{"slug":"tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1","title":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta","title_source":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta","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":"2026-11-15T06:37:04Z","cost_usd":0.008331},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp795.tmp795.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/tmp795/tmp795/tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":17,"english_words":3726,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":14877,"commentary_units":99,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":13,"ambiguities":31,"work_notes":5,"external_links":1,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1","abstract":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta is a Latin translation of excerpts from a lost Greek work attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428). The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with no extant Greek witness. The Latin translation likely dates to the 5th or 6th century, but the translator and precise date remain unknown. The excerpts reflect Theodore's anti-Augustinian theology, particularly on original sin and human mortality, citing Vulgate verses such as Gen. ii, 17 and Gen. ix, 6. Theodore's works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), and this excerpta may have circulated among anti-Chalcedonian or Nestorian communities. The edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus, limiting assessment of textual variants.","historical_context":"The original Greek work was composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428), a leading theologian of the Antiochene school, known for his literal exegesis and opposition to allegorical interpretation. Theodore's views on original sin and human mortality placed him in conflict with Augustine of Hippo, and his works were later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for perceived Nestorian tendencies. The Latin translation of these excerpts likely dates to the 5th or 6th century, a period when Theodore's writings were still being transmitted in the West, possibly among communities sympathetic to Antiochene theology. The excerpts survive in a single manuscript, with no Greek original extant, suggesting limited circulation. The translation may have been produced in a monastic or scholarly setting, but the precise community and place are unknown. The text's later use in the West is poorly documented, and its attribution to Theodore relies on the manuscript title and internal consistency with his known theology, lacking external patristic confirmation.","significance":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta provides rare Latin evidence of Theodore's anti-Augustinian arguments on original sin and mortality, illustrating the theological diversity of the 5th–6th centuries. Its survival in a single manuscript highlights the fragmentary transmission of condemned works. The text contributes to understanding the reception of Antiochene theology in the Latin West and the impact of the Second Council of Constantinople on the preservation of heterodox writings.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 350–428","event":"Life of Theodore of Mopsuestia; composition of the original Greek work."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"Probable date of the Latin translation of the excerpts."},{"date":"553","event":"Second Council of Constantinople condemns Theodore's works, leading to loss of Greek originals."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Single Latin manuscript of the excerpts survives, with no known Greek witness."},{"date":"Modern","event":"Edition published as ogl-pl without critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Genesis","relation":"likely source of the original Greek excerpts","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Augustine of Hippo, On Original Sin","relation":"opposing theological position","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Second Council of Constantinople (553)","relation":"condemned Theodore's works, leading to loss of Greek originals","key":"wikipedia:Second Council of Constantinople","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagian controversy","relation":"context for Theodore's anti-Augustinian stance","key":"wikipedia:Pelagianism","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":"Author of the original Greek work"}],"cautions":["The precise date of the Latin translation is unknown; only a 5th–6th century range can be inferred.","Attribution to Theodore of Mopsuestia rests on the manuscript title and internal consistency, but lacks external patristic confirmation.","The text survives in a single manuscript with no Greek original, limiting textual criticism.","The edition (ogl-pl) provides no critical apparatus, so variant readings and scribal errors cannot be assessed.","The community and place of translation are unknown; later use in the West is poorly documented."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000466,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:37:03Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp795/tmp795/tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp795.tmp795.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":17,"translated":17,"commentary_passages":17,"commentary_units":99,"english_words":3726,"source_letters":14877,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives only in Latin translation, likely from a lost Greek original. The Latin text is preserved in a single manuscript tradition, with no extant Greek witness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The original Greek work is attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428). The Latin translation probably dates to the 5th or 6th century, but the precise date and translator are unknown.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553). This Latin excerpta may have circulated among anti-Chalcedonian or Nestorian communities, but its later use in the West is poorly documented.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition (ogl-pl) does not provide a critical apparatus or collation of the manuscript. Variant readings and scribal errors cannot be assessed from this source alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The attribution to Theodore rests on the manuscript title and internal consistency with his known theology, but no external confirmation (e.g., patristic citation) links this specific excerpta to him.","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: 17 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"13 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":17},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"THEODORI MOPSUESTENI EXCERPTA.\n\nEXCERPTUM PRIMUM.\n\nTheodori Mopsuesteni episcopi de secundo codice, libro quarto, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum, defendentem originale peccatum, et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum, catholice disserentem.\n\nTantis 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, seduetorio ex mendacio, advocationem jungens, Deus non ait: Mortales eritis; sed morte moriemini (Gen. ii, 17).\n\nProrsus 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 (Gen. ix, 6); non hoc dicit, quia qui occiderit hominem, erit mortalis; sed quia dignus est hujusmodi morte damnari. Sic et impraesentiarum dixit: Morte moriemini; non quod tunc mortales fierent; sed quod digni essent qui mortis sententiam per transgressionem [Baluz. pro transgressione] referrent.","english":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta.\n\nFirst Excerpt.\n\nTheodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia, from the second codex, book four, folio ten, against Saint Augustine, who defends original sin and that Adam was made mortal through transgression, discoursing in a catholic manner.\n\nWith so many things standing forth which demonstrate that Adam was formed from earth in such a way that he was entirely mortal, he wished to occupy his discourse concerning the proper food, and not being able from that to perceive the truth, for the true dogma, joining advocacy from a seductive lie, God did not say: You will be mortal; but: You will die by death (Gen. 2:17).\n\nWith those who are by nature entirely mortal, he threatened to inflict the experience of death, which, according to the custom of his own benevolence, he delayed to bring to effect. For just as when he says: He who has shed a man’s blood, his blood shall be shed for him (Gen. 9:6); he does not say this because he who kills a man will be mortal; but because he is worthy of being condemned to such a death. So also in the present case he said: You will die by death; not that they would then become mortal; but that they were worthy of receiving the sentence of death through transgression.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Primum","severity":"info","text":"The heading marks the first of several excerpts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, presented as a discrete unit within a larger compilation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodori Mopsuesteni episcopi de secundo codice, libro quarto, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum","severity":"info","text":"The source note indicates the excerpt derives from a second codex, book four, folio ten, of Theodore's work against Augustine, likely from a now-lost Latin translation of Theodore's Greek writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. ii, 17","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Gen. ii, 17' refers to the Vulgate verse where God says 'morte moriemini' (you will die by death), a key prooftext in the debate on original sin and human mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. ix, 6","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Gen. ix, 6' refers to the lex talionis in the Vulgate, used here as an analogy: the threat of death does not imply natural mortality but judicial punishment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"morte moriemini","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'morte moriemini' (you will die by death) is a Hebraism meaning 'you will surely die', interpreted by Theodore as a penal threat, not a statement of created nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"contra sanctum Augustinum","severity":"info","text":"Theodore's anti-Augustinian stance reflects the Pelagian controversy; his works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), and this excerpt survives only in Latin fragments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'pro transgressione' is emended by Baluze from 'pro transgressionem'; the original reading is uncertain.","The phrase 'erga cibum proprium' is obscure; it may refer to the forbidden fruit or to a specific argument about diet in Theodore's lost work."],"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":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sed et divinam sententiam, quam post peccatum Deus Adae inferre videtur, adverte; sic enim dicit: 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 vitae tuae; spinas et tribulos proferet tibi, et comedes fenum agri, et in sudore vullus tui comedes panem tuum, donec reverlaris in terram (Gen. iii, 17). 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 (Gen. ii, 15), indixit. Pro tanta vero pristina largitate et voluptate paradisi, aerumnosam ejus fore sustentationem de terrae fructibus comminatur. Nam prorsus et [ Baluz. ut ] mortalis factus, et tunc paradisi fructibus indigebat, sicut nunc terrae fructus inquirit; et pro supplicio, pristinis fraudatus deliciis, hac aerumnosissima laboriosissimaque conversatione mulctatur.","english":"But also consider the divine sentence which God seems to impose upon Adam after the sin; for it says thus: “Because you listened to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat from this alone, from it you ate, 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 brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the earth” (Gen. 3:17). Through these words, however, he threatened that he would have a life full of hardship, thereafter taking fruits 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 had also commanded him to work and tend paradise (Gen. 2:15). But on account of the former great abundance and pleasure of paradise, he threatens that his sustenance from the fruits of the earth will be full of hardship. For indeed, even when he had become 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 penalized with this most wretched and laborious way of life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. iii, 17","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus cites a composite of Gen 3:17–19 and 3:23, not a single verse. The Vulgate Gen 3:17–19 includes the curse on the earth, thorns, and labor; the phrase 'donec revertaris in terram' echoes Gen 3:19 ('donec revertaris in terram' is not in the Vulgate but is a paraphrase of the expulsion).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"paradisum ei, ut operaretur et custodiret (Gen. ii, 15)","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus refers to Gen 2:15, where God places Adam in the garden to work and tend it. This supports his argument that labor was not introduced as a punishment for sin but was part of Adam's original condition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"contra sanctum Augustinum","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus's argument that Adam was mortal before the fall and that labor is not a punishment for sin directly opposes Augustine's doctrine of original sin and the mortalization of Adam through transgression. This passage was excerpted in the Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"maledicta terra in operibus tuis","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus interprets the curse on the earth not as a change in human nature but as a loss of paradisal abundance, emphasizing a shift in living conditions rather than ontological transformation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed et divinam sententiam ... adverte","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the first excerpt's argument by introducing a scriptural proof (the divine sentence) to refute Augustine's view that mortality was a punishment for sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a variant reading: 'Baluz. ut' suggests an editorial emendation by Baluze, but the original manuscript reading is uncertain.","The exact Vulgate verse reference is composite; the phrase 'donec revertaris in terram' is not found in the Vulgate but is a paraphrase of the expulsion from Eden."],"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":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Unde ad postremum consequenter adjecit: Quia terra es, et reverteris in terram (Gen. 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 [ Baluz. judicavit ] 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 pertransivit in eo, et non erit amplius locus ejus (Ps. 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 et Abraham: Ego sum, inquit, terra ac cinis (Gen. xviii, 27); pro eo ac si diceret: Non sum dignus cum tanto Deo colloqui, homo factus e terra, et omnimo - dis hoc futurus. Magis ergo dicere debuit, quia terra eris, et in terram reverteris, siquidem nunc primum fleret natura mortalis.","english":"Hence at last he consequently added: “Because you are earth, and you will return to earth” (Gen. 3:17). By this he also signifies the mortality of nature; for it is not to an immortal being, now for the first time receiving a sentence of death, as the most wise defenders of original sin—or rather the marvelous fathers of sin—assert, that the word “earth” was composed; but divine Scripture indicated that this appellation was fitting for a being naturally mortal from the beginning, often using this term for men to show the corruptible and dissoluble nature of them. For it says: “He remembered that we are dust.” “Man, his days are like grass, and like a flower of the field he will flourish, because the spirit has passed through him, and his place will be no more” (Ps. 102:15). It means that we are all corruptible and dissoluble, like grass that blooms for a short time and soon perishes: for we live for a brief time, and then we come entirely to non-existence. So also Abraham says: “I am earth and ashes” (Gen. 18:27), as if to say: I am not worthy to converse with so great a God, a man made from earth and destined to be this entirely. Therefore he should rather have said: “You will be earth, and you will return to earth,” if indeed nature had now for the first time become mortal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. iii, 17","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Gen. 3:17, but the Vulgate text of that verse does not contain the phrase 'Quia terra es, et reverteris in terram'; this appears to be a paraphrase or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ps. cii, 15","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Ps. cii, 15' corresponds to Psalm 102:15 in the Vulgate (Psalm 103:15 in modern numbering), but the quoted text does not match the Vulgate wording; it may be a loose citation or from a different Latin version.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gen. xviii, 27","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Gen. xviii, 27' refers to Genesis 18:27, where Abraham says 'Ego sum terra ac cinis'; this is a paraphrase of the Vulgate 'loquar ad Dominum meum, cum sim pulvis et cinis'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"patres peccati mirabiles","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'patres peccati mirabiles' (marvelous fathers of sin) is a sarcastic reference to proponents of original sin, likely targeting Augustine and his followers, whom Theodore of Mopsuestia opposed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. judicavit","severity":"caution","text":"The manuscript reading 'judicavit' is corrected to 'indicavit' by Baluzius (Étienne Baluze), editor of the 17th-century edition; this textual emendation affects the verb's meaning from 'judged' to 'indicated'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"omnimo - dis hoc futurus","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'omnimo - dis hoc futurus' contains a hyphenation or scribal break; 'omnimo' may be an abbreviation for 'omnino' (entirely) or a corruption, and the phrase is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact source of the Genesis 3:17 paraphrase is unclear; it may be a free rendering or from a lost Latin version.","The Psalm 102:15 citation does not match the Vulgate text; the source or accuracy is uncertain.","The phrase 'omnimo - dis hoc futurus' is textually corrupt; the intended reading is ambiguous."],"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":4,"ref":"p4","source":"EXCERPTUM SECUNDUM.\n\nEjusdem Theodori ex secundo codice, libro tertio, ante quatuor folia finis libri.\n\nSed nihil illorum perspicere potuit mirabilis peccati originalis assertor, quippe qui in divinis Scripturis nequaquam fuerit exercitatus, nec ab infantia, juxta beati Pauli vocem, sacras didicerit litteras ( I Tim. iii, 15); sed sive de Scripturae sensibus, sive de dogmate saepe declamans, multa frequenter inepta proprie communiterve de ipsis Scripturis dogmatibusque plurimis impudenter exprompsit. Nam potentiae motus [Baluz. metus] nullum contra sinebat effari; sed tantummodo taciti, qui divinarum Scripturarum habebant notitiam, detrahebant. Novissime vero in hanc dogmatis excidit novitatem, qua diceret, quod in ira atque furore Deus Adam mortalem esse praeceperit; et propter ejus unum delictum, cunctos, etiam necdum natos, homines morte mulctaverit. 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 diceretur ulterius ista parabola in Israel: Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam, et filiorum dentes obstupuerunt; quia hosc dicit Adonai Dominus: Dentes eorum qui manducaverintuvam acerbam, obstupescent (Ezech.","english":"SECOND EXCERPT.\n\nFrom the same Theodore, from the second codex, book three, four folia before the end of the book.\n\nBut the marvelous champion of original sin could perceive none of those things, since he was by no means trained in the divine Scriptures, nor had he, from infancy, according to the voice of blessed Paul, learned the sacred letters (1 Tim. 3:15); but, declaiming often about the meanings of Scripture or about dogma, he frequently and impudently brought forth many inept things, both in particular and in general, concerning the Scriptures themselves and very many dogmas. For the movement of power [Baluz. fear] allowed no one to speak against him; but only those who had knowledge of the divine Scriptures silently disparaged him. But most recently he fell into this novelty of dogma, by which he said that God, in anger and fury, decreed that Adam should be mortal; and that, because of his one transgression, he punished all men, even those not yet born, with death. And thus disputing, he neither fears nor is ashamed to hold such opinions about God as no one, even among men of sound mind and having some care for justice, has ever attempted to conceive. But he also did not recall that divine saying, that this proverb would no longer be spoken in Israel: \"The fathers ate a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge\"; because thus says Adonai the Lord: \"The teeth of those who have eaten a sour grape will be set on edge\" (Ezek.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mirabilis peccati originalis assertor","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'mirabilis peccati originalis assertor' is a sarcastic epithet for an opponent, likely Julian of Eclanum, who defended original sin against Theodore's critique.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Tim. iii, 15","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Tim. iii, 15' (1 Tim. 3:15) is used to invoke Paul's authority on proper scriptural training, though the verse itself concerns church governance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ezech.","severity":"info","text":"The incomplete citation 'Ezech.' refers to Ezekiel 18:2, which contains the proverb about sour grapes, used here to argue against inherited punishment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"potentiae motus [Baluz. metus]","severity":"info","text":"The textual variant 'motus' (movement) vs. 'metus' (fear) reflects a manuscript correction by Baluze; the sense is that fear of the opponent's power silenced critics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"dogmatis novitatem","severity":"info","text":"The 'novelty of dogma' attributed to the opponent—that God in anger made Adam mortal and punished all humanity—was a key point in the Pelagian controversy, where Theodore opposed ideas later associated with Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Secundum","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the second excerpt from Theodore's work, identified as from the second codex, book three, four folia before the end, indicating a fragmentary transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'mirabilis peccati originalis assertor' is not explicitly named; it is likely Julian of Eclanum, but could be another Pelagian opponent.","The citation 'Ezech.' is incomplete; the exact verse is Ezekiel 18:2, but the text breaks off before the full quotation."],"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":5,"ref":"p5","source":"xviii, 2); ostendens per haec, quod alterum pro altero, juxta quorumdam errorem, Deus omnino non puniat, sed unusquisque pro delictis suis redditurus est rationem.\n\nIlis consona beatus quoque Paulus annectit: Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua ( Rom. ii, 6). Et: Unusquisque nostrum onus suum portabit (Gal. vi, 5). Et: Tu quid judicas fratrem tuum, aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum? Omnes enim adstabimus ante tribunal Christi ( Rom. xiv, 10).\n\nSed vir mirabilis propter unius [ Baluz. unum ] peccatum tanto furore commotum arbitratus est Deum, ut et illum atrocissimae poenae subderet, et ad universos omnes posteros ejus parem sententiam promulgaret; et inter quos quanti justi fuerint, non facile numerarequis poterit: ex quibus eum maxime considerare convenerat, quod valde videretur incongruum, Noe, Abraham, David, Moysem et reliquos innumerabiles justos, obnoxios poenae redditos ob ejus delictum, et unum, atque ex gustu arboris approbatum, et quod sic ultra modum justitiae, iram suam Deus extenderit, ita ut tot justorum virtutes cunctas abjiceret, eosque propter unius peccatum Adae, tanto supplicio manciparet.","english":"(xviii, 2); showing through these things that God does not at all punish one for another, according to the error of some, but each one will render account for his own offenses.\n\nThe blessed Paul also adds things consonant with these: \"God,\" he says, \"who will render to each according to his works\" (Rom. 2:6). And: \"Each of us will bear his own burden\" (Gal. 6:5). And: \"Why do you judge your brother, or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ\" (Rom. 14:10).\n\nBut the marvelous man thought that God, moved by such great fury on account of one sin, would both subject that one to the most atrocious punishment and promulgate a like sentence to all his descendants; and among them, how many just persons there have been, one could not easily number: from among whom it was especially fitting for him to consider that it would seem very incongruous that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and the rest of the innumerable just persons should be rendered liable to punishment on account of his offense, and that one, approved from the taste of the tree, and that God extended his anger so far beyond the measure of justice that he would cast aside all the virtues of so many just persons and consign them to such great suffering on account of the one sin of Adam.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua (Rom. ii, 6)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Rom. 2:6 is given as 'Deus, inquit, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua', which corresponds to the Vulgate text. The English draft renders it as 'God, who will render to each according to his works'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Unusquisque nostrum onus suum portabit (Gal. vi, 5)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Gal. 6:5 is given as 'Unusquisque nostrum onus suum portabit', which is a paraphrase of the Vulgate 'unusquisque onus suum portabit'. The English draft renders it as 'Each of us will bear his own burden'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Tu quid judicas fratrem tuum, aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum? Omnes enim adstabimus ante tribunal Christi (Rom. xiv, 10)","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Rom. 14:10 is given as 'Tu quid judicas fratrem tuum... Omnes enim adstabimus ante tribunal Christi', which is a conflation of Rom. 14:10 and 14:12. The English draft renders it as 'Why do you judge your brother... we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed vir mirabilis propter unius peccatum tanto furore commotum arbitratus est Deum","severity":"info","text":"The 'marvelous man' is a sarcastic reference to Augustine of Hippo, whose doctrine of original sin and its transmission to all descendants is the target of Theodore's critique. The passage argues against the idea that God punishes all humanity for Adam's sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ilis consona beatus quoque Paulus annectit","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a structural transition: the author introduces scriptural support (Pauline citations) for the preceding argument that each person is punished only for their own sins, contrasting with the Augustinian view of inherited guilt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"propter unius [Baluz. unum] peccatum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'unius' with a note 'Baluz. unum', indicating a textual variant: the source edition (Baluze) reads 'unum' (neuter) instead of 'unius' (masculine). This affects the interpretation: 'unum peccatum' means 'one sin', while 'unius peccatum' could mean 'the sin of one man'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a textual variant at 'unius' / 'unum', which changes the reference from 'one man' to 'one sin'.","The citation of Rom. 14:10 conflates two verses; the exact Vulgate text is not followed verbatim."],"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":"Nam etsi nihil aliud, saltem de Abel mente perpendens convenienter aestimare debuerat, qui primus justus existens, 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 malitiae repertricem? Praetermitto autem diabolum in immortalitate haetenus perdurantem, primum vero justum, repertoremque virtutis; primumque divini cultus curam gerentem, ante omnes poena peccantium fuisse perculsum.\n\nOportebat autem sapientissimum virum et de Enoch, qui non est mortuus, diligenter expendere; non enim tanta virtute, vel pietate praeditus fuit, ut melior omnibus existeret, Moyse dico, et prophetis apostolisque, vel reliquis omnibus, de quibus ait beatissimus Paulus: Quibus dignus non erat mundus (Hebr. xi, 37); ita ut, illis mortuis, ipse solus sine mortis experientia perduraret. Sed jam ab initio hoc Deus habuit apud se definitum, ut primum quidem mortales fierent, postmodum vero immortalitate gauderent; sic ad utilitatem nostram fieri ipse disponens.","english":"For even if nothing else, at least by considering the case of Abel, he ought to have judged appropriately: Abel, who, being the first righteous man, was the first to die; and if God had established death as a punishment for men, how was it not the utmost impiety that the one who was the cause of sin should live, and that Eve, the contriver of wickedness, should also live with him? I pass over the devil, who has persisted in immortality up to this time, while the first righteous man, the discoverer of virtue, and the first to take care of divine worship, was struck down before all others with the punishment of sinners.\n\nBut that most wise man ought also to have carefully considered the case of Enoch, who did not die; for he was not endowed with such great virtue or piety that he should be better than all others—I mean Moses, and the prophets, and the apostles, and all the rest, of whom the most blessed Paul says: \"Of whom the world was not worthy\" (Heb. 11:37); so that, with those dead, he alone should endure without experiencing death. But from the beginning, God had this determined within himself: that first men should become mortal, but afterwards they would enjoy immortality; thus he himself arranges it for our benefit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Abel","severity":"info","text":"The author uses Abel as a test case against the idea that death is a punishment for sin, since the first righteous man died first, while the sinful Adam and Eve lived on.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hebr. xi, 37","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Quibus dignus non erat mundus' (Heb. 11:37) is a paraphrase of the Vulgate verse about those of whom the world was not worthy, applied here to Moses, prophets, and apostles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Enoch","severity":"info","text":"Enoch, who did not die but was taken by God (Gen. 5:24), is invoked to argue that virtue does not guarantee immortality; God's plan for mortality and immortality is prior and universal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodori Mopsuesteni Excerpta","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects Theodore of Mopsuestia's anti-Origenist stance, rejecting the notion that death is a punishment for sin and emphasizing God's providential ordering of mortality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Oportebat autem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Oportebat autem' marks a transition from the Abel argument to the Enoch argument, both serving as counterexamples to the view that death is punitive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'mente perpendens' is ambiguous: it could mean 'considering in his mind' or 'weighing the mind of Abel'; the translation takes the former.","The phrase 'repertoremque virtutis' (discoverer of virtue) applied to Abel is theologically loaded, possibly reflecting Theodore's emphasis on human agency."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Et post paululum.\n\nManifestius, 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.\n\nEt post paululum.\n\nIdcirco, inquit, Dominus auctor omnium bonorum hominibus factus est, ut sicut Adam primi et mortalis status exstitit inchoator; ita et ipse secundi et immortalis status existens initiator, primitus Adae prioris naturalia custodiret, dum nascitur ex muliere, dum pannis involvitur, et paulatim aetatis incrementa sortitur: Jesus enim, inquit, proficiebat aetate, et sapientia, et gratia, coram Deo et hominibus (Luc. ii, 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 tribulum, postremo suscipit, ut secundum legem humanae naturae moriens, et a mortuis divina virtute resurgens, initium cunctis hominibus, qui mortem secundum propriam naturam suscipiunt, fieret, ut a mortuis surgant, et ad immortalem substantiam commutentur.","english":"And a little later.\n\nMore clearly, he says, God showed the same thing when He translated Enoch and made him immortal. For if God had imposed death as a punishment for sin, and had not from the beginning determined this within Himself, dispensing all things ineffably for us according to His own wisdom, Enoch would by no means have become immortal; nor would the Lord Christ have come to experience death.\n\nAnd a little later.\n\nFor this reason, he says, the Lord became the author of all good things for men, so that just as Adam existed as the beginner of the first and mortal state, so He Himself, being the initiator of the second and immortal state, would first preserve the natural characteristics of the prior Adam, in that He is born from a woman, is wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually undergoes the increments of age: for Jesus, he says, advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace, before God and men (Luke 2:52); in that He undergoes circumcision, in that according to legal custom He stood before God in the temple, and is subjected to His parents, and is given over to lawful conduct; thus also for the completion of the remaining things, and death, as the tribute of nature, He finally undergoes, 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":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post paululum","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, repeated twice, marks a break in the excerpt, indicating that the original work was structured as a series of quotations or arguments separated by brief transitions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Enoch","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Enoch's translation and immortality alludes to Genesis 5:24 and the tradition that Enoch did not die but was taken by God, a key proof-text in patristic arguments against death as punishment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luc. ii, 52","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Luke 2:52 is used to support the idea that Jesus progressed in age, wisdom, and grace, emphasizing his full humanity in Theodore's Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"circumcisionem","severity":"info","text":"The mention of Jesus' circumcision reflects the Gospel of Luke (2:21) and was a point of contention in anti-Docetic arguments, affirming Christ's real human body.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tribulum","severity":"info","text":"The word 'tribulum' (tribute) describes death as a natural due of human nature, not a punishment, a key distinction in Theodore's anti-Pelagian and anti-Manichaean polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Dominus autem Christus ad mortis experientiam perveniret","severity":"info","text":"The claim that Christ experienced death despite Enoch's immortality was used by Theodore to argue that death is natural, not punitive, a view later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'transfert Enoch' could mean 'translated Enoch' (i.e., taken to heaven) or 'transformed Enoch'; the context supports the former, as Enoch is made immortal.","The phrase 'juxta legalem consuetudinem' may refer to Jewish temple practice or to Mosaic law; the translation 'legal custom' is retained as neutral."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Sicut enim conformes Adae secundum statum praesentem sumus omnes effecti, sic Christo Domino [Baluz. add. juxta carnem] conformes efficiemur in posterum. Transfigurabit enim corpus humilitatis nostrae, conformes fieri corporis gloriae ejus (Philipp. iii, 21). Et: Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes (I Cor. xv, 48). Et: Sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus etiam imaginem coelestis; ostendens quod primi status Adae participes facti, necessario etiam secundi Adae Christi Domini secundum carnem futuri status participium consequimur, utpote qui ex hac eadem natura constet exortus, et cuncta quae fuerant naturae susceperit: et ideo sustinuerit mortem, ut mortem naturae suscipiens, et a mortuis resurgens, naturam liberam a 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. Quod si fuisset in natura peccatum, juxta sapientissimi hujus eloquium, peccatum in natura prorsus existens necessario suscepisset.","english":"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 [Baluze adds: according to the flesh] in the future. For He will transform the body of our humility, to be made conformable to the body of His glory (Philippians 3:21). And: As is the earthly, so are the earthly; and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:48). And: Just as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly; showing that, having been made partakers of the first state of Adam, we also necessarily obtain participation in the future state of the second Adam, Christ the Lord according to the flesh, as one who arose from this same nature and took up all things that belonged to the nature: and therefore He underwent death, so that, by taking up the death of nature and rising from the dead, He might perfect nature free from death.\n\nAnd He took up death indeed for this reason, but sin by no means; rather, He remained wholly immune from this: for what was of nature, that is, death, He undoubtedly assumed; but sin, which was not of nature but of will, He in no way took up. But if sin had been in nature, according to the utterance of this most wise man, He would necessarily have taken up sin existing in nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philipp. iii, 21","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philipp. iii, 21' refers to Philippians 3:21, but the Vulgate has only 3:20–21 as a single verse; the text likely echoes Philippians 3:21 (modern 3:20–21).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Cor. xv, 48","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Cor. xv, 48' refers to 1 Corinthians 15:48, which contrasts the earthly and heavenly bodies in the resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conformes","severity":"info","text":"The term 'conformes' (conformable) is central to Theodore's typology: Adam and Christ are two 'states' (status) in which believers share by nature, not by imitation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. add. juxta carnem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'juxta carnem' (according to the flesh) is a marginal addition by the editor Baluze (Étienne Baluze, 17th c.), clarifying Theodore's distinctive Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sapientissimi hujus eloquium","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sapientissimi hujus eloquium' (utterance of this most wise man) refers to Theodore of Mopsuestia himself, cited as an authority by the anonymous compiler.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et mortem quidem ... peccatum vero nequaquam","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts Christ's assumption of death (natural) with his immunity from sin (volitional), a key distinction in Theodore's soteriology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text includes a Baluze addition ('juxta carnem') whose original status in Theodore's work is uncertain.","The citation 'Philipp. iii, 21' may conflate modern verse numbering; the exact Vulgate reference is ambiguous."],"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":9,"ref":"p9","source":"EXCERPTUM TERTIUM.\n\nEjusdem Theodori de codice secundo ex libro tertio, folio decimo octavo.\n\nSi, inquit, peccaturum Deus nesciebat [Baluz. vere sciebat] Adam, sit horum [Baluz. add. sapientia] sapientissimorum et 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 immortalem [Baluz. mortalem] in sex horas fecerit (nam tantae fuerunt a conditione ejus usque ad commissionem, quandoquidem sexto dic factus e terra, et comedens contra divinum mandatum de paradiso pulsus est); mortalem vero post peccatum monstraverit.\n\nCertum est enim quod si eum immortalem voluisset, nec intercedens peccatum Dei sententiam commutasset, quia nec diabolum fecit ex immortali mortalem, et quidem cunctorum malorum existentem urincipium.","english":"EXCERPT THE THIRD.\n\nFrom the same Theodore, from the second codex, from the third book, folio eighteen.\n\nIf, he says, God did not know that Adam would sin [Baluze: truly he knew], let this be the response of these most wise men [Baluze adds: wisdom], that it is utterly insane even to conceive of this; it is manifest that He 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 [Baluze: mortal] for six hours (for that was the time from his creation until the commission [of the sin], since he was made from 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 that although he is the origin of all evils.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"immortalem","severity":"caution","text":"Baluze emends 'immortalem' to 'mortalem', reversing the sense: Theodore argues God made Adam mortal from the start, not immortal for six hours.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sexto die factus e terra","severity":"info","text":"Alludes to Genesis 2:7 (LXX: 'ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς') and the six-day creation in Genesis 1.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. add. sapientia","severity":"info","text":"Baluze's insertion 'sapientia' (wisdom) after 'horum' clarifies the referent: the response of these most wise men.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz. vere sciebat","severity":"info","text":"Baluze's marginal note 'vere sciebat' (truly he knew) corrects the text's 'nesciebat' (did not know), aligning with Theodore's argument for divine foreknowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Tertium","severity":"info","text":"This is the third excerpt in the collection, introduced with a manuscript reference: from Theodore's second codex, third book, folio 18.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'urincipium' is a scribal error for 'principium' (origin).","The phrase 'in sex horas' may be literal (six hours) or figurative (a short time); the context supports a literal reading tied to the sixth day."],"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":"EXCERPTUM QUARTUM.\n\nEjusdem Theodori de secundo 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 Paulus 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 resurrectio putabitur, si poena sine correctione resurgentibus inferatur?\n\nEt post paululum.\n\nQuis, 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.\n\nEXCERPTUM QUINTUM.\n\nEjusdem Theodori ex a alio quopiam libro adversus Dominum Jesum Christum, et ejus incarnationem.","english":"EXCERPT THE FOURTH.\n\nFrom the same Theodore, from the second codex, from the third book, folio twenty-five.\n\nFor, he says, it is not the case that, for 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 was declared from his utterances above, he is going to bestow the reward of resurrection as something great, if he hands them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will the resurrection be thought of as a gift, if punishment without correction is inflicted upon those who rise?\n\nAnd a little later.\n\nWho, he says, is so insane as to believe that such a great good becomes the material of infinite punishment for those who rise? For whom it would be more useful not to rise at all than, after the resurrection, to undergo the experience of such great and such evils under infinite penalties.\n\nEXCERPT THE FIFTH.\n\nFrom the same Theodore, from some other book against the Lord Jesus Christ and his incarnation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Excerptum Quartum / Excerptum Quintum","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two excerpts (fourth and fifth), each introduced by a folio reference. The fifth excerpt is marked as from 'some other book' against Christ and the incarnation, signaling a shift in source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"resurrectionis collaturus est praemium","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus argues that resurrection cannot be a reward if it leads to eternal punishment without correction; the logic is that punishment must be corrective for resurrection to be a gift.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"beatus Paulus propriis verbis expressit","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus refers to Paul's own words describing the impieties and iniquities from Adam to Christ, likely alluding to Romans or Galatians, though no specific verse is cited.","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 key Antiochene theologian. His works were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), leading to their fragmentary survival, often in Latin translations by opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"adversus Dominum Jesum Christum, et ejus incarnationem","severity":"caution","text":"The fifth excerpt's heading is polemical, likely added by a Latin compiler (perhaps from the Baluze collection) to frame Theodore as anti-incarnational, reflecting posthumous condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ex a alio quopiam libro","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ex a alio quopiam libro' is grammatically irregular; 'a' may be a scribal error or abbreviation. The source is unspecified, indicating a lost or unidentified work of Theodore.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ex a alio quopiam libro' is ambiguous: 'a' may be a corruption or abbreviation; the intended work is unknown.","The reference to Paul's 'own words' is not specified; the exact scriptural passage is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Nec enim, inquit, si duas dicimus in Christo naturas, necessario fiet ut duos filios aut duos dominos asseramus, quia hoc arbitrari extremae probatur dementiae. Omnia enim quaecumque secundum aliquid duo sunt, et secundum aliquid unum, non interimunt per unitatem utriusque divisionem: Ego enim et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 30). Sed non quia unum, neganda est utriusque proprietas. Et alibi de viro et uxore pronuntians ait: Jam non sunt duo, sed una caro (Matth. xix, 6). Sed non quia una caro vir et uxor, jam non sunt duo [Baluz. add. sed una caro]; manent enim duo, juxta quod duo sunt; et unum, juxta quod unum. Secundum hunc modum, et hic duo sunt natura, sed unum conjunctione: duo natura, quia multorum diversitas; sed unum conjunctione, quia indivisam venerationem quod susceptum est, cum suscipiente sortitur, velut templum ejus individuum perseverans.","english":"For, he says, if we say that there are two natures in Christ, it does not necessarily follow that we assert two sons or two lords, because to think this is proved to be the height of madness. For all things that are in some respect two, and in some respect one, do not destroy the division of each by the unity: \"I and the Father are one\" (John 10:30). But not because they are one is the property of each to be denied. And elsewhere, speaking of man and wife, he says: \"They are no longer two, but one flesh\" (Matthew 19:6). But not because they are one flesh are man and wife no longer two; for they remain two, according to that in which they are two, and one, according to that in which they are one. In this manner, here too they are two by nature, but one by conjunction: two by nature, because of the diversity of many things; but one by conjunction, because that which is assumed shares an undivided veneration with that which assumes, as its temple remains undivided.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego enim et Pater unum sumus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites John 10:30, a key verse in anti-Arian and Christological debates, used here to argue that unity of nature does not erase personal properties.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jam non sunt duo, sed una caro","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Matthew 19:6 (Vulgate), alluding to the marriage bond as an analogy for the union of natures in Christ without confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"conjunctione","severity":"info","text":"The term 'conjunctione' (conjunction) is used to denote the union of natures in Christ, distinct from 'unitas' (unity), reflecting Theodore's Antiochene Christology of a close but not hypostatic union.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"duas dicimus in Christo naturas","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes the Antiochene formula of two natures in Christ, opposed to monophysitism, and is central to Theodore's Christology as preserved in Latin excerpts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nec enim, inquit","severity":"info","text":"The passage begins with a denial ('Nec enim') and proceeds through scriptural analogies (John, Matthew) to a concluding summary, typical of Theodore's argumentative style in the Excerpta.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"velut templum ejus individuum perseverans","severity":"info","text":"The temple analogy for the assumed humanity of Christ is a hallmark of Theodore's Christology, later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for implying a separate subject.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation from Greek, and the precise original wording of Theodore is lost; the phrase 'extremae probatur dementiae' may reflect the translator's emphasis.","The citation of Matthew 19:6 is not a direct quotation but a paraphrase; the Vulgate reads 'non sunt duo, sed una caro' but the context differs."],"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":"a Omnia enim quaecumque duo dicuntur, tunc duorum continent usum, quando alterum alteri indifferens creditur, juxta quod duorum vocabulum connumerationemque sortitur: verbi gratia, quatuor bestias divina Scriptura commemorat (Dan. vii): ursum, pardum, leonem, et aliam, quae has immanitate praecellat, et ideo sunt quatuor, quod unaquaeque bestia nihil minus juxta substantiam reliquis bestiis comprobatur existere: Duorum, inquit, hominum testimonium verum est (Joan. viii, 17), quia hoc uterque natura quod alter est. Sic et illud: Nemo potest duobus dominis servire (Matth. vi, 24), quia praebentis servilium tamquam domino, nihil minus uterque est dominus; ita et hic, si uterque secundum substantiam esset filius et dominus, possent aliquo modo duo filii et domini nuncupari, secundum numerum personarum. Quoniam vero hic quidem secundum substantiam filius existit et dominus, hic autem secundum essentiam nec filius, nec dominus approbatur; conjunctione vero quae illi facta cum illo est iisdem participasse cognoscitur, idcirco unum filium et dominum dicimus. Principaliter quidem intelligentes eum filium et dominum, qui secundum substantiam utrumque vere esse creditur et probatur; complectentes autem cogitatione et illum qui inseparabiliter ei conjungitur, et per ineffabilem cum eo copulam et filii [Baluz. filii et] domini particeps aestimatur.","english":"All things, therefore, that are spoken of as two, then have the use of two, when one is believed to be indifferent from the other, according to which they receive the name and enumeration of two: for example, divine Scripture mentions four beasts (Dan. 7): a bear, a leopard, a lion, and another, which surpasses these in savagery, and they are four because each beast is proven to exist as nothing less in substance than the other beasts. \"The testimony of two men is true\" (John 8:17), because each is by nature what the other is. And likewise: \"No one can serve two masters\" (Matt. 6:24), because the one offering service as to a master, each is no less a master; so also here, if each were by substance a son and a lord, they could in some way be called two sons and two lords, according to the number of persons. But since here one exists as son and lord by substance, and the other is proven to be neither son nor lord by essence; but by the union which that one has made with this one, he is known to have partaken of the same, therefore we speak of one son and one lord. Principally understanding as son and lord the one who is believed and proven to be truly both by substance; but also embracing in thought that one who is inseparably joined to him, and through the ineffable union with him is considered a partaker of son and lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Duorum, inquit, hominum testimonium verum est","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Duorum, inquit, hominum testimonium verum est' is a loose paraphrase of John 8:17, which in the Vulgate reads: 'in Lege autem duorum hominum testimonium verum est.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo potest duobus dominis servire","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Nemo potest duobus dominis servire' is from Matthew 6:24, Vulgate: 'Nemo potest duobus dominis servire.'","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quatuor bestias divina Scriptura commemorat (Dan. vii)","severity":"info","text":"The reference to four beasts in Daniel 7 (bear, leopard, lion, and a fourth) is a summary of Daniel 7:4-7, though the Vulgate lists the fourth as 'bestia alia' without naming it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"conjunctione vero quae illi facta cum illo est","severity":"info","text":"The argument that the union (coniunctio) of the divine and human natures in Christ allows the human to partake in the titles 'son' and 'lord' reflects Theodore of Mopsuestia's dyophysite Christology, distinguishing substance from participation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Omnia enim quaecumque duo dicuntur","severity":"info","text":"This passage uses a series of analogies (four beasts, two witnesses, two masters) to argue that 'two' requires equal substance, then applies the logic to Christ to deny two sons or lords.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et filii [Baluz. filii et] domini particeps aestimatur","severity":"caution","text":"The bracketed note '[Baluz. filii et]' indicates a textual variant in the Baluze edition, where 'filii et' may be an insertion; the sense is that the human nature is considered a partaker of 'son and lord'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'et filii [Baluz. filii et] domini particeps' is textually uncertain; the edition notes a possible insertion of 'filii et' by Baluze, but the intended meaning is that the human nature partakes of both 'son' and 'lord' through union."],"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":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Itaque sicubi filium hunc, qui sumptus est, divina Scriptura commemorat, relatione suscipientis, juxta unitatem, dicimus eum filium nuncupari; a cum enim dicit: De Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. i, 3), nondum Verbum dicit, sed formam servi susceptam: non enim Deus est secundum carnem, nec Deus ex semine David factus est, quem Filium beatus Paulus evidenter appellat. Intelligimus autem eum Filium, non quod per se dicatur Filius, sed quod illa conjunctione quam habet cum eo qui vere est Filius taliter nuncupetur.\n\nMisertus est Creator perditae creaturae, et sine commixtione format infantem, perducit ad aetatem virilem, incrementorum quidem processu naturae similitudinem pro modo credulitatis insinuans; occulte vero eidem copulatus existens, non aberat cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nasceretur, loquenti conjunctus est [Baluz. et] praesens, in ejus actibus perseverans, atque ibi suam connexionem sine peccato custodiens.","english":"Thus, wherever the divine Scripture mentions this son who was taken up, we say that he is called son by relation to the one who receives him, according to the unity; for when it says: \"Concerning his Son, who was made for him from the seed of David according to the flesh\" (Rom. 1:3), it does not yet speak of the Word, but of the assumed form of a servant: for he is not God according to the flesh, nor was God made from the seed of David, whom blessed Paul clearly calls Son. We understand him to be Son, not because he is called Son in himself, but because by that conjunction which he has with the one who is truly Son, he is so named.\n\nThe Creator took pity on the lost creature, and without mixture forms the infant, leads him to manly age, suggesting the likeness of nature by the process of growth, according to the measure of credibility; but secretly being joined to him, he was not absent when he was being formed, was not separated when he was born, was joined to him as he spoke and was present, persevering in his actions, and there preserving his connection without sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"filium hunc, qui sumptus est","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'this son who was taken up' refers to the human nature assumed by the Word, a key Antiochene distinction between the divine Son and the assumed man.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"De Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Concerning his Son, who was made for him from the seed of David according to the flesh' loosely echoes Rom. 1:3, but the wording is not exact; it may be a conflation or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"relatione suscipientis","severity":"info","text":"'Relation of the receiver' is a technical Antiochene term: the assumed man is called 'Son' only by his relation to the divine Son who receives him, not in his own nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"sine commixtione","severity":"info","text":"'Without mixture' reflects the Antiochene insistence on the distinctness of the divine and human natures in Christ, opposing any notion of blending or confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage divides into two parts: first, a theological argument on the title 'Son' based on relation; second, a narrative of the Creator's salvific action from formation to adult life, emphasizing continuous presence without separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"incrementorum quidem processu naturae similitudinem pro modo credulitatis insinuans","severity":"caution","text":"This clause is syntactically dense and may be corrupt; 'pro modo credulitatis' ('according to the measure of credibility') is unusual and could reflect a scribal error or a theological gloss.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ex semine David secundum carnem' is not a direct quotation of Rom. 1:3; the source of the citation is uncertain.","The clause 'incrementorum quidem processu naturae similitudinem pro modo credulitatis insinuans' is ambiguous in syntax and meaning; the translation 'suggesting the likeness of nature by the process of growth, according to the measure of credibility' is tentative."],"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":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Jesus, inquit, proficiebat aetate et sapientia (Luc. ii, 52) Hoc autem de Verbo Deo [Baluz. Dei] non potest dici, quia Deus perfectus natus est de Deo perfecto, sapientia de sapientia, virtus de virtute; ipse igitur non proficit, nec enim imperfectus est, ut ad perfectionem incrementis indigeat. a Non enim ei mox formato vel edito omnem propriam sapientiam Deitas contulit; sed hanc particulatim corpori tribuebat.\n\nDicite, inquit, eis: Prophetam vobis suscitabit Dominus Deus vester ex fratribus vestris tamquam me (Deut. xviii, 15). Ex fratribus non est Deus Verbum: propheta namque est qui gratiam Spiritus accipit, et futura praedicit, ministrans Spiritui, ad praenuntianda [Baluz. pronuntianda] ea quae ventura sunt. Deus igitur Verbum, cui ministerium praebuit, aut cujus propheta monstratus est? Vides ergo quia divina Scriptura caute pronuntiat.","english":"Jesus, it says, advanced in age and wisdom (Luke 2:52). But this cannot be said of the Word of God, because God, perfect, was born of perfect God, wisdom from wisdom, power from power; therefore he does not advance, nor is he imperfect, so as to need increments for perfection. For the divinity did not bestow all its own wisdom upon him as soon as he was formed or born; but it granted this to the body bit by bit.\n\nSay, it says, to them: The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers like me (Deuteronomy 18:15). The Word of God is not from among brothers: for a prophet is one who receives the grace of the Spirit and predicts the future, ministering to the Spirit, to foretell those things that are to come. Therefore the Word of God—to whom did it render service, or whose prophet was it shown to be? You see, then, that divine Scripture speaks cautiously.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luc. ii, 52","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Luke 2:52, where Jesus is said to advance in age and wisdom. The author denies this applies to the Word of God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"proficiebat","severity":"info","text":"The verb 'proficiebat' (advanced) is key: the author argues that the perfect God cannot progress, so the advance must refer to the human body.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Deut. xviii, 15","severity":"info","text":"The Latin cites Deuteronomy 18:15, which speaks of a prophet from among the brothers. The author uses this to argue the Word of God is not a prophet.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz.","severity":"info","text":"The edition notes 'Baluz.' for variant readings: 'Dei' for 'Deo' and 'pronuntianda' for 'praenuntianda', indicating textual uncertainty in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as two scriptural arguments (Luke 2:52, Deuteronomy 18:15) each followed by a theological conclusion that distinguishes the Word from the human Jesus or a prophet.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument reflects Theodore of Mopsuestia's anti-Arian and anti-Apollinarian stance, insisting on the full divinity of the Word and the separate human nature of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has variant readings in Baluzius' edition: 'Deo' vs 'Dei' and 'praenuntianda' vs 'pronuntianda', which affect the precise sense of the divine attribute and the verb for prophecy."],"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":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Precor inquit, attendite. Dicunt ad nos: Ut quid separatis ergo? Vos respondete, qui non separatis. Numquid Deus Verbum in novissimis est temporibus? Quid aiunt? Putasne, hoc dicunt? Nequaquam, sed ante saecula est. Et si ante saecula est, quod est ex semine David, multo magis ipse David, ex quo est semen; sed non est David ante saecula, nam multis hominibus probatur esse posterior, et post viginti octo generationes a David, id quod est ex semine David. Si autem ante saecula est quod in vulva formatum est, non ex semine David, et divina Scriptura mentitur.\n\nHomo ungitur Jesus Dominus noster, Verbum non ungitur: Verbum namque majus est Christo, quia Christus per sapientiam magnus effectus est. Verbum enim desursum est, Jesus autem Christus homo hinc est: Maria non peperit Verbum, nec enim Maria erat Deus [Baluz. om. Deus]; sed hominem nobis similem genuit, meliorem vero per omnia, quia de Spiritu sancto.","english":"I beseech you,\" he says, \"pay attention.\" They say to us: \"Why then do you separate?\" You answer, who do not separate. Is the Word of God in the last times? What do they say? Do you think they say this? Not at all, but it is before the ages. And if it is before the ages, that which is from the seed of David is much more so; but David himself, from whom the seed comes, is not before the ages, for he is proven to be posterior to many men, and after twenty-eight generations from David, that which is from the seed of David. But if that which was formed in the womb is before the ages, it is not from the seed of David, and divine Scripture lies.\n\nA man is anointed, our Lord Jesus; the Word is not anointed: for the Word is greater than Christ, because Christ has been made great through wisdom. For the Word is from above, but Jesus Christ the man is from here: Mary did not give birth to the Word, for Mary was not God; but she gave birth to a man like us, yet better in every way, because from the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The speaker addresses opponents who accuse him of separating Christ from the Word, and he counters by arguing that the Word is eternal, while the human Jesus is from David's line and later in time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Verbum","severity":"info","text":"Verbum (Word) is used here as a technical term for the divine Logos, distinct from Christ, who is the anointed man. This reflects Theodore's antiochene Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ex semine David","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ex semine David' echoes the messianic promise of a Davidic lineage, as in 2 Samuel 7 and the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'twenty-eight generations from David' likely reflects a chronological scheme common in early Christian chronography, such as that of Julius Africanus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The assertion that 'Mary did not give birth to the Word' was condemned as Nestorian at the Council of Ephesus (431), though Theodore's own orthodoxy remains debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text is a translation from Greek; the phrase 'meliorum vero per omnia' may reflect a Greek comparative, and the omission of 'Deus' in some manuscripts (Baluz.) suggests textual instability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the speaker ('Precor inquit') is unclear; it may be Theodore or an interlocutor. The phrase 'qui non separatis' could be addressed to opponents or to the audience."],"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":16,"ref":"p16","source":"e Ad diligens cautumque dogmatum vos examen evehimus: laboramus propter vos, ne rationem Domino reddamus pro nostro silentio. Perfectus ante saecula Filius perfectum eum qui ex David probatur assumpsit, Filius Dei filium David. Dices ergo mihi: Duos filios praedicas. Non dico duos filios David, numquid Deum Verbum filium David asserui? Sed nec duos filios Dei secundum substantiam dico: numquid enim duos filios assero de Dei substantia genitos ante saecula? Dico autem Dei Verbum habitasse in eo quod ex David semine comprobatur.\n\nNon sic, inquit, in eo quod est ex semine David, sicut in prophetis, habitavit Deus Verbum. Illi enim particulari quadam et modica [Baluz. modicata ] quantitate sancti Spiritus gratia fruebautur; hic autem in his, in quibus interdum erant illi, jugiter permanebat, et gloria Verbi ac sapientia replebatur. Alter intelligendus procul dubio praeter eum, et subsistens [ Baluz. sustinens ] proprie filius ac seorsum; non enim Verbum semetipsum sapientia replebat et gloria, sed alteri potius haec quae sunt insignia conferebat.","english":"We lead you to a diligent and careful examination of the doctrines: we labor for your sake, lest we render an account to the Lord for our silence. The perfect Son before the ages assumed the perfect one who is proven to be from David, the Son of God the son of David. You will therefore say to me: You preach two sons. I do not say two sons of David—have I asserted that God the Word is the son of David? But neither do I say two sons of God according to substance: for do I assert two sons born from the substance of God before the ages? I say, however, that God the Word dwelt in that which is proven to be from the seed of David.\n\nNot so, he says, did God the Word dwell in that which is from the seed of David as in the prophets. For they enjoyed a particular and moderate measure of the grace of the Holy Spirit; but here he continually remained in those things in which they were at times, and was filled with the glory and wisdom of the Word. Another is undoubtedly to be understood besides him, and a son subsisting properly and separately; for the Word did not fill itself with wisdom and glory, but rather conferred these insignia upon another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"perfectus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'perfectus' (perfect) is used twice in the Latin to distinguish the pre-existent Son from the assumed human nature, reflecting Theodore's Christological distinction between the divine person and the assumed man.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"subsistens","severity":"info","text":"The variant 'subsistens' (subsisting) in the Latin tradition, with Baluze's note 'sustinens', indicates a textual crux; the sense is that the human son is a distinct subsistent entity, not the Word itself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage defends Theodore's two-nature Christology against accusations of teaching two sons, a central controversy in the Nestorian debates of the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ex semine David","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ex semine David' (from the seed of David) echoes New Testament genealogies (e.g., Matthew 1:1-17) and is used here to denote Christ's human lineage, distinct from his divine origin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from a direct address to the reader ('Dices ergo mihi') to a hypothetical objection, then to a rebuttal, and finally to a clarification of the mode of divine inhabitation in Christ versus the prophets.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"modicata","severity":"caution","text":"Baluze's note 'modicata' for 'modica' suggests a textual variant; the sense is 'moderate' or 'diminished', but the reading is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation from Greek, and the precise original terms for 'subsistens' and 'modicata' are uncertain; the reading assumes Theodore's authentic Christology."],"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":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Adoramus purpuram propter indutum, et templum propter habitatorem; formam servi propter formam Dei; agnum propter pontificem, assumptum propter assumentem; formatum in utero virginali propter omnium conditorem. His confessis rebus, unam offer venerationem, non nocebit adoratio una, si res fueris ante confessus.\n\nUnam dicis venerationem, sed per unam venerationem introducis blasphemiam, ut si una sit adoratio, sit et una substantia.\n\na Non invideo, inquit, Christo cum factus est Deus; quod enim ipse factus est, ego factus sum, quia meae naturae est.\n\nHodie Jesus factus esi immortalis; quando ad eum accessit Maria post resurrectionem, dicit ei: Noli me tangere; aestimabat enim illa ipsum Dominum esse qui fuerat; et nesciebat quia post resurrectionem perfectus fuerat factus.","english":"We adore the purple because of the one who wears it, and the temple because of the inhabitant; the form of a servant because of the form of God; the lamb because of the high priest; the assumed because of the one who assumes; that which was formed in the virginal womb because of the creator of all things. With these things confessed, offer one veneration; one adoration will do no harm, if you have first confessed the realities.\n\nYou say one veneration, but through one veneration you introduce blasphemy, as if, because there is one adoration, there is also one substance.\n\n\"I do not begrudge,\" he says, \"Christ that he became God; for what he himself became, I have become, because it is of my nature.\"\n\nToday Jesus became immortal; when Mary approached him after the resurrection, he says to her: \"Do not touch me\"; for she thought that he was the same Lord who had been; and she did not know that after the resurrection he had been made perfect.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Adoramus purpuram propter indutum","severity":"info","text":"The opening analogy (purple for the wearer, temple for the inhabitant) is a standard patristic figure for distinguishing Christ's human and divine natures while allowing a single worship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"una substantia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'una substantia' (one substance) echoes the Nicene homoousios, which the antiochene Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected in favor of a distinction of natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Noli me tangere","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Noli me tangere' (Do not touch me) alludes to John 20:17, where the risen Jesus warns Mary Magdalene, but here it is applied to Mary the mother of Jesus, a variant tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Hodie Jesus factus est immortalis","severity":"info","text":"The claim that Jesus 'became immortal' only after the resurrection reflects Theodore's adoptionist Christology, where the man Jesus is assumed by the divine Son and perfected at the resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"a Non invideo, inquit, Christo cum factus est Deus","severity":"info","text":"The objection 'I do not begrudge Christ that he became God' was cited by Cyril of Alexandria as evidence of Theodore's blasphemy, implying Christ's divinity is merely acquired.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"His confessis rebus","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from a concessive statement of orthodox-sounding distinctions to a sharp rebuttal, marking a dialogical structure typical of Theodore's polemical fragments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the speaker in the quoted objection ('a Non invideo...') is unclear; it may be Theodore's opponent or a rhetorical persona.","The reference to Mary approaching Jesus after the resurrection conflates Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus; the Latin text does not specify which Mary."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}