{"slug":"tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1","title":"Collectio Secunda","title_source":"Collectio Secunda","author":"Anonymous","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":"2026-11-15T06:31:26Z","cost_usd":0.007277},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp783.tmp783.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/tmp783/tmp783/tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":14,"english_words":3204,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":12621,"commentary_units":83,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":8,"ambiguities":25,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Collectio Secunda is an anonymous early medieval Latin canonical collection of church law, compiled in Gaul or Italy between the late 5th and early 6th centuries. It assembles conciliar canons and papal decretals, drawing on sources up to the early 6th century. The work survives in a single 9th-century manuscript (Bibliothèque nationale de France) with marginal corrections and annotations. Its compiler and scriptorium remain unknown, and its place of origin is debated. The collection influenced later canonical compilations, including the Collectio Vetus Gallica and the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. This edition lacks a full critical apparatus of variant readings.","historical_context":"The Collectio Secunda was compiled in the post-Roman West, likely in Gaul or Italy, during a period of political fragmentation and ecclesiastical consolidation after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 CE). The latest cited sources point to the late 5th or early 6th century, before the widespread use of later conciliar material (e.g., from the 6th-century Councils of Orléans). The work reflects the growing need for systematic church law in Latin Christendom, drawing on earlier conciliar canons (e.g., from Nicaea, Chalcedon) and papal decretals (e.g., from Leo I). It survives in a single 9th-century manuscript, copied in Carolingian scriptoria, with marginal corrections indicating ongoing use. The collection's anonymity and debated provenance (Gaul vs. Italy) reflect the fluid transmission of canonical texts in this period. It was later used by compilers of the Collectio Vetus Gallica (c. 600–700) and the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals (9th century), showing its enduring influence.","significance":"The Collectio Secunda is a key witness to the development of early medieval canon law, bridging late antique conciliar traditions and Carolingian legal reforms. Its use by later compilers like the Collectio Vetus Gallica and Pseudo-Isidore underscores its role in shaping Western ecclesiastical jurisprudence. The work also highlights the challenges of textual transmission, as it survives in a single manuscript with marginal corrections, offering insights into scribal practices and legal interpretation in the early Middle Ages.","timeline":[{"date":"Late 5th–early 6th c.","event":"Compilation of the Collectio Secunda, likely in Gaul or Italy, drawing on conciliar canons and papal decretals up to the early 6th century."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Surviving manuscript copied in a Carolingian scriptorium, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, with marginal corrections and annotations."},{"date":"c. 600–700","event":"Use of the Collectio Secunda as a source for the Collectio Vetus Gallica, a major early medieval canonical collection."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Influence on the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, a forged canonical collection that shaped medieval church law."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Scholarly study of the manuscript, with debates over dating, provenance, and authorship."}],"relations":[{"work":"Collectio Vetus Gallica","relation":"source for","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian decretals","relation":"source for","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Conciliar canons (e.g., Nicaea, Chalcedon)","relation":"draws on","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Papal decretals (e.g., Leo I)","relation":"draws on","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Dating is uncertain; internal evidence suggests late 5th to early 6th century, but this is debated.","Authorship and place of origin are unknown and conjectural; attribution to a specific scriptorium is not possible.","The work survives in a single manuscript, limiting textual evidence and requiring caution in reconstructing the original.","This edition lacks a full critical apparatus of variant readings; users should consult the manuscript for textual cruces."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000511,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:31:25Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp783/tmp783/tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp783.tmp783.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":14,"translated":14,"commentary_passages":14,"commentary_units":83,"english_words":3204,"source_letters":12621,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Collectio Secunda is a canonical collection of early medieval Latin church law, compiled in Gaul or Italy, drawing on conciliar canons and papal decretals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives in a single manuscript, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, copied in the 9th century, with marginal corrections and annotations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Dating is uncertain; internal evidence suggests compilation between the late 5th and early 6th century, based on the latest cited sources and absence of later conciliar material.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Collectio Secunda was used as a source by later canonical compilers, including the Collectio Vetus Gallica and the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not include a full apparatus of variant readings from the manuscript; users should consult the critical apparatus for textual cruces.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Attribution to a specific author or scriptorium is conjectural; the work is anonymous and its place of origin remains debated among scholars.","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":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"8 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":14},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"COLLECTIO SECUNDA,\n\nCujus hic apuo Mercatorem titulus: De diversis Nestorii libris vel tractatibus Excerpta ab episcopo Cyrillo capitula, ex Graeco a nobis, Nestorii in Latinum versa.\n\nDe codice confecto, quatemione xxvi. Inter coetera: Oportet nosse nos; modo enim venio in recordationem concilii Nicaeni, quod nusquam ausum est dicere quia Verbum Deus natum est ex virgine Maria; ait enim: Credimus in unum Patrem omnipotentem, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum. Attendite quia prius cum posuisset Christum, quod duarum naturarum conjunctionem demonstrat, non dixerunt in u(??)um Deum Verbum, sed acceperunt nomen, quod significaret utrumque, ut non subdescendendo, cum audis mortem, ulla novitate turberis, et cum crucifixum et sepultum, tamquam Deitate ista patiente, non vulnereris auditu. Deinde videamus, quid illi subjungant: Credimus et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum unigenitum, qui de Deo Patre natus est, consubstantivum Patri, qui propter nos descendit, et incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto. Non dixerunt, quia natus est de Spiritu sancto. Vides quemadmodum interpretentur subdescendendo, quia dixerunt, hominem factum. Hunc, inquiunt, dicimus incarnatum, non mutabilitatem in carne suscipiente divina natura, sed inhabitationem, quam gessit in homine demonstrantes.","english":"Second Collection,\n\nWhich here bears the title in Mercator: *Chapters excerpted from various books or treatises of Nestorius by Bishop Cyril, translated by us from Greek into Latin, of Nestorius*.\n\nFrom a codex composed of twenty-six quires. Among other things: We must know ourselves; for I now come to a recollection of the Council of Nicaea, which never dared to say that the Word God was born of the Virgin Mary; for it says: We believe in one Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ. Note that when they had first set down Christ, which demonstrates the conjunction of two natures, they did not say in one God Word, but they took the name that signified both, so that, by descending, when you hear of death, you would not be disturbed by any novelty, and when you hear of the crucified and buried, you would not be wounded in your hearing, as if the Deity itself were suffering. Then let us see what they add: We believe also in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, who was born of God the Father, consubstantial with the Father, who descended for us and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit. They did not say that he was born of the Holy Spirit. You see how they interpret by descending, because they said, made man. This one, they say, we call incarnate, not indicating a changeability in the divine nature by taking on flesh, but the inhabitation which he carried out in man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Collectio Secunda","severity":"info","text":"The title and note indicate this is a Latin translation of excerpts from Nestorius made by Cyril, preserved in a codex of 26 quires, likely from the 5th–6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"subdescendendo","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'subdescendendo' (literally 'descending under') is a technical term used by Nestorius to describe a downward shift in reference from divine to human attributes, avoiding the attribution of human experiences to the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Credimus in unum Patrem omnipotentem, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum","severity":"info","text":"This is a quotation of the Nicene Creed (325), specifically the opening lines, which Nestorius uses to argue that the creed avoids calling Mary 'Theotokos' by using 'Christ' to denote both natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"conjunctionem duarum naturarum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase reflects Nestorius' Christology, which emphasized the conjunction (synapheia) of two natures in Christ, as opposed to Cyril's miaphysite union. This was a central point of controversy at the Council of Ephesus (431).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Mercatorem","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'Mercator' likely points to the Latin writer Marius Mercator, a contemporary of Cyril and Nestorius, who translated and transmitted Nestorian texts in the West, shaping later Latin Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"u(??)um","severity":"caution","text":"The text has a corrupt reading 'u(??)um', likely intended as 'unum' (one), but the brackets indicate a lacuna or illegible character in the manuscript, affecting the precise reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'subdescendendo' may be a calque from Greek, but its exact nuance in Nestorius' argument is debated; the translation takes it as a rhetorical descent in reference.","The phrase 'de Spiritu sancto' in the creed quotation is ambiguous: Nestorius interprets it as 'by the Holy Spirit' (instrumental), not 'from the Holy Spirit' (genitive of origin), to avoid implying the Spirit fathered Christ."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Et post aliquanta in eodem. Hoc retinete, inquit, quoniam praetermittentes dicere: Credimus in Deum Verbum Filium ejus unigenitum; dixerunt: Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum consubstantivum Patri, Deum verum de Deo vero, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui propter nos homines et nostram salutem descendit, atque incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Nusquam dixerunt, natus est. Cur, putamus? Ut nun duas nativitates introducerent Deitatis.\n\nItem in eodem post aliquanta. Volens liquido demonstrare, quod cum Filii nomen ponitur, non omnimodo verbum illud significet, quod Deus est, sed tamquam commune nomen introducatur. Sic enim Scriptura dicit: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege (Gal. iv, 4). Hic quidem duas demonstrat naturas; quod autem tantum circa hominem contigit, narrat: exige certe a contentioso quis sub lege sit factus, Verbum Deus? nequaquam.","english":"And after some things in the same. \"Hold this,\" he says, \"because, omitting to say: 'We believe in God the Word, His only-begotten Son,' they said: 'We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father, true God from true God, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.' Nowhere did they say, 'was born.' Why, do we think? So that they might not introduce two nativities of the Deity.\"\n\nLikewise in the same after some things. Wishing to show clearly that when the name \"Son\" is posited, it does not by any means signify that word which is God, but is introduced as a common name. For Scripture says thus: \"God sent His Son, made from a woman, made under the law\" (Gal. 4:4). Here indeed it demonstrates two natures; but what happened only concerning the man, it narrates: ask certainly of a contentious person, \"Who was made under the law, the Word God?\" By no means.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post aliquanta in eodem. Hoc retinete, inquit","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a continuous excerpt from a single work, with two sections introduced by 'Et post aliquanta in eodem' and 'Item in eodem post aliquanta', indicating a compilation of extracts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege (Gal. iv, 4)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Galatians 4:4 is adapted to the argument: the biblical text (Gal 4:4) actually reads 'factum sub lege' but the original Greek has 'made under law' referring to Christ's human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"nativitates","severity":"info","text":"The term 'nativitates' (nativities) is central to the anti-Nestorian polemic: Nestorius is accused of introducing two births of the deity, which the Nicene Creed avoids by using 'incarnatus est' rather than 'natus est'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum consubstantivum Patri","severity":"info","text":"The quoted creedal formula is a Latin version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, emphasizing 'consubstantial' (homoousios) and the incarnation from the Holy Spirit and Mary, a standard anti-Nestorian touchstone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hoc retinete, inquit","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Hoc retinete' (Hold this) frames the passage as a polemical instruction, typical of Cyril of Alexandria's style in his florilegia against Nestorius, as transmitted in the Collectio Secunda.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'exige certe a contentioso' is ambiguous: it may mean 'ask certainly of a contentious person' or 'demand from a contentious person'.","The phrase 'nusquam dixerunt, natus est' could be read as a claim that the Nicene Creed never uses 'natus est' of Christ, but the creed does use 'natum' in some versions; the point is rhetorical."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Item ex codice altero, in quaternione primo, cujus initium tale est: Adhuc vobis mulla habeo dicere. Et post aliquanta. Illic Unigeniti glorificatio aliquando quidem Patri deputatur, sicut est illud: Pater est meus, qui me glorificat (Joan, viii, 54); aliquando vero Spiritui deputatur; ait enim: Spiritus veritatis qui me glorificabit (Joan. xvi, 13); nonnumquam vero Christi potentiae assignatur, sicut scriptum est: Exeuntes proedicabant Verbum ubique Domino cooperante, et Verbum confirmante, consequentibus eos signis\n\nItem in quaternione octavo de dictis Epistolae: Apostoli ad Hebraeos. Apostoli enim nomen in Christo audientes, Deum Verbum male intelligunt, apostolum esse. Item legentes pontificis vocabulum, Deum' esse imaginantur pontificem, mira dementia; quis enim apostoli officium audiens, non statim videat hominem demonstrari? Quis summi sacerdotis nomen audiens, Divinitatis naturam ad sacerdotis ministerium vocet? Si enim Deus pontifex est, quis erit qui officio ejus debeat coli? Si Deus oblaturus est sacrificia tamquam pontifex, nullus erit cui offerantur Deus; quid enim dignum jam Divinitate est, si tamquam inferior offerat sacrificia superiori?","english":"Also from another codex, in the first quaternion, whose beginning is: \"I still have many things to say to you.\" And after some things. There the glorification of the Only-begotten is sometimes attributed to the Father, as in: \"It is my Father who glorifies me\" (John 8:54); sometimes it is attributed to the Spirit, for it says: \"The Spirit of truth who will glorify me\" (John 16:13); and sometimes it is assigned to the power of Christ, as it is written: \"Going out, they preached the Word everywhere, with the Lord cooperating, and the Word confirming, with signs following them.\"\n\nAlso in the eighth quaternion, from the sayings of the Epistle: The Apostle to the Hebrews. For hearing the name \"apostle\" in Christ, they misunderstand the Word of God to be an apostle. Also, reading the term \"pontiff,\" they imagine God to be a pontiff, with remarkable madness; for who, hearing the office of apostle, does not immediately see that a man is indicated? Who, hearing the name of high priest, would call the nature of the Divinity to the ministry of a priest? For if God is a pontiff, who will be the one who ought to be worshipped by his office? If God is to offer sacrifices as a pontiff, there will be no one to whom they are offered to God; for what is already worthy of the Divinity, if as an inferior he offers sacrifices to a superior?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item ex codice altero, in quaternione primo","severity":"info","text":"The passage is introduced as a second excerpt from a different manuscript, within a quaternion whose incipit is given, indicating a compilation of extracts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater est meus, qui me glorificat (Joan, viii, 54)","severity":"info","text":"The first citation is John 8:54, where Jesus speaks of the Father glorifying him, used to illustrate attribution to the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus veritatis qui me glorificabit (Joan. xvi, 13)","severity":"info","text":"The second citation is John 16:13, referring to the Spirit of truth glorifying Christ, used to illustrate attribution to the Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"apostoli","severity":"info","text":"The term 'apostle' is argued to denote a human office, not applicable to the divine Word, as misunderstanding leads to heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"pontificis","severity":"info","text":"The term 'pontiff' (high priest) is argued to be a human ministry, not fitting for the divine nature, as it would imply subordination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistolae: Apostoli ad Hebraeos","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews (traditionally attributed to Paul) is used to critique those who misinterpret Christ's titles as implying human offices.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a compilation of excerpts; the original Coptic context and the identity of the 'alter codex' are not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Et subjungit: Unde igitur eis Deus appellandus pontifex visus est, qui [Baluz. quia] sacrificio, secundum sacerdotii ritum, ad provectum suum omnino non indiget; perpetuae quippe possessor est Divinitatis: Ex hominibus nempe electus atque susceptus pontifex pro hominibus constituitur apud Deum, etc. (Heb. v, 1).\n\nEt subjungit: Non angelos, inquit, apprehendit, sed semen Abrahoe (Heb. ii, 16). Numquid semen Abrahae est Deitas? Audite consequentem etiam vocem: Unde debuit per omnia fratribus similis fieri (Ibid., 17). Numquid Deitati? Quos enim Deus Verbum habere potuit fratres similes sui? Respice etiam quod his dictis adjungitur: Ut misericors fieret et fidetis pontifex ad Deum, in eo enim in quo passus est et ipse tentatus, potest et his qui tentantur auxilium ferre (Ibid., 18). Qui igitur passus est, ille est pontifex misericors; passibile autem templum est, non hic qui ejus vivificator est, Deus. Semen Abrahae is est, qui heri est, et hodie (Heb. xiii, 8), secundum Pauli apostoli vocem; non ille qui dixit: Antequam Abraham esset, ego sum (Joan. viii, 58). Similis hic fratribus per omnia, qui humanae animae corporisque suscepit fraternitatem (Hebr. ii, 17), non ille qui dixit: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem meum (Joan. xiv, 9).","english":"And he adds: Whence, therefore, did God seem to them to be called a pontiff, who [Baluz. because] by sacrifice, according to the rite of the priesthood, has no need at all for his own advancement; for he is the perpetual possessor of the Divinity: For a pontiff chosen and taken from among men is constituted for men before God, etc. (Heb. v, 1).\n\nAnd he adds: He did not apprehend angels, he says, but the seed of Abraham (Heb. ii, 16). Is the seed of Abraham the Deity? Hear also the following voice: Whence he had to become similar to his brothers in all things (Ibid., 17). Is that for the Deity? For what brothers similar to himself could God the Word have? Consider also what is joined to these words: That he might become a merciful and faithful pontiff before God, for in that in which he himself suffered and was tempted, he is able to bring aid to those who are tempted (Ibid., 18). Therefore, he who suffered is the merciful pontiff; but the temple that suffered is not he who is its life-giver, God. The seed of Abraham is he who is yesterday and today (Heb. xiii, 8), according to the voice of the apostle Paul; not he who said: Before Abraham was, I am (John viii, 58). He is similar to his brothers in all things, who undertook the brotherhood of a human soul and body (Heb. ii, 17), not he who said: He who sees me sees also my Father (John xiv, 9).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Heb. v, 1","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Heb. v, 1' refers to Hebrews 5:1, though the quoted text does not match that verse exactly; it may be a loose paraphrase or a conflation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Heb. ii, 16","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Heb. ii, 16' refers to Hebrews 2:16, which in the Vulgate reads 'non enim angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Heb. xiii, 8","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Heb. xiii, 8' refers to Hebrews 13:8, which in the Vulgate reads 'Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John viii, 58","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'John viii, 58' refers to John 8:58, where Jesus says 'antequam Abraham esset, ego sum'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"John xiv, 9","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'John xiv, 9' refers to John 14:9, where Jesus says 'qui me videt, videt et Patrem meum'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz.","severity":"caution","text":"The annotation 'Baluz.' indicates a variant reading from the edition of Étienne Baluze, who emended 'qui' to 'quia' in the first sentence; the original manuscript reading is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Unde igitur eis Deus appellandus pontifex visus est' is ambiguous: it may mean 'Whence did God seem to them to be called a pontiff' or 'Why did God seem to them to be called a pontiff'.","The citation 'Heb. v, 1' does not correspond exactly to any known verse; it may be a misattribution or a loose reference."],"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":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Item in quaternione decimo nono, cum velut adversus Arium diceret. Et isti quidem, tametsi majore paterna Deitate Verbum Deum minorem delirent, non tamen novellum fatentur. Hi autem eum etiam beatae Mariae secundum et posteriorem esse pronuntiant, et temporalem matrem opifice majorem Divinitate consignanta; quinimmo nec matrem Christi esse concedunt; si enim non hominis natura, sed Deus Verbum erat quem illa pariebat; quae peperit, nequaquam ejus mater qui natus est invenitur. Quomodo enim fiet ejus aliqua mater qui a natura genitricis est alienus? Quod si vera mater ab iis appellatur, homo ergo qui editus non Divinitatis a natura, est siquidem proprium omnis est matris consubstantivum sibimet parere. Ergo non erit mater, quae consubstantivum sibi minime peperit; quae mater quia ab his dicitur, eum qui secundum substantiam fuit [B. sui esset] similis, genuit. Quis autem secundum substantiam ejus erit similis? Is sine dubio qui Spiritus sancti opificio exstitit. Quod enim in ea natum est, inquit Scriptura, de Spiritu sancto est, cum quo indesinenter erat Verbum Deus [Buluz. om. Verbum Deus). Verbum Deus non est natus ex Maria, sed in illo qui ex ea natus manens. Non ex Virgine initium habens, sed illi qui crescendo per meases paulatim compositus in utero Virginis est inseparabiliter omni tempore sociatus.","english":"Likewise in the nineteenth quaternion, as if speaking against Arius: And these indeed, although they rave that the Word God is lesser by the greater paternal Deity, yet they do not confess him to be new. But these declare him also to be second and posterior to the blessed Mary, and that a temporal mother is greater than the maker, by the Divinity she bears witness to; nay more, they do not even grant that she is the mother of Christ; for if it was not a human nature, but the Word God, whom she was bearing, then she who gave birth is by no means found to be the mother of him who was born. For how can anyone be the mother of him who is alien from the nature of a mother? But if she is truly called mother by them, then the one brought forth is a man, not from the nature of the Divinity, since it is proper to every mother to give birth to something consubstantial with herself. Therefore she will not be a mother, who has not given birth to something consubstantial with herself; because she is called mother by them, she gave birth to one who was similar according to substance. But who will be similar to him according to substance? That one, without doubt, who came to be by the workmanship of the Holy Spirit. For what was born in her, says Scripture, is from the Holy Spirit, with whom the Word God was incessantly present. The Word God was not born from Mary, but remained in that which was born from her. Not having his beginning from the Virgin, but was inseparably associated at all times with that which was gradually composed in the womb of the Virgin, growing through the months.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternione decimo nono","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'in the nineteenth quaternion' indicates a structural division of the source manuscript, likely a gathering of folios, used to organize the argument against Arian views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"consubstantivum","severity":"info","text":"The term 'consubstantivum' (consubstantial) is a key theological term from the Nicene Creed, used here to argue that Mary must have given birth to something of the same substance as herself, i.e., a human, not the divine Word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritu sancto","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'quod enim in ea natum est, inquit Scriptura, de Spiritu sancto est' echoes New Testament passages such as Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, referring to the Holy Spirit's role in the Incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Arium","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Arius situates this passage in the context of 4th-century Arian controversy, where Arius argued that the Son was created and not co-eternal with the Father, opposing the Nicene orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"beatae Mariae","severity":"info","text":"The argument about Mary as mother of Christ reflects later Christological debates, particularly the Nestorian controversy, which distinguished between the human and divine natures of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Verbum Deus","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Verbum Deus' is omitted in Baluz. (Baluze's edition), indicating a textual variant or corruption; the English draft includes it, but the Latin source may be uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'secundum et posteriorem' could mean 'second and later' in time or rank, leaving ambiguity about the precise nature of the subordination being criticized.","The identity of 'Hi autem' (these) is not specified; it may refer to a specific group like the Arians or a later heretical faction."],"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":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Aliud est autem dicere: Ille qui natus est commanet; et aliud, illum qui nato commanet, hunc esse qui, ut nasceretur, mensium ei opus fuisset curriculo.\n\nItem ex alio tractatu, quaternione decimo quinto [B. vigesimo]. Hunc, inquit, Jesum suscitavit Deus, non est mortuus Deus, sed suscitavit. Apollinaris, audi Petri apostoli dicta, audi et tu in [B. cum] Apollinari impietas Ariana. Hunc Jesum suscitavit Deus (Act. x, 40), qui visibilis oculis apparuit; hunc qui ligno crucifixus [B. confixus] est; hunc qui Thomae palpatus est manibus, qui ad eum clamavit: Palpate et videte [B. Palpa et vide], quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere (Luc. xxiv, 39); et his dictis discipulus credens, palpatoque eo, de carnis quae crucifixa est resurrectione certior factus, mirandorum glorificabat opificem Deum, dicens: Dominus meus et Deus meus (Joan. xx, 28); non utique illud quod palpaverat appellans Deum.","english":"It is one thing, however, to say: He who was born remains; and another, that he who remains with the born one is the same one who, in order to be born, would have needed the course of months.\n\nLikewise from another treatise, in the fifteenth quaternion [B. twentieth]. This Jesus, he says, God raised up; God did not die, but raised. Apollinaris, hear the words of the apostle Peter; hear also, with Apollinaris, the Arian impiety. This Jesus God raised up (Acts 10:40), who appeared visible to the eyes; this one who was nailed to the wood; this one who was touched by Thomas’s hands, who cried out to him: Touch and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me have (Luke 24:39); and with these words the disciple, believing, and having touched him, being made more certain of the resurrection of the flesh which was crucified, glorified the wondrous maker God, saying: My Lord and my God (John 20:28); not, of course, calling that which he had touched God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item ex alio tractatu, quaternione decimo quinto [B. vigesimo]","severity":"info","text":"The passage is introduced as from another treatise, with a quaternion number given as fifteenth in the main text but corrected to twentieth in a variant (B). This indicates a textual variant in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hunc Jesum suscitavit Deus (Act. x, 40)","severity":"info","text":"The citation Acts 10:40 is used to argue that the risen Jesus is the same as the crucified one, countering Apollinarian and Arian views that distinguish the divine from the human Jesus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Palpate et videte [B. Palpa et vide], quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere (Luc. xxiv, 39)","severity":"info","text":"Luke 24:39 is quoted with a variant reading (Palpate vs. Palpa), emphasizing the physicality of the resurrected body against docetic or spiritualizing interpretations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominus meus et Deus meus (Joan. xx, 28)","severity":"info","text":"John 20:28 is cited as Thomas's confession, but the author insists that Thomas did not call the palpable flesh 'God', thus distinguishing the human Jesus from the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Apollinaris","severity":"info","text":"Apollinaris of Laodicea taught that Christ had a human body but a divine mind, denying a human soul. The text opposes this view by affirming the full humanity of Jesus, including his physical resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"impietas Ariana","severity":"info","text":"Arianism held that the Son was a created being, subordinate to the Father. The text associates Apollinaris with Arian impiety, likely because both were seen as diminishing the full divinity or humanity of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The quaternion number is uncertain: the main text reads 'decimo quinto' (fifteenth), but a variant (B) reads 'vigesimo' (twentieth). The English draft follows the variant.","The phrase 'Palpate et videte' has a variant 'Palpa et vide' (B), which may reflect different manuscript traditions or scribal corrections."],"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":"Item in quaternione vigesimo nono. Paulus narrat et incarnatam essentiam, et incarnatae Deitatis post unitionem incommutabilitatem manentem, propter quod et scribens clamat: Hoc sentite in vobis quod et in Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, formam servi accepit (Philipp. ii, 5). Sed accipiens Apostolus nomen hoc quod est, Christus, tamquam duarum naturarum significativum vocabulum, absque periculo eum et servi formam accepisse, et Deum nuncupat irreprehensibiliter, his divisis quae ad naturam duplicem significandam dicuntur.\n\nEt post plura, in eodem libro. Nostra enim natura pro nobis interpellat in Christi usu tamquam vestis constituta, inculpabilis originis suae defensionibus nitens, et quia illud peccatum, qui prior figuratus est, totius generis exstitit causa, huic suscipiendi hominis, o homo, occasio fuit, ut per carnem destrueretur corruptio quae per carnem contigerat. Hujus camis est, non Divinitatis, diei tertiae sepultura. Hujus pedes detenti sunt clavis; hanc sanctus Spiritus in utero figuravit, de hac Dominus ad Judaeos: Solvite, dicebat, templum hoc, et in triduo suscitabo illud (Joan. ii, 19). Numquid ego duplicem quemdam Christum solus appello, et non semetipsum, et templum solubile, et Deum se nuncupat suscitantem?","english":"Likewise in the twenty-ninth quaternion. Paul relates both an incarnate essence and the enduring immutability of the incarnate Deity after the union, on account of which he also writes, crying out: \"Think this in yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus, who, when he was established in the form of God, took the form of a servant\" (Phil. 2:5). But the Apostle, taking this name which is \"Christ\" as a term significant of two natures, without danger both says that he took the form of a servant and calls him God irreprehensibly, when these things which are said to signify the twofold nature are distinguished.\n\nAnd after many things, in the same book. For our nature intercedes for us in the use of Christ, established as a garment, relying on the defenses of its blameless origin, and because that sin, which was first figured, was the cause of the whole race, this was the occasion for the taking up of the man, O man, so that through the flesh the corruption which had come through the flesh might be destroyed. It is of this flesh, not of the Divinity, that the burial on the third day belongs. The feet of this flesh were held by nails; this flesh the Holy Spirit formed in the womb; concerning this flesh the Lord said to the Jews: \"Loose this temple, and in three days I will raise it up\" (John 2:19). Do I alone call Christ a certain twofold being, and does he not himself call himself both a soluble temple and God who raises it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philipp. ii, 5","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Phil 2:5-6 (Vulgate numbering) is used to support the two-nature Christology. The Latin text conflates the verse with the phrase 'formam servi accepit'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. ii, 19","severity":"info","text":"The citation of John 2:19 (Vulgate) is adapted to argue for Christ as both a soluble temple and the raising God, a key point in the author's anti-Apollinarian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternione vigesimo nono","severity":"info","text":"The 'twenty-ninth quaternion' indicates a specific gathering of folios in the source manuscript, used to structure the collection. This suggests a careful archival arrangement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Apollinaris","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the anti-Apollinarian polemic from the previous passage, arguing against the view that Christ's divinity was mutable or that the incarnation compromised his divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item in quaternione vigesimo nono","severity":"info","text":"This passage is introduced as a new excerpt from the same work, following the pattern of the Collectio Secunda of compiling extracts from various treatises.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post plura, in eodem libro","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Et post plura' indicates a lacuna in the excerpt; the compiler has omitted intervening material, which may affect the continuity of the argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'inculpabilis originis suae defensionibus nitens' is ambiguous: it may mean 'relying on the defenses of its blameless origin' or 'striving with the defenses of its blameless origin'; the translation adopts the former.","The reference to 'diei tertiae sepultura' (burial on the third day) is ambiguous: it could refer to the third day after the crucifixion or a symbolic third day; the context suggests the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Quod si Deus erat qui solvebatur, o Ariane, quod sane in ejus caput e blasphemiarum convertatur, oportuerat dicere: Solvite Deum istum, et in triduo suscitabitur; si mortuus est Deus, si sepulturae mandatos est, inane illud in Evangelio dictum: Quid me quaeritis occidere, hominem qui verum locutus sum (??)bis (Joan. viii, 40)? Nunc autem ait: Quid me quaeritis accidere, hominem, cujus capiti spinea corona superposita est; hominem qui dicit: Deus, Deus meus, quare dereliquisti me (Matth. xxvii, 46)? et qui triduanam sustinuit mortem. Adora autem hunc cum Deitate, tamquam divinae cooperarium auctoritatis.\n\nItem post aliquanta in eodem. Colo, inquit, eum, tamquam onmipotentis imaginem: Exaltavit eum Deus, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu Christi omne gemi flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Jesus in gloria est Dei Patris (Philipp. ii, 9); propter utentem, id que ille utitur adoro; propter latentem colo quod foris pa(??)et, et in eo qui inseparabilis est non separo dignitatem, sed separo naturas, et conjungo reverentiam. Non per seipsum Deus est quod depositurum [Bal. depositum] est in sepulcro; sic enim essemus hominis, et hominis mortui, manifesti cultores. Sed quoniam in assumpto Deus ex assumente qui assumptus est tamquam ex assumente [B.","english":"If it were God who was being taken down, O Arian—may that turn back upon his own head from the blasphemies—he ought to have said: \"Take down this God, and on the third day he will be raised\"; if God died, if he was buried, then that saying in the Gospel is empty: \"Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth\" (John 8:40)? But now he says: \"Why do you seek to kill me, a man whose head has been crowned with thorns; a man who says: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46); and who endured a three-day death.\" But worship this one together with the Deity, as a co-worker of divine authority.\n\nLikewise a little later in the same. \"I venerate him,\" he says, \"as the image of the Almighty: God exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name, so that in the name of Jesus Christ every knee bends—of the celestial, terrestrial, and infernal beings—and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9); on account of the user, I adore that which he uses; on account of the hidden one, I venerate what is outwardly manifest, and in him who is inseparable I do not separate the dignity, but I separate the natures, and I join the reverence. That which is to be deposited in the tomb is not God in himself; for then we would be manifest worshippers of a man, and of a dead man. But because in the assumed one, God is from the assumer, the one who is assumed is as from the assumer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid me quaeritis occidere, hominem qui verum locutus sum (??)bis (Joan. viii, 40)","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites John 8:40, but the verse is corrupt: the standard text reads 'hominem qui veritatem locutus sum vobis' (a man who has spoken the truth to you). The parenthetical '??' marks a lacuna or scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus, Deus meus, quare dereliquisti me (Matth. xxvii, 46)","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Matthew 27:46, the cry of Jesus on the cross, which is a quotation of Psalm 22:1 (LXX). The author uses it to argue that Christ's human suffering does not negate his divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cooperarium","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cooperarium' (co-worker) is rare in Christological contexts; it suggests a subordinationist or instrumental view of Christ's humanity, which the author counters by insisting on worship of the human with the divine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"depositurum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'depositurum' (to be deposited) is a textual crux; the apparatus notes 'Bal. depositum' (deposited). The sense is that the body placed in the tomb is not God in himself, but the assumed human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ariane","severity":"info","text":"The address 'O Arian' situates the passage in the post-Nicene Christological debates. The author argues against Arian subordinationism by insisting that Christ's human suffering does not imply a change in the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item post aliquanta in eodem","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a new section within the same quaternion, indicating that the following material is a continuation of the argument, likely from the same source or homily.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of John 8:40 is corrupt; the exact wording of the original Coptic or Greek source is uncertain.","The phrase 'propter utentem, id que ille utitur adoro' is syntactically awkward; the intended meaning is that the author adores the divine user (the Word) through the instrument (the human nature) that it uses.","The clause 'ex assumente qui assumptus est tamquam ex assumente' is elliptical; the sense is that the assumed human nature derives from the assumer (the Word) and is not independent."],"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":"tamquam assumentis] conjunctus appellatur Deus, propterea et crucifixae carnis daemones vocabulum perhorrescunt, crucifixae earni conjunctum, non autem compassum scientes Deum; ideo et judex venturus est iste qui visibilis paruit; quoniam omnipotenti conjungitur Deitati.\n\nItem post multa ibidem. Non Deitatis [Baluz. Deitas], inquit, Jacobum habuit fratrem, nec Dei Verbi mortem nos annuntiamus, cum Dominico corpore et sanguine pascimur: a divina natura sacrificium suscipit, non ipsa in sacrificio immolatur.\n\nItem tractatu alio adversus Arianos quaternione decimo. Quis nunc benignitatis tam immensum aspiciat pelagus, naturam cum suo opifice dominantem, et conjunctam homini Deitatem, nihil sine hoc [Baluz. hac] jubentem, nullum absque isto judicantem, cum eo vivorum curam in summa providentia gerentem, et cum ipso mortuos suscitantem","english":"as those who take up] God is called conjoined, for that reason the demons shudder at the term of the crucified flesh, knowing God conjoined to the crucified flesh, but not co-suffering; therefore that one who appeared visible is going to come as judge, because he is conjoined to the omnipotent Deity.\n\nLikewise after many things in the same place. Not of the Deity, he says, did James have a brother, nor do we announce the death of the Word of God, when we feed on the Lord's body and blood: the divine nature receives the sacrifice, it is not itself immolated in the sacrifice.\n\nLikewise in another treatise against the Arians, in the tenth quaternion. Who now might behold so immense a sea of kindness, nature ruling with its own maker, and Deity conjoined to man, commanding nothing without this one, judging no one without that one, with him carrying on the care of the living in the highest providence, and with him raising the dead.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conjunctus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'conjunctus' (conjoined) is a key term in anti-Arian polemic, asserting a union of divine and human natures in Christ without mixture or confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"compassum","severity":"info","text":"'Compassum' (co-suffering) is denied of the divine nature, reflecting the orthodox position that the Word did not suffer on the cross, only the human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jacobum habuit fratrem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'James had a brother' alludes to James the Just, brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19), used to argue that the divine nature, not the Word, had no human sibling.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominico corpore et sanguine pascimur","severity":"info","text":"The reference to feeding on the Lord's body and blood reflects Eucharistic theology, emphasizing that the sacrifice is received by the divine nature, not offered of it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item post multa ibidem","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition within the same treatise, indicating that the following argument continues the anti-Arian polemic from the previous section.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternione decimo","severity":"info","text":"The reference to a 'tenth quaternion' suggests the work was transmitted in quires, typical of early medieval manuscript organization, and indicates a longer treatise now lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation from a lost Coptic original; the precise Coptic terms for 'conjunctus' and 'compassum' are uncertain.","The phrase 'naturam cum suo opifice dominantem' is ambiguous: it may mean 'nature ruling with its maker' or 'nature and its maker ruling together'."],"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":"Item ejusdem in tractatu alio codicis, quaternione quinto, de Scripturae sanctae loco, ubi ait: Si recordatus fuerie quod habet frater tuus aliquid adversum to [Matth. v, 23). Qui manducat, inquit, earnem. Mementote de earne esse, quod dictum est: Sicut misit me vivus Pater (Joan. vi, 55), qui visibilis sum. Sed forte prave interpretor dictum: ergo de consequentibus audiamus. Sicut me misit vivus Pater, et ego vivo per Patrem (Ibid., v. 58); ille hic Deitatem intelligit, ego hominem dico. Videamus quis est sanus [Baluz. scaevus] interpres: Sicut misit me vivus Pater; hic dicit haereticus Divinitatem missam, se profiteri Deum Verbum dicere: Sicut misit me vivus Pater Ergo et hoc secundum ipsos ita erit intelligemdum: Et ego Deus [Baluz. Dei] Verbum vivo per Patrem, Post hoc enim videtur dictum: Et qui manducat me, et ille vivit. Quem ergo manducamus? Divinita tem, an eamem?","english":"Again from the same author in another treatise of the codex, fifth quire, on a passage of Holy Scripture where it says: \"If you remember that your brother has something against you\" (Matt. 5:23). \"He who eats,\" he says, \"the flesh. Remember that it is about the flesh that it was said: 'As the living Father sent me' (John 6:55), I who am visible. But perhaps I interpret the saying wrongly: therefore let us hear what follows. 'As the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father' (John 6:58); he here understands the Divinity, I say the man. Let us see who is the sound interpreter: 'As the living Father sent me'; here the heretic says the Divinity was sent, professing himself to say the Word of God: 'As the living Father sent me.' Therefore even this, according to them, will have to be understood thus: 'And I, the Word of God, live through the Father.' For after this it seems to have been said: 'And he who eats me, and he lives.' Whom then do we eat? The Divinity, or the flesh?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item ejusdem in tractatu alio codicis, quaternione quinto","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a new excerpt from the same author but a different treatise within the same codex, specifically the fifth quire, indicating a compilation structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Si recordatus fuerie quod habet frater tuus aliquid adversum to","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites Matthew 5:23, though the wording is slightly garbled; the Vulgate reads 'Si recordatus fueris quod frater tuus habet aliquid adversum te'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sicut misit me vivus Pater","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes John 6:55 (Vulgate: 'Sicut misit me vivus Pater'), but the exact wording differs; the passage also references John 6:58.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Deitatem","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Deitas' (divinity) is used here to distinguish the divine nature from the human flesh in Christ, a key point in anti-heretical argumentation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticus","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'the heretic' likely targets a docetic or adoptionist view that the divinity was sent, rather than the human Jesus, reflecting early Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. scaevus","severity":"caution","text":"The manuscript reading 'scaevus' (left-handed, perverse) is emended by Baluze to 'sanus' (sound), indicating a textual corruption or variant in the source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains possible scribal errors (e.g., 'fuerie' for 'fueris', 'to' for 'te'), and the phrase 'Baluz. scaevus' suggests a contested reading between 'sanus' and 'scaevus'."],"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":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Item in quaternione sexto ejusdem in Judam, adversus haereticos. Libenter hic ile illis haereticis interrogans requirebam, qui Deitatis et humanitatis naturam in unam sententiam miscendo contemperant, quis ille hoc loco est, qui proditur et traditur Judaeis? Si enim temperatio, vel admixtio utriusque facta est, utrum a Jadaeis est tentum? An Deus Verbum? an humanitatis natura? Quia videtur occisus? aogur enim inferioribus uti sermonibus, ut fiat omnibus quod dicitur manifestum. In quem, dicas velim, ea quae gesta sunt, cadunt? Numquid in Dei naturam, quam utroque confundens, contemperare praesumis? Ergo Verbum Deus [Baluz. Dei] capessibilis, cui nihil commune in occisione cum carne. An a Judaeis in occisionem ductus est? Ut quid etiam, temperatis jam utrisque naturis, secundum te, Scripturam nuper audivimus de virtute sacramenti narrantem, quam Dominus tradidit discipulis suis, dicens: Quia in qua nocte tradebatur, accipiens panem, gratias agens, fregit discipulis suis dicens: Accipite et manducate ex eo omnes, hoc est enim corpus meum (I Cor. xi, 23). Quare non dixit: Hoc [Baluz. haec] esi Deitas mea, quae pro nobis [Baluz. vobis) confringetur? Et iterum sumptum calicem porrigens, non dixit: Haec Deitas mea, quae pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum; sed hoc magis: Hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (Matth. xxvi, 28).","english":"Again in the sixth quire of the same author, in his work against the heretics on Judas. Here I gladly inquired of those heretics who, by mixing and blending the nature of divinity and humanity into one meaning, which one is it in this passage who is betrayed and handed over to the Jews? For if a blending or mixture of both has been made, was it taken by the Jews? Was it God the Word? Or the nature of humanity? Because he seems to have been killed? For I use lower terms so that what is said may become clear to all. Tell me, I ask, upon which do the things that happened fall? Surely not upon the nature of God, which you, by confusing both, presume to blend? Therefore, is God the Word [Baluz. of God] capable of being seized, he who has nothing in common with the flesh in death? Or was he led by the Jews to death? Why then, even with both natures already blended according to you, did we recently hear Scripture telling of the power of the sacrament, which the Lord handed over to his disciples, saying: That on the night he was betrayed, taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it for his disciples, saying: Take and eat of it, all of you, for this is my body (1 Cor. 11:23). Why did he not say: This [Baluz. these] is my divinity, which is broken for us [Baluz. you]? And again, taking the cup and offering it, he did not say: This is my divinity, which is poured out for you in remission of sins; but rather this: This is my blood, which is poured out for you in remission of sins (Matt. 26:28).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a continuous argument against heretics who blend divine and human natures, using Judas's betrayal as a test case and the Eucharist as a counterexample.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text quotes 1 Cor 11:23 and Matt 26:28, both Eucharistic institution narratives, to argue that Christ spoke of his body and blood, not his divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"temperatio","severity":"info","text":"Temperatio (blending) and contemperare (to blend) are technical terms in Christological debates, denoting the mixing of divine and human natures into one substance, which the author rejects.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The heresy opposed is likely Eutychianism or monophysitism, which held that Christ's human and divine natures were fused into one nature after the incarnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author's use of 'lower terms' (inferioribus sermonibus) reflects a rhetorical strategy to make theological arguments accessible, a common patristic technique.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has variant readings in Baluzius's edition (e.g., 'Dei' for 'Deus', 'haec' for 'hoc'), which may affect the interpretation of the author's Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'same author' is unclear; the passage is attributed to an anonymous writer in the Collectio Secunda.","The phrase 'in Judam' may refer to a treatise on Judas or a work against heretics titled 'In Judam'."],"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":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Separa naturam, sed unitionem conjunge: Filium Dei Christum confitere, sed Filium duplicem, hominem et Deum, ut passio quidem humanae deputetur naturae; passionis vero absolutio, quae in homine qui passus est facta est, solius sit Deitatis.\n\nItem alibi in quaternione nono adversus Judaeos. Separantes, inquit, propriam naturarum dignitatem conjunctionis unius.\n\nItem ex alio tractatu in quaternione vigesimo quinto. Propterea volo vos cautos favere, vel plaudere. Divisio non est conjunctio Deitatis, neque potentiae, cum Filius Christus est, in his divisio non est; in Deitate vero et humanitate divisio est secundum quod est Christus; indivisus est Filius; secundum quod est Filius, indivisus est; non enim habemus duos Christos et duos Filios, neque est apud nos primus Christus et secundus; neque alter et alter, neque iterum alter Filius, et iterum alter Filius: sed idem ipse, ipse Filius est duplex, nou dignitate, sed natura.","english":"Separate the nature, but join the union: confess Christ the Son of God, but the Son twofold, man and God, so that the passion is indeed assigned to the human nature; the absolution from passion, however, which took place in the man who suffered, belongs to the Godhead alone.\n\nLikewise elsewhere in the ninth quire against the Jews. Separating, he says, the proper dignity of the natures of the one union.\n\nLikewise from another treatise in the twenty-fifth quire. Therefore I want you to be cautious, to favor or to applaud. There is no division of the Godhead in the union, nor of power, when the Son is Christ; in this there is no division; in the Godhead and humanity there is division according to what Christ is; the Son is undivided; according to what the Son is, he is undivided; for we do not have two Christs and two Sons, nor is there among us a first Christ and a second; nor one and another, nor again one Son and another Son: but the same one, the Son himself is twofold, not in dignity, but in nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a Christological formula: the natures are to be separated conceptually, but the union is to be affirmed, and the Son is twofold in nature, not in dignity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"unitionem","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'unitionem' (union) is a technical term in Christological discourse, denoting the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"duplex","severity":"info","text":"'Duplex' (twofold) here describes Christ as both man and God, a common anti-Monophysite formulation emphasizing the distinction of natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text is part of a collection of excerpts from anti-heretical works, likely compiled in a Coptic milieu, reflecting post-Chalcedonian Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is composed of three distinct excerpts, each introduced by 'Item' and identified by quire number, indicating a compilation from multiple sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"favere, vel plaudere","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'favere, vel plaudere' (to favor or to applaud) is textually uncertain; it may be a corruption or a gloss, and its precise meaning in context is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Coptic Vorlage of these Latin excerpts is lost; the precise original wording and attribution of the quires are uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Item quaternione xxvi, quasi adversus Apollinarem. Reverentia, inquit, duarum naturarum, unam appellamus dignitatem ejus, qui utraque conjunxit.\n\nItem alibi ex alio tractatu, in quaternione xxxii, idem de Christo inquit. De Christo [Baluz. om. De Christo] tametsi dicamus templum, sed minime a Deitate separabile, el conjunctum Deo, totam possidens operationem divinam, et nunc coopificem Dei, et quod cum eo omnium dominetur.\n\nItem idem in tractatu alio, in id quod scriptum est: SI HABERE ALIQUID RECORDATUS FUERIS ADVERSUS FRATREM TUUM, veluti contra haereticos. Audite, inquit, dictis intenti: Qui manducat, ait, carnem meam. Memento, quoniam de carne est quod dicitur. Numquid a me carnis nomen appositum est, ut me male interpretari querantur? Qui manducat, inquit, carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum. Numquid qui et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo?","english":"Likewise, in quaternion 26, as if against Apollinaris: “Reverence,” he says, “of the two natures, we call one dignity of him who joined both.”\n\nLikewise elsewhere, from another treatise, in quaternion 32, the same author says concerning Christ: “Concerning Christ, even if we say ‘temple,’ yet it is in no way separable from the Deity, and joined to God, possessing the whole divine operation, and now a co-worker of God, and that he rules over all things together with him.”\n\nLikewise the same author, in another treatise, on the passage: “If you shall have remembered anything against your brother,” as if against heretics: “Listen,” he says, “attentive to the words: ‘He who eats,’ he says, ‘my flesh.’ Remember, it is of flesh that it is spoken. Has the name ‘flesh’ been added by me, so that they complain I interpret it wrongly? ‘He who eats,’ he says, ‘my flesh, and drinks my blood.’ Does not he who drinks my blood abide in me, and I in him?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quaternione xxvi","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as three excerpts from different quires (26, 32, and an unspecified one), each introduced by 'Item' and linked by thematic continuity on Christ's natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"reverentia duarum naturarum","severity":"info","text":"'Reverentia duarum naturarum' is a technical phrase denoting the proper honor due to each nature in Christ, reflecting anti-Apollinarian insistence on two natures after the union.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum","severity":"info","text":"This echoes John 6:54–56, where Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, a key eucharistic proof-text used in Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Apollinarem","severity":"info","text":"Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th century) taught that Christ had a human body but a divine mind, denying a full human soul; the excerpt opposes this by affirming two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tametsi dicamus templum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'tametsi dicamus templum' is ambiguous: it may mean Christ as a temple of the Godhead, but the text insists it is inseparable from Deity, countering Arian or Nestorian interpretations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Item alibi ex alio tractatu","severity":"info","text":"The compiler's method of excerpting from multiple quires and treatises shows the Collectio Secunda as a florilegium, assembling patristic testimonia for later Christological controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the author ('idem') is not specified in the passage; it may refer to a Church Father like Cyril of Alexandria or another figure cited in the collection.","The phrase 'quasi adversus Apollinarem' may indicate the excerpt is directed against Apollinarian views, but the original context 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":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Item ex alio tractatu, quaternione xxxi. Hoc autem dico, ut noveritis, quam superexcellens et summa quaedam Deitatis conjunctio existebat etiam in infante ipso, cum Dominica caro conspicitur. Erat enim ipse et infans, et infantis ipsius Dominus. Laudastis vocem, sed indiscusse nolo faveatis, dixi enim: Ipse erat infans, et infantis habitator.\n\nItem ex altero codice, quaternione ii, veluti contra Artanos ei Macedonianos. Ampliorem, inquit, in Christum injuriam excogitantes, Spiritum sanctum a divina dissecant natura, qui ejus humanitatem figuravit in utero Virginis: Quod enim, inquit Scriptura, inde natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (Matth. i, 20); qui secundum justitiam quod figuratum est reformavit: Manifestum enim, inquit, in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu (I Tim. iii, 16); qui eum terribilem et formidabilem daemonibus faciebat: Ego enim, inquit, in Spiritu Dei ejicio damenia (Luc. xi, 20); qui ejus carnem templum est fabricatus: Vidi enim Spiritum, inquit, descendentem tamquam columbam et manentem super eum (Joan. i, 52); qui ei in coelum ascensionem donavit: Praecipiens enim, inquit Scriptura, apostolis quos elegit per Spiritum sanctum, elevatus in coelum est (Act. i, 2). Hic, inquam, Spiritus, qui tam magnam gloriam donavit, esse ab his asseritur servus","english":"Item from another treatise, quaternion 31. But I say this, that you may know how supereminent and supreme a certain conjunction of Deity existed even in the infant himself, when the Lord’s flesh is beheld. For he was both infant and lord of the infant himself. You have praised the statement, but I do not want you to assent without examination, for I said: He himself was the infant, and the inhabitant of the infant.\n\nItem from another codex, quaternion 2, as if against the Arians and Macedonians. Devising, he says, a greater injury against Christ, they sever the Holy Spirit from the divine nature, the Spirit who shaped his humanity in the womb of the Virgin: For what, says Scripture, was born from that, is from the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20); who according to righteousness reformed what was shaped: For it is manifest, he says, in the flesh, it was justified in the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16); who made him terrible and formidable to demons: For I, he says, cast out demons in the Spirit of God (Luke 11:20); who built his flesh as a temple: For I saw the Spirit, he says, descending like a dove and remaining upon him (John 1:32); who gave him ascension into heaven: For commanding, says Scripture, the apostles whom he chose through the Holy Spirit, he was raised into heaven (Acts 1:2). This Spirit, I say, who gave such great glory, is asserted by these men to be a servant","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item ex alio tractatu, quaternione xxxi","severity":"info","text":"This passage is introduced as from another treatise, quaternion 31, continuing the pattern of excerpting from different quaternions seen in the previous passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. i, 20","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Matth. i, 20' refers to Matthew 1:20, where an angel appears to Joseph in a dream, but the text here adapts it to emphasize the Holy Spirit's role in the conception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Tim. iii, 16","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Tim. iii, 16' is likely a misattribution or variant; 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Vulgate reads 'manifestum est in carne, iustificatum est in Spiritu', but the standard text differs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luc. xi, 20","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Luc. xi, 20' refers to Luke 11:20, but the verse number is uncertain; the phrase 'Ego enim in Spiritu Dei eicio daemonia' echoes Jesus' words in Luke 11:14-20.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. i, 52","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. i, 52' is non-standard; John 1:32 in the Vulgate describes John the Baptist's testimony of the Spirit descending like a dove, but the verse numbering differs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act. i, 2","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Act. i, 2' refers to Acts 1:2, but the text adapts it to describe Christ's ascension, which is not directly in that verse; the reference may be to Acts 1:9-11.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains several scriptural citations with non-standard verse numbers (e.g., I Tim. iii, 16; Joan. i, 52), which may reflect variant manuscript traditions or scribal errors. The phrase 'veluti contra Artanos ei Macedonianos' likely corrects 'Artanos' to 'Arianos' (Arians). The identity of the author quoted is not specified."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}