Institut d’Études Augustiniennes

IEA - Composante du LEM (UMR 8584, CNRS - EPHE - Paris-Sorbonne)

Home > Publications > Periodicals > Revue d'études augustiniennes et patristiques (RÉAug) > Last volume

RÉAug, Volume 65/2

Paris, 2019, 312 p.
ISBN: 978-2-85121-310-5
Table of contents and Abstracts

Les apparitions du Christ ressuscité dans l’exégèse patristique
Isabelle BOCHET – Marie-Odile BOULNOIS – Martine DULAEY – Michel FÉDOU Avant-propos 201-203
Michel FÉDOU Les récits d’apparition dans l’apologie d’Origène contre Celse 204-219
Alain LE BOULLUEC Variations théologiques de Pères grecs du IVe siècle (Eusèbe de Césarée, Épiphane, Grégoire de Nazianze) sur Jn 20, 17b et Jn 20, 22 221-241
Marie-Odile BOULNOIS Toucher les plaies du Ressuscité: enjeux polémiques et préfiguration sacramentelle des apparitions du Christ aux apôtres selon Cyrille d’Alexandrie 243-266
Isabelle BOCHET Ostendit caput, ostendit corpus (In Ps. 147, 18). L’exégèse augustinienne de l’apparition aux apôtres en Lc 24, 36-49 267-286
Matthieu CASSIN Pain, miel et poisson: exégèse patristique des aliments consommés après la résurrection 287-305
Pierre MOLINIÉ «Ils n’avaient pas compris l’Écriture…» Jn 20, 9 dans l’exégèse de Jean Chrysostome 307-339
Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER L’existence de Jésus ressuscité en Jn 21, selon Jean Chrysostome 341-357
Martine DULAEY L’apparition aux disciples au lac de Tibériade (Jn 21) dans la prédication des Pères latins des IVe-VIe siècles 359-377
Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea 2018 379-431
Bulletin augustinien pour 2018/2019 et compléments d’années antérieures 433-501
Auteurs des travaux recensés 503-507
Table générale 509-510

Abstracts:

Michel FÉDOU, «Les récits d’apparition dans l’apologie d’Origène contre Celse», p. 204-219

In his True Discourse Celsus develops radical objections against Christian belief in the apparitions of the risen Christ: these accounts are in his eyes fictions; they are not based on reliable testimonies; moreover, Celsus adds, Jesus should have appeared to everyone and not only to a few witnesses. In response, Origen develops in his Contra Celsum a philosophical argumentation inspired by Plato to support the belief in apparitions. Paradoxically, he also argues from the case of Thomas, who did not immediately believe in these apparitions. Moreover, if Christ did not appear to everyone, it is because not everyone was willing to welcome him. But the origenian exegesis of the stories of apparitions also finds a decisive light in the Commentary on John: Christ’s victory over death is not yet totally given at the time of the apparitions, it only reaches its fullness at the time when Christ definitively ascends to his Father.

Back to the table of contents


Alain LE BOULLUEC, «Variations théologiques de Pères grecs du IVe siècle (Eusèbe de Césarée, Épiphane, Grégoire de Nazianze) sur Jn 20, 17b et Jn 20, 22», p. 221-241

The theological debates of the Greek Fathers in the fourth century about Jn 20 principally deal with the verses 20, 17 and 20, 22. The controversies about Jn 20, 17 refer both to the Christ’s identity, human and divine, and to his relation with the Father. Eusebius of Caesarea puts emphasis on the difference between the Logos and the highest God, but he avoids using the medio-platonic phrase “second God”, after the condemnation of Arianism. Fighting against Marcellus of Ancyra, he strives to show that the divine “monarchia” is compatible with the existence of the Son’s hypostasis, according to the similarity between model and image, though he is maintaining the Father’s supremacy. Epiphanius of Salamis afterwards, eager to guard the Nicean orthodoxy, refers the disputable phrase “my God and your God” (Jn 20, 17b) to the distinction between humanity and divinity. He has to understand it within the compass of the “economy”, using the concept of “homonym”. This argument is more clearly elaborated by Gregory of Nazianzus. With regard to the effusion of the Spirit in Jn 20, 22, Eusebius traces a sequence of salutary events: the Saviour ascends to the Father after his appearance to Mary (Jn 20, 17), then he descends with the Holy Spirit among the disciples, in order to grant them a part of the Spirit’s charismata (Jn 20, 22); finally, the Spirit comes with full power at the Pentecost, after the Ascension. Eusebius makes a difference between the purifying effusion of Jn 20, 22 and the personal coming of the Spirit. We do not find this scheme in Epiphanius, who lays great stress upon the trinitary consubstantiality. Gregory of Nazianzus resumes the theme and, thinking about the Spirit, justifies innovation in theology. With all their disagreements, the Fathers remain mindful of the narrative consistency of the Gospel.

Back to the table of contents


Marie-Odile BOULNOIS, «Toucher les plaies du Ressuscité: enjeux polémiques et préfiguration sacramentelle des apparitions du Christ aux apôtres selon Cyrille d’Alexandrie», p. 243-266

Cyril of Alexandria is more interested than any of his predecessors in the persistence of the marks of passion after the resurrection of Christ in Lk 24, 39-43 and Jn 20, 19-29. The question of the identity (“it is me”) of the one who appears gives rise to a reflection on the pedagogical reasons that lead Christ to postpone his glorious manifestation and to a completely original comparison with the manifestation of Christ to the angels during his ascent. The exegesis of these apparitions to the Eleven has a strongly polemic character and refutes several errors: origenist (subtle body), dualist (distinction of God and flesh), synousiast (transformation of the body into the nature of divinity). Finally, to resolve the contradiction between this invitation to touch and the prohibition made to Mary Magdalene in Jn 20, 17, Cyril is the only author of Late Antiquity to propose to read these episodes as a prefiguration of the liturgical practices of the synaxis and of the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Back to the table of contents


Isabelle BOCHET, «Ostendit caput, ostendit corpus (In Ps. 147, 18). L’exégèse augustinienne de l’apparition aux apôtres en Lc 24, 36-49», p. 267-286

The paper examines how Augustine developed his exegesis of the appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples in Lk 24:36-49, first in the context of the anti-Manichean controversy, then in the context of the anti-Donatist struggle, and finally in relation to his reflection on the condition of the risen bodies in Letter  205 to Consentius and in Sermon  242. Augustine uses Lk 24:39 to defend the truth of the flesh of Christ against the Manicheans and to think about the condition of the risen bodies at the time of the writing of the City of God. He cites Lk 24:47 as a
leitmotif in the antidonatist controversy, to establish that the true Church of Christ is the one that is spread among all nations, that is, the Catholic Church. The two verses are often quoted together, in order to show that the two statements of faith are inseparable: it is inconsistent to admit the reality of the flesh of Christ because of Lk 24:39, while refusing to recognize the universality of the Church clearly stated in Lk 24:47. The pericope of Lk 24:36-49 makes known both the Head and the Body of Christ: “Ostendit caput, ostendit corpus.”

Back to the table of contents


Matthieu CASSIN, «Pain, miel et poisson: exégèse patristique des aliments consommés après la résurrection», p. 287-305

What did Christ eat after the resurrection? The study of the aliments present during the meals of the risen Christ in the evangelical texts leads us to notice a variant in the text of Lk 24:42, widely spread both in the East and in the West: the mention of a honeycomb alongside the grilled fish. After studying the diffusion of this lesson in the manuscript tradition of the Greek New Testament and in the ancient versions, we focus on the commentary on this passage provided by Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa. Both connect the Lucanian verse to Ct 5:1c, which mentions bread and honey; this connection leads Gregory of Nyssa to merge the accounts of the meal of Jn 21, by the lake, and of Lk 24, in Jerusalem, in order to match the food with that of Ct 5:1c. There are some testimonies of this longer variant of Lk 24:42 from the middle of the 4th century onwards (Pseudo-Athanasius, Epiphanius of Cyprus); the older testimonies remain very problematic and are reduced to a paraphrase in a fragment of the pseudo-Justin. The conclusive Latin testimonies are all later than the 4th century.

Back to the table of contents


Pierre MOLINIÉ, «“Ils n’avaient pas compris l’Écriture…” Jn 20, 9 dans l’exégèse de Jean Chrysostome», p. 307-339

When commenting on Joh 20:9 (“As yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead”), John Chrysostom uses an exegetical process which, though common in his works, has not yet been paid attention by scholars: exegetical reformulation. Rather than quoting this verse, Chrysostom reformulates it to derive a general theological statement (theologoumenon). He then applies it to many situations in spiritual life or biblical culture. This article proves the existence of this theologoumenon, suggest a hypothesis about its emergence and put this reformulation in the context of the ancient exegetical tradition.

Back to the table of contents


Catherine BROC-SCHMEZER, «L’existence de Jésus ressuscité en Jn 21, selon Jean Chrysostome», p. 341-357

This article analyses John Chrysostom’s commentary on John 21 in order to appreciate how the preacher understands the relationship between Jesus and his disciples after the Resurrection. Chrysostom is aware that Jesus is no longer present with his disciples in the same way as he was before the Resurrection, now possessing a body that becomes visible and is fed only by condescension. He also insists on the kindness of the relationship between Jesus and Peter, showing how, paradoxically, Jesus fulfills Peter’s desire in announcing that he will be led “where he does not desire to go”, as well as the relationship between Peter and John, where Peter’s question to Jesus about John is treated as act of benevolence. The analysis shows the coherence between the exegesis found in the Homily on John 21 and in the Homily on John 13, as well as in passages in the Panegyrics of Paul and in the Homilies of the Second Letter to the Corinthians.

Back to the table of contents


Martine DULAEY, «L’apparition aux disciples au lac de Tibériade (Jn 21) dans la prédication des Pères latins des IVe-VIe siècles», p. 359-377

If we set aside Augustine’s work, the last chapter of John’s Gospel has been the focus of few Latin commentaries, at least with regards to the first part depicting the miraculous catch of fishes. Nonetheless, these commentaries are not without interest, notably those of Peter Chrysologus and Gregory the Great. It is the final dialogue between Jesus and Peter in the second part that has been referred to the most and when Augustine added his own commentary, he was following an older tradition.

Back to the table of contents





Copyright Institut d’Études Augustiniennes - 2016

Last update on : Tuesday 3 November 2020