{"slug":"tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1","title":"THEODORI MOPSUESTENI EPISCOPI FRAGMENTA","title_source":"THEODORI MOPSUESTENI EPISCOPI FRAGMENTA","author":"Hieronymus","genre":"other","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":"2026-11-15T06:31:10Z","cost_usd":0.006855},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp427.tmp427.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/tmp427/tmp427/tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":14,"english_words":3081,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":12569,"commentary_units":81,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":22,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1","abstract":"The work is a collection of Latin fragments attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved through conciliar or patristic florilegia. The original Greek is lost, and the fragments survive only in Latin translation, likely transmitted through later theological controversies. The edition is based on the ogl-pl source and does not provide a critical apparatus or stemma, complicating assessment of textual history and completeness. Attribution to Theodore is traditional but not always secure, and the dating of the fragments is uncertain; they may derive from works written between 392 and 428. Theodore's works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), leading to widespread destruction, and these Latin fragments reflect later theological debates.","historical_context":"Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a leading Antiochene exegete whose works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), leading to widespread destruction. The fragments survive only in Latin, likely transmitted through conciliar or patristic florilegia, reflecting later theological controversies. The original Greek is lost, complicating reconstruction of Theodore's thought. The dating of the fragments is uncertain; they may derive from works written between 392 and 428. Attribution to Theodore is traditional but not always secure. This edition does not provide a critical apparatus or stemma, so the reader cannot assess the textual history or completeness of the fragment collection from this source alone. The Latin text cites Vulgate passages, indicating a Western transmission context.","significance":"The fragments are significant for understanding the survival and reception of Theodore's thought after his condemnation, particularly in Latin-speaking theological circles. They provide evidence of Antiochene exegesis and the controversies surrounding original sin and human mortality, often framed in opposition to Augustine's views. The work also illustrates the challenges of reconstructing patristic texts from fragmentary and translated sources.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 350–428","event":"Life of Theodore of Mopsuestia; composition of his works."},{"date":"553","event":"Second Council of Constantinople condemns Theodore's works, leading to widespread destruction."},{"date":"Undated","event":"Fragments translated into Latin and transmitted through florilegia."},{"date":"Undated","event":"Edition based on ogl-pl source produced without critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Genesis","relation":"Likely source of some fragments; original Greek lost.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Augustine of Hippo, On Original Sin","relation":"Opposing theological position; fragments framed as anti-Augustinian.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Second Council of Constantinople (553)","relation":"Condemned Theodore's works, leading to fragmentary survival.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagius, Pelagian writings","relation":"Theodore's views on human mortality later associated with Pelagianism.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Dating of the fragments is uncertain; they may derive from works written between 392 and 428.","Attribution to Theodore is traditional but not always secure.","The original Greek is lost; the Latin translation may introduce errors or interpretive shifts.","The edition lacks a critical apparatus or stemma, so textual history and completeness cannot be assessed.","The fragments survive only in Latin, likely transmitted through conciliar or patristic florilegia, which may have selected or altered content."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000422,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:31:09Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp427/tmp427/tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp427.tmp427.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":14,"translated":14,"commentary_passages":14,"commentary_units":81,"english_words":3081,"source_letters":12569,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a collection of fragments attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved in Latin translation. The edition is based on the ogl-pl source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragments survive only in Latin, likely transmitted through conciliar or patristic florilegia. The original Greek is lost, complicating reconstruction of Theodore's thought.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), leading to widespread destruction. These Latin fragments reflect later theological controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The dating of the fragments is uncertain; they may derive from works written between 392 and 428. Attribution to Theodore is traditional but not always secure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not provide a critical apparatus or stemma. The reader cannot assess the textual history or completeness of the fragment collection from this source alone.","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: other in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 14 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":14},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"THEODORI MOPSUESTENI EPISCOPI FRAGMENTA.\n\nI. De secunde codice libri quarti, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum, et Adam per trangressionem mortalem factum catholice disserentem.\n\n« Tantis exstantibus quae demonstrent Adam sic ex terra formatum, ut mortalis prorsus exsisteret, erga cibum proprium voluit occupare sermonem, nec exinde valens advertere veritatem, pro dogmate vero, seductorio ex mendacio, advocatitaem jungens: non ait (Gen. II, 17, Mortales eritis, sed Morte moriemini, prorsus exsistentibus natura mortalibus inferre mortis experientiam comminatus, quam etiam juxta morem propriae benignitatis ad effectum perducere distulit. Sicut enim cum dicit: Qui effuderit hominis sanguinem, sangulais ejus pro eo fundetur (Gen. IX, 6), non hoc dicit quia qui occiderit hominem, erit mortalis, sed quia dignus est hujusmodi morte damnari; sic et in praesentiarum dixit: Morte moriemini: non quod tunc mortales fierent, sed quod digni essent qui mortis sententiam pro transgressione referrent. Sed et divinam sententiam, quam post peccatum Deus Adae inferre videtur, adverte.","english":"Fragments of Theodorus, Bishop of Mopsuestia.\n\nI. From the second codex of the fourth book, folio ten, against Saint Augustine defending original sin, and arguing catholicly that Adam was made mortal through transgression.\n\n\"Since so many things exist which demonstrate that Adam was formed from earth in such a way that he was entirely mortal, I wished to occupy the discourse with the matter of food itself, and, not being able from that to perceive the truth, but rather, for a true dogma, joining a seductive falsehood, he does not say (Gen. 2:17): 'You will be mortal,' but 'You will die by death,' threatening to inflict the experience of death upon those who were already mortal by nature, which experience, according to the custom of his own benevolence, he also deferred from bringing to effect. For just as when he says: 'Whoever sheds a man's blood, his blood shall be shed for it' (Gen. 9:6), he does not say this because whoever kills a man will be mortal, but because he is worthy of being condemned to such a death; so also in the present instance he said: 'You will die by death'—not that they would then become mortal, but that they were worthy of receiving the sentence of death for their transgression. But also pay attention to the divine sentence which God seems to impose upon Adam after the sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Episcopi Fragmenta","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a leading Antiochene exegete. His works survive mostly in fragments, often in Latin translation, and were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. II, 17","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites 'Gen. II, 17' (Vulgate numbering) for the phrase 'Morte moriemini'. This corresponds to Genesis 2:17 in the Vulgate, where God warns Adam about the tree of knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. IX, 6","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites 'Gen. IX, 6' (Vulgate numbering) for the lex talionis principle. This corresponds to Genesis 9:6, part of the Noachic laws, though the exact wording differs from modern versions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is preserved in a Latin manuscript that frames Theodorus as opposing Augustine's doctrine of original sin. Theodorus held that Adam was created mortal, a view later condemned as Pelagianizing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"I. De secunde codice libri quarti, folio decimo","severity":"info","text":"The heading indicates this fragment comes from a second codex of the fourth book, folio ten, suggesting a complex manuscript tradition where Theodorus's works were excerpted and reordered.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"advocatitaem","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin word 'advocatitaem' is likely a scribal error or corruption; it may be intended as 'advocatitiam' (a legal term) or a misreading. The sense is unclear, and the English draft omits it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a fragmentary translation from Greek; the original context of Theodorus's argument is lost. The phrase 'advocatitaem' is corrupt and its meaning uncertain. The citation 'Gen. II, 17' may reflect Vulgate chapter divisions that differ from modern Bibles."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sic enim dicit: Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuoe, et comedisti de ligno de quo proeceperam tibi de hoc solo non comedere, ex eo comedisti, maledicta terra in operibus tuis, in tristitia comedes eam omnibus diebus vitoe tuoe; spinas et tribulos proferet tibi, et comedes fenum agri, et in sudore vultus tui comedes panem tuum, donec revertaris in terram (Gen. III, 17-19). Hoc autem per haec omnia comminatus est, quod aerumnosam vitam habiturus esset 1, cum labore deinceps fructus de terra sumpturus, quibus aleretur atque subsisteret, nequaquam habens, ut pridem, tantam propositam largitatem, quanta ex paradisi copia fruebatur. Non enim operari terram pro supplicio dedit Deus, quasi ex immortali natura in mortalitatem homines transferens, quandoquidem et paradisum ei, ut operaretur et custodiret, indixit. Pro tanta vero pristina largitate et voluptate paradisi, aerumnosam ejus fare sustentationem de terrae fructibus comminatur. Nam prorsus ut mortalis factus 2, et tunc paradisi fructibus indigebat, sicut tunc terrae fructus inquirit, et pro supplicio pristinis fraudatus deliciis, hac aerumnosissima laboriosissimaque conversatione multatur. Unde ad postremum consequenter adjecit: Qui terra es, et reverteris in terram (Gen. III, 19). hinc etiam mortalitatem naturae significans.","english":"For thus he says: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat from this alone, from that you have eaten, the earth is cursed in your works; in sorrow you will eat it all the days of your life; it will bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the hay of the field, and in the sweat of your face you will eat your bread, until you return to the earth” (Gen. 3:17-19). By all these things, however, he threatened that he would have a life full of hardship, thereafter taking with labor the fruits from the earth by which he would be nourished and sustained, no longer having, as before, such great abundance set before him as he enjoyed from the bounty of paradise. For God did not give the tilling of the earth as a punishment, as if transferring men from an immortal nature into mortality, since he also assigned paradise to him to till and to guard. But on account of such great former abundance and pleasure of paradise, he threatens his wretched sustenance from the fruits of the earth. For, made mortal, he then needed the fruits of paradise, just as he now seeks the fruits of the earth, and as a punishment, deprived of his former delights, he is penalized by this most wretched and laborious mode of life. Hence, at the end, he fittingly added: “You who are earth, and will return to the earth” (Gen. 3:19), thereby also signifying the mortality of nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. III, 17-19","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Genesis 3:17-19, a conflation of the Vulgate text; the English draft renders it as Gen. 3:17-19.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"maledicta terra","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'maledicta terra' (cursed earth) reflects the Vulgate's rendering of God's curse on the ground in Genesis 3:17, a key point in Theodore's argument for postlapsarian mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodorus Mopsuestenus","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a leading Antiochene exegete; his works survive mostly in fragments, often through Latin translations by figures like Julian of Eclanum, as here against Augustine on original sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus","severity":"info","text":"The fragment is transmitted under Jerome's name in the manuscript tradition, but the content is clearly Theodore's; this misattribution reflects the complex reception of Antiochene theology in the Latin West.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hoc autem per haec omnia comminatus est","severity":"info","text":"This phrase introduces Theodore's interpretive summary of the Genesis curse, structuring the passage as exegesis: the biblical quotation is followed by a theological explanation of its meaning for human mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ut mortalis factus","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ut mortalis factus' (made mortal) is ambiguous: it could mean 'since he was made mortal' (causal) or 'as a mortal being' (comparative). The English draft takes it as causal, aligning with Theodore's view that Adam became mortal through sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'ut mortalis factus' could be read as causal ('since he was made mortal') or comparative ('as a mortal being'); the English draft adopts the causal reading, consistent with Theodore's argument that mortality resulted from the Fall."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Non enim immortali et nunc primum incipienti sententiam mortis excipere, sicut sapientissimi defensores peccati originalis, imo potius patres peccati mirabiles, asseverant, vocabulum huic terrae composuit 4; sed ut ab exordio naturaliter effecto mortali appellationem hanc congruere judicavit divina Scriptura, hoc de hominibus vocabulum ad ostensionem corruptibilis et resolubilis corum naturae saepius assumens. » Nam, Recordatus est. inquit, quia pulvis sumus: homo, sicut fenum dies ejus, et sicut flos ogri, ita florebit, quia spiritus pertrausivit in eo, et non erit amplius locus ejus (Psal. CII, 14). Vult autem dicere quod corruptibiles et resolubiles omnes sumus in modum feni parumper florentis percuntisque post paululum. Nam ad breve quidem tempus vitam ducimus 6; ad non exsistendum vero deinceps omnimodo pervenimus. Sic ct Abraham, Ego sum, inquit, terra et cinis, pro eo ac si diceret: Non sum dignus cum tanto Deo colloqui, homo factus terra, et omnimodis hoc futurus. Magis ergo dicere debuit: Quia terra eris, et in terram reverteris: siquidem nunc primum fieret natura mortalis. »","english":"For he did not compose this word for the earth as if it were immortal and now for the first time beginning to receive the sentence of death, as the most wise defenders of original sin—or rather, the marvelous fathers of sin—assert; but rather, divine Scripture judged that this name was fitting for the earth from the beginning, as it was naturally made mortal, often using this word for human beings to indicate their corruptible and dissoluble nature. For it says, “He remembered that we are dust: man, his days are like grass, and like a flower of the field, so he will flourish, because the spirit has passed through him, and his place will be no more” (Ps. 102:14). He means that we are all corruptible and dissoluble, like grass that blooms for a little while and soon perishes. For we live for a brief time; then we come entirely to non-existence. Thus also Abraham says, “I am earth and ashes,” as if to say: I am not worthy to speak with so great a God, a man made earth, and destined to be this entirely. Therefore he should rather have said, “Because you will be earth, and you will return to earth,” if indeed the nature were now for the first time becoming mortal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Non enim immortali et nunc primum incipienti sententiam mortis excipere","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret argues that the earth was not immortal and newly subject to death, countering opponents who held that human nature became mortal only after the Fall.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"patres peccati mirabiles","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'patres peccati mirabiles' (marvelous fathers of sin) is a sarcastic epithet for advocates of original sin, likely targeting figures like Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. CII, 14","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Psalm 102:14 (LXX) uses the imagery of grass and flowers to illustrate human transience, supporting the argument for inherent mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego sum, inquit, terra et cinis","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Abraham saying 'I am earth and ashes' is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of Genesis 18:27, where Abraham calls himself 'dust and ashes'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sapientissimi defensores peccati originalis","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret polemicizes against defenders of original sin, a doctrine contested in the Pelagian controversy, which he associates with a novel view of human mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Non enim immortali et nunc primum incipienti sententiam mortis excipere","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in medieval and Reformation debates on original sin, as Theodoret's denial of a change in human nature was used to challenge Augustinian orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a fragment from Theodoret of Cyrus, not Theodore of Mopsuestia as the work metadata suggests; the attribution may be erroneous.","The phrase 'patres peccati mirabiles' could be read as either sarcastic or genuinely respectful, but context favors the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"II. Ex secundo codice, libro tertio, ante quatuor folia finis libri.\n\n« Sed nihil horum prospicere potuit mirabilis peccati originalis assertor, quippe qui in divinis Scripturis nequaquam fuerit exercitatus, nec ab infantia, juxta beati Pauli vocem (II Tim III, 15), sacras didicerit litteras. Sed sive de Scripturae sensibus, sive de dogmate saepe declamans multa frequenter inepta proprie communiterve de ipsis Scripturis dogmatibusque plurimis impudenter exprompsit 8. Nam potentiae metus nullum contra sinebat effari, sed tantummodo facili, qui divinarum Scripturarum habebant notitiam, detrahebant. Novissime vero in hanc dogmatis recidit novitatem, qua diceret quod »n ira atque furore Deus Adam mortalem esse praeceperit, et propter ejus unum delictum cunctos etiam necdum natos homines morte multaverit. Sic autem disputans non veretur, nec confunditur ea sentire de Deo, quae nec de hominibus sanum sapientibus et aliquam justitiae curam gerentibus unquam quis aestimare tentavit. Sed nec illius divinae vocis recordatus est, Quod non diceretur ulterius ista parabola in Israel: Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam, et filiorum dentes obstupuerunt 10, quia hoec dicit Adonai Dominus: Dentes eorum qui manducaverunt uvam acerbam, obstupescent (Ezech.","english":"II. From the second codex, book three, four folia before the end of the book.\n\n\"But the marvelous defender of original sin could foresee none of these things, since he was by no means trained in the divine Scriptures, nor had he learned the sacred letters from infancy, according to the voice of the blessed Paul (2 Tim. 3:15). But whether declaiming often about the senses of Scripture or about dogma, he frequently and impudently brought forth many inept things, both properly and commonly, concerning the Scriptures themselves and very many dogmas. For fear of his power allowed no one to speak against him, but only those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures disparaged him easily. Finally, however, he fell into this novelty of dogma, by which he said that 'God, in anger and fury, decreed that Adam be mortal, and because of his one transgression condemned all men, even those not yet born, to death.' But in arguing thus, he is not ashamed nor confounded to think such things about God, which no one, even among those who are sane and have some care for justice, would ever attempt to imagine about men. Nor did he recall that divine voice, that this parable would no longer be spoken in Israel: 'The fathers ate a sour grape, and the teeth of the children were set on edge' (Ezek.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"II Tim III, 15","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'II Tim III, 15' refers to 2 Timothy 3:15, but the Vulgate verse numbering differs; the reference likely intends 2 Timothy 3:15 (study of Scriptures) as a prooftext for Jerome's own training.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"peccati originalis assertor","severity":"info","text":"'Peccati originalis assertor' is a polemical label for an opponent, likely Pelagius or a follower, whom Jerome accuses of lacking scriptural training and promoting novel dogma about Adam's mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ezekiel quotation","severity":"info","text":"The truncated Ezekiel quotation (Ezek. 18:2-3) about sour grapes and teeth set on edge is a proverb used to reject inherited guilt, paralleling Jerome's argument against original sin as transmitted punishment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"dogmatis novitatem","severity":"caution","text":"Jerome dismisses the opponent's view as 'novelty of dogma,' a common charge in the Pelagian controversy, but the precise doctrine—God decreeing Adam's mortality in anger—is not attested in extant Pelagian writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"II. Ex secundo codice, libro tertio","severity":"info","text":"This heading indicates the fragment comes from a second codex, book three, four folia before the end, suggesting a multi-volume work (likely Jerome's Contra Iulianum) excerpted in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'marvelous defender of original sin' is not named; it may be Julian of Eclanum or another Pelagian. The Ezekiel citation is incomplete in the Latin, breaking off mid-verse."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"XVIII, 2), ostendens per haec quod alierum pro a’- tero, juxta quorumdam errorem, Deus omnino non puniat, sed unusquisque pro delictis suis redditurus est rationem. His consona beatus quoque Paulus annectit. Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua (Rom. II, 6); et: Unusquisque nostrum onus suum portabit (Gal. VI, 5); et: Tu quid judicas fratrem tuum? aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum? omnes enim astabimus ante tribunul Christi (Rom. XIV, 10). Sed vir mirabilis propter unum peccatum de tanto furore commotum arbitratus est Deum, ut illum atrocissimae poenae subderet, et ad universos omnes posteros ejus parem sententiam promulgaret, et inter quos quanti justi fuerint non facile numerare quis poterit. Ex quibus eum maxime considerare convenerat, quod valde videretur incongruum, Noe, Abrabam, David, Moysen et reliquos innumerabiles justas obnoxios poenae redditos ob ejus delictum et unum, atque ex gustu arboris approbatum, et quod sic ultra modum justitiae iram suam Deus extenderit, ila ut tot justorum2 virtutes cunctas abjiceret, cosque propter unius peccatum Adae tanto supplicio manciparet.","english":"XVIII, 2), showing through these that God does not at all punish one for another, contrary to the error of some, but each will render account for his own offenses. The blessed Paul also adds things consonant with these. \"God,\" he says, \"who will render to each according to his works\" (Rom. 2:6); and: \"Each of us will bear his own burden\" (Gal. 6:5); and: \"Why do you judge your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ\" (Rom. 14:10). But the marvelous man, moved by such great fury on account of one sin, judged that God would subject him to the most atrocious punishment, and would promulgate a like sentence to all his descendants, and among them it is not easy to count how many just men there have been. From these it was especially fitting for him to consider that it would seem very incongruous that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and the rest of the innumerable just should be rendered liable to punishment on account of his one offense, and that one approved from the tasting of a tree, and that God should extend his anger so far beyond the measure of justice, so as to cast aside all the virtues of so many just men, and to consign them on account of the one sin of Adam to so great a punishment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. II, 6","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Rom. 2:6, but the Vulgate reads 'qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua' as a paraphrase; the exact wording differs from modern critical editions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gal. VI, 5","severity":"info","text":"The citation Gal. 6:5 is a conflation; the Vulgate Gal. 6:5 reads 'unusquisque onus suum portabit' but the verse numbering in the Latin tradition may vary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. XIV, 10","severity":"info","text":"The citation Rom. 14:10 is not a direct verse; it appears to be a loose paraphrase of Rom. 14:10-13, possibly from a patristic florilegium.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"vir mirabilis","severity":"info","text":"The 'marvelous man' is a sarcastic reference to Augustine of Hippo, whose doctrine of original sin and inherited guilt is being critiqued by Theodore.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Noe, Abrabam, David, Moysen","severity":"info","text":"The list of biblical patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, David, Moses) is a standard exemplum of pre-Christian righteousness, used to argue against inherited guilt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"His consona ... annectit","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition from a general principle to scriptural proof, typical of Theodore's argumentative method in the fragment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has minor orthographic variants (e.g., 'alierum' for 'alterum', 'astabimus' for 'stabimus') that do not affect the sense.","The citation 'Rom. XIV, 10' is not a precise verse; the intended reference may be to Rom. 14:10-13 or a lost variant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"« Nam etsi nihil aliud, saltem de Abel mente perpendens convenienter aestimare debuerat; qui primus justus exsistens, primus mortuus est. Et siquidem mortem Deus ad poenam statuerat hominum, quomodo non impietatis erat extremae vivere quidem cum qui fuit causa peccati, vivere etiam cum illo et Evam malitiae repertricem (praetermitto autem diabolum in immortalite hactenus perdurantem), primum vero justum repertoremque virtutis primumque divini cultus curam gerentem ante omnes pene peccantium fuisse perculsum? Oportebat autem sapientissimum virum et de Enoch, qui non est mortuus, diligenter expendere. Non enim tanta virtute vel pietate praeditus fuit, ut melior omnibus exsisteret, Moyse dico, et prophetis, apostolisque, vel reliquis omnibus, de quibus ait atissimus Paulus, quibus dignus non erat mundus (Hebr. XI, 38), ita ut, illis mortuis, ipse solus sine mortis experientia perduraret. Sed jam ab initio Deus hoc habuit apud se definitum, ut primum quidem mortales fierent, postmodum vero immortalitate gauderent; sic ad utilitatem nostra fieri ipse disponens. » Et post paululum,","english":"For even if nothing else, at least considering the mind of Abel he ought to have judged appropriately; who, being the first just man, was the first to die. And if indeed God had established death as a punishment for men, how was it not the utmost impiety that the one who was the cause of sin should live, that Eve the inventor of wickedness should also live with him (I pass over the devil, who has so far persisted in immortality), but that the first just man and discoverer of virtue and the first to take care of divine worship should have been struck down before nearly all sinners? But the most wise man ought also to have carefully considered Enoch, who did not die. For he was not endowed with such great virtue or piety that he excelled all others—I mean Moses, and the prophets, and the apostles, and all the rest, of whom the most blessed Paul says that the world was not worthy (Heb. 11:38)—so that, while they died, he alone should persist without experiencing death. But from the beginning God had this determined within himself, that first men should become mortal, but afterwards enjoy immortality; thus he himself arranges things for our benefit. And a little later,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. XI, 38","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Hebr. XI, 38' is a reference to Hebrews 11:38, though the verse numbering differs from modern Bibles; the Vulgate reads 'quibus dignus non erat mundus'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Abel","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret contrasts Abel, the first just man and first to die, with Enoch, who did not die, to argue against the idea that death is a punishment for sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"immortalite","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'immortalite' (ablative of 'immortalitas') denotes the state of not dying; Theodoret uses it to describe the devil's persistence and the future reward for the righteous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post paululum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Et post paululum' marks a transition, indicating that the following text is a continuation of the same argument, typical of fragmentary excerpts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Episcopi Fragmenta","severity":"info","text":"This fragment, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, survives only in Latin translation by Jerome; it reflects Theodore's anti-Pelagian views on original sin and mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation from Greek; the original Greek wording for 'immortalite' and 'perdurantem' is uncertain. The reference 'Hebr. XI, 38' may reflect Vulgate chapter divisions differing from modern Bibles."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"« Manifestius, inquit, haec eadem Deus ostendit cum transfert Enoch, et immortalem facit. Nam si per peccatum causa supplicii Deus intulit mortem, nec olim definitum hoc habuit apud se, ineffabiliter pro nobis juxta propriam sapient am cuncta dispensans, nequaquam Enoch quidem immortalis exsisteret, Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret. » Et post paululum: « Idcirco, inquit. Dominus auctor omnium honorum hominibus factus est, ut sicut Adam primi et mortalis status exstitit inchoator, ita et ipse secundi et immortalis status initiator exsistens, primitus Adae prioris naturalia custodiret, dum nascitur ex muliere, dum pannis involvitur, et paulatim aetatis incrementa sortitur (Jesus enim (Luc. II, 52), inquit, proficiebat oetate et sapientia et gratia coram Deo et hominibus 5), dum circum isionem suscipit, dum juxta legalem consuetudinem Deo astitit in templo, parentibusque subjicitur, et conversationi legitimae mancipatur. Sic etiam, ad expletionem reliquorum, et mortem, utpote naturae tributam, postremo suscipit, ut secundum legem humanae naturae moriens, et a mortuis divina virtute resurgens, initium cunctis hominibus, qui mortem secundum propriam naturam suscipiunt, fieret, ut a mortuis surgant, et ad immortalem substantiam commutentur.","english":"More clearly,” he says, “God showed the same thing when He translated Enoch and made him immortal. For if God had introduced death as a punishment for sin, and had not long before determined this within Himself, dispensing all things ineffably for us according to His own wisdom, then Enoch would by no means have become immortal, nor would the Lord Christ have come to experience death.” And a little later: “For this reason,” he says, “the Lord became the author of all good things for men, so that just as Adam was the beginner of the first and mortal state, so He Himself, being the initiator of the second and immortal state, would first preserve the natural characteristics of the prior Adam, in that He is born from a woman, is wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually undergoes the increments of age (for Jesus, he says, advanced in age and wisdom and grace before God and men), in that He undergoes circumcision, in that according to legal custom He stood before God in the temple, is subject to His parents, and is bound over to lawful conduct. Thus also, for the completion of the rest, He finally undergoes death, as a tribute to nature, so that, dying according to the law of human nature, and rising from the dead by divine power, He might become the beginning for all men, who undergo death according to their own nature, that they might rise from the dead and be changed into an immortal substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Enoch","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Enoch's translation and immortality alludes to Genesis 5:24 and the tradition that Enoch did not die but was taken by God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jesus ... proficiebat aetate et sapientia et gratia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and grace' is a direct citation of Luke 2:52, though the Vulgate reads 'proficiebat aetate et sapientia' without 'gratia'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mortis experientiam","severity":"info","text":"'Mortis experientiam' (experience of death) is a key term in Theodore's Christology, emphasizing Christ's full participation in human mortality as a natural, not punitive, event.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Enoch ... immortalem facit","severity":"info","text":"The tradition of Enoch's immortality (Genesis 5:24) was used by early Christian writers to argue against death as a punishment, as Theodore does here, contrasting Enoch with Adam and Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post paululum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Et post paululum' (And a little later) indicates a transition within the same work, linking two arguments: the Enoch example and the Christ-Adam parallel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret","severity":"caution","text":"Theodore's claim that Christ 'came to experience death' was controversial in later Christological debates, as it could imply adoptionist or subordinationist views, though Theodore intended it to affirm Christ's full humanity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'ineffabiliter' may reflect a Greek original meaning 'ineffably' or 'unspeakably', but the precise nuance in Theodore's argument is unclear.","The phrase 'juxta propriam sapientiam' could be read as 'according to His own wisdom' or 'according to His proper wisdom', with possible theological implications about divine economy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Sicut enim conformes Adae secundum statum praesentem sumus omnes effecti, sic Christo Domino juxta carnem conformes efficiemur in posterum. Transfiguravit enim corpus humilitatis nostrae conformes fieri corporis gloriae suae (Philipp. III, 21), et qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes; et sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus etiam imaginem coelostis (I Cor. XV, 48, 49), ostendeus. quod, primi status Adae participes facti, necessario etiam secundi Adae Christi Domini secundum carnem futuri status participium consequintur, utpote qui ex hac eadem natura constet exortus, et cuncia quae fuerant naturae susceperit, et ideo sustinuerit mortem, ut mortem naturae suscipiens, et a mortuis resurgens, naturam liberam morte perfice ret. Et mortem quidem propterae suscepit, peccatum vero nequaquam, sed ab hoc immunis omnino permansit. Quod enim erat naturae, id est mortem, indubitanter assumpsit: peccatum vero, quod non erat naturae, sed voluntatis, nullo pacto suscepit. Quod si fuisset in natura peccatum, juxta sapientissimi hujus eloquium, peccatum in naturae prorsus exsistens necessario suscepisset. »","english":"For just as we have all been made conformable to Adam according to the present state, so in the future we shall be made conformable to Christ the Lord in the flesh. For He transfigured the body of our humility to be made conformable to the body of His glory (Phil. 3:21), and as the earthly one is, so are the earthly ones, and as the heavenly one is, so are the heavenly ones; and just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, let us also bear the image of the heavenly one (1 Cor. 15:48-49), showing that, having been made partakers of the first state of Adam, we necessarily also obtain a share in the future state of the second Adam, Christ the Lord, according to the flesh, inasmuch as He arose from this same nature, and took up all things that belonged to the nature, and therefore underwent death, so that, by taking up the death of nature and rising from the dead, He might perfect nature free from death. And He indeed took up death, but sin by no means; rather, He remained entirely immune from this. For what was of nature, that is, death, He undoubtedly assumed; but sin, which was not of nature but of will, He in no way took up. But if sin had been in nature, according to the utterance of this most wise man, He would necessarily have taken up sin existing in nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philipp. III, 21","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philipp. III, 21' is a reference to Philippians 3:21, but the Vulgate text of that verse does not contain the phrase quoted. The passage likely alludes to Philippians 3:21 in a variant or conflated form.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Cor. XV, 48, 49","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Cor. XV, 48, 49' refers to 1 Corinthians 15:48-49, which contrasts the earthly and heavenly bodies. The Latin text adapts the Pauline imagery to support Theodore's typology of Adam and Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conformes","severity":"info","text":"'Conformes' (conformable) is a key term in Theodore's Christology, denoting the transformation of believers from the likeness of Adam to that of Christ. It echoes Pauline language of συμμόρφους (Rom 8:29; Phil 3:21).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"secundi Adae","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'secundi Adae' (second Adam) reflects a Pauline typology (1 Cor 15:45-49) central to Theodore's soteriology: Christ as the new Adam reverses the effects of the first Adam's fall, including death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod si fuisset in natura peccatum","severity":"info","text":"This conditional clause concludes the argument: Theodore denies that sin is inherent in human nature, distinguishing it from death, which is natural. The structure contrasts nature (mors) and will (peccatum).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sapientissimi hujus eloquium","severity":"caution","text":"'Sapientissimi hujus' (this most wise man) likely refers to an authority cited by Theodore, possibly Paul or a patristic source. The phrase is ambiguous; it may be a self-reference or a lost citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'sapientissimi hujus' is unclear; it may refer to Paul, a patristic author, or Theodore himself.","The citation 'Philipp. III, 21' does not match the Vulgate text exactly; the source of the quotation is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"III. De codice secunda, ex libro tertio, folio decimo octavo\n\n« Si, inquit, peccaturum Deus nesciebat Adam. sit horum sapientia sapientissimorum et ista responsio, quod hoc insanissimum est vel in cogitatione percipere. Manifestum est quod et peccaturum cum noverat, et propter hoc procul dubio moriturum. Quomodo ergo non est extremae dementiae credere quod primitus cum mortalem in sex horis fecerit (nam tantae fuerunt a conditione ejus usque ad commissionem 8, quandoquidem sexto dielfactus e terra, et comedens contra divinum mandatum, de paradiso pulsus est), mortalem vero post peccatum monstraverit? Certum est enim quia, si eum immortalem esse voluisset, nec intercedens peccatum Dei sententiam commutasset; quia nec diabolum fecit ex immortali mortalem, et quidem cunctorum malorum exsistentem principium. »\n\nIV. De secundo codice 1, ex libro tertio, folio vicesimo quinto.","english":"III. From the second codex, from the third book, folio eighteen\n\n“If,” he says, “God did not know that Adam was going to sin, let this be the wisdom of the wisest men, and this the answer: that it is utterly insane even to conceive of such a thing. It is manifest that He knew he would sin, and for this reason, without doubt, that he would die. How then is it not the height of madness to believe that He first made him mortal in six hours (for that was the time from his creation until the commission of the sin, since he was made from the earth on the sixth day, and, eating contrary to the divine command, was driven from paradise), and then, after the sin, showed him to be mortal? For it is certain that, if He had wished him to be immortal, neither would the intervening sin have changed God’s sentence; because He did not make the devil from immortal to mortal, even though he is the origin of all evils.”\n\nIV. From the second codex, from the third book, folio twenty-five.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a continuous argument from a lost work of Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved in two Latin excerpts from a single codex. The first excerpt (III) presents a polemic against those who claim God did not know Adam would sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mortalem","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'mortalem' (mortal) is used twice in a contradictory sense: first, that God made Adam mortal in six hours, then that after the sin He 'showed him to be mortal'. The argument hinges on the absurdity of God changing Adam's nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Adam being made from earth on the sixth day and eating against the divine command alludes to Genesis 1:26–31 and 2:7–3:24, though no verse is quoted directly.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Theodore of Mopsuestenus (c. 350–428) was a leading Antiochene exegete. His works survive mostly in fragments and Latin translations, often through the condemnations of the Second Council of Constantinople (553). This passage reflects his literalist and rationalist approach to Genesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that God did not change Adam's nature after the sin, and the comparison with the devil, was controversial. Theodore's views on original sin and human nature were later condemned as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is a translation from Greek, and the phrase 'in sex horis' (in six hours) is ambiguous: it may refer to the six days of creation or a literal six-hour period. The English draft interprets it as six hours, but the Latin 'sex horis' could also mean 'six days' in a loose translation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in sex horis' may mean 'in six hours' or 'in six days' (from Greek ἕξ ἡμέραι). The reading 'six hours' is adopted in the English draft, but the context of the sixth day suggests a possible confusion.","The identity of the 'second codex' and the relation of these excerpts to Theodore's original work is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"« Non enim, inquit, his qui ab Adam usque ad adventum Christi Domini in tantis fuerunt impietatibus et iniquitatibus, quantas beatus Paulus propriis verbis expressit, ut in superioribus est ejus declaratum vocibus, tanquam magnum quiddam resurrectionis collaturus est praemium; si eos suppliciis quibusdam sine fine et sine correctione tradiderit. Nam ubi jam loco muneris resurrectio computabitur, si poena sine correctione resurgentibus inferatur? » Et post paululum: « Quis, inquit, ita demens, ut tantum bonum credat materiam fieri resurgentibus infiniti supplicii, quibus utilius erat omnino non surgere, quam tantorum et talium malorum post resurrectionem subinfinitis poenis experientiam sustinere? »\n\nV. Ex octavo sermone catacismi 2, folio septimo.\n\n« Nec enim, inquit, si duas dicimus in Christo naturas, necessario flet ut duos filios aut duos dominos asseramus, quia hoc arbitrari extremae probatur amentiae 3. Omnia enim quaecunque secundum aliquid duo sunt, secundum aliquid unum, non interimunt per unitatem utriusque divisionem. Ego enim et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Sed non quia unum, neganda est utriusque proprietas. Et alibi de viro et uxore pronuntians ait: Jam non sunt duo, sed ana caro(Matth. XIX, 6). Sed non quia una caro vir et uxor 4, jam non sunt duo, sed una caro'; manent enim duo juxta quod duo sunt, et unum juxta quod unum.","english":"For,” he says, “He is not going to bestow the resurrection as some great reward upon those who, from Adam up to the coming of Christ the Lord, were involved in such great impieties and iniquities as the blessed Paul expressed in his own words, as has been declared in his earlier statements, if He hands them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will the resurrection be counted as a gift, if punishment without correction is inflicted upon those who rise?” And a little later: “Who,” he says, “is so insane as to believe that such a great good becomes the material for infinite punishment for those who rise, for whom it would have been better not to rise at all than to endure the experience of such great and such evils after the resurrection in punishments that are virtually endless?”\n\nV. From the eighth sermon of the Catechesis 2, folio seven.\n\n“For,” he says, “if we say that there are two natures in Christ, it does not necessarily follow that we assert two sons or two lords, because to think this is proved to be the height of madness. For all things that are two in one respect are one in another respect; the unity does not destroy the division of each. For I and the Father are one (John 10:30). But because we are one, the property of each is not to be denied. And elsewhere, speaking of man and wife, he says: ‘They are no longer two, but one flesh’ (Matthew 19:6). But because man and wife are one flesh, they are not no longer two, but one flesh; for they remain two in respect of what they are as two, and one in respect of what they are as one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two distinct sections: the first (from the second codex, third book) argues against the notion that resurrection could be a punishment without correction; the second (from the eighth sermon of the Catechesis) defends the orthodox doctrine of two natures in Christ against charges of ditheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. X, 30","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Ego enim et Pater unum sumus' is John 10:30, a key text in Trinitarian theology, used here to illustrate unity without loss of distinct properties.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XIX, 6","severity":"info","text":"The reference 'Jam non sunt duo, sed una caro' alludes to Matthew 19:6 (Vulgate: 'iam non sunt duo, sed una caro'), concerning marriage, employed as an analogy for the hypostatic union.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The second section reflects the Antiochene Christological tradition, emphasizing the distinction of natures in Christ against Apollinarian or monophysite interpretations, a hallmark of Theodore of Mopsuestia's theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's Christological formulation here, using the analogy of husband and wife, was later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) as Nestorian, though it was intended to safeguard the integrity of both natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'subinfinitis poenis' in the first section is ambiguous: it may mean 'virtually endless' or 'under infinite punishments,' affecting the interpretation of Theodore's eschatology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the second fragment ('Ex octavo sermone catacismi 2') is uncertain: 'catacismi' may be a scribal error for 'catechesis' or refer to a specific catechetical work by Theodore.","The phrase 'subinfinitis poenis' could be read as 'under infinite punishments' or 'virtually endless punishments,' with implications for Theodore's view on the duration of post-resurrection punishment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Secundum hunc modum et hic duo sunt natura, sed unum conjunctione: duo natura, quia multa naturarum diversitas; sed unum conjunctione, quia indivisam venerationem quod susceptum est cum suscipiente sortitur, velut templum ejus individuum perseverans. Omnia enim quaecunque duo dicuntur, tunc duorum continent usum, quando alterum alteri indifferens creditur, juxta quod duorum vocabulum connumerationemque sortitur. Verbi gratia: Quatuor bestias divina Scriptura commemorat (Dan. VII, seqq.), ursum, pardum, leonem et aliam quae has immanitate praecellat, et ideo sunt quatuor, quod unaquaeque hestia nihil minus juxta substantiam reliquis bestiis exsistere comprobatur. Duorum, inquit, hominum testimonium verum est (Joan. VIII, 17), quia hoc uterque natura quod alter est. Sic et iilud, Nemo potest duobus dominis servire (Matth. VI, 24), quia praebenti servitium tanquam domino nihil minus uterque est dominus, ita et hic, si uterque secundum substantiam esset filius et dominus, possent aliquo modo duo filii et domini nuncupari secundum numerum personarum.","english":"In this manner, there are here also two natures, but one by conjunction: two natures, because of the great diversity of natures; but one by conjunction, because the assumed [nature] shares an undivided veneration with the one who assumes it, just as his temple remains undivided. For all things that are called two then maintain the usage of two when one is believed to be indifferent to the other, according to which they receive the name and enumeration of two. For example: Divine Scripture commemorates four beasts (Dan. 7, seq.), a bear, a leopard, a lion, and another which surpasses these in savagery, and they are four because each beast is proven to be nothing less in substance than the other beasts. \"The testimony of two men is true\" (John 8:17), because each is the same in nature as the other. Likewise, \"No one can serve two masters\" (Matt. 6:24), because each master is nothing less a master to the one offering service; so also here, if each were son and lord according to substance, they could in some way be called two sons and two lords according to the number of persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Secundum hunc modum et hic duo sunt natura, sed unum conjunctione","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the argument from the previous fragment, using the same formulaic contrast between 'two natures' and 'one conjunction' to articulate Theodore's Antiochene Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quatuor bestias divina Scriptura commemorat (Dan. VII, seqq.)","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Daniel 7 and its four beasts (bear, leopard, lion, and a fourth) is used as an analogy for numerical distinction based on substantial difference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Duorum, inquit, hominum testimonium verum est (Joan. VIII, 17)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of John 8:17 (likely a variant reading or misattribution) is used to illustrate that two entities are truly two only when they share the same nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo potest duobus dominis servire (Matth. VI, 24)","severity":"info","text":"Matthew 6:24 is cited to argue that two masters are genuinely two only if each is equally a master by nature, supporting Theodore's denial of two sons or lords in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"indivisam venerationem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'undivided veneration' reflects Theodore's insistence on a single worship due to Christ, despite the distinction of natures, a key point in Antiochene Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"velut templum ejus individuum perseverans","severity":"info","text":"The 'temple' metaphor for the assumed nature (humanity) as the dwelling of the divine Logos is a standard Antiochene image, contrasting with Alexandrian 'mixture' language.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation of John 8:17 is uncertain; the verse as given does not match standard Vulgate or Greek texts, possibly a paraphrase or a different versification.","The fourth beast in Daniel 7 is not named, but the description 'immanitate praecellat' suggests the fourth beast of Daniel's vision, often identified as a composite or unspecified creature."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Quoniam vero hic quidem secundum substantiam filius exsistit et dominus, hic autem secundum es· sentiam nec filius nec dominus approbatur, con junctione vero quae ei facta cum illo est, iisdem participasse cognoscitur, idcirco unum filium et dominum dicimus, principaliter quidem intelligentes eum filium et dominum, qui secundum substantiam utrumque vere esse creditur et vocatur: complectentes autem cogitatione et illum qui inseparabiliter ei conjungitur, et per ineffabilem cum eo-copulam filii et domini particeps aestimatur. Itaque sicubi filium hunc qui sumptus est, divina Scriptura commemorat, relatione suscipientis juxta unitatem dicimus eum filium nuncupari·5. Cum enim dicit, De filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. I, 3), nondum Verbum dicat, sed formam servi susceptam. Non enim Deus est secundum carnem, nec Deus ex semine David factus est, quem filium beatus Paulus evidenter appellat. Intelligimus autem cum filium, non quod per se dicatur filius, sed quod illa conjunctione quam habet cum eo qui vere est filius, taliter nuncupetur 7.","english":"Since indeed here one exists as son and lord according to substance, while the other is shown to be neither son nor lord according to essence, but is known to have shared in the same by the conjunction made with him, for this reason we speak of one son and lord, understanding principally as son and lord the one who is believed and called truly both according to substance; but also embracing in thought that one who is inseparably joined to him, and through the ineffable union with him is considered a partaker of son and lord. Thus, wherever divine Scripture mentions this son who was taken up, we say that he is called son by relation to the one receiving, according to the unity. For when it says, “Concerning his son, who was born to him from the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), it does not yet speak of the Word, but of the assumed form of a servant. For God is not according to the flesh, nor was God born from the seed of David, whom blessed Paul clearly calls son. We understand him as son, not because he is called son in himself, but because by that conjunction which he has with the one who is truly son, he is so named.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum substantiam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'secundum substantiam' (according to substance) is a key Antiochene term distinguishing the divine nature of Christ from the human, which is described as 'secundum essentiam' (according to essence) — here used synonymously.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conjunctione","severity":"info","text":"'Conjunctione' (conjunction) is Theodore's preferred term for the union of divine and human in Christ, implying a close but not hypostatic union, as opposed to 'unio' used in later Chalcedonian theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. 1:3","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'De filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem' (Rom. 1:3) is a paraphrase; the Vulgate reads 'de filio suo, qui ex semine David secundum carnem' — Theodore interprets 'son' here as referring to the human Jesus, not the divine Word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Antiochene Christology","severity":"info","text":"The passage reflects Theodore's dyophysite Christology, distinguishing two natures (divine and human) united by conjunction, a view condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"argumentative progression","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a general principle (two natures, one conjunction) to a specific exegetical application (Rom. 1:3), showing how the human Jesus is called 'son' only by relation to the divine Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus","severity":"info","text":"Jerome's Latin translation of Theodore's fragments preserves Antiochene theology for a Western audience, though Jerome himself was critical of Theodore's views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'secundum essentiam' may be a variant of 'secundum substantiam' or a distinct term; the translation treats them as synonymous, but Theodore may have intended a subtle distinction."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Misertus est Creator perditae creaturae, et sine commistione format infantem, perducit ad aetatem virilem, incrementorum quidem processu naturae similitudinem pro modo credulitatis insinuans, occulte vero eidem copulatus exsistens: non aberat cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nasceretur, loquenti conjunctus et praesens, in ejus actibus perseverans, atque ibi suam connexionem sine peccato custodiens. »\n\nVI. Ex libro quinto Commenti de creatura.\n\n« Nec igitur mortem non sponte et praetor judicium suum intulit hominibus, neque peccato aditum ad nullam utilitatem dedit, nec enim hoc fieri nolens, non poterat: sed quoniam sciebat utile esse nobis, magis autem omnibus rationabilibus, prius quidem malorum et deteriorum fieri aditum, postea autem deleri quidem haec, introduci autem meliora: ideo in duos statua divisit Deus creaturam, praesentem et futuram; in illo quidem ad immortalitatem et immutabilitatem omnia ducturus, in praesenti vero creaturam in mortem et mutabilitatem interim dimittens: nam siquidem statim ab initio immortales nos fecerit et immutabiles, nullam differentiam ad irrationabilia haberemus, proprium nescientes bonum. Ignorantes enim mutabilitatem, immutabilitatis ignorabamus bonum; nescientes mortem, immortalitatis lucrum nesciebamus; ignorantes corruptionem, non laudabamus incorruptionem; nescientes passionum gravamen, impassibilitatem non mirabamur.","english":"The Creator took pity on his lost creature, and without any mingling forms the infant, leads him to manly age, suggesting the likeness of nature by the process of growth according to the measure of credulity, but secretly existing as joined to him: he was not absent when he was being formed, he was not divided when he was being born, joined and present to him when speaking, persisting in his actions, and there preserving his connection without sin.\n\nVI. From the fifth book of the Commentary on Creation.\n\n\"Therefore neither did he bring death upon men unwillingly and against his own judgment, nor did he give entry to sin for no benefit, nor indeed could he not do this, being unwilling: but because he knew it was useful for us, and more so for all rational beings, that first there should be entry for evils and worse things, but afterwards these should be wiped out and better things introduced: therefore God divided creation into two states, the present and the future; in the latter he would lead everything to immortality and immutability, while in the present he meanwhile dismisses creation to death and mutability: for if he had made us immortal and immutable from the very beginning, we would have no difference from irrational beings, not knowing our own good. For being ignorant of mutability, we were ignorant of the good of immutability; not knowing death, we did not know the gain of immortality; being ignorant of corruption, we did not praise incorruption; not knowing the burden of passions, we did not marvel at impassibility.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Misertus est Creator perditae creaturae","severity":"info","text":"The opening phrase echoes the theme of divine pity for fallen humanity, a key soteriological concern in Theodore's thought.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"sine commistione","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'without mingling' reflects Theodore's anti-Apollinarian insistence on the distinctness of Christ's human and divine natures, avoiding mixture.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VI. Ex libro quinto Commenti de creatura","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks a new fragment from Theodore's lost Commentary on Creation, book 5, indicating the work's original multi-book structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"in duos statua divisit Deus creaturam, praesentem et futuram","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's two-state scheme (present and future) is a distinctive eschatological framework, contrasting with Origen's cyclical view and anticipating later Latin two-age models.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ignorantes enim mutabilitatem, immutabilitatis ignorabamus bonum","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical pattern of ignorance leading to appreciation of opposites parallels similar arguments in Irenaeus (e.g., Against Heresies 4.37-39) and later in Augustine's City of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nec igitur mortem non sponte et praetor judicium suum intulit hominibus","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in the Second Council of Constantinople (553) as evidence of Theodore's alleged denial of divine intentionality in death, contributing to his posthumous condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'creatura' may translate Greek κτίσις, which can mean 'creation' or 'creature'; the English draft renders it as 'creature' in the first sentence but 'creation' later, reflecting ambiguity in the original.","The phrase 'pro modo credulitatis' is obscure; it may mean 'according to the measure of faith' or 'according to the capacity for belief', affecting interpretation of Theodore's theory of divine accommodation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Compendiose dicere, ne longum sermonem faciam: nescientes malorum experimentum, bonorum illorum non poteramus scientiam mereri. »","english":"To speak concisely, lest I make a long discourse: not knowing the experience of evils, we could not merit the knowledge of those goods.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Compendiose dicere","severity":"info","text":"The phrase signals a rhetorical abbreviation, common in patristic argumentation, to avoid prolixity while emphasizing a key theological point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"malorum experimentum","severity":"info","text":"‘Experience of evils’ likely refers to the Fall and its consequences, a necessary precondition for knowledge of goods in Theodore’s soteriology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"background","lemma":"nescientes malorum experimentum","severity":"info","text":"The idea that knowledge of good requires experience of evil echoes the Eden narrative (Gen 3) and Pauline themes of sin and redemption (Rom 5).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"bonorum illorum","severity":"info","text":"‘Those goods’ likely refers to the restored state of grace or salvation, a central concern in Theodore’s anti-Pelagian context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ne longum sermonem faciam","severity":"info","text":"This clause functions as a transitional device, closing the preceding argument and introducing a concise summary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The referent of 'bonorum illorum' is not explicit; it may denote eschatological goods or moral virtues. The reading taken aligns with Theodore’s soteriological framework."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}