In the literature of the Trinitarian controversy there is a relatively brief letter by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. This episcopal author was a person of considerable historical,political, and theological prominence. His epistle is a critical source to understand the process that arrived at the Nicene definition of God.and is employed by Athanasius to support his developing theology. While standard treatments of this controversy have discussed this epistolary text, they offer varying interpretations of it. This communication will argue there is more information to be extracted from this letter to understand the events at the Council of Nicaea and its aftermath, especially when Athanasius' hermeneutic of the text is included.
Although Eusebius is well known as a historian or an apologist however he is seldom considered as an exegete even though his exegetical writings make up a major part of his literary production and include two huge commentaries on the Psalms and Isaiah, written at the end of his life. Our approach of this aspect of his work is still dependent on the studies of Carmel Sant and Carmelo Curti. These two scholars argue that Eusebius turned his back little by little on the so-called allegorical exegesis to prefer a more literal and historical approach, thus forsaking the hermeneutics favoured by Origen. I will discuss this position on the basis of Eusebius' commentaries on chapter 6 of the book of Isaiah, a chapter full of major theological and biblical issues and notably concerning the Trinity. Indeed, throughout his life, Eusebius commented this same text, in the Prophetic Extracts, the Proof of the Gospel and finally the Commentary on Isaiah as well as the Commentary on the Psalms. I will therefore present the different commentaries Eusebius proposes for the same pericopes; this will allow us to note that Origen's approach is not obviously forsaken, nor does Eusebius significantly alter his understanding of the prophet.
Eusebio de Cesárea compuso su última apología llamada la Teofanía durante los 330 A.D. Tenemos sin embargo solamente diecisiete fragmentos que han sobrevivido de la obra original escrito en griego, y además una traslación siriaca producida en el año 411 por un cierto Jacob de Edesa que a la vez contiene todos los cincos libros, o mejor dicho es una traslación de la obra completa. De los fragmentos se encuentran dos que pertenecen al libro quinto: números XVI de Teof. V.37-38 y Teof. V.42 o sean los de Gressmann Bruchstücken XVI y XVII. El propósito de este papel es ofrecer un análisis filológico comparativo de los dos fragmentos griegos números XVI y XVII que pertenecen a Teof. V.37 y V.42 respectivamente y lograr los cuatros siguientes objetivos en cuanto a sus propios niveles hermenéuticos:
In my paper I will deal with a number of manuscripts written by Cardinal Federico Borromeo (1564-1631) which have recently been discovered. They attest to his reading and interpretation of the Church Fathers during his years in Rome when he was involved in the Sacred Congregation of Rites and in the commission responsible for reviewing the Sistine edition of the Vulgata and the preparation of the Editio Romana of the acts of the ecumenical councils. These texts are a unique testimony to his distinctive interpretation of the Fathers in the period following the Council of Trent. They also show in detail how the Church Fathers were read and re-used in that singular historical framework which was the so-called North-Italian Counter-Reformation. More specifically, I will examine the manner in which two great authors of the patristic era, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, were employed to construct the concept of “ideal bishop” in the hagiographic context of the mythopoetic process regarding the figure of Charles Borromeo.