Band 19, Heft 3

The aim of this paper is to compare the Greek fragments of Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs and the Latin translation by Rufinus. In particular, in Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, prol. 2,20 the Latin text lists four names of the love: amor and cupido with regard to the physical love, and dilectio and caritas with regard to the spiritual love. In Greek fragments there are only “agape” with regard to the spiritual love and “eros” with regard to the physical love. Then, this paper aims to compare the Greek language through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments with the Latin language in which Rufinus translates Origen’s original text, so Rufinus seems to have complicated the original Greek text of Origen. Moreover, the paper lists also other important words through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments, i.e. “philia” and “philanthropia.”

This article seeks to investigate the motif of « the five trees of Paradise, » famous for being found in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (logion 19). After looking closely at the characteristics of the five trees found in the Gospel of Thomas, I will shift my attention to other texts where the motif is attested. Coming from various sources, the Bible, the Jewish tradition, the intertestamental literature, the Gnostic literature, and Manichaeism, these other attestations of the motif of the five trees will help to get a larger perspective and contribute to a better understanding of the motif in general. With the help of all the evidence that will be gathered, I will finally see if it is possible to speculate on the origin and development of the motif of the five trees of Paradise in Antiquity.

This study shows that the argumenta to the Pauline letters attributed to Theodoret in the catena of Oecumenius are without doubt summaries of John Chrysostom’s argumenta to these letters, and that they relate to those handed down in the catena of Theophylact. First, we will draw up a list of testimonies of the summaries attributed to Theodoret-manuscripts of catenae and Pauline epistles-and state the hypothesis of a link with the transmission of Oecumenius’ catena. After proving the dependence of John Chrysostom and the link with Theophylact, we will bring forward several hypotheses about the precise relations between the three series of argumenta. We will underline the importance of these texts as testimonies of the transmission and reception of John Chrysostom’s text, as well as of the technique of summary in Late Antiquity, and we will indicate some directions for further research.