L’article présente et discute le livre de Michael Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere. Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis. Dans cet ouvrage, M. Cameron expose la manière dont Augustin a élaboré sa méthode d’interprétation figurative de l’Ancien Testament, depuis ses premières œuvres jusqu’en 400 environ, c’est-à-dire jusqu’à la rédaction des Confessions, du De catechizandis rudibus et du Contra Faustum manichaeum. La force du livre est d’articuler la christologie d’Augustin à sa lecture figurative des Écritures: la manière dont Augustin a peu à peu compris la profondeur de la médiation du Christ, à la fois Dieu et homme, grâce à la lecture de Paul et des Psaumes, est à lier à l’importance qu’il donne, dans l’Écriture, aux signa translata. M. Cameron montre bien le rôle qu’a joué Ambroise en permettant à Augustin de rattacher la Bible au cadre rhétorique qui lui était familier; il serait fécond de compléter ses remarques en analysant aussi la pratique exégétique d’Ambroise sur quelques exemples et en précisant le rôle de Tyconius dans la formation de l’exégèse figurative d’Augustin. Le jugement que porte M. Cameron sur le De doctrina christiana qu’il juge “expérimental et incomplet à bien des titres” mérite sans doute d’être un peu nuancé.

Published here is a critical edition of Augustine’s Sermons 293 and 299, the first edition since the Maurists. Sermon 293 was preached in Carthage on the 24th of June 413, feast of John the Baptist, at a time when infant baptism was a controversial question. Sermon 299 was delivered on the 29th of June, in honour of Peter and Paul : its manuscript transmission and thematic likeness with Sermon 293 suggest that it was preached, according to Pierre-Marie Hombert’s hypothesis, in the same year in the same city, not five years later. Both texts, numbered among the longest of the De sanctis sermons, contradict Pelagian theses about the origin of death and the notion of human impeccability.

Despite the ideal of dispossession, absolute poverty and the total absence of links with possession and human beings which shaped the myth of the monastic desert, the monastic economy and its management were very similar to the secular economic system, in that both were organised by networks based on families.This article tackles how and where material assets were produced and administered in Egyptian monasteries between the fourth and eighth centuries (the diakonia), and who was responsible for this function (the oikonomos). The history of monasticism is materially related to the institutionalisation of the society’s cultural and material systems of production. Consequently the economy was also transformed by monastic practices: history is linked to the definition and the successful affirmation of the figure of the oikonomos, the steward in charge of everyday life in monasteries.

The verbal form κατέλθῇ, which appears in the passage of Adv. Haer. 1, 13, 3, linn. 56-58, in which Irenaeus presents the Marcosian doctrine, is usually translated as to descend, following the old Latin version (cf. descendat). However, in another place in the work of Irenaeus himself, this verb receives other translations. This note shows how it may be much better to translate the verb κατέρχομαι in AH 1, 13, 3, linn. 56-58 by devenire, redere.

Three major reshuffles delineate two families (α and β) within the manuscript tradition of the Commentary on Matthew by Hilary of Poitiers. In the first two cases (3, 2; 9, 7-9), J. Doignon in his critical edition (SCh 254 and 258) favored the text of the α family, judging that the β family generally attests to numerous revisions intended to suppress difficult lectiones. In the third case, on the other hand, he adopted the short text of the β family, thus demoting two short passages in 33, 5 specific to the α family. This article shows that on the one hand the language of these passages is attributable to Hilary and on the other their content fits perfectly with his exegesis. It thus argues for their authenticity.

The main exegetical work of Jean Philopon, the De opificio mundi, which rehearses the literalist reading of Genesis found in the Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron rather than an allegorical reading, uses a surprising hermeneutic given the general expectations of the era and in particular the Miaphysite milieu to which Philoponus belongs. This paper studies how Philoponus’ work stems from the demands of the Christological debate in which he took part, and offers an evaluation of its immediate aftermath.

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.