Institut d’Études Augustiniennes

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

Home > Publications > Periodicals > Revue d'études augustiniennes et patristiques (RÉAug) > Tables of Contents

Volume 65 (2019)


François DOLBEAU Un sermon d’Augustin sur Marthe et Marie 1-35
Hugues VERMÈS Gratia medicinalis: la métaphore médicale dans le De natura et gratia d’Augustin 37-72
Marie PAULIAT Mt 12, 46-50 dans la prédication d’Augustin. Exégèse inclusive et questions de genre 73-98
Fabienne JOURDAN Une appropriation habile de Numénius: Eusèbe de Césarée et son emploi critique de l’adjectif ὁμοούσιος en PE XI 21-22 (II) 99-117
Alessandro CAPONE Greg. Naz. Or. 19: versione latina e testo greco 119-134
Joel VARELA RODRÍGUEZ Algunos problemas del uso de Gregorio Magno por Isidoro de Sevilla 135-164
Adriano RUSSO Una nota sulla tradizione del Liber Epigrammatum di Prospero 165-172
Comptes rendus bibliographiques 173-198


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


François DOLBEAU, «Un sermon d’Augustin sur Marthe et Marie», p. 1-35

The Gospel about Martha and Maria (Luke 10, 38-42) was explained by Augustine in a sermon which was at first printed in a short version (s. 104, of approximately 980 words). This version was spread through the collection called De uerbis Domini and many italian homeliaries and used, at an early stage, for celebrating the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, a fact which accounts for a lot of medieval quotations. In the year 1912, at Wolfenbüttel, dom Germain Morin discovered a long and homogeneous version of the same sermon (s. Guelf. 29 or 104 auct., of 1940 words), which shows the secondary character of the short one. In 1990, I found a second copy, in Mainz library, of the part uniquely transmitted by the Wolfenbüttel codex: therefore the present edition seemed necessary, where italian homeliaries are also collated for the first time. Neither the date of the s. Guelf. 29 nor the place where it was preached are known for sure. In an appendix, the short version, due to the compiler of the De uerbis Domini collection, is critically published as well.

Back to the table of contents

Hugues VERMÈS, «Gratia medicinalis: la métaphore médicale dans le De natura et gratia d’Augustin», p. 37-72

Is Saint Augustine’s frequent use of medical metaphor merely a commonplace, or is it based on deeper reasons? The reading of De natura et gratia, an antipelagian treatise (415), may shed light on the relevance of this medical metaphor for the Augustinian exposition of the theology of grace. The study of this work, which includes an explicit questioning of Augustine on the value of this metaphor (De natura et gratia, 29), makes it possible to identify four reasons for the use of the medical image: this one expresses the need for salvation brought by Christ, the possible action of an evil on an evil, the distinction of the states of human nature and the attack of our body by sin. In the refutation of the Pelagian argument of the possibilitas non peccandi, the importance of Rm 7, 24-25a ("Who will set me free from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ Our Lord") makes particularly relevant the metaphor of a gratia medicinalis, acting through the mediation of the body.

Back to the table of contents

Marie PAULIAT, «Mt 12, 46-50 dans la prédication d’Augustin. Exégèse inclusive et questions de genre», p. 73-98

Augustine of Hippo’s Sermo Denis 25 (72A) is essentially a comment on the pericope Mt 12, 46-50, in which Christ seems to despise his mother and brothers and to prefer those who do the will of his Father. Starting from a comparison between the comment developed in this sermon, the interpretations to be found in the rest of the Augustinian corpus and the patristic tradition, we try to show that while including usual comments (rebuttal of Manichean criticisms concerning Christ’s humanity, exhortation to give preference to God over parents, definition of the true disciple’s identity) the exegesis of this sermon serves two purposes: to include the fathers into Christ’s apparently despising Mary alone and to invite everyone, men and women, irrespectively of their state of life, to imitate Mary’s virginity and motherhood. For this purpose, Augustine develops an inclusive exegesis assuming the sexual differences in order to transcend them into a common spiritual identity. In this way, the exegesis takes place in a liturgical context proper to preaching which aims among other purposes at shaping the assembly into a community.

Back to the table of contents

Fabienne JOURDAN, «Une appropriation habile de Numénius: Eusèbe de Césarée et son emploi critique de l’adjectif ὁμοούσιος en PE XI 21-22 (II)», p. 99-117

In his assertion of the agreement between Plato and Moses on Monotheism, in PE XI 21, 6-7, Eusebius eventually condemns philosophical Polytheism by using the adjective ὁμοούσιος in a very problematical way (PE XI 21, 6). The rejection of the notion it conveys about the Good (identified to God) and what comes from it produces a double difficulty: the understanding of this rejection itself, although Eusebius will accept the word ὁμοούσιος after the Council of Nicaea to refer to the relation between the Father and the Son; and the apparent calling into question of the divinity of the Son produced notably by this rejection, when Eusebius’ discourse is considered from a theological point of view. A first paper showed how this theological double difficulty finds a first and partial solution by recalling the meaning of the adjective ὁμοούσιος at the time of Eusebius and how he used it in his writings. However, the condemnation of philosophical Polytheism apparently remains applicable to the Son. This second paper reveals how the aporia is solved thanks to the quotation of four extracts from Numenius in the following chapter (PE XI 22): not only fragment 16 (24 F) is used to justify the attribution of a different οὐσία to the Good (God) and to what comes from it (notably the Son); but by quoting fragments 2 (11 F), 19 (27 F) and 20 (28 F) and thanks to the discourse on the participation of the Good one (the demiurge) to the Good itself, Eusebius in PE XI 21, 7, can make his speech clearer and consequently eliminate the theological contradictions. Thus, he can also implicitly define the relation between the Father and the Son in terms that will lead to the meaning of ὁμοούσιος he will find acceptable. So, far from being used only to illustrate an interpretation given from the start, the quotation from Numenius enables Eusebius to amend a discourse whose theological consequences could be suspicious and, even better, to implicitly elaborate what to him is a truly Christian theology.

Back to the table of contents

Alessandro CAPONE, «Greg. Naz. Or. 19: versione latina e testo greco», p. 119-134

This contribution proposes some critical remarks to the Greek text and the Latin version of Gregory of Nazianz’s Oration 19. In the passages examined it highlights the differences between the translation and the Greek text, recreates the practices and the strategies of the translator, and lastly evaluates the genuineness of the Latin text that was handed down and the possible supply to the constitution of the Greek text.

Back to the table of contents

Joel VARELA RODRÍGUEZ, «Algunos problemas del uso de Gregorio Magno por Isidoro de Sevilla», p. 135-164

This paper analyses the use of Gregory the Great’s works by Isidore of Seville. We observe that those parallels with the third part of Moralia in Iob (books 11 to 16) and the second part of Homiliae in Hiezechielem critics have proposed are few and insecure. Evidences related to the composition and the primitive diffusion of these parts coincide with the possibility that Isidore has not come to know them. Although there are no secure proves to certify it, it is possible that such parts correspond to the volumina of Gregory the Great absent in Spain which Taio of Saragosse claims to have copied in Rome in the middle of the seventh century.

Back to the table of contents

Adriano RUSSO, «Una nota sulla tradizione del Liber Epigrammatum di Prospero», p. 165-172

The Liber Epigrammatum of Prosper Aquitanus is a collection of about a hundred epigrams, each of which is based on a sententia of Saint Augustine. Around 180 witnesses preserve the text of the Liber. Due to some inconsistencies of the text, it is probable that the whole manuscript tradition derive from an unfinished copy of the Liber, not revised by the author. It is also probable that authorial variants survive in some of the extant manuscripts. The examination of the florilegium Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 74 4°, ignored by all editors, leads to two conclusions: first, this florilegium is independent from the two hyparchetypes detected by the editors, and might form a third branch of the stemma (which would imply some relevant consequences in editing the text); secondly, it preserves alone an excellent reading, which might well be a variant created by Prosper himself and lost in all other manuscripts.

Back to the table of contents

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 : Thursday 21 September 2023