Francesca BARONE: The Book of Esther in John Chrysostom’s Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae

The reception of the book of Esther, both among Jews as among Christians, is the story of an attempt, ultimately successful, to redeem a difficult and strange text. The difficulties faced by Esther to become canonical in Jewish community found an echo among Christians : Esther is missing in a part of the biblical lists (Athanasius, Festal letter 39; Amphilochius of Iconium, Gregory of Nazianzus, Theodorus of Gaza, Junilius, Leontius and Nicephorus). The book is present in the lists of the Hierosolimytanus 54, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, in the canon 59 of the Council of Laodicea and 85 of the Apostolic Canons. In other texts, the book is considered non canonical, although useful for the catechumens (synopsis Ps. Athanasius). Origen (Letter to Africanus) indicates that the Greek additions must be received by the Church. Esther is canonical for him.The Greek text of Esther is transmitted in two main forms. In addition to these differences, the Greek text presents 6 long additions. This work aims to examine what is the canonical status of the book and what text was read by the author of the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae. 

Dominique Gonnet, s.j.: A Syriac Life of Symeon Stylites (Ms. Damas 12/17, ff. 52b.1-71b.3). Edition, Analysis and Perspectives

On Fr René Lavenant’s initiative, a team works on the publication of A Syriac Life of Symeon Stylites (Ms. Damas 12/17, ff. 52b.1-71b.3) at Sources Chrétiennes. The paper will present the main problems encountered in the work of this edition and translation: the manuscript itself, the historical questions about its variations related to other versions of the Life, what we can learn from them. In general, we want to highlight what this version brings to the research on Symeon Stylites.

Sergey Kim: A hitherto unknown Greek Homily on Adam, Abel and Cain: (ps.-)John Chrysostom or Severian of Gabala?

The paper will present a newly discovered and still unpublished Greek homily on Adam, Abel and Cain preserved in two manuscripts. According to the attribution in both of them the homily is authored by St John Chrysostom, but serious literary problems occur while analysing this attribution. It will be shown that important textual and literary cross-references with genuine works of Severian of Gabala contest its alleged authorship by Chrysostom. It will also be shown that several passages of the new homily are also present in one ps.-chrysostomic sermon from the ancient corpus of the 38 homilies, known in an early Latin translation of the mid-fifth century, as well as in one homily of "Ephrem Graecus". The paper will proceed to possible preliminary solutions of these literary problems.

Olivier Munnich: « La clef des textes : la tradition de « l’Hébreu » rapportée par Origène (Philocalie 2, 3) »

Parmi les quatre extraits du Commentaire d’Origène sur le Psaume 1 que retiennent les Philocalistes, l’un rapporte une tradition juive. On s’interrogera sur son authenticité et l’on se demandera si la comparaison entre les textes scripturaires et des chambres à déverrouiller repose sur un jeu verbal ou sur un mode d’interprétation, l’un ou l’autre documentés dans la littérature rabbinique. On mettra en perspective les résultats obtenus avec d’autres traditions origéniennes relatives à « l’Hébreu ».

Laetitia Ciccolini: À propos du Quod idola dii non sint (CPL 57) : quelques considérations sur l’histoire du texte.

Le Quod idola dii non sint est une courte pièce apologétique, unanimement attribuée par les manuscrits à Cyprien de Carthage. Remise en question pour la première fois à la fin du XIXe s., l’attribution traditionnelle fut écartée au cours du XXe s., notamment par travaux qui voyaient dans le Quod idola une œuvre dépendant de Lactance. Cette position, en dépit de quelques voix discordantes, est actuellement entérinée par les manuels et les répertoires. À l’occasion d’une nouvelle édition, nous examinerons ce que la tradition manuscrite peut apporter au débat sur la date et l’attribution du texte.

Anna Pessina: The use of Patristic literature for the reconstruction of the New Testament. A case study: Matt 27:51-53.

Patristic quotations from the New Testament are
so copious that some scholars have asserted that they alone could be sufficient
to reconstruct the entire text of the Gospels (Metzger, Ehrman 2005). However,
the indirect tradition that includes Patristic quotations and allusions from
the Bible in the Fathers, versions, and lectionaries is not considered in
critical editions of the New Testament. The Patristic literature is, therefore,
evaluated only when the direct tradition cannot confirm a variant. This paper
postulates the relevance of Patristic literature to the reconstruction of the
early text of the New Testament. It analyses the quotations of the Fathers from
Matt 27:51-53, which describe the cosmic phenomena at Jesus’ death. The
analysis proves the existence of a different recension of v. 53, probably more
ancient then the canonical one. This recension is well attested in the
Christian writers of the second and third centuries, but is not recorded in the
direct tradition. In light of this case study, I suggest the possibility of a
new critical methodology, which systematically reconsiders Patristic quotations
in order to reconstruct the primary text of the New Testament.