{"slug":"tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1","title":"Symbolum Theodori Mopsuesteni Et Ejus Refutatio","title_source":"Symbolum Theodori Mopsuesteni Et Ejus Refutatio","author":"Marius Mercator","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":"2026-11-15T06:28:08Z","cost_usd":0.006522},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp777.tmp777.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/tmp777/tmp777/tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":13,"english_words":2770,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":11399,"commentary_units":77,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":6,"ambiguities":24,"work_notes":6,"external_links":1,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Symbolum Theodori Mopsuesteni Et Ejus Refutatio is a Latin polemical work by Marius Mercator, a 5th-century controversialist, containing the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia followed by a refutation. The Greek original of Theodore's creed is lost, and the Latin text survives in a single manuscript tradition tied to anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian debates. Mercator's refutation, likely composed around 428–430 during the Nestorian controversy, was later used to condemn Theodore's Christology, especially at the Council of Constantinople (553). The work is preserved in collections of conciliar acts and reflects the theological conflicts of the early 5th century.","historical_context":"The work dates to ca. 428–430, during the Nestorian controversy, when Marius Mercator, a Latin controversialist, was active between Rome and Constantinople. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a leading Antiochene theologian whose Christological views were later condemned as Nestorian. Mercator's refutation survives only in Latin; the Greek original of Theodore's creed is lost. The text is preserved in a single manuscript tradition linked to anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian polemics, and it circulated in collections of conciliar acts. The refutation was used in the 5th–6th centuries to condemn Theodore's Christology, especially at the Council of Constantinople (553). The precise date depends on Mercator's movements, which are not fully documented. The work is a polemical piece, and Mercator may misrepresent Theodore's views.","significance":"The work is a key source for understanding the reception of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology in the 5th century and the polemical strategies of anti-Nestorian writers. It also provides insight into the transmission of conciliar acts and the use of creeds in theological controversies. Its survival in a single manuscript tradition highlights the selective preservation of texts in late antique Christianity.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 350–428","event":"Life of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Antiochene theologian."},{"date":"c. 380–c. 455","event":"Life of Julian of Eclanum, Pelagian bishop."},{"date":"ca. 428–430","event":"Composition of Mercator's refutation during the Nestorian controversy."},{"date":"431","event":"Council of Ephesus; Julian of Eclanum exiled."},{"date":"553","event":"Council of Constantinople (Second Council of Constantinople) condemns Theodore's Christology."}],"relations":[{"work":"Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings","relation":"The creed is attributed to Theodore; his Christology is the target of refutation.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Julian of Eclanum's eight books against Augustine","relation":"Mercator refers to this lost Pelagian text.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Acts of the Council of Constantinople (553)","relation":"The refutation was used in the condemnation of Theodore.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian polemical collections","relation":"The text circulated in such collections.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Theodore of Mopsuestia","label":"Theodore of Mopsuestia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia","reason":"Biographical and theological context for the creed."}],"cautions":["The Greek original of Theodore's creed is lost; the Latin text may be a paraphrase.","Mercator's refutation is polemical and may misrepresent Theodore's views.","The precise date of composition (ca. 428–430) is uncertain due to incomplete documentation of Mercator's movements.","The work survives in a single manuscript tradition; variant readings are not collated in this edition."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000463,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:28:08Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp777/tmp777/tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp777.tmp777.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":13,"translated":13,"commentary_passages":13,"commentary_units":77,"english_words":2770,"source_letters":11399,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work presents the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia followed by a refutation by Marius Mercator, a Latin controversialist active in the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Mercator’s refutation survives only in Latin; the Greek original of Theodore’s creed is lost. The text is preserved in a single manuscript tradition linked to anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The refutation was used in the 5th–6th centuries to condemn Theodore’s Christology, especially at the Council of Constantinople (553). It later circulated in collections of conciliar acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The work is dated to ca. 428–430, during the Nestorian controversy, but the precise date depends on Mercator’s movements between Rome and Constantinople, which are not fully documented.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not provide a critical apparatus for the Latin text; variant readings from other manuscripts are not collated. The reader must consult the source edition for textual details.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Mercator’s refutation may misrepresent Theodore’s views, as it is a polemical work. The creed itself is excerpted and possibly paraphrased; the original wording is not independently attested.","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: 13 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"6 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":13},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"III. SYMBOLUMa THEODORI MOPSUESTENI ET EJUS REFUTATIO.\n\nPRAEFATIO fMARII MERCATORIS.\n\nbmarius mercator christi servus lactori conservo suo salute.\n\ncGraecus sermo Theodori est, quondam episcopi oppidi Mopsuesteni,d provinciae Ciliciae, Hunc ergo pro facultate, qua valeo, in Latinum sermonem, verbum de verbo, transferre conatus sum; pravum ejus de dispensatione Dominica, et a fide catholica alienum, ac satis extorrem sensum, quo Nestorium Constantinopolitanae urbis quondam episcopum secum male decepit, Latinis volens auribus insinuare, cavendum modis omnibus, non sequendum;\n\nSimul admonere volens, e Julianum, ex episcopo oppidi Eclanensis haereticum Pelagianum, seu Coelestianum, hunc secutum esse Theodorum,a ad quem peragratis terris, et exarato mari, atque Oriente lustrato, cum sociis et participibus, et suis, magno nisu, tamquam ad Christianorum dogmatum praedicatum magistrum, tetendit; ut de haeresi Pelagiana, seu Coelestiana, quamb defendendam et sequendam suscepit, ab ipso confirmaretur; atque inde, velut instructior, octo contra fidem catholicam potius quam contra sanctae memoriae Augustinum volumina illa, ut putat, prudentissima conderet.","english":"III. THE CREED OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA AND ITS REFUTATION.\n\nPREFACE OF MARIUS MERCATOR.\n\nMarius Mercator, servant of Christ, to his fellow servant Lactor, greetings.\n\nThe Greek text is that of Theodore, once bishop of the town of Mopsuestia in the province of Cilicia. This, therefore, to the best of my ability, I have attempted to translate into Latin, word for word; his perverse opinion concerning the Lord’s dispensation, alien to the Catholic faith and quite estranged from it, by which he once wickedly deceived Nestorius, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, I wish to make known to Latin ears, so that it may be avoided by all means, not followed.\n\nAt the same time, I wish to point out that Julian, from bishop of the town of Eclanum a Pelagian or Coelestian heretic, followed this Theodore, to whom, after traversing lands and crossing the sea and surveying the East, with his companions, partakers, and his own people, with great effort, as to a proclaimed teacher of Christian doctrines, he hastened; so that he might be confirmed by him in the Pelagian or Coelestian heresy, which he had undertaken to defend and follow; and that from there, as one better instructed, he might compose those eight volumes, as he thinks most learned, against the Catholic faith rather than against Augustine of holy memory.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"PRAEFATIO fMARII MERCATORIS","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the preface as a distinct section, introducing the translator's purpose and the refutation that follows.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodori Mopsuesteni","severity":"info","text":"Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a prominent Antiochene theologian whose Christological views were later condemned as Nestorian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julianum ... Eclanensis","severity":"info","text":"Julian of Eclanum (c. 380–c. 455) was a leading Pelagian bishop, exiled after the Council of Ephesus (431) for defending Pelagius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"octo ... volumina","severity":"info","text":"Mercator refers to Julian's eight books against Augustine, a key text in the Pelagian controversy, now lost except in fragments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"verbum de verbo","severity":"info","text":"Mercator claims a literal, word-for-word translation method, a common claim in late antique translation prefaces, often rhetorical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Symbolum","severity":"caution","text":"The term 'Symbolum' here means 'creed' or 'statement of faith', not a liturgical symbol; Theodore's creed is the text Mercator translates and refutes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Lactor' (Lactor, conservo) is uncertain; possibly a fellow Christian or a specific addressee.","The phrase 'verbum de verbo' may be a conventional claim rather than a literal description of the translation method."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Agnoscat igitur supradictus Julianus ex hac translatione, si legere non fastidierit, manente apud memoratum Theodorum illa qua eum diximus mala fide secum Nestorium decepisse, etiam sibi magis suoque dogmati, de quo male turgidus et malesanus libros confecit, esse contrarium; seque etiam, post de Cilicia abscessum, ab eo, e in episcoporum provinciae suae conventu, anathemate esse damnatum.\n\nNon itaque irascatur vel succenseat nobis, si eum cum Theodoro, cujus in libris suis infinitas laudes exsequitur, cujusque se niti auctoritate sententiae in suo errore gloriatur, alienum a fide catholica esse, justeque damnatum detegimus, convincimus, atque deflemus, quia magis deflendus quam ullo odio persequendus.\n\nEXPOSITIO PRAVAE FIDEI THEODORI.\n\nQui aut nunc primum in ecclesiasticis erudiuntur dogmatibus liquido cognoscendis, aut ab haeretico errore converti decreverint ad veritatem, doceri eos oportet quoniam credimus. (Et caetera quae parte posteriore referuntur. Symboli haec postrema verba: )","english":"Let the aforementioned Julianus recognize from this translation, if he does not disdain to read it, that the said Theodorus, as we have said, deceived Nestorius with him in bad faith, and that he is also contrary to himself and to his own teaching, about which, swollen and insane, he composed books; and that, after his departure from Cilicia, he was condemned by anathema in the assembly of the bishops of his province.\n\nTherefore, let him not be angry or indignant with us, if we uncover, convict, and lament that he, together with Theodorus, whose infinite praises he recites in his books and on whose authority he boasts that his own erroneous opinion rests, is alien to the catholic faith and justly condemned—for he is more to be lamented than pursued with any hatred.\n\nEXPOSITION OF THEODORUS'S PERVERTED CREED.\n\nThose who are either now being instructed for the first time in clearly understanding ecclesiastical teachings, or who have decided to convert from heretical error to the truth, ought to be taught what we believe. (And the rest, which is set forth in the latter part. These are the final words of the Creed:)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Julianus","severity":"info","text":"Julianus is Julian of Eclanum, a leading Pelagian bishop who, after condemnation in 418, sought refuge with Theodore of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. Mercator here accuses Julian of continuing Theodore's Christological errors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mala fide","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'mala fide' (bad faith) is a legal and theological term implying deliberate deceit. Mercator uses it to charge Theodore with knowingly misleading Nestorius into heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Expositio pravae fidei Theodori","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the beginning of the actual creed of Theodore, which Mercator presents as a 'perverted exposition of faith.' The following Latin text is a translation of Theodore's creed, here truncated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"anathemate esse damnatum","severity":"info","text":"Mercator claims Theodore was condemned by anathema in a synod of Cilician bishops after his departure. This is a contested historical claim; no contemporary record of such a synod survives, and it may reflect later anti-Theodore polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Et caetera quae parte posteriore referuntur","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'and the rest, which is set forth in the latter part' indicates that the manuscript or edition omits the body of Theodore's creed, preserving only its closing words. The full creed is not given here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'assembly of bishops' that condemned Theodore is not specified; it may refer to a local synod in Cilicia or be a rhetorical invention by Mercator.","The phrase 'post de Cilicia abscessum' could mean either after Theodore's departure from Cilicia (to Constantinople?) or after Julian's departure; context favors Theodore."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Omnis qui contra haec sentit, anathema sit. (Excipit refutatio Mercatoris: ) Immo nos tibi catholici dicimus, qui talia ore impurissimo et lingua scelestissima protulisti, incessabiliter anathema, et omnibus consentaneis suis, etc. (T’um pergit Mercator: ) Cujus autem perfidiae sit etiam praefatus Theodorus, ex scriptis ejus, quae de Graecis transtulimus, approbemus.\n\nEXCERPTUM PRIMUMa THEODORI\n\nDe secundo codice, libro quarto, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum, et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum, catholice disserentem.\n\n1.a Tantis exstantibus quae demonstrent Adam sic ex terra formatum, ut mortalis prorsus existeret, erga cibum proprium voluit occupare sermonem, nec exinde valens advertere veritatem, pro dogmate vero, a seductorio ex mendacio, advocationem fungens, etc.\n\nNon ait Deus, Mortales eritis, sed Morte moriemini (Genes. ii, 17); prorsus existentibus natura mortalibus, inferre mortis experientiam comminatus, quam etiam juxta morem propriae benignitatis ad effectum perducere distulit. Sicut enim cum dicit: Qui effuderit hominis sanguinem, sanguis ejus pro eo Fundetur (Genes.","english":"Let anyone who thinks otherwise be anathema. (Here follows Mercator’s refutation:) On the contrary, we Catholics say to you, who have uttered such things with your most impure mouth and most wicked tongue, anathema without ceasing, and to all your adherents, etc. (Then Mercator continues:) But let us also demonstrate how great the faithlessness of the aforementioned Theodorus is, from his writings, which we have translated from Greek.\n\nFIRST EXCERPT OF THEODORUS\n\nFrom the second codex, book four, folio ten, against Saint Augustine, who defends original sin and argues catholically that Adam was made mortal through transgression.\n\n1.a Since so many things stand which show that Adam was formed from the earth in such a way that he was entirely mortal, he wished to occupy the discourse concerning his own food, and being unable from that to perceive the truth, he acts as an advocate for a false dogma, from a seductive lie, etc.\n\nGod does not say, “You will be mortal,” but “You will die by death” (Gen. 2:17); for those who are by nature mortal, he threatened to inflict the experience of death, which he also, according to the custom of his own benevolence, delayed in bringing to effect. Just as when he says: “Whoever sheds a man’s blood, his blood shall be shed for it” (Gen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excipit refutatio Mercatoris","severity":"info","text":"This editorial note marks the transition from the anathema formula to Mercator's own refutation, indicating a layered text with authorial interjection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Morte moriemini","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus cites Genesis 2:17, where God threatens death as an experience for those already mortal by nature, interpreting it as a delayed punishment rather than a change in condition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus here opposes Augustine's doctrine of original sin and the view that Adam became mortal through transgression, a key point in the Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema","severity":"info","text":"The repeated use of 'anathema' in both the formula and Mercator's response underscores the formal ecclesiastical condemnation central to the refutation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum primum Theodori","severity":"info","text":"This excerpt, translated from Greek by Mercator, is presented as evidence of Theodorus's faithlessness, showing how his writings were used in later anti-Nestorian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"etc.","severity":"caution","text":"The abbreviation 'etc.' in both the refutation and the biblical citation suggests that the text is excerpted or truncated, potentially omitting context or continuation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'excipit refutatio Mercatoris' could be a marginal note or an integral part of the text; it is treated here as an editorial insertion.","The biblical citation 'Genes. ii, 17' is given in the Latin but the English draft supplies 'Gen. 2:17'; the reference is to the Vulgate numbering."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"ix, 6); non hoc dicit, qui qui occiderit hominem erit mortalis, sed quia dignus est hujusmodi morte damnari; sic et in praesentiarum dixit, Morte moriemini; non quod tune mortales fierent, sed quod digni essent qui mortis sententiam a per transgressionem referrent.\n\nSed et divinam sententiam quam post peccatum Deus Adae inferre videtur adverte. Sic enim dicit (Genes. iii, 17): Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuae?, et comedisti de ligno de quo praeceperam tibi de hoc solo non comedere, ex eo manducasti: maledicta terra in operibus tuis, in tristitia comedes eam omnibus diebus ritae tuae; spinas et tribulos proferet tibi, et comedes fenum agri, et in sudore vultus tui comedes panem tuum, donec revertaris in terram. Hoc autem per haec comminatus est, quod aerumnosam vitam habiturus esset, cum labore deinceps fructus de terra sumpturus, quibus aleretur et 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 (Genes. ii, ); pro tanta vero pristina largitate et voluptate paradisi, aerumnosam ejus fore sustentationem de terrae fructibus comminatur.","english":"ix, 6); he does not say that whoever kills a man will be mortal, but that he is worthy of being condemned to such a death; so also in the present case he said, \"You will die the death,\" not that they would then become mortal, but that they were worthy of receiving the sentence of death through transgression.\n\nBut also consider the divine sentence which God seems to pronounce upon Adam after the sin. For thus he says (Gen. iii, 17): \"Because you listened to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat from this alone, you have eaten from it: cursed is the earth 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 grass of the field, and in the sweat of your face you will eat your bread, until you return to the earth.\" By these words he threatened that he would have a life full of hardship, thereafter taking fruit from the earth with labor, 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 to mortality, since he also commanded him to till and guard paradise (Gen. ii, ); but he threatens that his sustenance from the fruits of the earth will be full of hardship, in contrast to the former abundance and delight of paradise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Genes. iii, 17","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Genes. iii, 17' does not correspond to a modern verse; it likely refers to God's speech after the Fall, conflating elements from Genesis 3:16-19.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Genes. ii","severity":"info","text":"The reference 'Genes. ii' is incomplete; it probably alludes to Genesis 2:15, where God places Adam in the garden to till and keep it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Morte moriemini","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus interprets 'Morte moriemini' (you will die the death) as a legal penalty, not a change in nature, reflecting his anti-literalist, typological exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"maledicta terra","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus reads the curse on the earth as a threat of hardship, not a transformation of human nature from immortal to mortal, consistent with his rejection of original sin as a physical change.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed et divinam sententiam","severity":"info","text":"This sentence introduces a second argument from Theodorus, parallel to the first on 'Morte moriemini', both denying that sin caused a change in mortal status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Genes. iii, 17","severity":"caution","text":"The verse numbering 'iii, 17' is non-standard; the quoted text does not match any single Vulgate verse, suggesting a loose paraphrase or conflation by Theodorus or Mercator.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'Morte moriemini' is ambiguous: it could be a future indicative or a jussive subjunctive; Theodorus takes it as a legal pronouncement.","The phrase 'per transgressionem referrent' is unclear; it likely means 'they would receive the sentence of death through transgression'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Nam prorsus mortalis factus, et tune paradisi fructibus indigebat, sicut nune terrae fructus inquirit; et pro supplicio pristinis fraudatus deliciis, hac aerumnosissima laboriosissimaque conversatione molctatur.\n\nUnde ad postremum consequenter adjecit, quia terra es, et reverteris in terram (Genes. iii, 17), hinc etiam mortalitatem naturae significans; non enim immortali, et nunc primum incipienti sententiam mortis excipere, sicut sapientissimi defensores peccati originalis, immo potius patres peccati mirabiles, asseverant, vocabulum huic terrae composuit; sed ut ab exordio naturaliter effecto mortali, appellationem hanc congruere indicavit divina Scriptura, hoc de hominibus vocabulum ad ostensionem corruptibilis et resolubilis eorum naturae saepius assumens. Nam recordatus est, inquit, quia pulvis sumus; homo, sicut fenum, dies ejus, et sicut flos agri, ita florebit, quia spiritus perlransivit in eo, et non erit amplius locus ejus (Psal. cii, 15). Vult autem dicere quod corruptibiles et resolubiles omnes sumus, in modum feni parumper florentis, pereuntisque post paululum. Nam ad breve quidem tempus vitam ducimus; ad non existendum vero deinceps omnino pervenimus. Sic etAbraham: Ego sum, inquit, terra, ac cinis (Genes. xviii, 27), pro eo ac si diceret, Non sum dignus cum tanto Deo colloqui, homo factus e terra, et omnimodis hoc futurus.","english":"For indeed, having been made mortal, he then needed the fruits of paradise, just as now he seeks the fruits of the earth; and as a punishment, deprived of his former delights, he is afflicted with this most wretched and laborious manner of life.\n\nHence, at the end, he consequently added, \"Because you are earth, and you will return to earth\" (Genesis 3:17), thereby also signifying the mortality of nature; for he did not compose the word \"earth\" for one who is immortal and now for the first time beginning to receive a sentence of death, as the most wise defenders of original sin—or rather, the marvelous fathers of sin—assert; but rather, from the beginning, having been naturally made mortal, divine Scripture indicated that this appellation was fitting for him, often using this word for men to show 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\" (Psalm 102:15). It means that we are all corruptible and dissoluble, like grass that flourishes for a short time and perishes shortly after. For we lead our lives for a brief time, and then we come entirely to non-existence. So also Abraham says, \"I am earth and ashes\" (Genesis 18:27), as if to say, I am not worthy to converse with such a great God, being a man made from earth, and destined to be this in every way.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Genes. iii, 17","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Genes. iii, 17' does not correspond to any known verse in the Vulgate; Genesis 3:17 does not exist. The text likely refers to Genesis 3:19 ('pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. cii, 15","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Psal. cii, 15' corresponds to Psalm 102:15 in the Vulgate (Psalm 103:15 in modern numbering), which reads 'homo sicut fenum dies eius'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Genes. xviii, 27","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Genes. xviii, 27' corresponds to Genesis 18:27, where Abraham says 'ego sum terra et cinis' in the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"molctatur","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'molctatur' is a scribal error or variant for 'mactatur' (afflicted) or 'molestatur' (harassed). The sense is that Adam is tormented by a wretched life.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"patres peccati mirabiles","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'patres peccati mirabiles' (marvelous fathers of sin) is a sarcastic reference to defenders of original sin, likely targeting Augustine and his followers, whom Theodore of Mopsuestia opposed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects Theodore of Mopsuestia's denial of original sin, arguing that Adam was created mortal and that 'death' in Genesis refers to a sentence, not a change in nature. This view was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The citation 'Genes. iii, 17' is erroneous; the intended verse is likely Genesis 3:19. The Latin 'molctatur' is a textual corruption."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Magis ergo dicere debuit, quia terra eris, et in terram reverteris, siquidem nunc primum fieret natura mortalis.\n\nEXCERPTUM SECUNDUM THEODORI.\n\nEx secundo codice, libro tertio, ante quatuor folia finis libri.\n\nSed nihil illorum perspicere [Baluz. prospicere] potuit mirabilis peccati originalis assertor, quippe qui in divinis Scripturis nequaquam fuerit exercitatus, nec ab infantia, juxta beati Pauli vocem, sacras didicerit litteras (II Tim. iii, 18). Sed sive de Scripturae sensibus, sive de dogmate saepe declamans. multa frequenter inepta e proprie communiterve, de Ipsis Scripturis dogmatibusque plurimis, impudenter Exprompsit: a nam potentiae motus [Baluz. metus] nullum contra sinebat effari, sed tantummodo taciti, qui divinarum Scripturarum habebant notitiam, detrahebant. Novissime vero in hanc dogmatis excidit [Baluz, recidit] novitatem, qua diceret quod ira atque furore Deus Adam mortalem esse praeceperit; et propter ejus unum delictum cunctos, etiam necdum natos homines, morte mulctaverit.","english":"Therefore he should have said rather, \"You are earth, and to earth you shall return,\" if indeed mortality of nature were now first coming into being.\n\nSECOND EXCERPT OF THEODORE.\n\nFrom the second codex, third book, four leaves before the end of the book.\n\nBut the marvelous champion of original sin could perceive none of these things, inasmuch as he was by no means trained in the divine Scriptures, nor from infancy, according to the voice of blessed Paul, had he learned the sacred letters (II Tim. 3:18). But whether discoursing on the meanings of Scripture or on doctrine, he often, ineptly and improperly or commonly, shamelessly brought forth many things from the Scriptures themselves and from very many doctrines: for fear of his power allowed no one to speak against him, but only silently, those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures disparaged him. Most recently, however, he fell back into this novelty of doctrine, whereby he said that God, in anger and fury, commanded that Adam be mortal; and that on account of his one transgression, he punished with death all men, even those not yet born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Secundum Theodori","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks a new excerpt from Theodore's work, distinct from the preceding citation. The source note specifies the second codex, third book, four leaves before the end.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"II Tim. iii, 18","severity":"info","text":"The reference to II Timothy 3:18 is a misattribution; the verse does not exist in the canonical epistle. The intended citation may be II Timothy 3:15 or a similar passage on scriptural training.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"peccati originalis assertor","severity":"info","text":"The 'champion of original sin' is likely Augustine of Hippo, whom Mercator opposes. The phrase reflects the Pelagian controversy, where Theodore's followers denied original sin as later defined.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"potentiae motus [Baluz. metus]","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'potentiae motus' (movement of power), but Baluze's edition reads 'metus' (fear). The sense is that fear of the champion's power silenced critics, a plausible correction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"dogmatis novitatem","severity":"info","text":"Mercator accuses his opponent of a 'novelty of doctrine'—that God in anger made Adam mortal and punished all humanity for one sin. This polemic echoes anti-Pelagian charges of innovation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"exprompsit","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'exprompsit' (brought forth) is rare in classical Latin but used in patristic Latin for 'uttering' or 'producing' statements, often with a negative connotation of shamelessness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture reference II Tim. iii, 18 is non-canonical; the intended verse is uncertain.","The phrase 'potentiae motus' may be a scribal error for 'potentiae metus' (fear of power), as Baluze suggests."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Sic autem disputans non veretur, nec confunditur, ea sentire de Deo, quae nec de hominibus sanum sapientibus, et aliquam justitiae curam gerentibus, umquam quis aestimare tentavit; sed nec illius divinae vocis recordatus est, quod non dicerelur ulterius ista parabola in Israel: Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam, et fitiorum dentes e obstupuerunt, quia hae dicit Adonai Dominus: Dentes eorum, qui manducaverint uvam Acerbam, obstupescent (Ezech. xvii,2); ostendens per haec quod alterum pro altero, juxta quorumdam errorem, Deus omnino non puniat, sed umusquisque pro defictis suis redditurus sit rationem.\n\nHis consona beatus quoque Paulus annectit: Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua (Rom. vi, 5); et, Unusquisque nostrum onus su(??)portabit (Gal. vi, 5); et, Tu quid judicas fratrem (??)m? aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum? omnes enim astabimus ante tribunal Christi (Rom. xiv, 10).","english":"But in arguing thus, he is not ashamed nor confounded to think such things about God as no one has ever attempted to suppose even about men who are sound of mind and have some concern for justice. Nor has he recalled that divine saying, that this parable would no longer be spoken in Israel: \"The fathers ate a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge,\" because thus says the Lord Adonai: \"The teeth of those who have eaten a sour grape will be set on edge\" (Ezekiel 17:2); showing through this that God does not at all punish one for another, according to the error of some, but that each one will render account for his own faults.\n\nThe blessed Paul also adds things consistent with these: \"God,\" he says, \"who will render to each according to his works\" (Romans 6:5); and, \"Each of us will bear his own burden\" (Galatians 6:5); and, \"Why do you judge your brother? Or why do you scorn your brother? For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ\" (Romans 14:10).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ezech. xvii,2","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Ezekiel 17:2 is a paraphrase, not a direct quotation; the Vulgate reads 'dentes eorum obstupescent' but the context differs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. vi, 5","severity":"info","text":"Romans 6:5 is misattributed; the verse about God rendering to each according to works is actually Romans 2:6. This may be a scribal error or loose citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gal. vi, 5","severity":"info","text":"Galatians 6:5 does not contain 'each of us will bear his own burden'; the closest is Galatians 6:5 about bearing one's own load, but the wording is adapted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. xiv, 10","severity":"info","text":"Romans 14:10 is not a standard verse; the tribunal of Christ appears in Romans 14:10, but the phrasing is composite.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam","severity":"info","text":"The proverb about fathers eating sour grapes and children's teeth set on edge is a rabbinic or patristic saying, not a direct biblical quote, used to critique inherited guilt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Marius Mercator","severity":"info","text":"Mercator's refutation of Theodore uses scriptural misattributions to argue against original sin, reflecting early 5th-century anti-Pelagian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has lacunae or unclear readings, e.g., 'su(??)portabit' and '(??)m?', which may affect the exact scriptural references.","The English draft interprets 'obstupuerunt' as 'set on edge', but the Vulgate uses 'obstupescere' meaning 'to be stunned'."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Sed vir mirabilis, propter unios (??) peccatam (??) tanto furore commotum arbitratus est Deum, ut et [Baluz. om et] illum atrocissimae poenae subderet, et ad universos omnes posteros ejus parem sententiam promulgaret [Baluz. add. et], inter quos quanti justi fuerinl, non facile numerare quis poterit. Ex qoibus cum maxime considerare convenerat, quod valde videretur incongruum, Noe, Abraham, David, Moysen, et reliquos innumerabiles justos obnoxios poenae redditos a ob unius delictum, et unum atque ex gusta arboris peccatum [Baluz. arboris approbatom]; et quod sic, ukra modum justitiae, iram suam Deus extenderet [Baluz, extenderit], ita ut tot justorum virtutes cunctas abjiceret, eosque, propter unius peccatum Adae, tanto supplicio manciparet.\n\nNam etsi nihil atiud mente perpendens, saltem de Abel [Baluz. Aliud, saltem de Abel mente] convenienter aestimare debuerat, qui primus justus exisiens, primus mortuus est, et siquidem mortem Deus statuerat ad poenam hominum: quomodo non impietatis erat extremae, vivere quidem eum, qui fuit causa peccati, vivere etiam cum illo et Evam malitae repertricem? Praetermitto autem diabolum in immortalitate hactenus perdurantem; primum autem justum repertoremque virtutis, primumque divini cultus curam gerentem, ante omnes, poena [Baluz. pene] peccantium fuisse perculsum.","english":"But this wonderful man, on account of a single sin (??) of one (??), has supposed God to be stirred with such fury that He subjected even that one to the most atrocious punishment, and extended the same sentence to all his descendants without exception—among whom, how many have been righteous, one could not easily count. From these considerations, he ought especially to have reflected how utterly incongruous it seemed that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and countless other righteous men were rendered liable to punishment because of the offense of one man, and that one sin committed by tasting from a tree; and that God, beyond the measure of justice, extended His wrath so far as to cast aside all the virtues of so many righteous men and consign them, because of the sin of one man, Adam, to such a penalty.\n\nFor even if he had weighed nothing else in his mind, he ought at least to have formed a fitting judgment concerning Abel, who, being the first righteous man, was also the first to die; and if indeed God had established death as a punishment for men, how was it not the height of impiety that the one who was the cause of the sin should live, and that Eve, the contriver of wickedness, should also live with him? I pass over the fact that the devil has endured in immortality up to this very day; but the first righteous man, the discoverer of virtue, and the first to take care for divine worship, was struck down before all others by the punishment of sinners.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unios (??) peccatam (??)","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt here; 'unios' may be a misreading for 'unius' (of one), and 'peccatam' for 'peccatum' (sin). The sense is that God is stirred to fury on account of a single sin of one man.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Noe, Abraham, David, Moysen","severity":"info","text":"The list of righteous patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, David, Moses) echoes the common patristic catalog of pre-Christ righteous figures, often used to argue against the idea of universal inherited guilt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Abel","severity":"info","text":"Abel, the first righteous man and first to die (Genesis 4:8), is invoked to highlight the injustice of death as punishment for sin, since he died before Adam, the original sinner.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"diabolum in immortalitate","severity":"info","text":"The devil's continued immortality is a rhetorical point: if death is punishment for sin, why does the devil, the instigator of sin, not die? This reflects late antique debates on the origin of death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Praetermitto autem","severity":"info","text":"This phrase ('I pass over') marks a rhetorical device (praeteritio) where the author deliberately omits a point (the devil's immortality) to strengthen the argument about Abel's unjust death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. om et / Baluz. add. et / Baluz. arboris approbatom / Baluz, extenderit / Baluz. Aliud, saltem de Abel mente / Baluz. pene","severity":"caution","text":"Baluze's edition notes multiple textual variants: omissions, additions, and corrections (e.g., 'approbatom' for 'approbatum', 'pene' for 'poena'). These indicate a corrupt manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin phrase 'unios (??) peccatam (??)' is corrupt; likely intended as 'unius peccatum' (sin of one).","The phrase 'ex gusta arboris peccatum' is unclear; Baluze reads 'arboris approbatom' (approved tree?), but the sense is 'sin from tasting the tree'."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Oportebat autem, sapienlissimum virum et de Enoch, qui non est mortuus, diligenter expendere. Non enim tanta virtute vel pietate praeditus tuit, ut melior omnibus existeret, Moyse dico et prophetis apostolisque vel reliquis omnibus de quibus ait beatissimus Paulas: Quibus dignus non erat mundus (Heb. xi, 58): ita ut, illis mortuis,' ipse solus sine mortis experientia perduraret. Sed jam ab initio hoc Deus [Baluz. Deus hoc] habuit apud se definitum, ut primum quidem mortales fierent, postmodum vero immortalitate gauderent, sic ad utilitatem nostram fieri ipse disponens.\n\nEt post paululum. 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 sapientiam, cuncta dispensans, nequaquam Enoch quidem immortalis existeret; Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret.","english":"But this most wise man ought to have carefully considered Enoch, who did not die. For he was not endowed with such great virtue or piety that he surpassed all others—I mean Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and all the rest of whom the most blessed Paul says: \"Of whom the world was not worthy\" (Heb. 11:38)—so that, while they died, he alone would endure without experiencing death. Rather, from the beginning God had this determined within Himself: that first they would become mortal, but afterward would enjoy immortality, arranging this for our benefit.\n\nAnd a little later: \"God shows this same thing more clearly,\" he says, \"when He translates Enoch and makes him immortal. For if God inflicted death as the penalty of punishment on account of sin, and had not from the beginning determined this within Himself, ineffably dispensing all things for us according to His own wisdom, then Enoch would by no means be immortal, and the Lord Christ would not come to experience death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quibus dignus non erat mundus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites Hebrews 11:38, but the Vulgate reads 11:38 as 'quibus non erat dignus mundus'. The verse reference in the edition (Heb. xi, 58) is a misprint for 38.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Enoch","severity":"info","text":"Enoch, from Genesis 5:24, was translated to heaven without dying, a figure of special favor. Theodore of Mopsuestia uses him to argue that mortality was not a punishment for sin but a divine plan.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"sapienlissimum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'sapienlissimum' is a scribal error for 'sapientissimum' (most wise). The error does not affect the sense but indicates a transmission flaw.","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 to a direct quotation from Theodore's work, indicating that the preceding and following sections are excerpts from his text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Marius Mercator","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator, a 5th-century Latin writer, compiled this refutation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's teachings, preserving fragments of Theodore's works that are otherwise lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret","severity":"caution","text":"The argument that Christ's death would be impossible if mortality were a punishment for sin is a theological inference by Theodore, not a direct scriptural claim. The logic is contested in patristic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'sapienlissimum' is a clear scribal error for 'sapientissimum'.","The verse reference 'Heb. xi, 58' is a misprint for 11:38."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Et post paululum. Idcirco, inquit, Dominus auctor omnium bonorum hominibus factus est, ut sicut Adam primi et mortalis statu*exstitit inchoator, ita et ipse secundi et immortalis status existens initiator, primitus Adae prioris naturalia custodiret; dum nascitur ex muliere; dum pannis involvitur, et paotatim aetatis incrementa sortitur: Jesus enim, inquit, proficiebat aetate, et saptientia, et gratia coram Deo et hominibus (Luc. n, 52); dum circumcisionem suscipit; dum juxta legalem consuetudinem Deo astitit in templo, parentibusque subjicitur, et conversationi legitimae mancipatur. Sic etiam, ad expletionem reliquorum, et mortem, utpote naturae tributum, postremo suscipit: ut secundum legem humanae naturae moriens, et a mortuis divina virtute resurgens, initium cunctis hominibus, qui mortem secundum propriam naturam suscipiunt, freret, ut a mortuis snrgant, et ad immortalem substantiam commutentur.","english":"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 stood as the beginner of the first and mortal state, so He Himself, existing as 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; in that He is wrapped in swaddling clothes and gradually receives the increments of age—for, he says, 'Jesus advanced in age, wisdom, and grace before God and men' (Luke 2:52); in that He undergoes circumcision; in that, according to legal custom, He stands before God in the temple, is subject to His parents, and is bound over to lawful conduct. Thus also, for the completion of the remaining things, He finally undergoes death, as a tribute of 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":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Idcirco, inquit, Dominus auctor omnium bonorum hominibus factus est","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus argues that Christ became the author of all good things for humanity by recapitulating Adam's mortal state and initiating an immortal one.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jesus enim, inquit, proficiebat aetate, et sapientia, et gratia coram Deo et hominibus (Luc. 2, 52)","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus cites Luke 2:52 to support his claim that Christ advanced in age, wisdom, and grace, mirroring human development.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"dum circumcisionem suscipit; dum juxta legalem consuetudinem Deo astitit in templo","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus refers to Christ's circumcision and temple presentation as Jewish legal customs, emphasizing his full humanity within the law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post paululum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a continuation of Theodorus's argument, linking the previous discussion of Enoch to the present passage on Christ's role.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"status","severity":"info","text":"The term 'status' (state/condition) is used by Theodorus to contrast the mortal state initiated by Adam with the immortal state initiated by Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ut a mortuis surgant, et ad immortalem substantiam commutentur","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus's view that Christ's resurrection enables human transformation to immortal substance was later condemned as Nestorian or adoptionist.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'statu' in the source may be a typographical error for 'status' (state), as the context requires a noun."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Sicut enim conformes Adae secandum statum praesentem sumus omnes effecti, sic Christo Domino [Baluz. juxta earnem] conformes efficiemur in posterum: Transfigurabit enim corpus humilitatis nostrae conformes fieri corporis gloriae Suae (Phil. iii, 21); et, Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes; et sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus etiam imaginem coelestis (l Cor. xv et 49): ostendens quod primi status Adae participes facti, necessario etiam secundi Adae Christi Domini secundum carnem, futuri status participium consequimur: utpole qui ex haeeadem natura eonstetexortus, ei cuncta, quae fuerant naturaee, susceperit; et ideo sustinuerit mortem, ut mortem naturae suscipiens, eta mortuis resurgens, naturam liberam morte perficeret.\n\nEt mortem quidem propterea suscepit, peccatum vero nequaquam, sed ab hoc immunis permansit omnino. Quod enim erat naturae, id est, mortem, indubitanter assumpsit; peccatum vero, quod non erat naturae, sed voluntatis, nullo pacto suscepit. e Quod si fuisset in natura peecatum, jaxta sapientissimi hujus eloquium, peccatum in natura prorsus existens, necessario suscepisset.","english":"For just as we have all been made conformable to Adam according to the present state, so we shall be made conformable to Christ the Lord [Baluz. according to the flesh] in the future: For He will transfigure the body of our humility to be made conformable to the body of His glory (Phil. 3:21); and, As is the earthly one, so are the earthly ones; and as is the heavenly one, 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 and 49): showing that, having been made partakers of the first state of Adam, we necessarily also obtain participation in the future state of the second Adam, Christ the Lord, according to the flesh: as one who, having arisen from this same nature, took up everything that was of the nature; and therefore endured death, so that, by taking up the death of the nature and rising from the dead, he might perfect the nature free from death.\n\nAnd he took up death indeed for this reason, 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 one, sin existing entirely in nature, he would necessarily have taken it up.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Phil. iii, 21","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Phil. iii, 21' corresponds to Philippians 3:21, but the Vulgate has only 3:20-21 as a single verse; the reference likely conflates Phil. 3:20-21.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"1 Cor. xv et 49","severity":"info","text":"The citation '1 Cor. xv et 49' is ambiguous: 1 Corinthians 15 has no verse 49; it may refer to a lost verse or a conflation with another passage, possibly 1 Cor. 15:49 in a non-standard enumeration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conformes","severity":"info","text":"'Conformes' (conformable) is a key Pauline term (cf. Rom. 8:29, Phil. 3:21) used here to express the idea of being made like Christ in the resurrection body, central to Theodore's soteriology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum carnem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'secundum carnem' (according to the flesh) is a gloss by Baluze, indicating a textual insertion; it reflects Theodore's emphasis on Christ's human nature as the basis for our future conformity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a logical argument: first, a parallel between Adam and Christ (conformity in present and future states), then a distinction between death (natural) and sin (volitional), concluding that Christ assumed death but not sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Marius Mercator cites this passage to refute Theodore's Christology, particularly the claim that Christ was free from sin but not from death, which Mercator sees as undermining the unity of Christ's person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture reference '1 Cor. xv et 49' is unclear; no standard verse 49 exists in 1 Corinthians 15, possibly a scribal error or a reference to a non-canonical text.","The phrase 'secundum carnem' is a later editorial insertion by Baluze, and its original context in Theodore's text is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"EXCERPTUM TERTIUM THEODORI\n\nDe codice secundo ex libro tertio, folio decimo octavo.\n\nSi, inquit, peccaturum Deus vere sciebat Adam, sit norum saplentissimoram [Baluz, add. ei] ista responsio, quod hoc insanissimum est, vel in cogitatione percipere, manifestum est, quod et peccaturum eum noverat, et propter hoc procul dubio moriturum. Quomodo ergo non est extremae dementiae credere quod primitus eum a immortalem in sex horas [Baluz. horis] fecerit (nam tantae fuerunt a conditione ejus usque ad commissionem, quandoquidem sexto die factus e terra, et comedens contra divinum mandatum, de paradiso pulsus est), mortalem vero post peccatum monstraverit?\n\nCertum est enim, quia si eum immortalem esse voluisset, ne ipsum quidem intercedens [Baluz. nec intercedens] peccatum Dei sententiam commutasset; quia nec diabolum fecit ex immortali mortalem, et quidem cunctorum malorum existentem principium.","english":"THIRD EXCERPT OF THEODORE\n\nFrom the second codex, out of the third book, folio eighteen.\n\nIf, he says, God truly knew that Adam would sin, let this response be given to those most wise men [Baluz. adds: to him], that it is utterly insane even to conceive of this; it is manifest that He both knew he would sin, and because of this, without doubt, that he would die. How, then, is it not the height of madness to believe that He first made him immortal for 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), but after the sin showed him to be mortal?\n\nFor it is certain that if He had wished him to be immortal, not even the intervening sin would have changed God’s sentence; because He did not make the devil from immortal to mortal, and he indeed is the origin of all evils.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Tertium Theodori","severity":"info","text":"This is the third of three excerpts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, drawn from a second codex of his third book, folio 18. The passage is a continuous argument against the notion that God made Adam immortal for only six hours.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"norum saplentissimoram","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin is corrupt: 'norum saplentissimoram' likely represents a Greek genitive plural (τῶν σοφωτάτων) misread or mis-copied. Baluzius adds 'ei', yielding 'sit norum saplentissimoram ei ista responsio', i.e., 'let this response be given to those most wise men'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"in sex horas","severity":"info","text":"The six-hour interval from Adam's creation to his sin is derived from a literal reading of Genesis 1–3, where Adam is created on the sixth day and sins the same day. This detail is a patristic commonplace, not original to Theodore.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"diabolum ... ex immortali mortalem","severity":"info","text":"Theodore argues that God did not make the devil mortal after his fall, implying the devil remained immortal. This counters the idea that Adam's sin could change God's decree, and reflects Theodore's anti-Manichaean insistence on the stability of divine will.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz.","severity":"info","text":"The edition by Étienne Baluze (Baluzius) supplies conjectural emendations, here adding 'ei' and correcting 'horas' to 'horis'. His interventions are noted in the margin and reflect the textual difficulties of the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"intercedens","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ne ipsum quidem intercedens peccatum' is problematic. Baluzius reads 'nec intercedens', i.e., 'not even the intervening sin'. The sense is that sin does not alter God's prior decision, but the Latin syntax is strained.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'norum saplentissimoram' is a corrupt transliteration of Greek; the exact intended reading is uncertain. Baluzius's emendation is plausible but not certain.","The clause 'ne ipsum quidem intercedens peccatum' may be missing a negative or have a scribal error; the translation follows Baluzius's 'nec intercedens'."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"EXCERPTUM QUARTUM THEODORI\n\nSecundo codice ex libro tertio, folio vigesimo quinto.\n\nNon enim, inquit, his qui ab Adam usque ad adventum Christi Domini in tantis fuerunt impietatibus et iniquitatibus quantas beatus Paulos propriis verbis expressit, ut in superioribus ex ejus declaratum vocibus, tamquam magnum quiddam resurrectionis collaturus est praemium, si eos suppliciis quibusdam sine fine et sine correctione tradiderit. Nam ubi jam loco muneris resurrecti(??) putabitur [Baluz. computabitur], si poena sine correctione resurgentibus inferatur?\n\nEt 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, sub infinitis poenis experientiam sustinere?","english":"FOURTH EXCERPT OF THEODORE\n\nFrom the second codex, out of the third book, folio twenty-five.\n\nFor, he says, He would not bestow the great prize of resurrection upon those who, from Adam up to the coming of Christ the Lord, were in such great impieties and iniquities as the blessed Paul expressed in his own words, as has been declared from his utterances in the foregoing, if He were to hand them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will the resurrection be considered in the place of a reward, if punishment without correction is inflicted upon those who rise?\n\nAnd a little later. Who, he says, is so insane as to believe that such a good thing becomes the material of infinite punishment for those who rise, for whom it would have been more useful not to rise at all, than to undergo, after the resurrection, the experience of such great and such evils under infinite penalties?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Quartum Theodori","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the fourth excerpt of Theodore, taken from the second codex, third book, folio 25, continuing the sequence of extracts from Theodore's works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"resurrectionis collaturus est praemium","severity":"info","text":"Theodore argues that the resurrection would not be a reward if it leads to eternal punishment without correction, challenging the notion of divine justice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"beatus Paulos propriis verbis expressit","severity":"info","text":"Theodore references the apostle Paul's own words describing the impieties and iniquities from Adam to Christ, likely alluding to passages such as Romans 1-2 or Galatians 3.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"poena sine correctione","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's view that eternal punishment without correction is unjust reflects his anti-Origenist stance, opposing the idea of apokatastasis and emphasizing the finality of damnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Marius Mercator","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator compiled these excerpts to refute Theodore's teachings, which were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"resurrecti(??) putabitur","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has a corruption: 'resurrecti(??) putabitur' is uncertain; Baluze emends to 'computabitur', but the original reading is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'resurrecti(??) putabitur' is corrupt; the intended verb may be 'computabitur' (will be considered) or another term.","The exact Pauline reference is not specified; it is implied from earlier excerpts."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]}]}