 'Centaur' is unclear; it may be a generic opponent or a specific philosophical school. The phrase 'from the elements, or matter, or foundations' leaves the precise pre-cosmic substrate unspecified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Οὐδὲ τοῦτο. πάντως γὰρ ἀποφεύξονται ὁμολογῆσαι καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν, ἵνα μὴ τῆς διακρίσεως καὶ τῆς μεταμορφώσεως τὴν ὕλην συγχωροῦντες\nἀρχὴν ἐσχηκυῖαν, ἀναγκασθῶσι τῷ λόγῳ κατὰ πάντα τὸν\nθεὸν ἠρκθαι τοῦ διοικεῖν λέγειν καὶ κατακοσμεῖν τὴν πρότερον ἄμορφον\n οὐσαν ὕλην.\nΠάλιν δὴ οὖν, ὠ Κένταυρε, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαλεγώμεθα. θείᾳ\nἐπιστήμῃ τὰ ὄντα φατὲ γεγονέναι, ἢ οὔ; \n Ὦ βάλε, λέξουσιν, οὐδαμῶς. \n Ἀλλ᾿ ἀπὸ τῶν στοικείων ἢ ὕλης ἢ στηριγμάτων, ἢ ὅπως\nταῦτα βούλεσθε ὀνομάζειν οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει)· τούτων ἀγενήτως\nπροϋφεστηκότων καὶ πλημμελῶς φερομένων ὁ θεὸς διακρίνας\nτὰ πάντα, ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος ἀπὸ πολλῶν χρωμάτων\n μίαν τεχνησάμενος ἰδέαν;\nΟὐδὲ τοῦτο. πάντως γὰρ ἀποφεύξονται ὁμολογῆσαι καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν, ἵνα μὴ τῆς διακρίσεως καὶ τῆς μεταμορφώσεως τὴν ὕλην συγχωροῦντες\nἀρχὴν ἐσχηκυῖαν, ἀναγκασθῶσι τῷ λόγῳ κατὰ πάντα τὸν\nθεὸν ἠρκθαι τοῦ διοικεῖν λέγειν καὶ κατακοσμεῖν τὴν πρότερον ἄμορφον\n οὐσαν ὕλην.\nφέρε γάρ, ἐπειδὴ σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι) ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου\nγεγόναμεν, ἤτω τις ἀνδριάς, ἑστὼς ἐπὶ βάσεως, καλός· οὗ\nοἱ θεώμενοι τὴν εὔρυθμον καλλονὴν διαφερέσθωσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,\nπῇ μὲν γενητόν, πῇ δὲ καὶ ἀγένητον πειρώμενοι λέγειν.","english":"Not this either. For they will certainly avoid confessing against themselves, lest by granting that matter had a beginning in separation and transformation, they be compelled by the argument to say that God began to administer and order the previously formless matter in every respect.\n\nSo then, O Centaur, let us discuss from the beginning. Do you say that beings have come to be by divine knowledge, or not?\n\n“By no means,” they will say.\n\nBut from the elements, or matter, or foundations, or however you wish to name these (for it makes no difference)—with these existing ungenerated beforehand and moving in a disorderly manner, did God separate everything, like a good painter creating a single form from many colors?\n\nNot this either. For they will certainly avoid confessing against themselves, lest by granting that matter had a beginning in separation and transformation, they be compelled by the argument to say that God began to administer and order the previously formless matter in every respect.\n\nCome now, since we have reached this point in the argument (to say with God), let there be a statue, standing on a base, beautiful. Let those who behold its well-proportioned beauty dispute with one another, trying to say on the one hand that it is created, and on the other that it is uncreated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐδὲ τοῦτο","severity":"info","text":"The repeated phrase 'Not this either' signals a rhetorical pattern: the interlocutor rejects successive positions, forcing the opponent into a logical impasse.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὕλην","severity":"info","text":"Here 'hylē' (matter) is presented as formless and pre-existing, a key concept in Middle Platonic and early Christian cosmology, distinct from the created order.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Κένταυρε","severity":"info","text":"The address 'O Centaur' is a rhetorical device; Methodius uses a mythical figure to personify a philosophical opponent, likely a Gnostic or dualist.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ζωγράφος","severity":"info","text":"The simile of God as a good painter creating a single form from many colors echoes Platonic imagery (e.g., Timaeus) and is used to critique the idea of a demiurge ordering pre-existent matter.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πάλιν δὴ οὖν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'So then, again' marks a resumption of the dialectical argument after a rejected proposal, structuring the text as a series of refutations.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"φέρε γάρ","severity":"caution","text":"The transition at 'Come now' introduces a new analogy (the statue) but the Greek text is fragmentary; the exact logical connection to the preceding argument is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Centaur' interlocutor is not specified; it may be a generic opponent or a specific philosophical school.","The phrase 'σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι' is ambiguous: it could mean 'to speak with God' or 'to say along with God'; the translation 'to say with God' is adopted."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"ἐροίμὴν γὰρ σφᾶς, Δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀγένητον αὐτόν φατε; πότερον διὰ τὸν\nτεχνίτην, ὅπως μηδαμῶς ἀργήσας τῆς δημιουργίας νομίζοιτο, ἢ δι’\nἑαυτόν; ἂν μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὸν τεχνίτην, πῶς ἀγένητος ὢν πρὸς τοῦ\nτεχνίτου δημιουργεῖται; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τῆς τέχνης καθέστηκε\nχαλκουργούμενος πρὸς τὸ σχεῖν ὁποῖον ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐθέλοι καρακτῆρα,\n ποίῳ τρόπῳ ἀγένγτος ἔσται πάσχων τε καὶ δρώμενος; εἰ δὲ\nαὖ δι’ ἑαυτὸν τέλειος καὶ ἀγένητος λέγοιτο μὴ δεῖσθαι τῆς τέχνης ὁ\n 13 vgl. De autex. 6, 2 S. 159, 12f. Plato Tim. 30 A — 14 Symp. S. 15, 17.\nPlato Tim. 28f — 19 vgl. De autex. 62, 2 S. 159, 14f — 26 vgl. 7, 5 S. 498, 18 \n 2 μῶν < A 3 πρῶτον B 4 Δῆλον] B 237 8 διαλεγόμεθα A B\n10 πάλιν 2. Hd. A, βάλη 1. Hd. A u. B 11 ἀπὸ A 315 r b 12 ἀγεννήτως\nB 13 f ἐτεχνήσατο B 17 διακρ.] μετακρίσεως AB 21 τῷ < A\n22 καλλός w. e. sch. B 23 ἐρρυθμϊον B 24 λέγειν πειρ. B 27 ἀγέννητος\nB 28 καθέστηκε A ν 30 ἔσται] ἄν A 31 τῆς < A","english":"For I would ask them: For what reason do you say it is ungenerated? Is it because of the craftsman, so that he might in no way be thought to have been idle from the work of creation, or because of itself? For if it is because of the craftsman, how, being ungenerated, is it fashioned by the craftsman? For if it is altogether in need of the art, being worked like bronze in order to receive whatever character the craftsman might wish, in what way will it be ungenerated while suffering and being acted upon? But if, on the other hand, it is said to be perfect and ungenerated because of itself, not needing the art...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγένητον","severity":"info","text":"The term 'ungenerated' (ἀγένητον) is central to the argument: the interlocutor claims matter is ungenerated, but the speaker questions whether this is for the craftsman's sake or for matter's own sake.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"τεχνίτην","severity":"info","text":"The 'craftsman' (τεχνίτην) is a Platonic term for the divine demiurge, echoing Timaeus 28a–29a, where the craftsman orders pre-existing matter.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"χαλκουργούμενος","severity":"info","text":"The image of matter being 'worked like bronze' (χαλκουργούμενος) draws on the Platonic metaphor of the craftsman shaping passive matter, common in Middle Platonic and early Christian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"πότερον ... ἢ","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a disjunctive question (πότερον ... ἢ) to structure the argument, presenting two alternatives for why matter is said to be ungenerated: for the craftsman's sake or for its own sake.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"external","lemma":"De autex. 6, 2","severity":"info","text":"The argument parallels Methodius' De autexusio 6,2 (S. 159,12f.), where similar reasoning about the craftsman and matter appears.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγένγτος","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has a variant reading ἀγένγτος (line 30) which may be a scribal error for ἀγένητος; the sense is not affected.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text breaks off mid-sentence, leaving the second alternative (matter ungenerated for its own sake) incomplete; the argument is resumed in the next passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"ἀνδριάς, κατὰ τὸ ὀλέθριον δόημα, ἀνάγκη αὐτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν.","english":"a statue, according to the destructive opinion, it is necessary to admit spontaneous generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνδριάς","severity":"info","text":"The term 'statue' here likely refers to the material substrate of a crafted object, used in the argument to illustrate the absurdity of claiming matter is ungenerated yet requires a craftsman.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"αὐτοματισμὸν","severity":"info","text":"The Greek 'αὐτοματισμὸν' (spontaneous generation) is a key philosophical term in Methodius' polemic, denoting the Epicurean concept of self-ordered matter without divine agency.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ὀλέθριον δόημα","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'destructive opinion' reflects Methodius' rhetorical stance against materialist cosmologies, likely targeting Epicurean or Stoic views that matter is self-sufficient.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Methodius 19th-century editions"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes a dialectical sequence: the opponent's position (matter ungenerated) is shown to entail spontaneous generation, a conclusion Methodius rejects as absurd.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The fragmentary context leaves unclear whether 'statue' is a direct quotation from an opponent or Methodius' own analogy; the Coptic cues classify this as narrative, but the Greek is argumentative.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'statue' is ambiguous: it may be a specific example from the opponent's argument or a generic illustration by Methodius.","The phrase 'according to the destructive opinion' could be Methodius' characterization of the opponent's view or a citation of a known philosophical school."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"εἰ δ’ οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἴσως ἐθελήσαντες προσήκασθαι τὸν λόγον πικρότερον ἀποκρινοῦνται, τὸ μὲν βρέτας ἀγένητον οὐκ εἶναι λέγοντες,\nγενητὸν δὲ εἶναι ἀεὶ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον, ὅπως ἀνάρχως λέγοιτο\n κρατεῖν τοῦ τεχνάσματος ὁ τεχνίτης, Οὐκοῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, λέξομεν αὐτοῖς,\nεἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τέλειος ὁ\nἀνδριάς, τί παρέσχεν αὐτῷ ὁ τεχνίτας ἢ τί ἐνήργησεν εἰς αὐτόν, φατέ.","english":"But if they are unwilling to accept even this argument, and will answer more harshly, saying that the statue is not ungenerated, but is generated yet has no beginning of generation, so that the craftsman is said to rule over the artifact without beginning—then we shall say to them: If no time nor age is found above, when the statue was not yet perfect, what did the craftsman provide to it, or what did he effect in it? Tell us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"γενητὸν δὲ εἶναι ἀεὶ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον","severity":"info","text":"The interlocutors claim the statue is generated yet has no beginning of generation, a paradoxical formulation that Methodius will press as incoherent.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"βρέτας","severity":"info","text":"βρέτας (statue) is a poetic or archaic term for a wooden image; here it is used interchangeably with ἀνδριάς (statue) in the same argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Οὐκοῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, λέξομεν αὐτοῖς","severity":"info","text":"The phrase marks a rhetorical shift: Methodius directly addresses the opponents with a logical challenge framed as a question.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"εἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω","severity":"info","text":"The argument echoes Platonic and Aristotelian discussions of time and eternity; Methodius uses it to expose the absurdity of a generated thing without a temporal beginning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"πικρότερον ἀποκρινοῦνται","severity":"info","text":"Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235) preserves this fragment; his epitome notes Methodius’ polemical style against pagan and heretical views on creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the opponents (ὦ οὗτοι) is not specified; they may be pagan philosophers or Christian heretics."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"εἰ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνενδεὴς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀρχὴν γενέσεως τυγχάνει, ταύτῃ μᾶλλον καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ὁ δημιουργὸς οὐδέποτε δημιουργήσας\n δημιουργῶν εὑρεθήσεται, καὶ πάλιν εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος περιδεδραμηκέναι,\nαύτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν. ἐὰν γὰρ κἂν τὸ ἀκαριαίτατον\n> ἀνδριάντα κινῆσαι ὁ δημιουργὸς λεχθῇ, ἀρχῇ ὑποπεσεῖται, καθ\nἣν πρότερον αὐτὸν ἄκοσμον καὶ ἀκίνητον ὄντα ἤρξατο κινεῖν καὶ\nκοσμεῖν. οὔκουν καὶ ἠν καὶ ἔσται διηνεκῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ κόσμος·\n ἀπεικαστέον γὰρ τῷ μὲν θεῷ τὸν τεχνίτην, τὸν δὲ ἀνδριάντα τῷ\nκόσμῳ.","english":"For if the same thing is self-sufficient and has no beginning of generation, then according to your argument the craftsman will be found never to have crafted while crafting, and again the argument seems to have run around in a circle, to be confessing spontaneity. For if the craftsman is said to move even the slightest statue, it will fall under a beginning, according to which he began to move and order it when it was previously unorderly and unmoved. Therefore the same world is not continuously the same always; for the craftsman must be compared to God, and the statue to the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνενδεὴς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀρχὴν γενέσεως τυγχάνει","severity":"info","text":"The conditional clause introduces a reductio ad absurdum: if the statue is self-sufficient and has no beginning of generation, then the craftsman is never found to have crafted while crafting, which is contradictory.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"αὐτοματισμόν","severity":"info","text":"αὐτοματισμός (spontaneity) is a technical term in ancient cosmology, often used pejoratively by Christian authors to denote the Epicurean doctrine of chance atomic swerve, opposed to divine providence.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος περιδεδραμηκέναι","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'the argument seems to have run around in a circle' signals a rhetorical self-awareness of circular reasoning, a common device in Methodius' dialectical style.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἀνδριάντα","severity":"info","text":"The statue (ἀνδριάς) is a standard Platonic image for the cosmos shaped by a divine craftsman (δημιουργός), as in Plato's Timaeus. Methodius adapts this to argue against the eternity of the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Plato Timaeus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"τῷ μὲν θεῷ τὸν τεχνίτην, τὸν δὲ ἀνδριάντα τῷ κόσμῳ","severity":"info","text":"The comparison of God to a craftsman and the world to a statue parallels Methodius' earlier analogy in the same fragment, reinforcing the argument that a beginning of creation is necessary.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"οὔκουν καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔσται διηνεκῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ κόσμος","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text here is uncertain; the reading 'οὔκουν' (therefore not) is a conjecture. The sense is that the world is not continuously the same, but the exact phrasing may be corrupt.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise reading of 'οὔκουν' is uncertain; it may be a scribal error for 'οὐκοῦν' (therefore not) or a different particle.","The referent of 'αὐτὸ' in 'εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν' is ambiguous: it could refer to the argument itself or to the statue."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"πῇ δὴ οὐν, ὠ ἠλίθιοι, οἴεσθε τὴν κτίσιν συναπέραντον οὐσαν τῷ δημιουργῷ μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ; τὸ γὰρ συναπέραντον,\nμηδαμῶς ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχον, καὶ συναγένγτον καὶ ἰσοδύναμον ἀνάγκη\nτυγχάνειν. τὸ δὲ ἀγένητον, αὐτοτελὲς καὶ ἄτρεπτον φανθέν, καὶ\n ἀπροσδεὲς καὶ ἄφθορον ἔσται· καὶ εἰ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, οὐκέτι ὁ\nκόσμος τρεπτὸς καθ’ ὑμᾶς.\nφέρε γάρ, ἐπειδὴ σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι) ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου\nγεγόναμεν, ἤτω τις ἀνδριάς, ἑστὼς ἐπὶ βάσεως, καλός· οὗ\nοἱ θεώμενοι τὴν εὔρυθμον καλλονὴν διαφερέσθωσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,\nπῇ μὲν γενητόν, πῇ δὲ καὶ ἀγένητον πειρώμενοι λέγειν.\nἐροίμὴν γὰρ σφᾶς, Δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀγένητον αὐτόν φατε; πότερον διὰ τὸν\nτεχνίτην, ὅπως μηδαμῶς ἀργήσας τῆς δημιουργίας νομίζοιτο, ἢ δι’\nἑαυτόν; ἂν μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὸν τεχνίτην, πῶς ἀγένητος ὢν πρὸς τοῦ\nτεχνίτου δημιουργεῖται; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τῆς τέχνης καθέστηκε\nχαλκουργούμενος πρὸς τὸ σχεῖν ὁποῖον ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐθέλοι καρακτῆρα,\n ποίῳ τρόπῳ ἀγένγτος ἔσται πάσχων τε καὶ δρώμενος; εἰ δὲ\nαὖ δι’ ἑαυτὸν τέλειος καὶ ἀγένητος λέγοιτο μὴ δεῖσθαι τῆς τέχνης ὁ\n 13 vgl. De autex. 6, 2 S. 159, 12f. Plato Tim. 30 A — 14 Symp. S. 15, 17.\nPlato Tim. 28f — 19 vgl. De autex. 62, 2 S. 159, 14f — 26 vgl. 7, 5 S. 498, 18 \n 2 μῶν < A 3 πρῶτον B 4 Δῆλον] B 237 8 διαλεγόμεθα A B\n10 πάλιν 2. Hd. A, βάλη 1. Hd. A u. B 11 ἀπὸ A 315 r b 12 ἀγεννήτως\nB 13 f ἐτεχνήσατο B 17 διακρ.] μετακρίσεως AB 21 τῷ < A\n22 καλλός w. e. sch. B 23 ἐρρυθμϊον B 24 λέγειν πειρ. B 27 ἀγέννητος\nB 28 καθέστηκε A ν 30 ἔσται] ἄν A 31 τῆς < A","english":"Then how, O foolish ones, do you suppose that creation, being co-unending with the craftsman, does not need the craftsman? For that which is co-unending, having no beginning of generation, must necessarily be co-unbegotten and of equal power. And that which is unbegotten, being self-sufficient and unchangeable, will also be without need and indestructible; and if this is so, then according to you the cosmos is no longer changeable.\n\nFor consider, since we have come to this point in the argument (to speak together with God), let there be a statue, standing on a base, beautiful. Let those who behold its well-proportioned beauty dispute with one another, some trying to say it is created, others that it is unbegotten.\n\nFor I would ask them: For what reason do you say it is unbegotten? Is it because of the craftsman, so that he might never be thought to have been idle from his work, or because of the statue itself? If because of the craftsman, how is it that, being unbegotten, it is crafted by the craftsman? For if it is altogether in need of the art, being worked in bronze to receive whatever character the craftsman wishes, in what way will it be unbegotten while suffering and being acted upon? But if, on the other hand, it is said to be perfect and unbegotten because of itself, not needing the art...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"συναπέραντον","severity":"info","text":"The term συναπέραντον (co-unending) is central to Methodius' polemic against those who assert the eternity of creation alongside God. It implies a shared lack of temporal limit, which Methodius argues would entail co-equality with the creator.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument echoes Platonic and Middle Platonic discussions of the eternity of the cosmos, particularly the Timaeus (28A–30A), where the demiurge crafts a world that is generated and thus requires a cause. Methodius adapts this to Christian anti-eternalist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Plato Timaeus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνδριάς","severity":"info","text":"The statue analogy (ἀνδριάς) parallels Methodius' earlier use of a craftsman-and-statue argument in De Autexusio (cf. 6,2 and 62,2). The image tests whether the statue's unbegotten status is due to the craftsman's perpetual activity or its own perfection.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a rhetorical question (πῇ δὴ οὖν) to a conditional argument (εἰ γὰρ…), then introduces a hypothetical dispute (φέρε γάρ) and a series of dialectical questions. This structure is typical of Methodius' logical refutation in dialogue form.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"συναγένγτον","severity":"caution","text":"The manuscript reading συναγένγτον (co-unbegotten) is uncertain; the apparatus shows variant spellings (e.g., ἀγεννήτως in B). The sense is clear, but the exact form may reflect scribal normalization or error.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text at lines 13–14 (vgl. De autex. 6,2) and 26 (vgl. 7,5) contains marginal references to other works, but the precise relationship to the lost De Autexusio is uncertain. The phrase σὺν τῷ θεῷ φάναι may be a parenthetical invocation or a textual corruption."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"ἀνδριάς, κατὰ τὸ ὀλέθριον δόημα, ἀνάγκη αὐτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν. εἰ δ’ οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἴσως ἐθελήσαντες προσήκασθαι τὸν λόγον πικρότερον ἀποκρινοῦνται, τὸ μὲν βρέτας ἀγένητον οὐκ εἶναι λέγοντες,\nγενητὸν δὲ εἶναι ἀεὶ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον, ὅπως ἀνάρχως λέγοιτο\n κρατεῖν τοῦ τεχνάσματος ὁ τεχνίτης, Οὐκοῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, λέξομεν αὐτοῖς,\nεἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τέλειος ὁ\nἀνδριάς, τί παρέσχεν αὐτῷ ὁ τεχνίτας ἢ τί ἐνήργησεν εἰς αὐτόν, φατέ. εἰ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνενδεὴς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀρχὴν γενέσεως τυγχάνει, ταύτῃ μᾶλλον καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ὁ δημιουργὸς οὐδέποτε δημιουργήσας\n δημιουργῶν εὑρεθήσεται, καὶ πάλιν εἰς αὐτὸ ἔοικεν ὁ λόγος περιδεδραμηκέναι,\nαύτοματισμὸν ὁμολογεῖν. ἐὰν γὰρ κἂν τὸ ἀκαριαίτατον\n> ἀνδριάντα κινῆσαι ὁ δημιουργὸς λεχθῇ, ἀρχῇ ὑποπεσεῖται, καθ\nἣν πρότερον αὐτὸν ἄκοσμον καὶ ἀκίνητον ὄντα ἤρξατο κινεῖν καὶ\nκοσμεῖν. οὔκουν καὶ ἠν καὶ ἔσται διηνεκῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ κόσμος·\n ἀπεικαστέον γὰρ τῷ μὲν θεῷ τὸν τεχνίτην, τὸν δὲ ἀνδριάντα τῷ\nκόσμῳ. πῇ δὴ οὐν, ὠ ἠλίθιοι, οἴεσθε τὴν κτίσιν συναπέραντον οὐσαν τῷ δημιουργῷ μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ; τὸ γὰρ συναπέραντον,\nμηδαμῶς ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχον, καὶ συναγένγτον καὶ ἰσοδύναμον ἀνάγκη\nτυγχάνειν. τὸ δὲ ἀγένητον, αὐτοτελὲς καὶ ἄτρεπτον φανθέν, καὶ\n ἀπροσδεὲς καὶ ἄφθορον ἔσται· καὶ εἰ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, οὐκέτι ὁ\nκόσμος τρεπτὸς καθ’ ὑμᾶς. Ὅτι ἐκκλησία παρὰ τὸ ἐκκεκλικέναι τὰς ἡδονὰς λέγεσθαί\nφησιν. Ὅτι ἐκκλησία παρὰ τὸ ἐκκεκλικέναι τὰς ἡδονὰς λέγεσθαί\nφησιν.","english":"...statue, according to the pernicious doctrine, one must necessarily admit automatism. But if, perhaps not willing to accept even this argument, they will answer more harshly, saying that the statue is not unbegotten, but is begotten, yet has no beginning of generation, so that the craftsman is said to rule the artifact without beginning, Then, O you there, we shall say to them, if neither time nor age is found above, when the statue was not perfect, what did the craftsman provide to it, or what did he effect in it, tell us? For if it is the same, being without need and having no beginning of generation, then according to you the craftsman will be found never to have crafted, yet always crafting, and again the argument seems to have run around to the same point, to admit automatism. For if the craftsman is said to have moved the statue even for the briefest moment, it will fall under a beginning, according to which he began to move and order it, when previously it was disordered and unmoved. Therefore the cosmos is and will be perpetually the same always; for the craftsman must be likened to God, and the statue to the cosmos. Then how, O foolish ones, do you suppose that creation, being co-unending with the craftsman, does not need the craftsman? For that which is co-unending, having no beginning of generation, must necessarily be co-unbegotten and of equal power. And that which is unbegotten, being self-sufficient and unchangeable, will also be without need and indestructible; and if this is so, then according to you the cosmos is no longer changeable. That he says the church is so called from having turned away from pleasures. That he says the church is so called from having turned away from pleasures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτοματισμόν","severity":"info","text":"αὐτοματισμός (automatism) denotes the notion that the cosmos operates by chance without divine agency. Methodius uses it as a polemical label for the opponents' view that the world is self-ordering.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage repeats the argument from the previous section (p66) in a circular manner, as noted by the phrase 'the argument seems to have run around to the same point'. This rhetorical device underscores the logical impasse of the opponents.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The final two sentences, introduced by 'Ὅτι', are likely Photius's own summary notes, not part of Methodius's original text. They explain the etymology of ἐκκλησία as derived from ἐκκεκλικέναι τὰς ἡδονάς ('having turned away from pleasures').","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text contains a lacuna or corruption: after 'οὔκουν καὶ ἠν καὶ ἔσται διηνεκῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ κόσμος·' the argument jumps abruptly. The English draft smooths this, but the original may have missing connective material.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of the statue (ἀνδριάς) and craftsman (τεχνίτης) is used to argue that if the cosmos is co-eternal with God, then God's creative activity becomes superfluous or impossible, leading to automatism.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'εἰ μὴ χρόνος μήτε αἰὼν εὑρίσκοιτο ἐπάνω' is ambiguous: it may mean 'if neither time nor age is found above' (i.e., prior to the statue's existence) or 'if no time or age is found to be superior'. The reading taken follows the English draft's interpretation of temporal priority.","The final two sentences are ambiguous in their relation to the preceding argument; they are likely Photius's marginalia rather than Methodius's own words."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Ὅτι φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος, Δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν τοῖς προωμολογημένοις\n ἔφαμεν εἶναι ποιητικάς, τὴν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γυμνῷ τῷ βουλήματι\nχωρὶς μελλησμοῦ ἅμα τῷ θελῆσαι αὐτουργοῦσαν ὃ βούλεται ποιεῖν·\nτυγχάνει δὲ ὁ πατήρ· θατέραν δὲ κατακοσμοῦσαν καὶ ποικίλλουσαν\nκατὰ μίμησιν τῆς προτέρας τὰ ἤδη γεγονότα· ἔστι δὲ ὁ υἱός, ἡ πανταδύναμος\nκαὶ κραταιὰ χεὶρ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ᾗ μετὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι\n ὕλην ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων κατακοσμεῖ. Ὅτι φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος, Δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν τοῖς προωμολογημένοις\n ἔφαμεν εἶναι ποιητικάς, τὴν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γυμνῷ τῷ βουλήματι\nχωρὶς μελλησμοῦ ἅμα τῷ θελῆσαι αὐτουργοῦσαν ὃ βούλεται ποιεῖν·\nτυγχάνει δὲ ὁ πατήρ· θατέραν δὲ κατακοσμοῦσαν καὶ ποικίλλουσαν\nκατὰ μίμησιν τῆς προτέρας τὰ ἤδη γεγονότα· ἔστι δὲ ὁ υἱός, ἡ πανταδύναμος\nκαὶ κραταιὰ χεὶρ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ᾗ μετὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι\n ὕλην ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων κατακοσμεῖ. Ὅτι τὸ Ἰὼβ βιβλίον Μωσέως εἶναι ὁ ἅγιός φησιν. Ὅτι τὸ Ἰὼβ βιβλίον Μωσέως εἶναι ὁ ἅγιός φησιν. Ὅτι περὶ τοῦ »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν«\n 16 vgl. 7, 2 S. 497, 26 — 24 vgl. Symp. S. 19, 8 — 29 vgl. De res. I, 46, 2\nS. 296, 2f. Iren. Adv. haer. III, 21, 10. V, 5, 2. 6, 1. Hippol. In Dan. IE, 14, 6. II, 33, 4 — 32 Gen. 1, 1 \n 2 εἰ δ’ Ausgg.: ἢ Α B 4. 18 ἔχον w. e. seh. corr. aus ἔχων A 5 ὦ < A\n| λέξωμεν B 9 ἡμᾶς A 11 τὸ] τὸν A 12 τὸν < AB | κινήσας AB\n15 ἀπεικ. A ν b 16 δὴ] δὲ A 20 ἔσται] ἂν A 24 δὲ < A,\naber e. Lücke 25 ποιητικῆς A 26 μελησμοῦ B ὃ Β 237v","english":"That the holy one says: We said that there are two creative powers in the things previously agreed upon: one which, from non-existent things, by bare will without delay, at the moment of willing, itself works what it wishes to do; and this is the Father. The other adorns and variegates, in imitation of the first, the things that have already come into being; and this is the Son, the all-powerful and mighty hand of the Father, with which, after having made matter from non-existent things, he adorns it. That the holy one says the book of Job is by Moses. That concerning the phrase \"In the beginning he made the heaven and the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ... ποιητικάς","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a fragment from Methodius’ De Creatis, preserved by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 235). The repeated Greek text (lines 1–6 and 7–12) indicates a scribal or transmission duplication, common in catenae or florilegia.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"πανταδέναμος","severity":"info","text":"The adjective πανταδέναμος (all-powerful) is rare; it modifies χείρ (hand) as a title for the Son. The term underscores the Son’s role as the Father’s executive power in creation, distinct from the Father’s immediate creative act.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase quotes Genesis 1:1 (LXX). Methodius uses it to anchor his discussion of the two creative powers, likely in a commentary on the Hexaemeron. The citation is fragmentary, breaking off after the lemma.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τὸ Ἰὼβ βιβλίον Μωσέως εἶναι","severity":"info","text":"Methodius asserts Mosaic authorship of the book of Job, a view attested in early Christian tradition (e.g., by some rabbinic and patristic sources). This claim appears abruptly in the fragment, possibly as a marginal note or a separate lemma in Photius’ epitome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὅτι φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος","severity":"info","text":"The repeated formula “That the holy one says” is characteristic of Photius’ excerpting method in the Bibliotheca, where he introduces each lemma with a summary of the source’s content. This indicates the fragment is a secondary compilation, not Methodius’ original continuous text.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὅτι φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος, Δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ...","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is corrupt: lines 1–6 and 7–12 are identical, suggesting a dittography. The apparatus (e.g., “εἰ δ’ Ausgg.: ἢ Α Β”) indicates manuscript variants. The English draft omits the second repetition and the Job reference, which may misrepresent the fragment’s sequence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The repeated Greek text may be a scribal error or a deliberate repetition in the source; the exact original sequence is uncertain.","The abrupt shift to Job’s authorship and the Genesis citation suggests the fragment is a composite of multiple lemmas from Photius’ epitome."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"φησίν, Ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι. λέγεται\nγὰρ παρά τινι τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ λέγουσα περὶ αὑτῆς τὸν\nτρόπον τοῦτον κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ, εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ\nπρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με«.","english":"One would not err in calling wisdom itself the beginning. For it is said by one of the divine choir, speaking about herself in this manner: \"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways; he established me for his works before the age.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ","severity":"info","text":"The quotation is from Proverbs 8:22 LXX, where Wisdom speaks of being created by the Lord as the beginning of his ways.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἀρχὴν","severity":"info","text":"Here ἀρχὴν (beginning) is used as a title for wisdom, echoing the Proverb's phrase and Methodius' identification of wisdom with the Son as the second creative power.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"τοῦ θείου χοροῦ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'divine choir' likely refers to the company of biblical authors or prophets, a common patristic metaphor for the inspired writers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the argument from the previous fragment, where two creative powers are distinguished; here wisdom is identified as the beginning, aligning with the Son's role.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is a fragment preserved by Photius; the exact context of the quotation from Proverbs is uncertain, and the speaker of φησίν is not identified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"ἠν γὰρ ἀκόλουθον καὶ πρεπωδέστερον πάντα ἃ εἰς γένεσιν ἠλθον εἶναι ταύτης νεώτερα, ἐπεὶ καὶ\nδι᾿ αὐτῆς γεγόνασιν. ἐπίστησον γὰρ εἰ μὴ καὶ τό »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν\nλόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ κατὰ τὸν εὐαγγελιστήν »καὶ\nθεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν«, εἰ μὴ τούτοις\nὁμαρτεῖ.","english":"For it was consistent and more fitting that all things which came into being should be younger than her, since they came into being through her. For consider whether also the saying, \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\" according to the Evangelist, and \"the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God,\" does not agree with these things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀκόλουθον καὶ πρεπωδέστερον","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'consistent and more fitting' introduces a logical and hierarchical argument: all created things are younger than Wisdom because they came into being through her.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν","severity":"info","text":"This is a quotation of John 1:1, though the Greek text here differs slightly from the standard NT (e.g., 'πρὸς τὸν θεόν' instead of 'πρὸς τὸν θεόν' with article). Methodius uses it to support his argument about Wisdom's priority.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase or variant of John 1:1c, possibly reflecting a textual tradition or Methodius's own wording. The phrase 'this one was in the beginning with God' emphasizes the Word's co-eternity.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐπίστησον γὰρ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'For consider whether' marks a rhetorical question that invites the reader to test the consistency of the Johannine prologue with the preceding argument about Wisdom's priority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁμαρτεῖ","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'ὁμαρτεῖ' (from ὁμαρτέω, 'to agree') is rare in patristic Greek. Its use here underscores Methodius's concern with doctrinal coherence between the Wisdom figure and the Johannine Logos.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ μὴ τούτοις ὁμαρτεῖ","severity":"caution","text":"The syntax of the final clause is ambiguous: it could mean 'if it does not agree with these things' (i.e., the preceding argument) or 'if it does not agree with these things' (i.e., the Johannine quotations). The translation opts for the latter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'τούτοις' (these things) is unclear: it may refer to the preceding argument about Wisdom or to the Johannine quotations themselves.","The exact textual form of the Johannine quotation is uncertain; Methodius may be citing from memory or a variant manuscript tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν, ἀφ’ ἦς ἀνεβλάστησεν ὁ ὀρθότατος λόγος, τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων φατέον, ἐν ᾦ ἦν· τῷ δέ\nοὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ τὸ ἐξουσιαστικὸν τοῦ λόγου, ὃ\nεἶχε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἰς γένεσιν παρελθεῖν,\nἔοικε σημαίνειν, τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰπών. οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ μετὰ τὴν\nἰδίαν ἄναρχον ἀρχήν, τὸν πατέρα, αὐτὸς τῶν ἄλλων γίνεται, δἰ ἡς\n ἅπαντα δημιουργεῖται.\nὍτι περὶ τοῦ »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν«\n 16 vgl. 7, 2 S. 497, 26 — 24 vgl. Symp. S. 19, 8 — 29 vgl. De res. I, 46, 2\nS. 296, 2f. Iren. Adv. haer. III, 21, 10. V, 5, 2. 6, 1. Hippol. In Dan. IE, 14, 6.\nII, 33, 4 — 32 Gen. 1, 1 \n 2 εἰ δ’ Ausgg.: ἢ Α B 4. 18 ἔχον w. e. seh. corr. aus ἔχων A 5 ὦ < A\n| λέξωμεν B 9 ἡμᾶς A 11 τὸ] τὸν A 12 τὸν < AB | κινήσας AB\n15 ἀπεικ. A ν b 16 δὴ] δὲ A 20 ἔσται] ἂν A 24 δὲ < A,\naber e. Lücke 25 ποιητικῆς A 26 μελησμοῦ B ὃ Β 237v","english":"For the beginning from which the most correct Word sprang forth must be called the Father and Maker of all things, in whom he was; and the phrase \"he was in the beginning with God\" seems to signify the authoritative power of the Word, which he had with the Father even before the world came into generation, having spoken of \"the beginning.\" Therefore, after his own beginningless beginning, the Father, he himself becomes the beginning for the others, through whom all things are created.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀρχήν","severity":"info","text":"The term ἀρχήν (accusative of ἀρχή) is used here in a double sense: as the temporal 'beginning' and as the ontological 'principle' or 'source.' Methodius distinguishes between the Father as the 'beginningless beginning' and the Word as a derived beginning for creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν","severity":"info","text":"The passage alludes to Genesis 1:1 ('In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'), which is cited in the apparatus. Methodius uses this to frame his discussion of the Word's role in creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'In the beginning was the Word' echoes John 1:1. Methodius interprets this as referring to the Word's pre-existence with the Father, consistent with his argument that the Word is a secondary beginning.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων","severity":"info","text":"The description of the Father as 'Maker of all things' reflects Middle Platonic and early Christian cosmological language, where the Father is the ultimate source and the Word is the intermediary agent of creation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative from the previous section, which discussed the priority of Wisdom. Here Methodius shifts to the Word, using a logical argument (οὐκοῦν) to conclude that the Word becomes a beginning for all other things.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has a textual variant at line 12 (τὸ] τὸν A) and a lacuna at line 24 (δὲ < A). The phrase 'τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν' may be corrupt; the apparatus notes uncertainty in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise referent of 'τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν' is ambiguous: it could be the 'beginning' of Genesis 1:1 or the 'beginning' of John 1:1. The text conflates both, but the apparatus suggests possible corruption.","The phrase 'τὸ ἐξουσιαστικὸν τοῦ λόγου' is ambiguous: it may mean 'the authoritative power of the Word' or 'the power of the Word as an authority.' The translation opts for the former."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"φησίν, Ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι. λέγεται\nγὰρ παρά τινι τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ λέγουσα περὶ αὑτῆς τὸν\nτρόπον τοῦτον κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ, εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ\nπρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με«.\nἠν γὰρ ἀκόλουθον καὶ πρεπωδέστερον πάντα ἃ εἰς γένεσιν ἠλθον εἶναι ταύτης νεώτερα, ἐπεὶ καὶ\nδι᾿ αὐτῆς γεγόνασιν. ἐπίστησον γὰρ εἰ μὴ καὶ τό »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν\nλόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ κατὰ τὸν εὐαγγελιστήν »καὶ\nθεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν«, εἰ μὴ τούτοις\nὁμαρτεῖ.\nτὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχήν, ἀφ’ ἦς ἀνεβλάστησεν ὁ ὀρθότατος λόγος, τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων φατέον, ἐν ᾦ ἦν· τῷ δέ\nοὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν‘ τὸ ἐξουσιαστικὸν τοῦ λόγου, ὃ\nεἶχε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἰς γένεσιν παρελθεῖν,\nἔοικε σημαίνειν, τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰπών. οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ μετὰ τὴν\nἰδίαν ἄναρχον ἀρχήν, τὸν πατέρα, αὐτὸς τῶν ἄλλων γίνεται, δἰ ἡς\n ἅπαντα δημιουργεῖται.\nὍτι Ὠριγένης μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ μυθήσασθαι περὶ τῆς τοῦ\nπαντὸς ἀïδιότητος ἐπάγει καὶ τοῦτο, Οὔτε οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ, ὥς φασί\nτινες, πρότερον οὐκ ὢν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τότε πρώτως πλασθεὶς εἰς κόσμον\nπαρῆλθεν, οὔτε αὖ κόσμος πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσεως\n ἤρξατο δημιουργεῖσθαι.","english":"He says, \"If one were to call Wisdom itself 'the Beginning,' he would not err. For it is said by one of the divine choir, speaking about herself in this manner: 'The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the age he established me.'\" For it was fitting and more proper that all things which came into being should be younger than her, since they came to be through her. For consider whether the phrase \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\" according to the Evangelist, and \"the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God,\" does not agree with these things. For the beginning from which the most correct Word sprang forth must be called the Father and Maker of all things, in whom he was; and the phrase \"this one was in the beginning with God\" seems to signify the authoritative power of the Word, which he had with the Father even before the world came into being, having spoken of the beginning. Therefore, after its own beginningless beginning, the Father, it itself becomes the beginning of the others, through which all things are created. That Origen, after having spun many myths about the eternity of the universe, adds also this: \"Therefore neither did man, not previously existing, first come into the world at that time, as some say, from Adam, having been fashioned for the first time, nor did the world begin to be created six days before the generation of Adam.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ","severity":"info","text":"Methodius adapts Proverbs 8:22 LXX ('The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways'), personifying Wisdom as the speaker.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν","severity":"info","text":"Methodius quotes John 1:1-2, linking the Johannine 'beginning' to the Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀρχή","severity":"info","text":"Methodius distinguishes between the Father as 'beginningless beginning' and Wisdom as 'the Beginning' that is created yet pre-existent, a key move in anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὠριγένης","severity":"info","text":"Methodius attacks Origen's doctrine of the eternity of the world, citing Origen's claim that neither man nor the cosmos began at a finite point.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage transitions from a scriptural exegesis of Wisdom and the Logos to a direct refutation of Origen's cosmology, signaled by 'Ὅτι Ὠριγένης'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is fragmentary; the quotation from Origen may be paraphrased rather than verbatim, and the exact source of the Wisdom citation is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰπών' is syntactically problematic; the translation 'having spoken of the beginning' is conjectural.","The identity of 'one of the divine choir' is unspecified; possibly a reference to a lost Wisdom text or a personification."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"εἰ δὲ φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς ταῦτά τις, πρότερον φρασάτω εἰ μὴ εὐαρίθμητος ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου\nγενέσεως κατὰ τὴν Μωσέως βίβλον τοῖς οῦτως αὐτὴν ἐκλαμβανομένοις\nὁ χρόνος ἔσται, τῆς προφητικῆς καὶ ἐνθάδε βοώσης φωνῆς\n»ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς\n σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές, ἥτις διῆλθε, καὶ φυλακὴ ἐν νυκτί«. χιλίων\nγὰρ ἐτῶν περιοριζομένων εἰς μίαν ἡμέραν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ, ἀπὸ\nτῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν, ὡς οἱ περὶ\nἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν","english":"But if someone should be kindly disposed to disagree with these things, let him first state whether time will not be easily counted from the generation of the world according to the book of Moses for those who interpret it in this way, since the prophetic voice cries out here as well: \"From eternity and to eternity you are; for a thousand years in your eyes are as yesterday, which has passed, and a watch in the night.\" For if a thousand years are bounded as one day in the eyes of God, from the generation of the world until the consummation . . . until us, as those around six days are concluded (the six-thousandth","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰ δὲ φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς ταῦτά τις","severity":"info","text":"The conditional clause introduces a hypothetical opponent who is 'kindly disposed to disagree' (φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι), a rhetorical softening that frames the ensuing argument as a courteous debate.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Psalm 90:2–4 (LXX), which speaks of God's eternity and the compression of time. Methodius adapts it to argue that cosmic history is brief in divine perspective.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν","severity":"info","text":"The fragment breaks off at 'the six-thousandth', likely referring to a six-thousand-year scheme for world history, a common chronographic motif in early Christian writers (e.g., Julius Africanus).","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"πρότερον φρασάτω","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'let him first state' (πρότερον φρασάτω) signals a dialectical structure: Methodius demands that his opponent clarify a premise before the argument proceeds.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν","severity":"caution","text":"The text has a lacuna after 'consummation' (καταπαύσεως), indicated by the ellipsis. The sense is incomplete; the intended endpoint of the chronological calculation is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'as those around six days are concluded' (ὡς οἱ περὶ ἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται) is ambiguous: it may refer to a group of exegetes who interpret the six days of creation as spanning six thousand years, or to the six days themselves being concluded in the calculation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"ἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν ἄρ' ἔτος φασὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ εἰς δεῦρο συντείνειν· τῇ γὰρ\n ἑβδομάδι τῷ ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει κρίσιν ἀφίξεσθαί φασιν). οὐκοῦν\nαἱ πᾶσαι ἡμέραι δέκα καὶ τρεῖς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν ᾖ\nἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, μετροῦνται. ὧν ὁ θεὸς\n 3 Spr. Sal. S, 22 — e. 11 Joh. 1, 1 — 10 vgl. S. 415, 13. 474, 5. Plato\nTim. 28 C — 12 vgl. Joh. 17, 5 — 24 Psal. 89, 2. 4 — 27 Gen. 2, 2 — 30 vgl.\nBarn. 15, 4 \n 1 τὴν] καὶ A 2 αὐτῆς AB 3 κύριος A 316 | ὁδὸν B 9 ἁμάρτοι\nA 10 τὸ δὲ B 11 ἦν < B 15 δημιουργοῦνται B 18 πρῶτος\nB 22f ἐκλαμβανομέ|νοις A 316 r b 23 ἔσται Ausgg.: ἂν A, εἷς B\n25 ἐχθές A 27 nach καταπ. Lücke, etwa <τοῦ θεοῦ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι,\nκαταπαύσεως> Kl | μέχρï B","english":"Six days are concluded (so they say that the six-thousandth year from Adam extends to the present; for in the seventh week, the seven-thousandth year, they say judgment will arrive). Therefore all the days, thirteen in number, are measured from us back to the beginning, in which God made the heaven and the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται","severity":"info","text":"The six days of creation are here interpreted as six thousand years, a common chronographic scheme in early Christian millenarianism.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑβδομάδι","severity":"info","text":"The term 'seventh week' (ἑβδομάδι) refers to the seventh millennium, when judgment is expected; this reflects a sabbatical or heptadic structure of world history.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Genesis 1:1, the beginning of creation, which Methodius uses as the starting point for his chronological calculation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν ... ἔτος","severity":"info","text":"The six-thousand-year scheme from Adam to the present was a widespread Jewish and Christian chronological framework, found in authors such as Julius Africanus and Irenaeus.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"κρίσιν ἀφίξεσθαί φασιν","severity":"info","text":"The prediction of judgment in the seven-thousandth year reflects a millenarian expectation that was later criticized by Origen and others, and is preserved here in Photius’ summary.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"αἱ πᾶσαι ἡμέραι δέκα καὶ τρεῖς","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'thirteen days' is obscure; it may refer to a symbolic or inclusive count of creation days and millennia, but the exact calculation is not fully explained in the fragment.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The meaning of 'thirteen days' is unclear; it may be a symbolic or inclusive count of creation days and millennia, but the fragment does not provide a full explanation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"άνώτερον κατὰ τὴν σφῶν αὐτῶν ἄνοιαν οὐδὲν ούδαμῶς\nἐγεγύμνωτο τοῦ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ εἶναι. εἰ δὲ καὶ τρισκαίδεκά\nεἰσιν ἡμέραι ἐν όφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ ἀπὸ γενέσεως κόσμου, πῶς\nφησιν ἡ ἐν τῷ Σειρὰχ σοφία »ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ\n καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;« Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων,\nκαὶ ὅρα οἷα παίζει. 4 Sir. 1, 2 \n 2f καὶ τρισκαίδ. B: καὶ <Α\nὍτι Ὠριγένης μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ μυθήσασθαι περὶ τῆς τοῦ\nπαντὸς ἀïδιότητος ἐπάγει καὶ τοῦτο, Οὔτε οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ, ὥς φασί\nτινες, πρότερον οὐκ ὢν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τότε πρώτως πλασθεὶς εἰς κόσμον\nπαρῆλθεν, οὔτε αὖ κόσμος πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσεως\n ἤρξατο δημιουργεῖσθαι. εἰ δὲ φιλοφρονοῖτο διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς ταῦτά τις, πρότερον φρασάτω εἰ μὴ εὐαρίθμητος ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου\nγενέσεως κατὰ τὴν Μωσέως βίβλον τοῖς οῦτως αὐτὴν ἐκλαμβανομένοις\nὁ χρόνος ἔσται, τῆς προφητικῆς καὶ ἐνθάδε βοώσης φωνῆς\n»ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς\n σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές, ἥτις διῆλθε, καὶ φυλακὴ ἐν νυκτί«. χιλίων\nγὰρ ἐτῶν περιοριζομένων εἰς μίαν ἡμέραν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ, ἀπὸ\nτῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν, ὡς οἱ περὶ\nἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν\nἓξ ἡμέραι συμπεραιοῦνται (ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν ἄρ' ἔτος φασὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ εἰς δεῦρο συντείνειν· τῇ γὰρ\n ἑβδομάδι τῷ ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει κρίσιν ἀφίξεσθαί φασιν). οὐκοῦν\nαἱ πᾶσαι ἡμέραι δέκα καὶ τρεῖς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν ᾖ\nἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, μετροῦνται. ὧν ὁ θεὸς\n 3 Spr. Sal. S, 22 — e. 11 Joh. 1, 1 — 10 vgl. S.","english":"higher up, according to their own folly, nothing at all had been stripped of being father and almighty. But if there are thirteen days in the eyes of God from the beginning of the world, how does the wisdom in Sirach say, “Who will number the sand of the seas, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?” This is what Origen says, exerting himself, and see what nonsense he plays.  \n\nThat Origen, after much mythologizing about the eternity of the universe, adds also this: “Therefore neither from Adam, as some say, did man, not previously existing, first come into the world when fashioned, nor did the world begin to be created six days before the generation of Adam. But if someone should be kindly disposed to disagree with these things, let him first state whether time from the generation of the world according to the book of Moses will not be easily counted by those who interpret it thus, since the prophetic voice cries out here too, ‘From eternity and to eternity you are; for a thousand years in your eyes are as yesterday’s day which has passed, and a watch in the night.’ For with a thousand years being limited to one day in the eyes of God, from the generation of the world until the consummation . . . until us, as the six days are concluded (so they say that the six-thousandth year from Adam extends to the present; for in the seventh week, the seven-thousandth year, they say judgment will arrive). Therefore all the days, thirteen in number from us back to the beginning, in which God made the heaven and the earth, are measured. Of which God . . .","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;","severity":"info","text":"A quotation from Sirach (Sir 1:2) used to challenge the notion that the days of creation are finite and countable.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ· ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου ὡς ἡμέρα ἡ χθές","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Psalm 90:2 (LXX) or a similar liturgical text, asserting God's eternity and the relativity of time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὠριγένης","severity":"info","text":"Origen is cited as a source for the view that the world is eternal and that the six days of creation are not literal. Methodius criticizes this as mythologizing.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"τρισκαίδεκα ἡμέραι","severity":"info","text":"The passage refers to 'thirteen days' as a symbolic total: six days of creation plus seven days of the week, representing the full span from creation to judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν ἔτος ... ἑπτακισχιλιοστῷ ἔτει","severity":"info","text":"A millenarian scheme is described: the 6000th year from Adam is the present, and judgment will come in the 7000th year (the seventh 'day').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has a lacuna after 'καταπαύσεως', making the transition to 'μέχρις ἡμῶν' uncertain. The sense is that the six days extend from creation to the present.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'μέχρι καταπαύσεως . . μέχρις ἡμῶν' is corrupt; the intended connection between 'consummation' and 'us' is unclear.","The identity of 'οἱ περὶ ἓξ ἡμέραι' (those who hold the six-day scheme) is not specified, but likely refers to millenarian interpreters."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"415, 13. 474, 5. Plato\nTim. 28 C — 12 vgl. Joh. 17, 5 — 24 Psal. 89, 2. 4 — 27 Gen. 2, 2 — 30 vgl. Barn. 15, 4 \n 1 τὴν] καὶ A 2 αὐτῆς AB 3 κύριος A 316 | ὁδὸν B 9 ἁμάρτοι\nA 10 τὸ δὲ B 11 ἦν < B 15 δημιουργοῦνται B 18 πρῶτος\nB 22f ἐκλαμβανομέ|νοις A 316 r b 23 ἔσται Ausgg.: ἂν A, εἷς B\n25 ἐχθές A 27 nach καταπ. Lücke, etwa <τοῦ θεοῦ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι,\nκαταπαύσεως> Kl | μέχρï B","english":"that the Lord rested on the seventh day from all the works which he had made, and that the number seven is held in honour among the Hebrews, and that the days of creation are not thirteen but seven, as the Scripture says, \"In six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth,\" and on the seventh he rested.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the creation account in Exodus 20:11 (LXX) and Genesis 1, but the precise phrasing is not a direct biblical quotation; it likely reflects a common summary of the hexaemeron.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"seven","severity":"info","text":"The number seven held symbolic significance in Hebrew tradition, representing completion and rest, as seen in the Sabbath institution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes a polemical argument against Origen's allegorical interpretation of the days of creation, asserting a literal seven-day framework.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text is fragmentary; the apparatus notes a lacuna after καταπ. (line 27), with a conjectural supplement by Klostermann. The English draft smooths over this gap.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical reference for 'In six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth' is unclear; it may conflate Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.","The lacuna in line 27 leaves the original wording uncertain; the English draft's reading is a reconstruction."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"άνώτερον κατὰ τὴν σφῶν αὐτῶν ἄνοιαν οὐδὲν ούδαμῶς\nἐγεγύμνωτο τοῦ πατὴρ καὶ παντοκράτωρ εἶναι. εἰ δὲ καὶ τρισκαίδεκά\nεἰσιν ἡμέραι ἐν όφθαλμοῖς θεοῦ ἀπὸ γενέσεως κόσμου, πῶς\nφησιν ἡ ἐν τῷ Σειρὰχ σοφία »ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ\n καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;« Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων,\nκαὶ ὅρα οἷα παίζει. \n 4 Sir. 1, 2 \n 2f καὶ τρισκαίδ. B: καὶ <Α","english":"higher, according to their own folly, had in no way been stripped of being father and almighty. But if there are thirteen days in the eyes of God from the beginning of the world, how does the wisdom in Sirach say, “Who will number the sand of the seas, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?” These things Origen says, being eager, and see what nonsense he plays.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει;","severity":"info","text":"The quotation is from Sirach 1:2 (LXX), a wisdom book. Methodius uses it to counter Origen's argument about the number of days in creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὠριγένης","severity":"info","text":"Methodius here criticizes Origen (c. 184–253), whose lost work on creation likely argued for thirteen days. This fragment preserves a rare direct polemic against Origen's cosmology.","cites":[{"key":"ed:tlg2959.tlg005","label":"source edition: De Creatis (Fragmenta Ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 235)","url":"https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2959.tlg005.opp-grc1:1.1"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"τρισκαίδεκά","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek τρισκαίδεκά (thirteen) is a variant reading; the apparatus notes B reads καὶ τρισκαίδ. while A omits the conjunction. The text may be corrupt or incomplete at this point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Σειρὰχ σοφία","severity":"info","text":"The Wisdom of Sirach (Ben Sira) is a deuterocanonical book. Methodius cites it as authoritative scripture, reflecting its use in early Christian debates on creation and time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων, καὶ ὅρα οἷα παίζει.","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the fragment with a rhetorical dismissal of Origen's argument, typical of Methodius's polemical style. The word παίζει (plays) implies frivolity or absurdity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact number of days (thirteen vs. seven) in Origen's original argument is unclear due to textual corruption. The phrase 'in the eyes of God' may be ironic or literal."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}