Volume 23, Issue 3

This article critically re-examines the textual relationship between the Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam attributed to Basil of Caesarea and Basil’s (genuine) homily In ebriosos . It studies how Basil makes use of Isaiah 5:11–12 in his In ebriosos , and shows its degree of resemblance to the Enarratio in Isaiam  5:11–12. Moreover, it refutes the arguments in support of Basil’s authorship of the Enarratio as well as its anteriority and influence on the In ebriosos . The study argues instead that the anonymous author of the Enarratio made use of a certain part of Basil’s In ebriosos  in his attempt to fabricate the beginning of his explanation on Isaiah 5:11–12. Finally, the article examines the process of transformation of the homily under discussion into a commentary.

In the late 380 s, Ambrose of Milan preached nine Lenten homilies on the “six days” of Genesis 1. Basil of Caesarea’s Homiliae in Hexaemeron (ca. 378) has long been recognized as a source for Ambrose. To study Ambrose’s reception of Basil is, however, complicated by Ambrose’s familiarity with other early Christian thinkers, as is attested by Jerome’s assertion in Epistula 84,7 that “Ambrose also compiled from his [Origen’s] Hexaemeron, in such a way that he conforms more nearly to the thoughts of Hippolytus and Basil.” Jerome’s sweeping judgment, whether or not we should take it at face value, suggests that Ambrose in some way borrowed from Origen while claiming the authority of Hippolytus and Basil. In an attempt to consider the reliability of Jerome’s testimony, this article considers the extent to which Jerome’s depiction of Ambrose’s use of Origen and Basil can be validated by looking more closely at the way their respective views of the nature, origin, and relation of spiritual and material creation arise out of their exegesis of Genesis. Attending to the legacy of Origen in Basil and Ambrose enhances our understanding of Ambrose’s subtle and selective use of the theological and interpretive traditions of earlier Christianity.

Among the works ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa there is one entitled, in Greek, Ad Evagrium monachum, de deitate , and, in Syriac, Ad Philagrium, de consubstantiali , which deals with the issue of whether the nature of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is simple or composite. While the attributions to the Cappadocians have been ruled out on the basis of its Monarchian contents, current scholarship is still completely divided in dating it to the third or to the fourth century, so that the mutually exclusive hypotheses that the Thaumaturgus was its author and that Evagrius of Pontus was its addressee have continued to coexist. This study accounts for the investigations of previous scholars and focuses on those doctrinal contents which are attacked and endorsed in the work and which allow us to date it with some degree of certainty. It is argued that the main polemical focus of the Ad Evagrium was Eunomius’ theory of names and that it was written by an exponent of the Marcellian party in the late 370 s.

This article surveys John Chrysostom’s preaching on the biblical figures of Job and his wife. Chrysostom’s exegesis is situated into two contexts: (1) his related interpretation of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and (2) his theology of adaptable divine pedagogy and practice of medico-philosophical psychagogy. This twofold contextualization enables us to see how Chrysostom deploys these figures in his preaching as a means of re-ordering gendered marital relationships within the late antique Christian household and cultivating an attentiveness to the methods of divine pedagogy. In the final section of the essay, we highlight two spheres of domestic activity in particular—mealtime and grieving—over which Chrysostom seeks to gain control through the ritualized internalization of the examples of Job and his wife.