Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия (Jun 2015)

The concept of «individual nature» in the Dyophysite tradition after Leontius of Byzantium

  • Oleg Davydenkov

DOI
https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI201453.9-24
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 53, no. 3
pp. 9 – 24

Abstract

Read online

The author investigates the presence of the concept of «individual nature», introduced by Leontius of Byzantium, in the works of such dyophysite theologians of the 6th–9th centuries as Leontius of Jerusalem, St. Eulogius of Alexandria, Pamphilus of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor and Theodore Abu Qurrah. The author traces the influence of this and some other Christological ideas which emerged in the dyophysite Christology of the 6th century (e. g. the notion of «enhypostatos»), in shaping a new understanding of the hypostasis in the Orthodox dyophysite tradition of the time. Besides, the author deals with the philosophical aspect of the polemics between supporters of the Council in Chalcedon and its adversaries. Special attention is paid to the impact which had the concepts of «common nature» (dyophysites) and «particular nature» (Severus of Antioch, John Philoponus) on the Christological discourse. It is precisely the infl uence of these concepts that brought about substantial difference between the Orthodox and the Monophysites in their understanding of the hypostasis. If champions of halcedonian theology described the internal structure of the hypostasis using the formula «hypostasis = common nature + combination of accidental properties + hypostatic difference (the logos of the hypostasis, the logos of the hypostatic peculiarity)», those who opposed the Council of Chalcedon viewed the hypostasis as a combination of the particular nature and accidental properties. The different conceptions of the hypostasis, in their turn, influenced the structure of the Chalcedonian and Monophysite Christologies in general, contributing much to the difference between them. Thus, the author comes to the conclusion that an important role in the Christological discussions during the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils was played by the philosophical factor.

Keywords