Richard Seagraves: Prudentius: Contra Orationem Symmachi, Bk. I: Date and Structure

Aurelius Prudentius Clemens was the foremost Christian Latin poet in the early Church and in late antiquity. One of his works, which had earlier been neglected, has been given more attention of late. It is his hexametric Contra Orationem Symmachi.

This essay weill address the controversial topic concerning the date of composition of Book I, as opposed to the composition of Book II. There are two main positions of scholars who have studied this issue. The Unitarians, who maintain that aboth book I and Book II were composed and published in the period of late 402 or early 403. They argue for this date because of the poet's mention of the battle of Pllentia, fought on Easter, 6 Apri 402. Prudentius cites this battle in Book II. 696.

The other postion, the Separatists, argues for an earlier date for Book I; the majority for the year 394. Their claim is that, in larage part, Book I was composed well before the end of the century, and that Book I has another aim or purpose than that pursued in book II.

There will also be an examination of the structure of Book I.

Jennifer Nimmo Smith: Gregory of Nazianzus in Town and Country

Gregory of Nazianzus' rich and complex imagery has received much study and description.  While his revision of some sermons in the later stages of his life may impede a definitive evaluation of the different stages of his thoughts, other of their aspects are clear to see. Gregory often uses the image of a stele (a pillar, or a memorial) in his works, most notably in Sermons 4 and 5 against the Emperor Julian, but elsewhere, as well, and in praise as well as blame. Another favoured reference is that to the stulos, or pillar, of cloud and fire, which led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 33).  Inspired by a comment in Susan Holman's thoughtful book, The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia, OUP 2001, p. 172, consulted online in 21/3/2010 and 18/04/2013, which relates a warning by Gregory to his hearers, not 'to be frozen into a pillar of salt' (the fate of Lot's wife, Genesis 19.26) before the destruction of their harvest, as a reference to the local landscape of 'whitened, pillar-shaped rock outcroppings' (previously described on p. 70 of the same work), this paper will examine the occurrence of these double images, and their significance, in Gregory's œuvre.

Elena Narinskaya: The Figure of Moses in the Exegetical Wrtitings of Three Abrahamic Religions

The aim of this presentation is to illustrate the possibility of considering certain exegetical traditions within the early writings of Jewish, Christian and Muslim origin as parts of a common tradition of biblical exegesis.
In order to illustrate the main argument of this presentation, a number of stories from the life of Moses will be selected and their development in the writings of Jewish midrashim, Christian exegesis and in the Qur'an will be analysed. For the purpose of the research, therefore, three main primary sources will be singled out. They will include the Hebrew biblical narrative of Exodus, the Syriac commentaries on Exodus by an early Christian exegete, St Ephrem the Syrian, and the Arabic illustrations of the story of Moses in the Qur'an.
The outcomes of a comparative analysis of three selected primary sources together with the peripheral writings of rabbinical midrashim and Arabic tafsirs of the Qur'an will allow the possibility to reaffirm the main argument of this presentation that there is a way of looking at the development of the exegetical tradition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam as a common tradition of biblical interpretation of the Old Testament narrative.
This presentation is a continuation of previous scholarship in the field, such asG.S. Reynolds or B.M. Wheeler. This presentation strives to offer its original contribution by setting the precedent of historical chronological approach as a methodological solution to/for the argument of common tradition of biblical exegesis, which spread across the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Thomas O'Loughlin: The hermeneutical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea's gospel apparatus

The presence of Eusebius's gospel apparatus (often incorrectly referred to as the 'Eusebian canons') in the margins of many of the great gospel codices is sufficient evidence of the importance of that work in the history of gospels' study. At first sight it appears an unproblematic tool: it allows the reader to note at a glance whether a point being made in one gospel's text (sometimes as long as one of our chapters and on other occasions less than a sentence) is to be found in all four, or just three or tow, gospels, or nowhere else; and then, if appropriate, to find 'the parallels.' As such it is a gospel 'harmony' which preserves the integrity of each gospel, and of the four distinct gospels in that it avoids creating a fifth text, a diatessaron.

However, the apparatus contains a series of hermeneutical assumptions about how the gospels relate to history, how the four texts relate to one another, how the four relate to 'the gospel,' how they were to be read together to provide a single composite history of Jesus, an apologetic before those who would highlight discrepancies (e.g. Porphyry), and what constitutes 'a parallel.' When we compare these assumptions wth those used today (e.g regarding 'the Synoptic Problem') we can observe the extent to which Eusebius's method determined the overall shape of gospel comparison until the 18th century whereby there was a notional complete story of Jesus of which the four actual texts were specific redactions / 'slants'.

Nicholas Bamford: Being, Consciousness, Christian Gnosis and Deified Becoming in the Theoretikon of the Byzantine Saint, Theodoros

In this paper I will explore the relationship between Theodoros' Gnostic theology and ontology to demonstrate a link between the evolution of consciousness and the noetic ascent to pure being within the ascetic-Byzantine Theoretikon, ascribed to Theodoros. Theodoros draws together ideas realting to concrete  essential being and to notetic becoming in deification so that through this model we can begin to resolve the theological chasm drawn between essentialist models of expressing being and ways of understanding the outward tropos of existence within the contemporary Byzantine debate. Even though purely existentialist paradigms, based on Levinas and Heidegger, have become the hallmark of contemporary Eastern Orthodox ways of doing theology expressed through a Zizioulan character, by ascribing an ontological context to deification through Theodorus' work I explore the deeper implications to a noetic energetic becoming highlighted in the concept of deification specifically mentioned by Theodoros, and intrinsically related to the evolution of consciousness, of willing, knowing and a mode of life pertaining to an essentialist end condition of being argued in the Theoretikon.

Vadim Zima: Time as Extension and Different Ways of its Substantiation in Greek Patristics

Ontology of created being developed in Christianity let us expose one important aspect of the problem of time. This aspect consists in the necessity of ontological differentiation between time-nature and time-extension(often called diastema). Time in its nature is often associated with changes, but only in the Christianity we can find the metaphysical basis of these changes that is the nature of created things themselves (see: St. Athanasius the Great, Or. contr. gent. 41). Taking it into consideration we have to conclude that ontologically time-extension can't be entirely considered as the simple result of nonidentity of existing things, as some instability, some unfolding of time-nature. For their preservation in being things owe to the Creator, not to their own nature. As there's nothing eternal in created being in the true sense, extensionturns out to be connected with the ontological realm of the Creator. Speaking about the solution of the problem of the substantiation oftime-extension by different Christian authors at least two principal ways can be marked out. The first one can be found with Cappadocians. God could have created everything at once, but He did it in parts and in certain order which is to reveal to man the Creator's Wisdom through examining the creations. It is the time that reveals such order. The second way was developed by St. Maximus the Confessor. From his point of view movement is the integral property of created being which, for this reason, is also under time that is extension (diastema).

Eirini Artemi: The comparison of the triadological teaching of Isidore Pelusium and Cyril of Alexandria

The two Fathers knew that the truth about God is based on the texts of the Holy Scriptures. It is developed theologically from the texts of earlier Church Fathers. The truth of God is shielded or in a better way it is immured against the heretical doctrine by the decisions and the conditions of local and mainly the Ecumenical Councils. So, it is clearly taught that God is one and the same time Trinity. They entrenched the theology of the Church against heretics and pagans of various traps, in their time and the later years. They pointed out, moreover, that the Triune God is living, life-giving and personal and He unveiled to the world through the midst of his second. The man, on the other hand, is not susceptible of the approximation of the mystery of the Trinity midst thoughts and reasoning, because of his finite mind. Someone can obtain the knowledge of God through the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the grace of the Holy Spirit. They follow Athanasius', Cappadocians’ theology and the teaching of the first Ecumenical Council, which identifies the termsHypostasis and ousia. Cyril was influenced by Isidore and emphasizes that in the Holy Trinity there is no place nor the time, nor the class and neither order among the persons of the Triune God. Both Fathers considered that the vocabulary of human language is finite so it cannot express the Infinite Divine. So the words are used in an abusive importance.