{"slug":"tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1","title":"Eutherius Thyanensis","title_source":"Eutherius Thyanensis","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":"2026-11-15T06:08:02Z","cost_usd":0.003155},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp798.tmp798.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/tmp798/tmp798/tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":6,"english_words":1091,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":4798,"commentary_units":34,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":4,"ambiguities":9,"work_notes":5,"external_links":3,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1","abstract":"The work transmitted under the name of Eutherius of Thyanensis is a Latin theological treatise, likely translated from a lost Greek original, dating to the early fifth century (c. 430–435). It engages with the Nestorian controversy, defending the position of Nestorius and opposing the Christological formulations of Cyril of Alexandria. The text survives only in Latin manuscripts and was cited in medieval florilegia, but never entered standard patristic collections. Its authorship remains disputed, and the lack of Greek witnesses complicates reconstruction of the original argument. The present edition is based on a single printed source (OGL-PL) and does not collate all known manuscripts.","historical_context":"Eutherius was bishop of Tyana in Cappadocia and a supporter of Nestorius during the Christological controversies of the early fifth century. The work is usually dated to c. 430–435, based on its theological content and Eutherius's known activity. It survives only in Latin manuscripts, likely translated from a lost Greek original; no Greek witness is known. The text was cited in medieval florilegia and by later controversialists, but never entered standard patristic collections, limiting its influence to specialized theological circles. The ascription to Eutherius is traditional but not universally accepted, and the work's transmission is fragmentary. The present edition is based on a single printed source (OGL-PL) and does not collate all known manuscripts.","significance":"The work is significant as a rare surviving witness to the Nestorian perspective in the early Christological debates, offering insight into the arguments of Eutherius and his circle. Its disputed authorship and fragmentary transmission highlight the challenges of reconstructing non-Chalcedonian traditions. The text's use in medieval florilegia shows its later reception, though it remained marginal in patristic studies.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 430–435","event":"Probable composition of the work, based on theological content and Eutherius's activity."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"Translation from Greek into Latin; original Greek lost."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Cited in florilegia and by controversialists; limited circulation."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Edition based on a single printed source (OGL-PL); no full manuscript collation."}],"relations":[{"work":"Nestorius's writings","relation":"Supports Nestorian Christology, opposing Cyril of Alexandria.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Marius Mercator's refutations","relation":"Eutherius's works survive partly through Mercator's anti-Nestorian compilations.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Cyril of Alexandria's works","relation":"Opposes Cyril's Christological formulas, e.g., 'He suffered impassibly'.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Theodorus of Mopsuestia's works","relation":"Likely referenced; the text may conflate 'Theodoricus' with Theodorus.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Nestorianism","label":"Nestorianism","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism","reason":"Theological background of the controversy."},{"key":"wikipedia:Cyril of Alexandria","label":"Cyril of Alexandria","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria","reason":"Opponent in the Christological debate."},{"key":"wikipedia:Marius Mercator","label":"Marius Mercator","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marius_Mercator","reason":"Latin translator and refuter of Nestorian works."}],"cautions":["Authorship is traditional but not universally accepted; the work may be pseudepigraphal.","Date is approximate (c. 430–435) based on theological content, with no external evidence fixing it precisely.","Survives only in Latin translation; no Greek witness known, complicating reconstruction.","Edition based on a single printed source (OGL-PL); variant readings from other manuscripts not reported."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000423,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:08:02Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp798/tmp798/tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp798.tmp798.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":6,"translated":6,"commentary_passages":6,"commentary_units":34,"english_words":1091,"source_letters":4798,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is transmitted under the name of Eutherius of Thyanensis, a fifth-century bishop involved in the Nestorian controversy. The ascription is traditional but not universally accepted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives only in Latin manuscripts, likely translated from a lost Greek original. No Greek witness is known, complicating reconstruction of the original argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The work is usually dated to the early fifth century (c. 430–435), based on its theological content and Eutherius’s known activity. No external evidence fixes the date precisely.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work was cited in medieval florilegia and by later controversialists, but never entered the standard patristic collections. Its influence remained limited to specialized theological circles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition is based on a single printed source (OGL-PL) and does not collate all known manuscripts. Variant readings from other witnesses are not reported.","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: 6 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"4 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":6},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"III. EUTHERIUS THYANENSIS.\n\nMARII MERCATORIS PRAEFATIO.\n\na De Eutherio Nestorianae partis episcopo, ejusque sermonibus adversus S. Cyrilli et catholicorum aliquot sententias.\n\nPatefactis hactenus Nestorii Theodorique ac Theodoreti blasphemiis, quod eadem fuerit Eutherii ac illorum impietas, sed callidius, atque adeo perniciosius, insinuata fidelium animis, approbemus ex sermonibus quos conscripsit, in aliquot catholicorum sententias, et eam maxime beati Cyrilli Alexandrini pontificis, quam de Christo protulit dicens: Passus est impassibiliter. Quae sententia catholicae veritatis auctoritate munita hoc asserere nititur, ut unus idemque Dei Filius, secundum Deitatem impassibilis, secundum carnem passibilis esse credatur; sicut et e sanctus Ambrosius Mediolanensis episcopus in libro de Incarnatione Christi his edisserit verbis (Lib. de Incarnat. c. 5): Moriebatur, et non moriebatur; sepeliebatur, et non sepeliebatur; resurgebat, et non resurgebat, quia corpus proprium suscitabat; quia quod cecidit, hoc resurgit; quod non cecidit, non resurgit.","english":"III. EUTHERIUS OF TYANA.\n\nPREFACE OF MARIUS MERCATOR.\n\nConcerning Eutherius, bishop of the Nestorian party, and his discourses against certain statements of Saint Cyril and the Catholics.\n\nNow that the blasphemies of Nestorius, Theodoricus, and Theodoret have been laid bare, let us demonstrate that the impiety of Eutherius was the same as theirs, but insinuated into the minds of the faithful more cunningly, and therefore more dangerously, from the discourses he composed against certain statements of the Catholics, and especially that of the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, which he uttered concerning Christ, saying: “He suffered impassibly.” This statement, fortified by the authority of Catholic truth, strives to assert that one and the same Son of God is believed to be impassible according to His divinity, and passible according to His flesh; just as Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in his book on the Incarnation of Christ, sets forth in these words (Book on the Incarnation, ch. 5): “He was dying, and not dying; He was being buried, and not being buried; He was rising, and not rising, because He was raising His own body; because what fell, this rises; what did not fall, does not rise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Eutherius Thyanensis","severity":"info","text":"Eutherius was bishop of Tyana in Cappadocia and a supporter of Nestorius; his works survive only in fragments, mostly through Marius Mercator's refutations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"passus est impassibiliter","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'He suffered impassibly,' is a theological formula used by Cyril of Alexandria to express the paradox of Christ's suffering in his human nature while remaining impassible in his divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Moriebatur, et non moriebatur; sepeliebatur, et non sepeliebatur; resurgebat, et non resurgebat","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose's phrasing echoes the paradox of Christ's death and resurrection, drawing on New Testament themes of Christ's dual nature (e.g., Rom 6:9-10; 1 Cor 15:3-4).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Patefactis hactenus ... approbemus","severity":"info","text":"This sentence opens the preface with a logical structure: having exposed the blasphemies of Nestorius, Theodoricus, and Theodoret, the author now aims to prove Eutherius's similar but more cunning impiety.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Marius Mercator","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator was a 5th-century Latin theologian and translator who compiled anti-Nestorian works; his preface here frames Eutherius as a more dangerous heretic due to his subtlety.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodoricus","severity":"caution","text":"The name 'Theodoricus' is likely a scribal error or variant for 'Theodorus' (of Mopsuestia), a common Nestorian figure; the text may conflate or misidentify him.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Theodoricus' is uncertain; it may be a corruption of 'Theodorus' or refer to a different figure.","The exact source of Ambrose's quotation is given as 'Lib. de Incarnat. c. 5', but the chapter numbering may vary in manuscripts."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sed Nestorii sectatores unum in duos filios dividentes, alterius voluntates, et alterius passiones separant; nec credunt natum Deum de Virgine secundum carnem; nec dicunt secundum carnem crucis injuriam pertulisse; sed hominis has contumelias asserentes, arcanum salutiferae dispensationis a Verbo Dei secernunt, ac sic ingrati tantis ejus beneficiis approbantur.\n\nVerba Marii Mercatoris.\n\nSed jam supradicti Eutherii versuta pravitas, et nihil apud fideles ulterius valitura prodatur.\n\nFRAGMENTUM\n\nEx Eutherii Nestoriani sermone adversus S. Cyrillum, interprete Mario Mercatore.\n\nO considerata inconsideratae sapientiae a luxuria, et disciplina aedificans simul et destruens, sicut infantes in arena ludere conspicimus: Passus est impassibiliter. Priusquam audiam quod passus est, intelligentiam fugit quod passus est: illatum namque impassibiliter, non sinit manere quod passus est (Baluz. add. impassibiliter]. Si passus est, quomodo impassibiliter? Si impassibiliter, quomodo passus est? Fabulemur ineffabiliter, et sentiamus insensibiliter. Quis umquam vidit ruentem sine ruina, resurgentem sine resurrectione, dolentem sine dolore, sapientem sine sapientia, juvantem sine adjutorio, solventem insolubiliter? Et admittam: Passus est impassibiliter.","english":"But the followers of Nestorius, dividing the one into two sons, separate the wills of one and the passions of the other; they do not believe that God was born of the Virgin according to the flesh; nor do they say that he suffered the injury of the cross according to the flesh; but, asserting these insults to belong to the man, they separate the mystery of the saving economy from the Word of God, and thus are shown to be ungrateful for his many benefits.\n\nThe words of Marius Mercator.\n\nBut now let the crafty perversity of the aforementioned Eutherius be exposed, which will no longer avail among the faithful.\n\nFRAGMENT\n\nFrom a sermon of Eutherius the Nestorian against Saint Cyril, translated by Marius Mercator.\n\nO considered wisdom of inconsiderate luxury, and discipline building up and destroying at the same time, as we see children playing in the sand: He suffered impassibly. Before I hear that he suffered, the understanding flees from what he suffered: for the addition of \"impassibly\" does not allow \"he suffered\" to remain. If he suffered, how did he suffer impassibly? If impassibly, how did he suffer? Let us speak fabulously ineffably, and feel insensibly. Who ever saw one falling without a fall, rising without a resurrection, grieving without grief, being wise without wisdom, helping without help, loosing insolubly? And I will admit: He suffered impassibly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Verba Marii Mercatoris","severity":"info","text":"This short sentence marks a transition from Mercator's preface to the fragment of Eutherius, functioning as a structural heading in the Latin compilation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"passus est impassibiliter","severity":"info","text":"The oxymoron 'passus est impassibiliter' (he suffered impassibly) is a central theological paradox in Christological debate, used by Eutherius to critique Cyril's language about the suffering of the divine Word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorii sectatores","severity":"info","text":"The opening sentence summarizes the Nestorian position as dividing Christ into two sons, separating wills and passions, and denying that God was born or suffered in the flesh—a standard anti-Nestorian polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"interprete Mario Mercatore","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator, a Latin theologian active in the 5th century, translated and transmitted Greek Christological texts, including those of Nestorius and Eutherius, for a Western audience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Fabulemur ineffabiliter","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Fabulemur ineffabiliter' (let us speak fabulously ineffably) is rhetorically ironic, but its precise sense is contested: it may mock Cyril's paradoxical language or express Eutherius's own frustration with theological discourse.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation by Marius Mercator of a lost Greek original by Eutherius; the exact wording of the Greek is unknown.","The phrase 'O considerata inconsideratae sapientiae a luxuria' is syntactically difficult; 'a luxuria' may be a corruption or a Latinizing of a Greek expression."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Paulus, inquit, in tertium coelum conscendens, et ineffabiles in coelo [Baluz. paradiso] sermones audiens, nihil tale protulit, forsitan istis expositionem sublimissimam relinquens. Hic enim non dixit: Passus est impassibiliter, sed: Didicit ex his quae passus est subjectionem (Heb. v, 8); et: Tentatus per omnia iuxta similitudinem absque peccato (Heb. iv, 15); atque ita procul abstulit talium deliramenta verborum. Qui enim per omnia lentatus est juxta similitudinem, si passus est, passibiliter [Baluz. impassibiliter] passus est, ut per omnia similitudo servetur, aut certe alii monstrentur impassibiliter passi, ut custodiatur eorum similitudo quam gessit.\n\nItaque aut Salvatorem passum veraciter confitendum est, aut alios quosque [Baluz. quoque] credendum impassibiliter passos, ad quorum tentatus similitudinem Dominus praedicatur.","english":"Paul, he says, ascending to the third heaven and hearing ineffable discourses in heaven [Baluz. paradise], brought forth nothing of the sort, perhaps leaving this most sublime exposition to them. For he did not say: He suffered impassibly, but: He learned subjection from what he suffered (Heb. 5:8); and: Tempted in all things according to the likeness without sin (Heb. 4:15); and thus he removed far off such ravings of words. For he who was tempted in all things according to the likeness, if he suffered, he suffered passibly [Baluz. impassibly], so that the likeness might be preserved in all things, or else let others be shown to have suffered impassibly, so that the likeness which he bore might be preserved.\n\nTherefore, either the Savior must be confessed to have truly suffered, or it must be believed that any others [Baluz. also] suffered impassibly, to whose likeness the Lord is proclaimed to have been tempted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Heb. v, 8; Heb. iv, 15","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Hebrews 5:8 and 4:15, but the wording does not match the Vulgate exactly; the reference may be to a Latin version or a loose paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"passibiliter / impassibiliter","severity":"info","text":"The text has a textual variant: Baluz. reads 'impassibiliter' where the main text has 'passibiliter'. The choice affects the argument about whether Christ suffered in a manner preserving likeness to other tempted beings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"tertium coelum","severity":"info","text":"The 'third heaven' is a motif in early Christian and Jewish apocalyptic literature, notably in 2 Corinthians 12:2 (Paul's vision). The author uses it to contrast Paul's silence on impassibility with Nestorian claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Itaque aut ... aut","severity":"info","text":"The passage concludes with a disjunctive syllogism: either the Savior truly suffered, or others suffered impassibly. This rhetorical structure sharpens the polemic against Nestorian Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluz.","severity":"info","text":"The notation 'Baluz.' refers to Étienne Baluze, the editor of the 17th-century edition of this text. His variant readings indicate manuscript divergence, likely from a single source tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"alios quosque [Baluz. quoque]","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'alios quosque' is ambiguous: it may mean 'any others' or 'all others'. Baluz. reads 'quoque', which strengthens the inclusive sense. The translation follows the main text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'alios quosque' could be read as 'any others' or 'all others'; the Baluz. variant 'quoque' suggests the latter.","The variant 'passibiliter/impassibiliter' in the Baluz. edition creates an ambiguity about whether the author argues for passible or impassible suffering in the likeness."],"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":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Quae autem patientiae erit ostensio, si passus est impassibiliter? Quomodo praedicabitur patientia Christi, si dolorem patiendo non sensit? Quomodo etiam monstrabitur ineffabilis et incomparabilis erga homines dilectio Christi, si passio ejus sine dolore peracta est? Quis non diligat [Baluz. eligat] pati, non solum pro amicis, sed etiam pro inimicis, si pati impassibiliter liceat?\n\nCur autem et Dominus aiebat: Spiritus promptus est, caro autem infirma (Matth. xxvi, 42), si passionem incipiebat sine dolore perferre? Quare et ad Patrem clamabat: Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste (Ibid., v. 39). Propter quid etiam preces ad eum supplicationesque cum clamore valido et lacrymis offerebat, qui eum de morte posset eripere (Heb. vii, 7)?\n\nEPILOGUS.\n\nHaec interim cursim, ne modum libri supergredi videamur, expressimus, plurimorum virulenta contagia simplicitatem fidelium [Baluz. add. simplici teste] fallentium, congruo tempore, favente Deo, diffusius prodituri.","english":"What demonstration of patience will there be, if he suffered impassibly? How will the patience of Christ be proclaimed, if he felt no pain while enduring suffering? How, moreover, will the ineffable and incomparable love of Christ for humanity be shown, if his passion was accomplished without pain? Who would not choose to suffer, not only for friends but even for enemies, if it were permitted to suffer impassibly?\n\nWhy, moreover, did the Lord say: \"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak\" (Matt. 26:42), if he was beginning to undergo the passion without pain? Why did he cry out to the Father: \"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me\" (Ibid., v. 39)? For what reason did he also offer prayers and supplications to him with loud cries and tears, to him who could snatch him from death (Heb. 7:7)?\n\nEPILOGUE.\n\nThese things we have set forth in passing, lest we seem to exceed the measure of the book, intending to expose more fully, at a suitable time and with God’s favor, the virulent contagions of many who deceive the simplicity of the faithful.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"passus est impassibiliter","severity":"info","text":"The paradox 'suffered impassibly' is the central theological crux: the author argues that a painless passion would negate the very virtues (patience, love) that the passion is meant to demonstrate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Spiritus promptus est, caro autem infirma","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Matthew 26:42 is inexact: the Vulgate reads 'Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma' (the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak). The author adapts the verse to his argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Matthew 26:39 is a paraphrase of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. The Vulgate has 'Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste' (Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"qui eum de morte posset eripere","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Hebrews 7:7 is oblique: the Vulgate speaks of Melchizedek as 'qui eum de morte posset eripere' (who could snatch him from death). The author applies this to Christ's own prayers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"EPILOGUS","severity":"info","text":"The passage ends with an 'Epilogus' (Epilogue), a formal closing section that summarizes the author's intent and promises a fuller future treatment of the topic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"virulenta contagia simplicitatem fidelium fallentium","severity":"info","text":"The author characterizes his opponents' teachings as 'virulent contagions' that deceive the simple faithful, a common polemical trope in early Christian doctrinal disputes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source edition (ogl-pl) does not specify the exact Latin manuscript or edition used; the Baluz. variant readings (e.g., 'paradise' for 'heaven' in the previous passage, 'eligat' for 'diligat' here) suggest reliance on a Baluze edition, but the precise text is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Sed nunc hanc ipsam Nestorianam perfidiam licet in hujus operis fine nonnullis exemplis arguere.\n\nDic, o haeresis ingrata, crudelis, et impia, cui Christi Domini nostri voluntaria pro nobis exinanitio improbata [Baluz. probrosa] est, et visa humilitas divinae dignationis indigna: quae cum Judaeis et gentilibus crucem Christi scandalum et stultitiam reputas, nec Deum factum hominem tulisse passiones impassibiliter confiteris; si Nilus AEgypti in sua natura persistens, fuit AEgyptiis sanguis (Exod. vii, 20); Hebraeis autem aqua potabilis; si dies lumen Israelitis exhibuit (Exod. x, 23; Sap. xviii, 1), tenebras hostibus, quas merebantur, effudit; si fornax Babylonia tres pueros rorefecit, Babylonios incendio concremavit (Dan. iii, 24); cur tibi indignum aut impossibile videatur, unum eumdemque Filium, propter utramque naturam, pro nobis impassibiliter fuisse perpessum? Si haec vis creatura atque potentia est, cur id ipsum Creator implere non potuit, qui omnia quaecumque voluit, fecit, in coelo et in terra, in mari, et in omnibus abyssis (Psal. cxxxiv, 6)?","english":"But now it is permitted to refute this same Nestorian perfidy at the end of this work with a few examples.\n\nTell me, O ungrateful, cruel, and impious heresy, to which the voluntary emptying of our Lord Christ for us is displeasing [Baluz. shameful], and the humility of divine condescension seems unworthy; you who, with the Jews and Gentiles, consider the cross of Christ a scandal and a folly, and do not confess that God made man endured sufferings impassibly; if the Nile of Egypt, persisting in its own nature, was blood for the Egyptians (Exod. 7:20), but drinkable water for the Hebrews; if the day showed light to the Israelites (Exod. 10:23; Wis. 18:1), and poured out darkness upon the enemies, which they deserved; if the Babylonian furnace bedewed the three youths, but burned the Babylonians with fire (Dan. 3:24); why does it seem unworthy or impossible to you that one and the same Son, on account of each nature, suffered impassibly for us? If this is the power and capability of a creature, why could the Creator not accomplish the same, who did everything he wished, in heaven and on earth, in the sea, and in all the abysses (Ps. 134:6)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed nunc hanc ipsam Nestorianam perfidiam licet in hujus operis fine nonnullis exemplis arguere","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks the transition to the concluding argument of the work, introducing a series of scriptural examples to refute Nestorianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"improbata [Baluz. probrosa]","severity":"caution","text":"The source edition notes a variant reading: Baluz. suggests 'probrosa' (shameful) instead of 'improbata' (disapproved). This textual crux affects the rhetorical force of the heresy's rejection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Exod. vii, 20","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Nile turning to blood for the Egyptians is from Exodus 7:20, where Moses strikes the water.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Exod. x, 23; Sap. xviii, 1","severity":"info","text":"The day showing light to Israelites and darkness to enemies combines Exodus 10:23 (the plague of darkness) and Wisdom 18:1 (the light for Israel).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Dan. iii, 24","severity":"info","text":"The Babylonian furnace that bedewed the three youths but burned the Babylonians is from Daniel 3:24 (the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. cxxxiv, 6","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the Creator doing everything he wished in heaven, earth, sea, and abysses is from Psalm 134:6 (Vulgate numbering).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The variant 'improbata' vs. 'probrosa' in the source edition is unresolved; the translation follows 'improbata' but notes the alternative."],"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":"[a Sed ne solita calumnia Nestorii sectatores et Eutychianos criminentur qui suo dogmati nefario reluctantur. Est enim hoc haeresibus utriusque concretum, ut contra quamlibet earum catholicus disputator assurgat, neutri crimen suspicionis effugiat, dum nos Eutychianam refellentes insaniam Nestorianos appellare non desinant, et e contra Nestorii complices catholica veritate convicti refutatores suos Eutychianos existere mentiantur; necessarium profecto credidimus utramque pravitatem sua per plurimos ignorantia serpentem beatissimi Patris Joannis Tomitanae urbis episcopi provinciae Scythiae, sermonibus prodere.","english":"But lest the followers of Nestorius and the Eutychians hurl their usual slander against those who resist their nefarious dogma—for it is a trait conjoined in both heresies that, when a Catholic disputant rises against either one, he does not escape the charge of suspicion from the other, since when we refute Eutychian madness they do not cease to call us Nestorians, and conversely the accomplices of Nestorius, convicted by Catholic truth, falsely claim that their refuters are Eutychians—we have indeed deemed it necessary to expose both perversities, which creep along through the ignorance of many, by the discourses of the most blessed Father John, bishop of the city of Tomi in the province of Scythia.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Eutychianos","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches (c. 378–454) taught that Christ's human nature was absorbed into the divine, a position condemned at Chalcedon (451). The pairing with Nestorius here reflects the common charge that each heresy implies the other.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Tomitanae urbis episcopi provinciae Scythiae","severity":"info","text":"John, bishop of Tomi (Tomis, in Scythia Minor, modern Romania), is otherwise obscure. The phrase identifies the source of the discourses used to refute both heresies, likely a collection of homilies or letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"necessarium profecto credidimus","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the preface and introduces the purpose of the work: to expose both Nestorian and Eutychian errors through the sermons of John of Tomi. The long parenthetical explains the rhetorical dilemma of the Catholic disputant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"beatissimi Patris Joannis","severity":"info","text":"The epithet 'beatissimi Patris' suggests John of Tomi was venerated as a saint or authoritative father. The work's attribution to Eutherius of Tyana is contested; this passage may be an interpolation or a later framing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"utramque pravitatem sua per plurimos ignorantia serpentem","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is compressed: 'sua per plurimos ignorantia serpentem' likely means 'creeping through the ignorance of many'. The phrase may be corrupt or elliptical; the English draft supplies 'which creep along' as a plausible reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'John, bishop of Tomi' is uncertain; he may be a minor figure or a pseudepigraphal attribution. The phrase 'sua per plurimos ignorantia serpentem' is grammatically ambiguous, possibly a dative or ablative of manner."],"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."}]}]}