A critical review of the editio princeps of the Liber Timothei episcopi de Pascha recently published by Pierre Chambert-Protat and Camille Gerzaguet in the coll. Sources chrétiennes. The article questions the editors’ thesis, at length developed in the Introduction, that the text is only the Latin translation, also known by Gregorius of Elvira and St. Augustine, of a Greek treatise apparently due to one Timothy, bishop of Cybistra in Cappadocia during the first half of the IVth century (the translation would be a little later: the original and the version as well ought to be situated around the time of Nicaea, which applied to fixing the Easter date). It tries to show that this thesis, although not implausible, is not however as strong as its promoters imagine, and that several of their arguments are to be rejected or at least to be qualified. This discussion, which forms the main part of the article, is supplemented by two lists of proposed corrections: the first deals with the Latin text and the second, in an appendix, with its French translation.

Was Sabellius really a Libyan? Examining contemporary sources and ancient historiography on one of the most enigmatic heretics in the history of dogmas, the article shows that the Libyan origin of Sabellius is unlikely, and that it is an exaggeration to claim that Libya was a Sabellian home in the third century. Eusebius of Caesarea is probably guilty of having identified the adversaries of Dionysius of Alexandria located in Ptolemais as disciples of Sabellius, and the testimony of Origen on the theology of the identification between the Father and Christ is too abstract to deduce that this theology was as widely diffused in the East as it has previously been held.

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.