The exegesis of the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) offers Hilary of Poitiers the chance to reflect on the emotional suffering of the Word made flesh and its glorification by the Father. The bishop uses these motifs to rebut the subordinationist position of his adversaries and to uphold the presence of the Father in the Son, declaring the perfect equality of both persons. Thus, he uses the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus to show how the glorification of the Son is intended to sanctify the flesh he assumed, so that the Father to recognizes him in it, thus restoring the unity of his divine and human natures. Likewise, he draws a connection with Jn 5:24-29, reinforcing his thoughts on the mystery of the mutual inhabitation of the Father and the Son with an anti-Arian interpretation.

As part of the studies on Pseudo-Basiliana Graeca, the vol. LIX of Sacris Erudiri (2020) dedicated some interventions to the Commentary on Isaiah attributed to Basil. Faced with new doubts about authenticity, the author examines the arguments proposed, but reconfirms his position on the Basilian authorship of the work.

The article considers arguments presented by Erasmus of Rotterdam, Julien Garnier and their modern followers against the authenticity of the Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, which has been preserved in mansucsripts as a work of Basil the Great. A survey of the correspondence of Erasmus and of the circumstances of his attempted translation of the book shows that his critical judgement on the authorship was motivated by the need to justify his abandoning of the project of translation rather than by the evidence of the text itself. The first systematic examination of Garnier’s critical dossier demonstrates that his statements about the incompatibility of many linguistic features of the Commentary with undisputed writings of Basil are not supported by the text of his own edition of the book. Moreover, his rigid criteria for stylistic analysis are based on misleading notions about textual aspects of the creation and transmission of Patristic works. Isolated observations of the modern followers of the Maurist need to be assessed on the basis of a new and critical edition of the text; however, without the support of his numerous unfounded arguments, they are not sufficient by themselves to refute the attribution of the book in the manuscript tradition.

The essay points out some loci in the surviving part of the Coptic translation of De anima et resurrectione, written in Greek by Gregory of Nyssa. It shows how the Coptic text can be useful not only for amending the Greek text but also for understanding better the underlying theology of the Alexandrian Church, which promoted the Coptic translation. In this way, a reading of Gregory’s fragment will be read for the first time using the Coptic version on its own terms and not merely as a translation of Ancient Greek.

The present paper provides a comparative analysis of imperial and canonical legislation concerning the abduction of lay or consecrated women in the 4th century, when both legislations delineated the distinctive features of the abovementioned crimen. The imperial law showed both an extreme severity towards abductors and a leniency towards lay and consecrated women, who were considered innocent; however, women were not allowed to live together with their abductors. The canonical legislation also severely punished abductors and considered lay women innocent; however, contrary to the provisions in the civil laws, the ecclesiastical legislation condemned consecrated women who consented to abduction. The paper aims to reconstruct the basic outline of both legislative systems and to identify a set of key features that might describe female submission to both the will of male members of the family and to the provisions in the canonical laws: indeed, the consent to abduction often represented an extreme attempt on the part of women to determine their own lives.

This article further examines the literary relationship between the De Trinitate falsely attributed to Didymus the Blind and the works of Cyril of Alexandria, aside from their common philosophical citations. The highlighted similarities of these two authors cannot be explained by a common source; on the contrary, they indicate a direct dependence of one author upon the other. Their analysis shows that words, turns of phrase and ideas which are typical of Cyril and often occur in his writings are each used only once by Pseudo-Didymus. This evidence weighs heavily in favour of Cyril’s antecedence. In fact, the anonymous author of the De Trinitate has been influenced, in addition to fourth-century doctrinal treatises, by Cyril’s De sancta Trinitate dialogi, an anti-Arian work dating from the 420s. He also assimilated several other Cyrillian features, and was even inspired by Cyril’s anti-Arian Christology in his doctrine on the Holy Spirit. Cyril of Alexandria, therefore, has priority over Pseudo-Didymus, both chronologically and theologically.

The so-called gammadiae are symbols similar to letters whose specific meaning is unknown. It is currently believed that they could have originated among Hellenistic Jews, and been inherited by Christians, who adapted them to own needs. They seem to have indicated the holiness of the characters marked by them. Building on previous analysis and on the recent systematic cataloguing of the Early Christian catacombs of Rome, as well as a range of other artefacts, we examine two lesser known archaeological finds, and finally consider some examples of gammadiae “of transition”, which appear during the Medieval period predominantly in manuscripts or in the mosaics of basilicas. These last symbols show differences from the Early Christian ones, even though they still appear systematically on the pallia of Christ, the martyrs, saints and other holy people.

The present article concerns the problem of the different endings of the Gospel of Mark according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Quaestiones ad Marinum, 1, 1-3 and Severus of Antioch, Homily 77, 16, 1, which is largely based on Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Marinum. The author proposes a new interpretation of Eusebius’ passage by comparing it with what Severus of Antioch says in his Homily. The final chapter deals with a possible allusion to a lost Quaestio ad Marinum in Severus’ Homily.

The sex aetates mundi was the central framework of Early Christian, Late Antique, and early medieval Christian eschatology and historiography. This article is the second part of a study of the development and history of this motif. Part I (published in Augustinianum 61, 1 [2021]) summarised the emergence of this framework in biblical and patristic writings up to the late fourth-century, concluding with the work of the North African theologian, Tyconius. The second part of this study investigates the treatment of this subject in the writings of Augustine of Hippo, Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore of Seville, and the Venerable Bede. The majority of the examination is devoted to tracing Augustine’s understanding of the six ages – which was strongly influenced by Tyconius – since Augustine is frequently credited with being the main proponent of this conceptualisation of sacred history. This investigation of Augustine’s writings is mostly focused on De civitate Dei, the work that addresses the six ages framework most thoroughly, but analyses references to this historiography throughout his corpus. The conclusion of this examination argues that Augustine engaged with this commonplace view of history, but only insofar as it points mankind towards reflection of the world to come. This study argues that Isidore is the scholar who should be credited with popularising this notion in the early medieval Latin West. How the developments in calendrical reckoning put forward by Dionysius Exiguus and Bede intersect with and influence the six ages model is also charted. Overall, this study provides an in-depth examination of the six ages of history model in the thought of the fathers of Late Antique and early medieval Latin exegesis, pinpointing key moments in the evolution of the sex aetates model.

Researchers agree on ascribing the De incarnatione Christi contra Apollinarium and the De salutari epiphania contra Apollinarium to two different authors, who probably shared the same theological education. The latter not only uses a mature theological style but shows a better knowledge of Apollinarius of Laodicea and his disciples’ writings. Even though the two authors try to demonstrate the presence of a perfect humanity in Christ, against Apollinarian thought, we can find some important differences in their works concerning the topic of the impeccabilitas of Christ and the relationship between sin and freedom. They explain in a different way the theory of salvation according to Apollinarius: while according to the author of De incarnatione Christi contra Apollinarium the man can save himself through the imitation of Christ, for the other writer salvation has been accomplished only because Christ is devoid of any trace of sin.

This essay places the debate between Jerome and Helvidius in the theological context of the Rome of Pope Damasus. It presents the different theological positions of Helvidius and Jerome, highlighting that the literary clash was in the first place centered on asceticism and only later on the question of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The controversy, before being dogmatic, was exegetical in nature and this could explain the absence of an official intervention by Pope Damasus. Referring mainly to the testimony of Ambrosiaster, it is proved in this study that the thought of Helvidius differed from the tradition of the Church in Rome, and that even Jerome innovates with his exegetical solution to the issue of the «brethren of the Lord».