Against Origen and/or Origenists? Cyril of Alexandria’s rejection of John the Baptist’s angelic nature in his Commentary on John 1:6

In his Commentary on John 1:6, Cyril of Alexandria rejects the conjecture (hyponoia) of ‘certain men’ (tines) that John the Baptist was an angel, sent by God, who took a human body. The text of Origen’s Commentary on John 1:6, which survives in Greek, enables us to identify ‘certain men’ mentioned by Cyril as Origen, and to show, for the first time, the direct access that Cyril had to that particular work of Origen. Does Cyril, however, target Origen personally with this criticism? Does he seek to condemn him in particular? No answer can be given, it seems, without taking into account the elements of Origen’s arguments used by the Bishop of Alexandria, and additionally, his reference to the many (polloi) who deny John the Baptist’s human nature

Les prologues des commentaires de Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur les Prophètes : analyse d’ensemble

This article offers a general analysis of the prologues of Cyril of Alexandria’s "Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets and on Isaiah", following the schema that J.-N. Guinot outlined for Theodoret of Cyrus. In his prologues, Cyril takes care to justify his exegetical enterprise to those who, in the 5th century, would consider it useless because of the already existing commentaries, and to define the principles which govern it, by giving priority to the historical-literal sense and by taking his distances from Origen’s allegorical method. In addition, he stresses the need to situate the Prophets in the Jewish history and to provide the historical context of their prophecy, and he identifies the main purpose of each prophecy mainly in relation to its Old Testament meaning

New Reasons to Doubt the Authenticity of the "Enarratio in Isaiam" Attributed to Basil of Caesarea

The present article seeks to problematize the "Enarratio in Isaiam"’s genesis, attribution and relation to Basil of Caesarea on the grounds of new evidence. On the one hand, a critical and philological re-examination of the Enarratio’s preface reveals a hitherto unnoticed textual agreement with Cyril of Alexandria’s "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew", a number of repetitions and stylistic infelicities, and some discrepancies. On the other hand, a fresh analysis of the lacuna on Is 6:1-5 and especially the double exegesis of Is 6:6-8 strongly points to a then open and unfinished text and to rewriting processes of compilation literature. No doubt the authenticity issue of the Enarratio is more complex than it appears, and needs further critical study

Εὐστάθιος Βιγγόπουλος, Ἄρχων Λαμπαδάριος τῆς Μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας. Εἰσαγωγή – Μουσικὲς συνθέσεις

Eustathios Vingopoulos, Archon Lampadarios of the Great Church of Christ. Introduction – Musical compositions (in Greek). Athens: Eptalophos, 2012. (510 pp.

Le "De Trinitate" du Pseudo-Didyme et le culte des archanges : un élément méconnu de datation

Pseudo-Didymus’ "De Trinitate" mentions many sanctuaries of the archangels Michael and Gabriel, finely adorned, some of which were quite famous to attract people from very far in the hope of a miracle. Although this testimony was usually considered as an ancient evidence because of its purported attribution to Didymus the Blind, it does not actually reflect the state of the archangels’ cult in the fourth century. However, it proves to be an important element for the dating of the "De Trinitate" itself, since it refers to a time when the cult of the archangels was developed in the East. The documentary and literary evidence shows that the churches dedicated to them, especially to Saint Michael, significantly multiply in the sixth century, and that their cult is being established under the reign of Justinian (527-565). It is from this period that the composition of Pseudo-Didymus’ "De Trinitate" is likely to date

L’exégèse vétérotestamentaire d’Origène et de Cyrille d’Alexandrie : continuité ou divergence ? À propos de la typologie des personnages bibliques

This article examines the relationship between Origen’s and Cyril of Alexandria’s Old Testament exegesis, especially regarding the typological meaning of biblical characters. It compares Origen’s interpretation of the election of Jeremiah (Jer 1:4-10) and Cyril’s exegesis of the fourth vision of Joshua and Satan (Zach 3:1-9). Both Alexandrian commentators are confronted with the problem of Christological exegesis of the Old Testament, yet their interpretations are diametrically opposite. In the article, I question the reasons for their divergent views, and note that their approach seems to be “inversely proportional”. I conclude that Cyril clearly distances himself from Origen’s approach in that he limits the typological meaning of the Old Testament

Introduction

Introduction to the thematic issue: D. Zaganas, J. Verheyden (eds.), "Studies on Anastasius of Sinai (with Particular Attention to the Hexaemeron)", ETL 95/3 (2019)

The Authenticity of Anastasius Sinaita’s "Hexaemeron" (CPG 7770)

Whilst the "Spiritual Anagogy of the Hexaemeral Creation" ascribed to Anastasius of Sinai has been published in Greek in 2007, the fundamental issue of its authenticity and authorship has remained open and controversial. However, a critical review of the state of the art permits us both to challenge the late dating and the confusing attribution of authorship of the Hexaemeron, and to acknowledge unhesitatingly its explicit relationship with Anastasius’ two "Homilies on the making of man". Moreover, a comparison with the aforementioned homilies and the "Hodegos" —works which are considered as authentic— reveals many similarities in wording and content and striking parallels, which point to one single author, Anastasius monk of mount Sinai

Encore sur l’authenticité de l’Hexaéméron d’Anastase le Sinaïte

The article re-examines the thorny question of the authenticity of Anastasius Sinaita’s "Hexaemeron", which has been recently debated again by K.- H. Uthemann. A critical discussion of old and new arguments against the authenticity permits, on one hand, to reject the allegedly late dating and the inaccurate title appended to the "Hexaemeron", and on the other hand, to express serious doubts about the cited theological differences between the "Hexaemeron" and the two "Homilies on the making of man" which are securely attributed to Anastasius. Moreover, a reassessment of the undeniable connection between the aforementioned texts provides strong evidence in support of the Anastasian authorship of the "Hexaemeron"

Cyrille d’Alexandrie aux prises avec un exégète allégoriste au début de son "In Oseam" : Didyme l’Aveugle ou Piérius d’Alexandrie ?

The purpose of this article is to identify the anonymous commentator with whom Cyril of Alexandria is in disagreement at the beginning of his "Commentary on Hosea", because of the commentator’s purely allegorical interpretation of the marriage of Hosea with a prostitute (Os 1:2-3). We present initially the position of the author “not deprived of reputation” as transmitted by Cyril, then we re-examine F.M. Abel’s assumption in support of Didymus the Blind. Finally, we propose Pierius, a priest and leader of the Christian school of Alexandria, and his homily "On the Beginning of the Prophet Hosea", as possible candidates behind Cyril’s attack