La dynastie des Flaviens est souvent mal connue et appréciée en raison de sa situation chronologique, « coincée » entre la famille des descendants de César et d’Auguste et celle allant de Trajan à Marc Aurèle. Elle passe parfois pour une simple dynastie de « transition » qui aurait uniquement servi de passerelle entre deux familles considérées comme plus brillantes qui ont par ailleurs laissé un souvenir plus durable. En un peu plus d’un quart de siècle (69-96), Vespasien, Titus et Domitien ont pourtant davantage fait pour la stabilité de Rome et de l’Empire que certains de leurs prédécesseurs ou successeurs. Sorti vainqueur des troubles civils de l’année des quatre empereurs (68-69), Vespasien ramena la paix en Orient et en Italie en plus de s’attacher à stabiliser les institutions et de reconstituer les finances de l’État, passablement écornées par les dernières années du Principat de Néron (54-68) et la guerre civile elle-même. Plus que la paix et la stabilité à l’intérieur et aux frontières de l’Empire, il fit cependant en sorte de refonder les bases institutionnelles du Principat en assumant sa transformation en un régime monarchique et héréditaire. Un principe parfaitement admis puisque ses deux fils adultes, Titus et Domitien, lui succédèrent sans difficulté. Davantage peut-être que les récits laissés par les sources littéraires anciennes, les inscriptions romaines et italiennes ainsi que les monnaies émises par l’atelier de Rome sont probablement le meilleur témoignage permettant de saisir le plus précisément et le plus profondément l’idée que les Flaviens se faisaient d’eux-mêmes et du pouvoir dont ils étaient investis. Le contenu de leur titulature officielle comme leurs choix iconographiques permettent ainsi de dégager leurs différents thèmes de propagande qui laissent finalement apparaitre une vraie continuité dans leur idéologie du pouvoir et leur manière de gouverner. Vespasien a ainsi posé des fondations idéologiques et politiques que ses fils ont globalement poursuivies et respectées, ce qui renforce l’idée selon laquelle les Flaviens ont effectivement suivi un « programme » qui les distinguait de leurs prédécesseurs et de leurs successeurs. Malgré des différences parfois importantes dans leurs pratiques, les inscriptions et l’iconographie monétaire permettent ainsi de mettre en lumière le fait que Titus et Domitien ont finalement moins cherché à faire preuve d’originalité qu’à s’inscrire dans la continuité de l’œuvre de leur père afin de garantir le maintien de la paix et avec elle la prospérité et la stabilité de l’État, et avec elles la satisfaction et la tranquillité de l’ensemble de la société. / The Flavian dynasty is not the most famous of the imperial families who ruled the Roman Empire, especially because it seems to be badly located between two more prestigious dynasties: the descendants of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and those, to Marcus Aurelius, of Trajan. Moreover, the Flavian are sometimes considered only as insignificant because of the shortness of the time they stayed at power. However, for a little more than a quarter century (69-96), Vespasian, Titus and Domitian worked a lot, and more than some of their predecessors or successors, to ensure the stability of Rome and of the entire Empire. Winner of the Year of Four Emperors (68-69), Vespasian brought back peace in the East and in Italy, and intended to stabilize the institutions and restore the finances of the State, partly ruined by the last years of Nero’s reign and the civil war. More than peace and stability, inside the Empire and on the borders, he ruled to rebuild the institutional basis of the Principate by assuming its transformation into a monarchic and hereditary regime. This idea was wholly admitted because his two adult sons, Titus and Domitian, succeeded him with no difficulty. Perhaps more than the account of the ancient literary sources, Italian and Roman inscriptions and coins from the mint of Rome are the best testimony allowing us to catch, accurately and deeply, how the Flavian were considering themselves and the power they had. The content of their official titulature alongside with the iconography of their coins are helpful to determine the themes of their propaganda from which appears a real continuity in their ideology and their way of ruling power. Vespasian laid ideological and political foundations that his two sons globally respected and pursued, reinforcing the idea that the Flavians had their own « political program » which distinguished them from the predecessors and successors. Despite some differences in their practices, sometimes big, the inscriptions and monetary iconography of Titus and Domitian were finally less original than an attempt to pursue their father’s work in order to guarantee the peacekeeping, and with it, the stability and the prosperity of the State, and beyond, the satisfaction and calmness of the whole society.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided an opportunity to reexamine the formation of the Gospel of John. This study will utilize Dead Sea finds coupled with other Second Temple literature to examine how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being a king. The approach of this study to use a narrative approach that builds on the Gospel of John as a finished text. The contribution of a source critical approach is not disparaged but the narrative approach will allow the Johannine community to be seen in the context of the immediate post-Second Temple era. The limited literacy of the probable first audience of this text suggests that a narrative approach will best be able to understand the background to the formation of the Gospel of John. A central contention of this study is that the Gospel of John was composed after the Jewish Revolt and after the Synoptics. Thus it deserves the appellation of the Fourth Gospel and is called such in this study. The Fourth Gospel was composed at a time when Roman interest in anything connected to Judaism was sure to attract special interest. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah needed to be handled carefully. The imagery of the new David found in 4Q504 compared with the imagery of Jesus being the Good Shepherd becomes an important part of the argument of this study on whether this Gospel portrays Jesus as being the Davidic Messiah. Jesus as the Good Shepherd showed Jews that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah without overtly offending Roman sensibilities. Furthermore evidence from Christian and Jewish sources indicates that an interest in a Third Temple was still stirring between the Jewish and Bar-Kochba Revolts. The Fourth Gospel shows Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who replaces the Temple because the Good Shepherd was the perfect sacrifice. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

La figure de l’épouse fait partie intégrante du genre épique, dont les œuvres homériques ont élaboré le modèle pour la littérature gréco-romaine. L’importance accordée à l’eros féminin, et particulièrement conjugal, est l’un des aspects sur lesquels repose l’évolution de la généricité épique, d’œuvre en œuvre. À l’époque flavienne, Valérius Flaccus et Stace confèrent un rôle déterminant à deux figures féminines, celle de Médée dans les Argonautiques et celle d’Argie dans la Thébaïde, et présentent, tous deux, d’autres facettes de l’eros conjugal dans leur épisode lemnien, dont Hypsipyle est l’héroïne centrale. Cette présence accentuée du féminin peut être rapprochée de la réflexion contemporaine sur l’éthique conjugale menée dans le domaine philosophique, notamment par Musonius Rufus. Sur le plan littéraire, dans le contexte de la latinité d’argent, elle manifeste un questionnement des normes du genre, qui se traduit par une représentation de l’épouse selon des modèles autres qu’épiques : celui du genre tragique et de l’élégie romaine, particulièrement des Héroïdes d’Ovide. À la confluence de trois traditions littéraires, épique, tragique et élégiaque, le rôle des figures féminines témoigne d’un renouvellement de l’épopée, dont l’élaboration de critères d’analyse portant sur les notions de genre, de généricité et d’intergénéricité permet de donner l’entière mesure. / The character of the wife is a central feature of the epic genre, for which Homer's poems stand as a model in Greek and Latin literature. The major role the feminine eros, especially towards a husband, plays in those works is one of the aspects on which the evolution of epic genericity relies, evolving from one poem to another. During the Flavian Age, Valerius Flaccus and Statius gave two feminine characters a major part in their poems : one is Medea in The Argonautics, the other Argia in Statius' Thebaid. Besides, both poets also illustrate other aspects of husband and wife eros in the Lemnian episode, which stages Hypsipyle as its heroine. From a philosophical point of view, we can see how this emphasized presence of feminine characters matches contemporary philosophers' theories on ethics within marriage, such as Musonius Rufus' thoughts. From the point de view of literature however, considering its setting in the Age of Silver latinity, we can consider this presence as a questioning of epic generic codes, which shows in the way wives are represented, according to the patterns of tragedy and of the Roman elegy, particularly of Ovid's Heroids. Therefore in the wake of three literary traditions - epic, tragedy, elegy -, the role of feminine characters shows the renewal of the epic, which we can fully study by creating criteria of analysis bearing on the notions of genre, genericity and intergenericity.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided an opportunity to reexamine the formation of the Gospel of John. This study will utilize Dead Sea finds coupled with other Second Temple literature to examine how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being a king. The approach of this study to use a narrative approach that builds on the Gospel of John as a finished text. The contribution of a source critical approach is not disparaged but the narrative approach will allow the Johannine community to be seen in the context of the immediate post-Second Temple era. The limited literacy of the probable first audience of this text suggests that a narrative approach will best be able to understand the background to the formation of the Gospel of John. A central contention of this study is that the Gospel of John was composed after the Jewish Revolt and after the Synoptics. Thus it deserves the appellation of the Fourth Gospel and is called such in this study. The Fourth Gospel was composed at a time when Roman interest in anything connected to Judaism was sure to attract special interest. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah needed to be handled carefully. The imagery of the new David found in 4Q504 compared with the imagery of Jesus being the Good Shepherd becomes an important part of the argument of this study on whether this Gospel portrays Jesus as being the Davidic Messiah. Jesus as the Good Shepherd showed Jews that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah without overtly offending Roman sensibilities. Furthermore evidence from Christian and Jewish sources indicates that an interest in a Third Temple was still stirring between the Jewish and Bar-Kochba Revolts. The Fourth Gospel shows Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who replaces the Temple because the Good Shepherd was the perfect sacrifice. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)