This dissertation is presented in two parts. It first identifies the shape and content of an ancient system of Christian thought predicated on the theology of the cross of Jesus Christ, and proposes the marks typifying its theologians. Over against the ensuing hermeneutic it next finds the project of twentieth century Swiss theologian Karl Barth to exhibit many of the defining characteristics of this system, and Barth himself to be fairly deemed a modern theologian of the cross. He crucially recovers, reshapes and reasserts the classical theologia crucis as a modern theological instrument, one answering enlightened theology’s self-glorifying accommodation to modernity with the living Word of the cross. The crucicentric system itself is found to comprise two major theological dimensions, epistemological and soteriological. Each of these comprises dialectically corresponding aspects connected with false and true creaturely glory. The cruciform Word (or theology) speaking through this system likewise moves in two directions. It declares negatively that any attempt by the creature to circumvent the cross so as to know about God directly, or to condition God's electing decision, is necessarily the attempt to know and act as God alone may know and act - an attempt therefore on the glory of God. It declares positively that in the crucified Christ God formally discloses the knowledge of God, and determines the creature for God. This knowledge and election are appropriated to the creature as, drawn into the cruciform environment, its attempt to glorify itself is negated and Christ's exalted humanity received in exchange. Thence it is lifted to participate in Christ's mind and in his glory, a process guided by the Holy Spirit and completed eschatologically. The database for this research includes selected primary materials in the Apostle Paul, Athanasius, a group of medieval mystical theologians, the reformer Martin Luther - particularly here his Heidelberg Disputation, and Karl Barth. It also pays attention to the recent secondary literature peripherally or more concertedly connecting itself to the theology of the cross, of whatever period. In this literature numerous suggestions for the content of the theology of the cross exist, a major methodological task in the current research being to bring these together systematically. To the extent that the inner structure of the system carrying the cruciform Word has not previously been made explicit, and Barth's crucicentric status not finally determined, in moving towards these achievements this dissertation breaks fresh ground. In the process a new test by which to decide the crucicentric status of any theological project is developed, and a further and crucicentric way of reading Barth proposed. / This dissertation identifies the shape, content, and marks of the theology of the cross, an ancient and still extant epistemological and soteriological system of Christian thought. Applying the resulting hermeneutic it then shows this system to be present with renewed vitality and future significance in the modern project of seminal Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968).

This dissertation is presented in two parts. It first identifies the shape and content of an ancient system of Christian thought predicated on the theology of the cross of Jesus Christ, and proposes the marks typifying its theologians. Over against the ensuing hermeneutic it next finds the project of twentieth century Swiss theologian Karl Barth to exhibit many of the defining characteristics of this system, and Barth himself to be fairly deemed a modern theologian of the cross. He crucially recovers, reshapes and reasserts the classical theologia crucis as a modern theological instrument, one answering enlightened theology’s self-glorifying accommodation to modernity with the living Word of the cross. The crucicentric system itself is found to comprise two major theological dimensions, epistemological and soteriological. Each of these comprises dialectically corresponding aspects connected with false and true creaturely glory. The cruciform Word (or theology) speaking through this system likewise moves in two directions. It declares negatively that any attempt by the creature to circumvent the cross so as to know about God directly, or to condition God's electing decision, is necessarily the attempt to know and act as God alone may know and act - an attempt therefore on the glory of God. It declares positively that in the crucified Christ God formally discloses the knowledge of God, and determines the creature for God. This knowledge and election are appropriated to the creature as, drawn into the cruciform environment, its attempt to glorify itself is negated and Christ's exalted humanity received in exchange. Thence it is lifted to participate in Christ's mind and in his glory, a process guided by the Holy Spirit and completed eschatologically. The database for this research includes selected primary materials in the Apostle Paul, Athanasius, a group of medieval mystical theologians, the reformer Martin Luther - particularly here his Heidelberg Disputation, and Karl Barth. It also pays attention to the recent secondary literature peripherally or more concertedly connecting itself to the theology of the cross, of whatever period. In this literature numerous suggestions for the content of the theology of the cross exist, a major methodological task in the current research being to bring these together systematically. To the extent that the inner structure of the system carrying the cruciform Word has not previously been made explicit, and Barth's crucicentric status not finally determined, in moving towards these achievements this dissertation breaks fresh ground. In the process a new test by which to decide the crucicentric status of any theological project is developed, and a further and crucicentric way of reading Barth proposed. / This dissertation identifies the shape, content, and marks of the theology of the cross, an ancient and still extant epistemological and soteriological system of Christian thought. Applying the resulting hermeneutic it then shows this system to be present with renewed vitality and future significance in the modern project of seminal Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968).

Appien est l’auteur d’une histoire universelle, l’Histoire romaine, allant de la fondation de Rome jusqu’à l’époque de Trajan. Parmi les livres qui la composent, nous pouvons remarquer la présence d’un Livre Parthique. Bien qu’Appien lui-même manifeste à plusieurs reprises l’intention d’écrire un Livre Parthique, la tradition manuscrite ne nous a transmis qu’un texte très problématique, intitulé Παρθική, qui n’est qu’un centon d’extraits tirés du Livre Syriaque d’Appien et des Vies d’Antoine et de Crassus de Plutarque. Il est évident que la nature de ce texte a engendré un vif débat sur son authenticité. C’est pour trancher la question que notre thèse fournit une nouvelle édition critique du texte de la Παρθική, prenant en compte les études les plus récentes sur la tradition manuscrite de l’Histoire Romaine ; mais surtout elle vise à prendre parti sur la question de l’authenticité de ce texte, en étudiant la méthode historiographique d’Appien et l’usage qu’il fait de ses sources. Compte tenu de cette analyse, nous pouvons conclure que la Παρθική n’accomplit pas ce que l’historien s’était fixé et que son contenu ne correspond pas aux informations qu’il avait déjà à sa disposition. C’est pourquoi il ne paraît pas possible de considérer authentique la Παρθική. / Appian’s principle surviving work, known as Roman History, inspects the events occurred from Rome foundation until the reign of the Emperor Trajan. Among its different books, we can notice the Parthian History. Despite Appian’s intention of writing a Parthian History, the test that reached us – called Παρθική – is made only of excerpts from Appian’s Syrian History and from Plutarch’s Life of Crassus and Life of Antony. It is clear that the characteristics of this test have generated an intense debate on its authenticity. Object of this work is to shed light on this issue, writing a new critical edition of Παρθική, that takes into account the latest studies of the Roman History manuscript tradition. Furthermore, this work has the aim of taking a position on the question of authenticity through a deep study of Appian’s historiographical method and his use of sources. From this analysis it results that Παρθική is not adherent to Appian purposes and its contents does not match with the information he had available. For these reasons it doesn’t seems possible to take the position of the book authenticity.