The “neochalcedonism” of John of Caesarea: The term ἐνυπόστατον and unus de Trinitate passus est carne
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31802/2500-1450/2017-28-1-72-95Keywords:
Neoсhalcedonism, John of Caesarea the Grammarian, Cyril of Alexandria, Dell’Osso, hypostasis, inhypostasized, ἐνυπόστατον, unus de Trinitate passus est carne, God Word, Chalcedon.Abstract
This article considers the validity and meaning of the “neochalcedonian” approach to interpreting the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon and Christology St. Cyril of Alexandria. The of the most important aspect of this controversy concerns two formulae “One of the Trinity suffered carnally” (unus de Trinitate passus est carne) and “inhypostasized” ἐνυπόστατον explaining the connection of the two natures in the hypostasis of the Word afterthe incarnation. Western contemporary tradition highlights the second formula because it is a fundamental concept of the definition of neochalcedonism of an author V-VII centuries. This formula is attributed to Scythian Latin speaking monks, who, being grounded in the theology of Blessed Augustine, introduced this concept to the East. The formula “One of the Trinity suffered carnally” formed the basis of the doctrine of the connection of the Word with Its flesh the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Italian academic K. Dell Osso sees this as a victory of Western theology, the genius of which has made the most accurate christological definition that perfectly combines the unity and duality of natures in the incarnate Word. It was this formula that the theology of St. Cyril and of Chalcedon combined to form our faith that is today. This, in his opinion, is the true neochalcedonism and an absolute novelty. The formula ἐνυπόστατον, entered into use in the East at about the same time and complements the first formula. The A. seeks to show that in Eastern theology, regardless of any Latin influence, from the middle of the fifth century the formula “unus de Trinitate passus est carne” in its Greek equivalent was known and actively used. Reasons for its appearance we can already find in the christology of St. Cyril. Both formulae are used later by John of Caesarea, indicating a synthesis of the faith of Chalcedon and St. Cyril - a “Cyrillian chalcedonism”. This is not a new Chalcedonian faith, which involves the term “neochalcedonism”, but rather the expression of that same faith by means of new terms and formulae. This is the “Cyrilian chalcedonism”, which embodies the doctrine of the connection of the Word with Its flesh. One of the first exponents of this “Cyrilian chalcedonism” and was John of Caesarea.
Downloads
References
Евагрий Схоластик. Церковная история / Пер. с древнегреч., вступ. ст., комм. и прилож. И. В. Кривушина. СПб., 2010.
Анастасий Синаит, прп. Избранные творения / Пер., вступ. ст., комм. А. И. Сидорова. М., 2003.
Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Orationis prima / Ed. J. Lebon. Louvain, 1933 (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 111; Syr. 112).
Iohannes Caesariensis presbyteros et grammaticos. Opera quae supersunt / Ed. M. Richard, M. Aubineau. Louvain, 1977 (CCSG 1).
Говорун С., диак. К истории термина ἐνυπόστατον «воипостасное» // Леонтий Византийский. Сборник исследований / Под ред. А. Р. Фокина. М., 2006. С. 655–665.
Грацианский М. В. Политика императора Юстиниана Великого по отношению к монофизитам. М., 2009.
Давыденков О., свящ. Из истории сирийского монофизитства. Исторические предпосылки распространения монофизитства в Сирии. М., 1997.
Карташев А. В. Вселенские Соборы. М., 1994.
Мейендорф И., протопр. Иисус Христос в восточном православном богословии. М., 2000.
Янг Ф. М. От Никеи до Халкидона. Введение в греческую патристическую литературу и ее исторический контекст. М., 2010.
Allen P., Hayward C. T. R. Severus of Antioch. New York, 2004.
Altaner B. Die griechische Theologe Leontius und Leontius der skytische Mönk. Eine prosopografische Untersuchung // Theologische Quartalschrift. 1947. Bd. 127. S. 147–165.
Chadwick H. Eucharist and сhristology in the Nestorian controversy // Journal of theological studies. 1951. Vol. 73. N. S. 2. P. 145–164.
Chesnut R. C. Three monophysite christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug. Oxford, 1976.
Dell’Osso C. L’inno Trisagion: origini e dispute teologiche // Motivi e forme della poesia cristiana antica tra Scrittura e tradizione classica. XXXVI Incontro di studiosi dell’ antichità cristiana Roma, 3–5 maggio 2007. R., 2008 (SEA 108.2). P. 835–846.
Dell’Osso C. Cristo e Logos. Il calcedonismo del VI secolo in Oriente. R., 2010 (SEA 118).
Dowling M. J. The christology of Leontius of Byzantium (Diss.) / The Queen’s University of Belfast, 1982.
Draguet R. Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ. Louvain, 1924.
Gray P. T. R. The defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553). Leiden, 1979.
Gray P. T. R. Neo-chalcedonism and the Tradition: from patristic to byzantine theology // BF. 1982. Bd. 8. S. 61–70.
Grillmeier A., Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian tradition. Vol. 1. From the apostolic age to Chalcedon (451). L., 1975.
Grillmeier A., Heinthaler Th. Christ in Christian tradition. Vol. 2.1. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the Gregory the Great (590–604). L., 1987.
Grillmeier A., Heinthaler Th. Christ in Christian tradition. Vol. 2.2. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the Gregory the Great (590–604). L., 1995.
Helmer S. Der Neochalkedonismus. Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffs. Bonn, 1962.
A Patristic Greek lexicon / Ed. G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford, 1961.
Lebon J. Le Monophysisme sévérien. Étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la costitution de l’Église Jacobite. Louvain, 1909.
McGuckin J. A. The “Theopaschite confession” (text and historical context): a study in the cyrilline reinterpretion of Chalcedon // Journal of ecclesiastical history. 1984. Vol. 35. P. 239–255.
Moeller Ch. Un représentant de la christologie néo-chalcédonienne au début du VIe s. en Orient: Naphalius d’Alexandrie // RHE. 1944–1945. Vol. 40. Р. 73–140.
Moeller Ch. Trois fragments grecs de l’Apologie de Jean le Grammarien pour le concile de Chalcédoine // RHE. 1951. Vol. 46. P. 683–688.
Moeller Ch. Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à la fin de Vie siècle // Das Konzil von Chalkedon / Hrsg. A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht. Würzburg, 1951. Bd. 1. S. 637–720.
Perrone L. La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche. Brescia, 1980.
Richard M. L’activité littéraire de Théodoret avant le concile d’Ephèse // RSPT. 1935. Vol. 24. P. 83–106.
Richard M. Notes sur l’évolution doctrinale de Théodoret // RSPT. 1936. Vol. 25. P. 459–481.
Richard M. Théodoret, Jean d’Antioche et les moines d’Orient // Mélanges de science religieuse. 1946. Vol. 3. P. 148–161.
Richard M. Le néo-chalcédonisme // Richard M. Opera minora. Vol. 2. № 56. Turnhout, 1977. P. 156–161.
Torrance I. R. Cristology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite. Norwich, 1988.
Uthemann K.-H. Definizionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chakedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians // Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption der Christologischen Formel von Chalkedon / Ed. J. van Oort, J. Roldanus. Leuven, 1997. P. 54–122.
Uthemann K-H. Kaiser Justinian als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe // Augustinianum. Vol. 39. 1999. P. 5–83.
Wickham L. R. Severus of Antioch on the Trinity // StP. 1993. Vol. 24.2. P. 360–372.
