Anastasius of Sinai was one of the most creative theologians in the period when Late Antiquity was transforming to the Middle Ages. His passionate rhetoric targeted the Christological unorthodoxies of his time, primarily Monenergism and Monothelitism. In his polemics against these doctrines, Anastasius creatively elaborated on the arguments of his predecessors. He developed a complex, and sometimes surprising, taxonomy of Christ’s activities and volitions. This taxonomy included mixed human-divine, pure divine, and pure human energeiai and wills, which, to Anastasius, proved duality of Jesus Christ.

Article in OA on Peeters website. The present article offers a first presentation of a five-year research project on Mark 16 financed by the SNSF. It first surveys the variety in recent scholarly opinions on the end of Mark’s gospel after several decades of nearly unanimous agreement that Mk 16,8 constituted the original ending. The possibility to look online at digital manuscripts increases the NT scholars’ aware-ness of the three witnesses that present the end of Mark’s gospel in verse 8: 01, 03 and 304. Secondly, the article discusses the most recent hypothesis on Mk 16,8 by Stephen Hultgren. Starting from the assumption that there may be a link between Dan 10,7 and Mark 16,8, Hultgren draws attention to the widespread motif of having fear in front of a divine epiphany. Finally, the article paves the way for further inquiries in order to take into account the diversity of early Chris-tian readings in Mark 16.

International audience

The so-called final discourse of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is regarded by the majority of scholars as opening with Jesus’ solemn statements on glory and glorification in 13,31-32. Closer investigation questions this. John 13,31-38 is not discourse, but a narrative peopled with characters. Looking at the macrostructure of 13,1–17,26, there are close links between 13,1-5 and 17,1-4 (ἡ ὥρα, τὸ τέλος), and parallels between 13,1-5 and 17,24-26 (ἡ ἀγάπη) and between 13,31-38 and 17,1-4 (δόξα). But the theme of love also links 13,1-5 with 13,31-38, as the theme of glory links 17,1-4 with 17,24-26. At the centre of this macrostructure (15,12-17) the command to love is again dominant (vv. 12-13, 17). Turning to the micro-structure of 13,31-38, on the basis of the Johannine use of the double 'amen', a good case can be made for a tripartite structure of 13,1-17.18-20, and 21-38, with close parallels between vv. 1-17 and 21-38. The action and the characters in 13,31-38 look back to vv. 1-21 (Judas, Peter, gift of example/gift of new commandment, later understanding, failure and misunderstanding). While there is much in the narrative of 13,1-38 that prepares for the discourse of 14,1–16,33, these characters and themes to not appear there. This also suggests the literary unity of 13,1-38.

© 2016 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. I want to reflect on the nature of revelation by means of the idea of the "godsend". While seeming to be ordinary this word carries communication of what is beyond the ordinary. A godsend suggests something like a chink or crack through which something is revealed - a kind of gap, or permeability, a porosity to a light that comes from a source beyond. In that gifted porosity is there an opening to revelation? Does the godsend say something about the surprise of revelation? In response I follow three steps: from word, to idea, to story. I begin by looking at the word and its etymology and consider what this implies. Then I look at the idea of revelation in connection with the claims of philosophical reason. Here my concern is to illuminate some theoretical considerations concerning reason and revelation, from the more reflective conceptual point of view, especially in relation to the modern sense of reason. Third, I turn to story as true to the godsend, and I pay particular attention to a story that witnesses to a kind of fidelity to singularity, the story entitled "Revelation" of Flannery O'Connor.

In this contribution I investigate the relation between Peter of Auvergne’s questions on Aristotle’s cosmological work De caelo and the condemnations of 1277. First I give a short survey of Peter’s life and work and of two sets of quaestiones on De caelo that are ascribed to him: the CEK-questions (very likely composed in 1271-1272) and the WP-questions (most probably composed after May 2, 1274). Then I briefly discuss the condemnations of 1277 and their relation to De caelo (the condemnations included some theories defended in De caelo). Finally, I discuss in detail the shifts in doctrine between the CEK- and the WP-questions. I argue that it is most likely that the change in doctrine between the CEK- and WP-questions on the eternity and animation of the heavens and on the possibility of an infinite multitude in act is effected by the condemnations of 1277.