SC Sources chrtiennes for used vols cf. TRE Theologische Realenzyklopdie, ed. Mller, 34 vols, Berlin e. For the less frequently used abbreviations see Theologische Realenzyklopdie.
NPNF Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Abkrzungsverzeichnis, ed. The so-called doctrine of enhypostasia or anhypostasia is probably the only thing an average theologian knows about the post-Chalcedonian development of patristic theology. This is by no means coincidental, as this doctrine supplies, as was already pointed out by K. Rozemond with regard to John of Damascus la base terminologique de la christologie1 once the latter was to be developed within a Chalcedonian framework: two natures inseparably united in one hypostasis can only be conceived of if at least one of them does not have a hypostasis, i.
In principle, this is the reading of Chalcedon canonized by the fifth council in , when the Justinians Edict on the right faith from two years before had made it absolutely clear that according to the right reason we speak of the union of two natures and one hypostasis, as the Son of Goddifferent from the Father in hypostasis, but identical with him in naturecreated for himself a rationally and intellectually ensouled flesh, which makes clear that God the Logos was united to a human nature, not to the hypostasis or person of a certain individual.
La Christologie de St. Jean Damascne, Ettal , Drei dogmatische Schriften Justinians, ed.
Amelotti e. This conception of union according to the hypostasis clearly lies behind the 5th8th canon of the Council Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum 2. In the first part of his Church dogmatics, he writes: In recent times the doctrine of anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christs human nature has occasionally been combated by the primitive argument, that if the human nature of Christ is without personality of its own, it is all up with the true humanity of Christ and the Docetism of early Christology holds the field.
This the early writers called individualitas, and they never taught that Christs human nature lacked this . Personalitas was their name for what we call existence or being. Their negative position asserted that Christs flesh in itself had no existence, and this was asserted in the interest of their positive position that Christs flesh has its existence through the Word and in the Word, who is God Himself acting as Revealer and Reconciler. Understood in this its original sense, this particular doctrine, abstruse in appearance only, is particularly well adapted to make it clear that the reality attested by Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ, is the reality of a divine act of Lordship which is unique and singular as compared with all other events, and in this way to characterize it as a reality held up to faith by revelation.
It is in virture of the eternal word that Jesus exists as a man of flesh and blood in our sphere, as a man like us, as a historical phenomenon. But it is only in virtue of the divine Word that He exists as such. In the fourth part, he continues this eulogy in calling the enhypostasis or anhypostasis of Christs human nature the sum and root of all the grace addressed to Him,4 as the fact that in Jesus Christ we do not have to do with a man into whom God has changed Himself, but unchanged and directly with God himself entirely depends upon this conception, just like the unity in which as man He is the Son of God and as the Son of God man; and finally  the universal relevance and significance of His existence for all other men.
Schnmetzer, Freiburg 36th ed.
- Journal of Early Modern Christianity.
- Bestselling Series.
- The Worlds Rarest Birds.
- North African Cretaceous Carbonate Platform Systems (Nato Science Series: IV:).
Torrance, Vol. The following monograph is by no means daring enough to tackle all the grave systematical problems involved in statements like these,6 but its scope is limited to a merely philological problem concerning the labelling of this doctrine: The terms or do not exist in ancient Greek at all7 and are thus obviously not employed by post-Chalcedonian theologians to describe the doctrine in question either. In fact, the crucial terms discussed in the post-Chalcedonian debate are the corresponding adjectives and , as the Chalcedonian teaching of two natures in one hypostasis was dismissed by both Nestorian and Monophysite theologians on the grounds that in this case one of the natures would have to be , i.
Of capital importance for the re- introduction of our term into the Christological debate seems to have been Marcus Hopperus John of Damascusedition from , which for the first time presented in Greek not only the Expositio fidei first printed in Greek in Verona , but also the longer recension of the Dialectics. Surprisingly enough, the negative noun was of much more prominence in those theologians than any possible positive counterpart. The ealiest reference for it I could find occurs in Balthasar Meisners 50 Christological discussions from Pannenberg, Grundzge der Christologie, Gtersloh 5th ed.
- The Theatre (Corinth vol.2)?
- The Development of the Term ἐνυπόστατος from Origen to John of Damascus.
- A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION.
- Theosis. God. Trinity. John of Damascus?
- Epub Labor Erde: Bausteine Fur Einen Lebensfreundlichen Planeten.
- Networking Practitioner Research.
- PDQ Statistics, Third Edition (PDQ Series)?
Latte, Vol. Kotter, Die berlieferung der Pege gnoseos des Hl. Johannes v. Damaskos, Ettal , Chemnitz, De duabus naturis in Christo cap. VII ; ed. Cotta, Vol. Schmid, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, Gtersloh 7th ed.
Online The Development Of The Term Ἐνυπόστατος From Origen To John Of Damascus 2012
In the fifth chapter of the second book of his Christiana et catholica fides from Matthias Martini apologizes for making use of it and thus probably signalizes that he is introducing here a neologism of his own: This was given to Christs flesh by the grace of the union that this flesh had in the hypostasis of the Son of God, so to speak, an , i. II th.
Christologiae sacrae disputationes L, Wittenberg , 24f. Attributa vero carnis assumptae propria seu individuantia, quibus ab aliis hominibus distinguitur vicissim sunt vel totius vel partium. Totius sunt vel transitoria vel perpetua. Inter illa praecipua sunt conceptio ex Spiritu S. Totius perpetua sunt quia caro assumpta non subsistit per peculiarem , subsistentia in , immunitas peccato, communicatio idiomatum, sessio ad dexteram Patris. III c. Non enim persona, alioquin duae essent in Christo personae sed natura humana propria personalitate destituta assumpta est, haec ipsa vero propria longe eminentiori, imo infinita est compensata.
Those passages are translated and briefly discussed in M. Gockel, A dubious Christological formula? Leontius of Byzantium and the anhypostatos-enhypostatos theory, in: JThS 51 , f. Si haec proprie loquendo communicaretur carni, caro fieret ipsa illa aeterna secunda persona Deitatis. Hoc autem datum est carni Christi per unionis gratiam, ut illa caro in hypostasi Filii Dei habeat, ut sic dicamus, , h. This text is resumed almost litterally by A. Heidianus, Corpus theologiae christianae, Leiden , This translation of as personae illae insita is, however, in the patristic context, as will be shown below, quite problematic, yet clearly not as problematic as the more common version of the doctrine making the or lack of proper subsistence one of the most distinctives features of Christs human nature.
The primal concern of a Patristic Chalcedonian theologian would rather be a diametrically opposed one, i. He would rather argue for the latters being , yet first of all in the sense of existent or real, not in the sense of inexistent or lacking a proper hypostasis. The two natures have to be there in the one hypostasis, no matter how! Thus, the question arises whether the labelling of the aforementioned inexistence- or insubsistence-conception as enhypostasia might be due to a much later intermingling of two different theological problems, i.
This suspicion seems to be confirmed by the fact that the theologian who gave the term its prominence within the post-Chalcedonian discussion, Leontius of Byzantium, did not really endorse the Neochalcedonian insubsistence-concept canonized later on by Justinian, but rather displayed a strict reserve towards it.
Daley proposed a wholesale denial of any connection beween the term and the Neochalcedonian insubsistence-conception. The term in question, Daley argued, does not signify a quasi-accidental inherence of Christs human nature in the person of the divine Logos, but simply its reality. The prefix - is not to be misunderstood as meaning in, butbeing the opposite of an -privativumhas to be understood as having or endowed with.
Remarkably enough, neither the phrase used by seventeenth century dogmaticians18 nor equivalent constructions of the term with. Alsted, Theologia scholastica, Hannover , according to H. Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-refomirten Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, Elberfeld The following examination wants to contribute to a solution of this problem on a mainly terminological level, i.
The debate of its significance in the Christological controversies especially of the sixth and seventh century will thus be shown to suffer from a fundamental lack of differentiation even between two technical-theological usages of our term, an older trinitarian one, the origin and development of which will be the main subject of the first part of this study, and a later Christological one, which specifically originates in the famous passage from Leontius of Byzantium distinguishing between the hypostasis and the.
Thus we will proceed with advancing first of all a few suggestions about the origin of our term, its possible instances in second and third century literature and its wider range of meanings, which in some authors and periods also extends beyond the specifically theological realm. Accordingly, F. Junius translates as inexistens, yet distinguishes itas referring to the inexistent substantial partform the inhaerens accidens Defensio catholicae doctrinae de s.
- CHAPTER XIV: THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
- Family After Hours!
- Inselbergs: Biotic Diversity of Isolated Rock Outcrops in Tropical and Temperate Regions;
- The Development of the Term ??????????? from Origen to John of Damascus - Google книги.
- Front Matter!
The only possible reference for it to be found in the TLG is contained in the fourth Greek version of the Symbolum Quicumque, where especially the second article is rather a paraphrase introducing the entirety of postchalcedonian Christological technicalities into the creed. As the Greek versions of this creed, however, do not date back beyond the 12th century cf. Laurent, Le Symbole Quicumque et l glise byzantine, in: chos d Orient 35 , and this version is in all probability of later date than the other versions G.
Ommanney, A critical dissertation on the Athanasian creed. Its original language, date, authorship, title, text, reception, and use, Oxford , this text may well have inspired the Western theologians of the seventeenth century according to ibid. Afterwards, we will provide a more detailed examination of the rise of the technical trinitarian usage within the Arian controversy, most probably promoted by Origenist circles, and its development up to Cyril of Alexandria.
The quite surprising result will be that the technical trinitarian application of our term clearly shows the tendency opposite to the Christological one, as it is used to stress the hypostatical independence of the Logos, whereas in the context of Chalcedonian Christology it is exactly this which has to be denied to Christs natures, first of all the human one.
The main part of our investigation will, however, focus on the technical Christological usage in the post-Chalcedonian debates and its connection with the Neochalcedonian insubsistence-conception in examining the works most relevant for our problem one by one. The chapter on the sixth century will obviously focus on the famous text from Leontius of Byzantium Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, which, as its first extant reader Pamphilus shows only a view decades later, apparently became something like an instant classic.
Reading this text in the context of both the contemporary theological and philosophical debates about the ontological status of universal natures, substantial qualities, accidents and immattered forms insubsisting in individuals or hypostases will help to get a grasp on at least a few of the basic systematical problems to be faced in spelling out the trinitarian and Christological dogma within a Chalcedonian framework. How such a spelling out was finally accomplished in the seventh and eigth century, mainly by Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus, will be the main subject of the following chapter, in which our basic philological problems usage and meaning of term , the insubsistence formula and the connection of the two will have to be dealt with in a slightly broader systematical horizon.
Finally, we will return the question of how to translate and take another look at the range of its possible meanings. Basic Considerations The Greek prefix - is subject to a crucial ambiguity which was not only puzzling for interpreters of sixth-century Christology. Being derived from the local preposition in, it can actually retain its literal, localising sense, e.
Even Aristotle has to refute the possible misunderstanding of differentiae like as distinguishing species of animals according to their location Topics VI,6 ba1. However, it seems to have been employed metaphorically very early and is used from Homer onwards primarily in a possessive sense, i.
Schwyzer, however, mentions as meanings of the prefix besides possession also approximation, as in somewhat red or bitterish , or emphasis, as in very clear, manifest. In the context of a materialistic philosophy, would in any case just mean material, i. In contrast, an idealistic philosophy would not conceive of the as matter or material, but as in-mattered, i.
Similar examples are the important Christian terms and.
Melito of Sardes was blamed for being a materialist because of writing a treatise , which was interpreted as On the corporeal God,. Griechische Grammatik, Vol. A Genuinely Christian Theological Term It is a very astonishing fact that the term at least until the sixth century ceseems to appear only in Christian texts.
The only possible pagan reference provided by the TLG comes from Secundus, a gnomologist of the second century, but in the light of a closer philological examination the instance appears to originate in a later misreading of for.