The paper aims to deal with the problem of “homonymy” in Origen’s work from the point of logic. As far as Origen is concerned, this term expresses the difference between the literal and non-literal meanings of various Scriptural texts. Therefore, homonymy can be regarded as a primitive linguistic entity for the interpretation of the Scripture. Origen’s use of this term shows that a considerable part of the tools he classifies into the arsenal of logic is in close connection with linguistic entities, that is, with the Scripture. Nevertheless, as in the case of the difference between the literal and non-literal sense of the statements and commands of the Scripture, so too in connection with homonymy, the question of truth and falsity may emerge. Therefore, in this sense, homonymy has a logical character as well.
The paper investigates the documentary value of Gregory of Nyssa's letters. The use of different literary forms may constitute the cause of and the reason for some distortion of the real, historical facts. There is proportionality between undecorated speech and poetical formulation on the one hand, and truth opposing the delightfulness as the main goal of the speech on the other. This proportionality cannot be exaggerated. Rhetorical devices are not simple formal tools in Gregory of Nyssa's practice which are sometimes employed for illusionist purposes and are sometimes neglected on the ground of a rational decision. They constitute a language that enables the writer to tell us the truth or his feelings, his intentions in a good style. Second Sophistique and Christianity form a unified culture in Gregory of Nyssa's oeuvre, despite the self-contradictions, ambiguities and difficulties, which were partly recognized by himself.
The paper aims to show that the suggestion of Alain Le Boulluec, delivered in his commentary, according to which Clement’s divine steersman, in Stromateis VII 5, may be a criticism of Numenius, is right. Clement is alluding to the Platonic myth in the Statesman while opposing some elements of this view. There are common moments between Numenius’ and Clement’s interpretations which are not present in Plato’s account. Clement shares only the positive aspect of the activity of the Son of God described by Numenius. He rejects the Numenian dualistic ontology and its consequence, the movement, the division and the split of the second divine figure providing the sequences of providential and non-providential conditions of the world.