{"slug":"tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola 02 Rescriptum Athanasii ad Liberium Papam","title_source":"Epistola 02 Rescriptum Athanasii ad Liberium Papam","author":"SS Liberius","genre":"letter","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:00:38Z","cost_usd":0.001675},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp128/tmp128/tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":498,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":2104,"commentary_units":12,"commentary_kinds":5,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":2,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola 02 Rescriptum Athanasii ad Liberium Papam is a Latin letter purportedly written by Athanasius of Alexandria to Pope Liberius, defending his orthodoxy and seeking reconciliation after the exile imposed by Emperor Constantius II. Dated to the mid-4th century, likely after 357, it survives only in a Latin translation possibly made in the 5th or 6th century; the original Greek is lost. The letter was transmitted through medieval canonical collections, notably Pseudo-Isidore, to support papal authority and anti-Arian positions. Its authenticity has been questioned by early modern scholars. The source edition (ogl-pl) lacks critical apparatus, limiting textual verification.","historical_context":"The letter is set in the mid-4th century, during the aftermath of the Council of Sirmium (357) and the shifting imperial policies under Constantius II, who exiled Athanasius multiple times for his staunch Nicene orthodoxy. Pope Liberius himself was exiled in 356 for refusing to condemn Athanasius, returning in 358 after a compromise. The letter reflects Athanasius's efforts to reaffirm his orthodoxy and secure papal support amid pro-Homoian pressures. It survives only in Latin, likely translated in the 5th or 6th century, possibly in a Western monastic or canonical context. Its inclusion in Pseudo-Isidorian decretals (9th century) indicates its use to bolster papal primacy and condemn Arianism, though its authenticity was doubted by scholars like Baronius. The original Greek is lost, and the Latin may reflect later theological concerns, such as Christological debates.","significance":"This letter is significant as a key text in the development of papal authority and anti-Arian polemic, cited in medieval canonical collections to support the primacy of Rome. It also illustrates the complex relationship between Athanasius and the Western church during the Arian controversy. Its disputed authenticity highlights the challenges of using later translations and forgeries to reconstruct 4th-century history.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 357–358","event":"Likely composition of the original Greek letter by Athanasius to Liberius, after Liberius's return from exile."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Original Greek text lost; Latin translation possibly made in the West."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Inclusion in Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, used to support papal authority."},{"date":"16th–17th c.","event":"Early modern scholars (e.g., Baronius) question the letter's authenticity."},{"date":"18th c.","event":"Coustant edition includes the letter in his collection of papal letters."},{"date":"Undated","event":"Modern edition (ogl-pl) prints the Latin text without critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Epistola Liberii Papae ad Athanasium","relation":"The letter to which this is a response; part of the same correspondence.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals","relation":"Transmits this letter as part of a collection supporting papal primacy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Athanasius's Apologia ad Constantium","relation":"Another work by Athanasius defending his orthodoxy in the same period.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Sirmium (357)","relation":"Context of pro-Homoian pressure that led to Athanasius's exile and this letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum","relation":"Source edition that includes this letter in its appendix.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The letter's authenticity is disputed; it may be a later forgery or heavily interpolated.","The original Greek is lost; the Latin translation may reflect later theological concerns.","The date is uncertain; the letter is placed after 357 but cannot be precisely dated.","The source edition (ogl-pl) lacks critical apparatus, so textual variants and manuscript basis are unverifiable.","The letter's transmission through Pseudo-Isidorian decretals raises questions about its original context and purpose."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000527,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:00:38Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp128/tmp128/tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp128.tmp128.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":12,"english_words":498,"source_letters":2104,"commentary_kinds":5},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is a response from Athanasius to Pope Liberius, defending his orthodoxy and seeking reconciliation after the exile imposed by Constantius II.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Dated to the mid-4th century, likely after 357, when Liberius had returned from exile and Athanasius was again under pressure from pro-Homoian imperial policy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Survives only in Latin translation, possibly made in the 5th or 6th century; the original Greek is lost, and the Latin may reflect later theological concerns.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cited in medieval canonical collections (e.g., Pseudo-Isidore) to support papal authority and the condemnation of Arianism, though its authenticity was questioned by some early modern scholars.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The source edition (ogl-pl) provides no critical apparatus; the reader cannot verify textual variants or the basis for the Latin text printed here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 2 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":2},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"RESCRIPTUM SANCTI PATRIS NOSTRI ATHANASII ARCHIEPISCOPI ALEXANDRINI AD LIBERIUM ROMAE EPISCOPUM.\n\n(Coust. Append., p. 99.)\n\nQuod perfectum hominem Deus Verbum assumpserit propter salutem nostram.\n\nUnus Deus immortalis, qui nec videri nec tangi potest. Spirtus enim est Deus (Joan. IV, 24). Ipse nullo loco potest comprehendi, nec ullus est locus a quo absit. Hujus Verbum immortalis est sapientia, Incorruptibilis, invisibilis, filius primogenitus, operum socius, principio carens, sub tactum non cadens, neque principium habens dierum, neque finem vitae exspectans. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil (Joan. I, 3). Ipse est qui hominem efformavit: ipse qui rationem fabricandae arcae monstravit; ipse qui promissionem dedit Abrahae; ipse qui descendit ut populum salvum faceret, qui Moysi legem dedit: hic est Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob, qui In Prophetis locutus est, qui vetus et novum Testamentum disposuit, qui in novissimis diebus carnem sumpsit ex Virgine mortalem, licet non esset Ipse mortalis; infirmam, licet non esset ipse infirmus, morti obnoxiam, licet non esset ipse morti obnoxius; visibilem, licet non esset ipse visibilis. Ipsa suspensa est, non autem ille; ipsa sepulta, non ille; ipsa humanas omnes passiones ut homo sustinuit, non autem ille.","english":"RESCRIPT OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, TO LIBERIUS, BISHOP OF ROME.\n\n(Coust. Append., p. 99.)\n\nThat the perfect man, God the Word, assumed for the sake of our salvation.\n\nThere is one immortal God, who can neither be seen nor touched. For God is Spirit (John 4:24). He Himself can be contained in no place, nor is there any place from which He is absent. His Word is immortal wisdom, incorruptible, invisible, the firstborn Son, partner in works, without beginning, not falling under touch, having no beginning of days, nor expecting an end of life. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made (John 1:3). It is He who formed man; He who showed the plan for building the ark; He who gave the promise to Abraham; He who descended to save the people, who gave the law to Moses: this is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, who spoke in the Prophets, who arranged the Old and New Testament, who in the last days took on mortal flesh from a Virgin, although He Himself was not mortal; weak flesh, although He Himself was not weak; flesh subject to death, although He Himself was not subject to death; visible flesh, although He Himself was not visible. The flesh itself was suspended, not He; the flesh itself was buried, not He; the flesh itself endured all human passions as a man, not He.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Rescriptum","severity":"info","text":"The title 'Rescriptum' indicates this is a formal reply, likely composed in Athanasius's name to address a query from Liberius. The appended English note 'Coust. Append., p. 99' signals the source in the Coustant edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spirtus enim est Deus (Joan. IV, 24)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. IV, 24' refers to John 4:24, 'God is Spirit.' The Latin text uses 'Spirtus' (a variant spelling of 'Spiritus'), which the English draft renders as 'Spirit.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sine ipso factum est nihil (Joan. I, 3)","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sine ipso factum est nihil' echoes John 1:3, 'without him nothing was made.' The Latin adapts the verse to the argument that the Word is the agent of all creation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Verbum","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Verbum' (Word) is used here for the second person of the Trinity, identified with the pre-existent Christ. The text emphasizes the Word's incorporeality and agency in creation and salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"perfectum hominem Deus Verbum assumpserit","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'perfectum hominem Deus Verbum assumpserit' reflects the Antiochene emphasis on Christ's full humanity, a point of contention in 4th-century Christology. The text insists the Word assumed a complete human nature, not a partial one.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Coust. Append., p. 99","severity":"info","text":"The note 'Coust. Append., p. 99' refers to the appendix of the Coustant edition of the letters of the popes, indicating this text was transmitted as part of the Liberius correspondence, though its Athanasian authorship is debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text attributes the rescript to Athanasius, but its authenticity is uncertain; it may be a later composition. The phrase 'perfectum hominem' could be read as 'the perfect man' (referring to Christ) or 'a perfect human being' (the nature assumed). The English draft takes the former."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Ille autem est vinus Dei, id est Deus, qui cum ea quae in inferno insolubilia erant solvisset, imperiumqiie diaboli evertisset, adscendit eo unde descenderat; qui corpus suum e tumulo excitavit, et postquam liberasset a morte qua detinebatur, Patri obtulit. In illo Patrem intelligimus; una enim et ipse res est deitate, virtute, essentia, substantia, gloria, Dei appellatione: et ipsum in Patre Filium agnoscimus. Hic est qui postquam assumpsisset carnem, Jesus appellatus est, quatenus erat homo; hoc est, assumpsit hominem in se ipso, in quo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. Illum credimus nec a Patre nec a Spiritu sancto separatum; neque tamen dicimus Patrem descendisse, et in homine fuisse. Ita unus Deus Pater omnipotens a nobis ereditur. Ideoque fides nostra est in unum Deum Patrem omn potentem, et in Filium ejus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et in Spiritum sanctum. Et vero ex unitate, una virtute, una substantia, una essentia, una glorificatione, una dominatione, uno regno, una imagine, Trinitatis constare credimus consubstantialitatem; per quem omnia facta sunt. Ita et carnis resurrectionem credimus, hoc est, emporis nostri, secundum sacras Scripturas, commutato eo quod corruptibile et mortale erat, in incorruptibilitatem et immortalitatem per Deum. Amen.","english":"But He is the one God, that is, God, who, having loosed those things in hell that were insoluble, and having overturned the empire of the devil, ascended to the place from which He had descended; who raised His body from the tomb, and after freeing it from the death by which it was held, offered it to the Father. In Him we understand the Father; for He Himself is one thing in deity, power, essence, substance, glory, and the name of God: and we acknowledge the Son Himself in the Father. This is He who, after having assumed flesh, was called Jesus, inasmuch as He was man; that is, He assumed man in Himself, in whom dwells all the fullness of divinity corporally. We believe Him neither separated from the Father nor from the Holy Spirit; yet we do not say that the Father descended and was in man. Thus one God, the Father Almighty, is believed by us. And therefore our faith is in one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. And indeed from unity, one power, one substance, one essence, one glorification, one dominion, one kingdom, one image, we believe the consubstantiality of the Trinity to consist; through whom all things were made. Thus we also believe in the resurrection of the flesh, that is, of our body, according to the sacred Scriptures, that which was corruptible and mortal being changed into incorruptibility and immortality through God. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vinus","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'vinus' is likely a scribal error for 'unus' (one), as the context demands 'unus Dei' (one God). The English draft reads 'one God'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"imperiumqiie","severity":"caution","text":"'Imperiumqiie' appears to be a corruption of 'imperiumque' (and the empire). The English draft correctly renders 'and having overturned the empire of the devil'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ea quae in inferno insolubilia erant","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'those things in hell that were insoluble' echoes the Harrowing of Hell tradition, referencing Christ's descent into the underworld to free the righteous, as in the Gospel of Nicodemus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"consubstantialitatem","severity":"info","text":"'Consubstantialitatem' (consubstantiality) is a technical term from the Nicene Creed (Greek: homoousion), asserting the Son's identical substance with the Father, central to anti-Arian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Trinitatis","severity":"info","text":"The passage affirms a consubstantial Trinity with unity of power, substance, and glory, reflecting post-Nicene Latin theology, though the letter's attribution to Athanasius is disputed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Amen","severity":"info","text":"The closing 'Amen' marks the end of the rescript, typical of liturgical or credal texts, reinforcing the passage's doxological character.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains several scribal errors (e.g., 'vinus' for 'unus', 'imperiumqiie' for 'imperiumque'), making the original wording uncertain. The attribution to Athanasius is historically dubious; the letter is likely a later Latin composition."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}