**MASSIMO of TURIN, Saint.** — Church Father; first bishop of Turin whose name is known.
I. LIFE. — Only scant and uncertain information survives about this great bishop of Turin, whose episcopate must be placed no earlier than 380 and, as seems more likely, no later than 423. He was probably a spiritual son of St Eusebius of Vercelli. He was likely present at the Council of Turin in 398. From his discourses, he appears entirely devoted to the good of his people and possessed of particularly compelling and effective speech.
II. WRITINGS AND DOCTRINE. — A not inconsiderable literary output is attributed to him, somewhat artificially divided into homilies, sermons, and treatises. A very significant portion of this, however, is not so securely transmitted, and another part is undoubtedly spurious. The writings of St M. deserve the close attention both of the historian, for the valuable indications they provide on the social, religious, and moral conditions of the populations of northern Italy in the 5th century, and of the theologian, for the dogmatic elements—always quite precise—he offers on the principal points of theological knowledge, especially regarding ecclesiology, Christology, and baptismal doctrine.
III. OPEN QUESTIONS. — Aside from minor issues such as the time and place of his birth (Volterra, Trentino, Vercelli, Turin?) and the time of his episcopal consecration, the gravest unresolved questions about St M. are the following:
1) The existence of one or two Maximi, i.e., whether there was another bishop of Turin of the same name (M. II?), seemingly required to reconcile a notice by Gennadius with the presence of a “Maximus episcopus Taurinensis” who signed the acts of the Council of Milan in 451 and the Council of Rome in 465. According to Gennadius, in fact, St M. “moritur Honorio et Theodosio iunior regnante” (some manuscripts: “regnantibus”); now Honorius and Theodosius II were co-emperors only before 423. Those who support the existence of a single M. instead of “moritur” read “oritur,” “floruit,” or “claruit,” thereby postdating his birth and extending his episcopate at least to the Roman Council of 465.
2) The critical question of the attribution of the works ascribed to him. A revision of Bruno Bruni’s work, the first critical editor of St M.’s writings, has become indispensable after the studies of Benna, Colombo, Capelle, and Moricea (v. BIBLICA).
3) The question of biblical and patristic sources (noteworthy is how a comparison between the biblical citations in the certainly authentic writings and those in the dubious ones might provide a useful criterion for further determination).