The exegesis of the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) offers Hilary of Poitiers the chance to reflect on the emotional suffering of the Word made flesh and its glorification by the Father. The bishop uses these motifs to rebut the subordinationist position of his adversaries and to uphold the presence of the Father in the Son, declaring the perfect equality of both persons. Thus, he uses the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus to show how the glorification of the Son is intended to sanctify the flesh he assumed, so that the Father to recognizes him in it, thus restoring the unity of his divine and human natures. Likewise, he draws a connection with Jn 5:24-29, reinforcing his thoughts on the mystery of the mutual inhabitation of the Father and the Son with an anti-Arian interpretation.

The article considers arguments presented by Erasmus of Rotterdam, Julien Garnier and their modern followers against the authenticity of the Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, which has been preserved in mansucsripts as a work of Basil the Great. A survey of the correspondence of Erasmus and of the circumstances of his attempted translation of the book shows that his critical judgement on the authorship was motivated by the need to justify his abandoning of the project of translation rather than by the evidence of the text itself. The first systematic examination of Garnier’s critical dossier demonstrates that his statements about the incompatibility of many linguistic features of the Commentary with undisputed writings of Basil are not supported by the text of his own edition of the book. Moreover, his rigid criteria for stylistic analysis are based on misleading notions about textual aspects of the creation and transmission of Patristic works. Isolated observations of the modern followers of the Maurist need to be assessed on the basis of a new and critical edition of the text; however, without the support of his numerous unfounded arguments, they are not sufficient by themselves to refute the attribution of the book in the manuscript tradition.

The present paper provides a comparative analysis of imperial and canonical legislation concerning the abduction of lay or consecrated women in the 4th century, when both legislations delineated the distinctive features of the abovementioned crimen. The imperial law showed both an extreme severity towards abductors and a leniency towards lay and consecrated women, who were considered innocent; however, women were not allowed to live together with their abductors. The canonical legislation also severely punished abductors and considered lay women innocent; however, contrary to the provisions in the civil laws, the ecclesiastical legislation condemned consecrated women who consented to abduction. The paper aims to reconstruct the basic outline of both legislative systems and to identify a set of key features that might describe female submission to both the will of male members of the family and to the provisions in the canonical laws: indeed, the consent to abduction often represented an extreme attempt on the part of women to determine their own lives.