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 58 (2012)


58/1

Père Georges Folliet (1920-2011) I-XII
Bibliographie du Père Georges Folliet XIII-XVIII
Mirjam KUDELLA Christologie in der antimanichäischen Polemik Augustins. Eine Frage der Abgrenzung 1-39
Han-Luen KANTZER KOMLINE The Second Adam in Gethsemane: Augustine on the Human Will of Christ 41-56
Andrew CAIN The Style of the Greek Historia monachorum in Aegypto 57-96
Walter DUNPHY The Pelagians and their Eastern (Antiochene) Sources: Theodore of Mopsuestia on Lk 2.52 in the Liber de Fide by Pseudo-Rufinus? 97-111
Andrea VILLANI Homer in the Debate Between Celsus and Origen 113-139
Monique BILE et Benoît GAIN Une nouvelle étymologie de ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ 141-153
Pierre MORIZOT Recherches sur divers sièges épiscopaux du Registre des provinces et des cités d’Afrique 155-158
Comptes rendus bibliographiques 159-184

58/2

Laurence MELLERIN La contribution de Tertullien à la réflexion théologique sur l’irrémissible: du De paenitentia au De pudicitia 185-216
Hans FÖRSTER Zur Bedeutung von ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ im Prolog des Judasevangeliums 217-231
Nathalie REQUIN Jéchonias déporté à Babylone (cf. Mt 1, 11-12): «spectacle pour les esprits» dans l’exégèse augustinienne 233-260
Sébastien MORLET La source principale du Quod Christus sit Deus attribué à Jean Chrysostome: la Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée 261-285
Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN El canon 3 del concilio de Orange (441), el Ad Ecclesiam de Salviano de Marsella y los debates en torno a la penitencia in extremis en la Galia de mediados del siglo V 287-319
Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea 2011 323-372
Bulletin augustinien pour 2011/2012 et compléments d’années antérieures 373-429
Auteurs des travaux recensés 431-436
Table générale 437-438

Abstracts:

Mirjam KUDELLA, «Christologie in der antimanichäischen Polemik Augustins. Eine Frage der Abgrenzung», p. 1-39

Which role does Christology play in Augustine’s controversy with the Manichaeans and in his anti-Manichaean polemics in general? Here, all the Christological state­ments of the Western Manichaeism of which we can be sure that Augustine was faced with are treated; these are compared with Augus­tine’s different engagements with these theologies. The different aspects of the Manichaean Christo­logy, namely 1.) Christ as a historic figure, 2.) Christ suffering in the world, 3.) Christ as a character of light and finally 4.) Christ as revealer and savior, together with the specific way in which Augustine displays Mani­chaean Chris­tology are analyzed. Here it is argued that Augustine finds points of genuine conflict with Manichaen Christology; this engagement gives him the opportunity to demarcate his own Christology. This phenomenon is seen especially in the case of his view of Docetism. Against the Manichaean metaphorical utilization of the biblical passion narratives and conception of Christ as a figure of light, Augustine does not have a comparable supply of traditional arguments at his disposal. Finally, the fact that the Manichaeans describe Christ as revealer and redeemer eminently challenges Augustine, because he cannot deny Christ’s soteriological function in itself.

Back to the table of contents


Han-Luen KANTZER KOMLINE, «The Second Adam in Gethsemane: Augustine on the Human Will of Christ», p. 41-56

In a number of his expositions of the Psalms, as well as in his late Anti-Arian writings, Augustine refers to a distinctly human will of Christ made manifest in his agony in Gethsemane. How he describes this human will evolves over time. In a first phase of his teaching on the subject, Augustine tends to associate Christ’s human will with other human wills that are in tension with God’s will; he explicitly connects Christ’s human will with his wish to let the cup pass, though not with the fiat that follows in Christ’s prayer. Later in his career, in contrast, Augustine tends to underline the distinctiveness of Christ’s human will as compared to Adam’s sinful will, and explicitly connects Christ’s human will with his obedient submission to the will of the Father in Gethsemane. Thus, despite differences in terminology, Augustine’s mature view of Christ’s human will shows parallels with that of Maximus the Confessor, and the development of Augustine’s thinking on this issue shows some similarities to a development in the history of doctrine often assumed to have happened only over the course of centuries.

Back to the table of contents


Andrew CAIN, «The Style of the Greek Historia monachorum in Aegypto», p. 57-96

The Greek Historia monachorum in Aegypto, composed in the last decade of the fourth century by an anonymous monk in Jerusalem, has traditionally been dismissed by scholarly critics as a work which, though fascinating with respect to its content, is stylistically crude and devoid of rhetorical refinement. This study demonstrates that in fact it is larded with the sort of rhetorical ornamentation and accentual rhythm that are hallmarks of artistic late Greek prose. These findings enable us at last to properly situate the anonymous monastic author and his writing in a recognizable intellectual and literary milieu.

Back to the table of contents


Walter DUNPHY, «The Pelagians and their Eastern (Antiochene) Sources: Theodore of Mopsuestia on Lk 2.52 in the Liber de Fide by Pseudo-Rufinus?», p. 97-111

In a Syriac fragment by Theodore (Sachau p.37), the text of Lk 2.52 (“Jesus progressed in wisdom and age...”) is presented as a simultaneous refutation of Apollinarians and Eunomians in their errors concerning the soul of Incarnate Son of God. The same text (with Lk 2.40) is used also by Pseudo-Rufinus (Liber de Fide c.44) to refute the Arians and Apollinarians. The concise argument offered by both authors is strikingly similar. This study suggests that Pseudo-Rufinus depends here on Theodore, and urges the need for further research into the sources of the Liber de Fide.

Back to the table of contents


Andrea VILLANI, «Homer in the Debate Between Celsus and Origen», p. 113-139

This study analyzes the presence of Homeric quotations in the Origenian apology Against Celsus in order to grasp the different functions they cover. They can be summarized as follows: first, the epic citations are sometimes used by the two opponents just as an ornamental tool which embellishes their prose; second, they serve as a support for an argument proposed; third, they reveal a pure polemic aim. The last paragraph, finally, deals with an example of another way of Homeric reception in a Christian environment, hidden behind the lines of the text: indeed, also the prosopological exegesis, created as a hermeneutical tool in order to better understand the meaning of difficult passages in Homer’s poems, can be taken as another form of the presence of Homer in Origen’s apology.

Back to the table of contents


Monique BILE - Benoît GAIN, «Une nouvelle étymologie de ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ ? Questions de méthode à propos d’un article récent», p. 141-153

We show here that the hypothesis introduced by C. and A. Faivre (RHE, 103, 3-4, July-December 2008, pp.771-805), namely that christianoi, the name given to Jesus’ disciples in the New Testament, is to be understood as deriving from the adjective chrèstos, ‘honest,’ and not from the verbal adjective Christos, ‘Anointed,’ is totally devoid of any phonetic or morphological foundation, both in Latin and Greek. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church were familiar with the chrestos/Christos play on words. So one must stick to the received etymology.

Back to the table of contents


Pierre MORIZOT, «Recherches sur divers sièges épiscopaux du Registre des provinces et des cités d’Afrique», p. 155-158

It seems possible to recognize in the present toponymy of the Aures area (Algeria) the name of two episcopal sites listed in the Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae: the episcopus Zallatensis, whose form is very similar to the oronym of one of the major mountains of the Aures, close to the village of Rassira where a few Christian remains were discovered, and the episcopus Assafensis, which suggests the name of Asefsou, where the presence of a Christian basilica is proved. A different sort of issue is raised with the name of the episcopus Tifiltensis: making the link with the inscription to the Genius Tflzi discovered in Menaa is tempting. This likeness was pointed out by Serge Lancel, who considered Donatus as the bishop of Tifiliti in his traduction of the Notitia. However we can note that this last bishop appears in the Mauretania Caesariensis bishop’s list, which brings us quite far from Menaa.

Back to the table of contents


Laurence MELLERIN, «La contribution de Tertullien à la réflexion théologique sur l’irrémissible: du De paenitentia au De pudicitia», p. 185-216.

The two treaties devoted by Tertullian to his penitential doctrine, the De Paenitentia (written between 198 and 203) and the De Pudicitia (after 207), have been extensively studied for their historical issues. This article shows that despite their opposite ecclesiological and practical conclusions—grave sins coming under the post-baptismal penance in the first treaty are seen as unforgivable in the second one—, the De Pudicitia is nevertheless a follow-up to the De Paenitentia, in great doctrinal continuity with it, relied on the same rigorous exegesis. The increasing rigorism of the theologian, faced with penitential laxness, is foremost legitimized by his will of consistency in ecclesiological matters. Tertullian lays the groundwork for a reflection on the limits to forgiveness and the distinction between degrees of sin, reflection which the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries undertake. He is the first one to use together the four main biblical texts related to the unforgivable: Matthew 12:32-32; 1 John 5:16; 1 Corinthians 5:5; Hebrews 6:4-8.

Back to the table of contents


Hans FÖRSTER, «Zur Bedeutung von ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ im Prolog des Judasevangeliums», p. 217-231.

The analysis of the occurrences of ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ/ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲛⲉ in Coptic texts, which have not yet been used to determine the meaning of this word, makes it probable that the meaning of this word in the prologue of the Gospel of Judas is used to denote an authoritative teaching of Jesus. The known Coptic texts do not support the translation of ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ as “revelation”. For the meaning of “judgment” an object (denoting what is judged or the content of the judgment) is missing. As for meaning “denial” the Coptic evidence seems to point in the direction that ⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ with this meaning is not used in Coptic texts.

Back to the table of contents


Nathalie REQUIN, «Jéchonias déporté à Babylone (cf. Mt 1, 11-12): “spectacle pour les esprits” dans l’exégèse augustinienne», p. 233-260.

The study focus on a minor but curious point of St Augustine’s exegesis. To solve the arithmetic issue raised by the three series of 14 generations for the Christ’s ancestry in Matthew 1, Augustine offers in 403 a typological exegesis by making from Jechonias a Christ’s figure. Being then a corner stone, Jechonias can be double counted in Christ’s ancestors, in Mt 1:11 and Mt 1:12 (cons. eu. 2, 4, 10; qu. eu. 2, 5; ser. 51, 13–15). Doing this, Augustine stands out from previous exegetes despite their influence being usually embedded in its work. And by daring this exegesis lacking root in the Holy Scriptures to support it, he leaves the next generations bewildered.

Back to the table of contents


Sébastien MORLET, «La source principale du Quod Christus sit Deus attribué à Jean Chrysostome: la Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée», p. 261-285.

Since N.G. McKendrick’s edition, critics have not paid much attention to the work entitled Quod Christus sit Deus, attributed to Chrysostomus. A precise analysis of its argumentation, notably its collection of testimonia, leads to the hypothesis that its main source is Eusebius’ Demonstratio euangelica. Besides, one wonders to what extent the Quod Christus sit Deus may be a witness of the last ten lost books of the Demonstratio.

Back to the table of contents


Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN, «El canon 3 del concilio de Orange (441), el Ad Ecclesiam de Salviano de Marsella y los debates en torno a la penitencia in extremis en la Galia de mediados del siglo V», p 287-319.

The third canon of the synod of Orange (441) stated that penance was to be granted to dying men who longed for it. From this moment on, this became the common practice in the Gallic churches under the influence of Arles. Although the Roman bishops Innocent I and Celestine I had once promoted the introduction in Gaul of that sacramental practice, the Roman procedure—consisting on the grant of penance and reconciliation—did not prevail in the aforementioned churches. In fact, the third canon of Orange—which states that deathbed repentants are to be granted penance and the uiaticum without being reconciled—is based on the 13th canon of Nicea as well as the 22nd canon of Arles (314). In the times of Hilary of Arles, this last council was seen as the starting point of a disciplinary Gallic tradition that the “Hilarian synods” aimed to remain faithful to. Soon after the synod of Orange Salvian of Marseilles, a member of the “Lerinian lobby” gathered around the see of Arles, offered in his Ad Ecclesiam a first draft for the preaching of penance in extremis. Salvian outlined that the real effectiveness of this form of penance was to remain doubtful and exhorted deathbed penitents to give their wealth to the Church as the only fructus paenitentiae they could still produce.

Back to the table of contents





Copyright Institut d’Études Augustiniennes - 2016

Last update on : Sunday 20 May 2018