What does it mean to produce a scholarly edition of an ancient text? The article approaches the question from a comparative perspective, setting Western and Chinese philological traditions in dialogue on problems they share. Proceeding in three stages, it traces a path from the simplest editorial situation to the most complex, where competing traditions reflect the succes-sive interventions of distinct communities of interpretation. At each stage, it first examines the difficulties that confront editors: attribution and authentic-ity, transcription and translation, the treatment of variants, and, in some cas-es, the progressive dissolution of the notion of a stable original; before brief-ly introducing the methods developed to face these problems. Rather than advocating for a single approach, the article suggests that the tools devel-oped by the history of philology in different fields are valuable but not uni-versally applicable, and that editors might use and adapt them case by case. In conclusion, a scholarly edition may be recognized by the transparency and accountability of the reasoning and sources it makes available to its readers.

Editing ancient Christian texts in bilingual volumes, preferably with a critical apparatus, is a continuously evolving process that the Institut des Sources Chrétiennes has been tackling for over eighty years. Four aspects of this challenge are examined here: the guidelines of the series, the teaching of ecdotics, the technical resources and media, and the importance of edito-rial decision-making.

This article re-evaluates the historical and theological identity of the East Syriac Church, also called the “Church of the East”—historically known in East Asia as “Jingjiao” (景教: the “Luminous Religion”)—by challenging the conventional and often misleading label of “Nestorianism.” Through an interdisciplinary analysis of Syriac historiography and fragmentary manuscripts from Turfan, the author argues that the term “Nestorian” is an exonym and a pejorative label coined within the Roman Empire, which fails to reflect the agency and intellectual foundations of the “Church of the East.”
The first half of the paper examines the institutional and historiographical independence of the East Syriac Church within the Sasanian Empire. By analyzing the texts of the oriental synods and the works of Barḥadbshabbā, specifically The Cause of the Foundation of the Schools, the study demonstrates that the community’s lineage was constructed not around Nestorius, but around Theodore of Mopsuestia, called “the Interpreter”. This “Theodorian” Teaching brought to the churches in the Persian Territory a theology that focused on historical interpretation of the Bible and progress through the temporal world, and the School of Nisibis inherited this legacy in a subjective and creative manner that was very distinct from the Christological preoccupations of the Roman Churches.
The second half provides some evidence for the transmission of these teachings and their subsequent cultural adaptation in Central Asia. By examining Sogdian and Middle Persian translations of the Psalms discovered in Turfan, the author highlights the replacement of traditional “allegorical” interpretation of Septuagint headings with new “Theodorian” headings that reflect a historical interpretive framework and new “Canons” rooted in a new environment. Furthermore, linguistic analysis of these fragments—such as the use of the Sogdian term əktānī (evoking karmic “deeds”) and the Middle Persian ethical dualism of kirbakkar (“Good-doer”) and bazzakkar (“Evil-doer”)—reveals a sophisticated process of “subjective adaptation.”
The paper concludes that the East Syriac Church/Jingjiao should be understood not as a heretical offshoot of Roman Christianity, but as the culmination of the “Eastern” trajectory: a community that integrated Theodorian teaching into its ancient foundations, fostered internal growth, and resolutely adapted its religious practice to the Persian, Sogdian, and Chinese cultural spheres.

This paper reexamines the concept of theosis, deification, by placing Athanasius’s On the Incarnation and John Behr’s patristic Christology in dia-logue with Bernard Stiegler’s pharmacological view of technics. For Athana-sius, theosis primarily refers to the Incarnation of the Word of God, in which God became man, an initiative of God’s that enables us to be deified. Ex-panding on this, Behr connects the Incarnation with Christ’s sacrifice, argu-ing that human beings become “fully human” only by uttering our fiat to die and live in Christ in response to the Incarnation and the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
The study contrasts this patristic vision with contemporary technologi-cal attitudes, influenced by transhumanism, that often treat finitude as a de-fect to be eradicated. While transhumanism seeks artificial transcendence, this paper finds that the account of technics in the Greek myth counterintui-tively requires a sense of shame (aidos) and, according to Stiegler, a sense of finitude. This paper argues that the awareness of human finitude is the es-sential threshold for genuine deification, both from a patristic view and as a constitutive element of being human within modern philosophical frame-works of technics.

The final words of the patriarch Jacob to his twelve sons are generally considered as “Jacob's Blessings” (cf. Genesis 49:1-28). However, upon careful examination of the text, readers will notice that the eldest son Reu-ben, along with Simeon and Levi, did not receive their father's ‘blessing’ (cf. Genesis 49:3-7). These utterances could even be characterized as “curses.” In fact, textual criticism reveals traces of “hesitation” in different ancient manuscripts regarding the distinction between ‘blessing’ and “curse.” Con-cerning the eldest son Reuben, the word  , repeated twice in Genesis 49:3b, carries ambiguous meaning: on one hand, it can be negatively trans-lated as “excessively, too much” on the other hand, it could be interpreted positively as “extraordinary, outstanding, excellent.” The ancient Aquila ver-sion translates this noun as the adjective “excessive, extreme,” carrying a negative connotation. Regarding the instructions concerning Simeon and Levi, the opening word of Genesis 49:7 plays a crucial role: both the Maso-retic Text () and the Septuagint (ἐπικατάρατος) attest to the meaning “cursed” while the Samaritan Pentateuch employs , meaning “exalted”—suggesting their anger was commended and received Jacob's “blessing.” Be-yond this, the key term  (cf. Gen 49:10) in the prophecy concerning the fourth son Judah remains controversial: the Septuagint translates it as “the one who is reserved” (τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ); the Vulgate interprets it as “the one who is sent” (qui mittendus est); while the Samaritan Pentateuch em-ploys the form  . The interpretation of “the one who is to come” plays a decisive role in the entire text. Furthermore, the fate of Joseph, Jacob's be-loved son, is summarized by the term ‘blessing’ (), even being regarded as “the chosen one among his brothers” (cf. Gen 49:26) and subsequently called “the foremost among his brothers” (cf. Deut 33:16b). If Reuben, Sim-eon, and Levi truly received their father’s “curse,” then which of Jacob’s specially “blessed” sons—Judah (cf. Gen 49:8-12) or Joseph (cf. Gen 49:22-26)—ultimately inherited the birthright? This article aims to clarify the critical issue of Jacob’s “blessings” and ‘curses’ through comparative and critical analysis of different textual versions. It involves not only the in-terpretation of the entire “Joseph narrative” (cf. Gen 37-50) but also the un-derstanding of the composition of the Pentateuch: “Jacob’s blessings” (Gen 49) and “Moses’ blessing” (Deut 33) form a relationship of beginning and end echoing each other.

“Negative theology” originated in Greek philosophy, where it was ini-tially applied primarily to ontology and metaphysics. After being systemati-cally developed by Philo of Alexandria, it became a theological method for expressing the attributes of God and mystical experiences. The Apostolic Fathers neither entirely rejected Greek philosophy and Hellenized Jewish thought nor accepted them uncritically; rather, they adopted a strategy of discernment through reflection and transformation through dialogue. Regard-ing "negative theology", they maintained a relatively cautious stance and, within the framework of biblical revelation, limited themselves to using cer-tain negative adjectives to illustrate the transcendence of God's divinity.

This article explores Augustine’s unique perspective on corporeality as con-structed between Neoplatonism and Christian faith, focusing on his reflections on the relationship between body and soul. While Augustine inherits the Neo-platonic emphasis on the soul’s transcendence, he firmly rejects the notion which the Neoplatonic holds that the body is the source of shame or a prison for the soul. Influenced by Christian doctrine, Augustine contends that the body’s mortality originates not from any inherent flaw but from original sin. The body, in his view, is not only a good creation of God but also an necessary condition for the beatitude that human beings are to attain in the eschaton. The human person is constituted by body and soul together, forming a complete unity. From the perspectives of existentialism, ethics, and epistemology, this article analyzes Augustine’s multifaceted understanding of corporeality—as a mark of death, a trigger of desire, yet also a medium for intellectual and divine contemplation. Ultimately, author argues that Augustine’s concept of the spiritual body within the framework of resurrection and eschatology transcends the Platonic tradition of the soul’s superiority, laying a profound foundation for a theological anthro-pology grounded in the unity of body and soul.

This paper takes Augustine’s Tractate 46 on the Gospel of John as its core text and argues that “the Incarnation” is not merely a doctrinal tenet within his theological system, but constitutes a “central interpretive para-digm” that permeates his historical engagement, theological construction, and exegetical practice. This paradigm can be operationally defined through three interrelated dimensions: divine condescension and accommodation, the sanctification of material media, and the union of Head and body. Within this framework, the paper first reconstructs the historical context of Tractate 46, revealing how Augustine maps the multiple controversies of the North African Church onto the textual figures of the parable—the “hireling” as a response to Donatist purism, the contrast between the Good Shepherd's self-sacrifice and the hireling's flight as a counter to Pelagian depreciation of grace, the “wolf” as the spiritual adversary threatening the flock, and the “doorkeeper” as an occasion for safeguarding Trinitarian orthodoxy. Second-ly, it analyzes how Augustine, centering on the Incarnation, organically inte-grates the doctrines of election, Christology, Trinitarian theology, and eccle-siology into a coherent theological whole. Finally, it explores how his exe-getical method—including his Christological reconfiguration of the patristic tradition, his use of an “incarnational rhetoric,” the principle of pastoral ac-commodation, and his semiotic theory—translates this paradigm into con-crete interpretive practice, while establishing clear boundaries for polyse-mous interpretation through the rule of faith and the principle of charity. The findings demonstrate that viewing the Incarnation as an interpretive para-digm effectively bridges the gap between historical criticism and theological logic prevalent in current scholarship on the Tractates, revealing Augustine’s dynamic methodology that integrates apologetics, exegesis, and pastoral care, and illuminating the inner unity and theological depth of his thought.

This article takes the “Call of the King” meditation in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises as its central focus and examines its significance for Christian identity formation and spiritual life within the context of con-temporary society. It begins by analyzing the crisis of identity brought about by postmodern individualism, consumer culture, and the decline of collec-tive ideals, arguing that modern individuals increasingly struggle to form stable life commitments oriented toward an ultimate horizon of meaning. Through an examination of the text of the Spiritual Exercises and relevant scholarship in Ignatian studies, the article demonstrates that the “Call of the King” is not primarily a summons to a particular status, role, or office, but rather an invitation issued by the risen Christ, calling individuals into a rela-tionship with him and participation in his mission. Drawing upon both theo-logical and psychological perspectives, the study further explores the dy-namic structure of call and response and its relationship to the formation of personal identity. It argues that the identification fostered by the “Call of the King” is not a form of religious projection grounded in “imaginary identifi-cation”, but rather a “symbolic identification” centered on responding to Christ’s mission. Such identification enables individuals to transcend the framework of self-realization and, through the Christic process of the imita-tion of Christ, to attain a more mature and integrated identity.