Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche

Christologie – Kirchen des Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge

Herausgegeben von Theresia Hainthaler, Dirk Ansorge und Ansgar Wucherpfennig

Kirchen des Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge Herausgegeben von Theresia Hainthaler, Dirk Ansorge und Ansgar Wucherpfennig

Das Erscheinen dieses Werkes wurde gefördert durch die Fritz Thyssen Stiftung für Wissenschaftsförderung.

die Fritz Thyssen Stiftung für Wissenschaftsförderung. © Verlag Herder GmbH, Freiburg im Breisgau 2019 Alle Rechte

© Verlag Herder GmbH, Freiburg im Breisgau 2019 Alle Rechte vorbehalten www.herder.de Umschlaggestaltung: Finken und Bumiller, Stuttgart Umschlagmotiv: Lamm Gottes, frühes 5. Jh., Mosaik, St. Giovanni in Laterano, Baptisterium, Rom Satz: SatzWeise, Bad Wünnenberg Herstellung: Těšínská Tiskárna a.s., Český Těšín Printed in the Czech Republic ISBN 978-3-451-38348-9 ISBN E-Book (PDF) 978-3-451-83348-9

Inhalt

Einleitung

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

Theresia Hainthaler

 

Abkürzungen

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

17

 

Biblische Grundlagen

 

Jesus Christus als Sohn Gottes. Gibt es eine Engelchristologie bei

 

Markus und Johannes? Ansgar Wucherpfennig

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

21

Gottes Bild und Davids Same. Christologie im Corpus Paulinum Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

.

.

54

 

Vom Neuen Testament zu den Vätern

 

Entwicklungslinien vom Neuen Testament zur altkirchlichen

 

. Christoph Markschies

Christologie

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

119

Christus Gott und Mensch nach Origenes Lenka Karfíková

 

146

 

Der griechische Osten 5.–7. Jahrhundert

 

Christologische Auseinandersetzung nach den Konzilsakten Thomas Graumann

 

167

Inhalt

Christus-Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter der christologischen Auseinandersetzungen. Das Zeugnis des Mönchtums von Gaza Lorenzo Perrone

 

.

.

.

187

Leontius of Byzantium and the Reception of the Chalcedonian

 

. Brian E. Daley

Definition

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

217

One Composite Christ: Oneness and Duality of Jesus in the

 

Byzantine Christology Cyril Hovorun

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

236

 

Westsyrische Christologie

 

West Syrian Christology in the Sixth century. The Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ David G. K. Taylor

 

251

 

Der lateinische Westen 5.–9. Jahrhundert

 

Lateinische Christologie nach Chalcedon. Eine Skizze Theresia Hainthaler

 

271

Christologie bei Johannes Scottus Eriugena Dirk Ansorge

 

302

 

Früher Islam

 

Christology in the Early Islamic World David Thomas

 

335

 

Ökumenische Dialoge

 

The Church of the East is not Nestorian! Patriarch Louis Raphaël I. Kardinal Sako

 

353

Inhalt

Jesus der Christus: Grund der Einheit oder Motiv der Trennung? Kurt Kardinal Koch

 

365

 

Grillmeier heute

 

Reflections Inspired by Cardinal Grillmeier’s Der Logos am Kreuz . Andrew Louth

387

Grillmeiers Darstellung des 6. Jahrhunderts –

 

Leistung und Grenzen Johannes Zachhuber

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

400

Wahrhaft Gott – wahrhaft Mensch? Chalcedon und die Christologie heute Hans-Joachim Höhn

 

421

Register

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

441

Autorinnen und Autoren

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

459

Abkürzungen

Die Abkürzungen für Zeitschriften und Reihen richten sich nach S. M. Schwertner, IATG 3 – Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete (Berlin, New York 2014 3. Aufl.). Abweichend bzw. ergänzend dazu wird verwendet:

CCG

Corpus Christianorum, series graeca, Turnhout 1, 1977 ff.

CCL

Corpus Christianorum, series latina, Turnhout 1, 1953 ff.

Chalkedon I–III A. Grillmeier / H. Bacht (Hgg.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, Band I–III (Würzburg 1951–1954, 5 1979) Jesus der Christus A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Freiburg i. Br.

Herder 38348 / p. 236 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ:

Oneness and Duality of Jesus in the Byzantine Christology

Cyril Hovorun

Cyril of Alexandria made the idea of Christ’s unity a platform for all subse- quent interpretations of the Incarnation. After Cyril, Christology in the Christian East lost, for good and all, its symmetry between duality and unity, so that the latter overweighed the former. Duality from now on was considered exclusively from the perspective of unity, not the other way around. However, it remained for a long time unclear, how exactly unity and duality in Jesus are related to each other. Post-Cyrillian theology struggled to measure their proportions. Finding a formula of unity and duality in Jesus became a dividing issue for the followers of Cyril and eventually for the entire church, causing the first great schism. As we understand it now, there was no much difference between the two groups. If they knew modern mathematical analysis, they would probably realise that although they approached the point x 0 on the straight line of Christology from the opposite sides, their differentials were equal. X 0 is the point, where unity and duality are well balanced. Regretta- bly, higher mathematics was not available in the period of the council of Chalcedon, for which reason theologians measured the balance between unity and duality in whole numbers, and not as differentials or integrals. They regarded the increments of the argument Δx in their theological func- tions as irreconcilable values. However, when differentiated, as it was said, these increments were of the same value. Δx here stands for the Chalcedo- nian and anti-Chalcedonian approaches to the balance between unity and duality. The Chalcedonian Δx differed from the anti-Chalcedonian Δx. However, when regarded not as absolute values, but as functions, the differ- entials of the two deltas are the same. To express the same idea in the terms of modern philosophy, we could say that the Christological propositions of the two groups were different in formulations. However, when seen from the perspective of hermeneutics, the distance between them does not look significant. Now, who were those groups? Both were followers of Cyril of Alexan- dria. They disagreed with each other in their hermeneutics of Cyril. The take

236

Herder 38348 / p. 237 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

of one group on Cyril was more conservative – they paid more attention to what Cyril said than to what he meant. The leader of this group was the patriarch of Antioch Severus (465–538). He consolidated his followers on both positive and negative platforms. The positive platform was the teach- ing of Cyril, while the negative was the rejection of the council of Chalce- don (451). The other group was more creative regarding the language of Cyril and interpreted it in a broader sense. The council of Chalcedon also created a uniting momentum for this group, but as a positive platform. Cyril remained at the centre of their theology as well. They reconfirmed his central place in the framework of the so-called Neo-Chalcedonianism, which became a translating tool from the theological language of the Chal- cedon back to the theological language of Cyril of Alexandria. In my presentation, I will focus on the theological formula „one compo- site Christ“ (εἷς σύνθετος Χριστός) and its different aspects: „composite hypostasis,“ „composite nature,“ „composite activity (ἐνέργεια),“ „compo- site will,“ and „composite natural property.“ The two groups converged and diverged while interpreting these aspects. In particular, they agreed that it is appropriate to speak of Jesus as „one composite Christ.“ Thus, the anti- Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria Theodosius (535–566) used this phrase in his theological writings 1 . In the Chalcedonian camp, Leontius of Jerusalem made similar clarifications: „He is called not simply a Word, but a composite Christ“ 2 . Justinian also wrote about „one composite Christ,“ who consists „of two natures, that is from Godhead and humanity“ 3 . At the same time, the two groups diverged in translating the formula „one composed Christ“ to other formulas featuring the word „composite,“ primarily „composite hypostasis“ and „composite nature.“ I will begin my analysis with the expression one „composite nature“ (σύνθετος φύσις).

„Composite Nature“

This expression became popular among the anti-Chalcedonians 4 . It served well the arguments of Severus and his supporters and bailed them out of a

1 Theodosius Alex., Tomus ad Theodoram augustam: PG 86, 285; A. Van Roey, P. Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century = OLA 56 (Leuven 1994) 55.

2 Leontius of Jerusalem, Contra Nest. 4, 3: PG 86, 1657B. 3 Justinian, Edictum rectae fidei: E. Schwartz, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians, ed. M. Amelotti, R. Albertella, and L. Migliardi (Milan 2 1973), p. [74] 132,15.

4 See J. Lebon, La christologie du monophysisme syrien, in: A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht (eds.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart I (Würzburg 1953) 486.

237

Herder 38348 / p. 238 / 6.3.2019

Cyril Hovorun

difficult dilemma. One option of the dilemma was to agree with incomple- teness or alienation in the humanity of Christ and, consequently, to comply with Eutyches, whom they condemned. Another option was equally un- comfortable: to acknowledge the two natures of Christ. The formula „com- posite nature“ of Christ bridged for the Severans the fullness of the God- head and humanity of Jesus with the Cyrillian formula of unity („one incarnated nature of the God Word“ – μία φύσις Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκω- μένη), without evoking undesirable duality. The Severans liked illustrating the concept of „composite nature“ of Christ by the model of a human being, who consists of soul and body and thus is composite 5 . Sergius the Grammarian went further and claimed that Christ had a „composite es- sence“ (σύνθετος οὐσία). This would imply, however, less duality in Jesus than the Severans wanted. This became one of the reasons why Severus objected the wording of Sergius 6 . The supporters of the Chalcedon refused to comply with the arguments of the Severans and objected the formula „one composite nature“. In parti- cular, they argued that the model of composite human nature does not apply to the natures of Christ. They turned instead this model to their shield protecting them from the theological attacks of Severus and his confeder- ates. In particular, the model of composite human nature helped the Chal- cedonians to rebuke the accusations of introducing three natures in Christ:

body, soul, and divinity. They answered to these accusations that body and soul are not two natures, but one composite nature 7 . They, thus, applied the formula „composite nature“ to all human beings, but not to Jesus Christ. As Alois Grillmeier has demonstrated, the Chalcedonians counterat- tacked the anti-Chalcedonians by associating the formula „one composite nature“ with Apollinaris 8 . They also applied the classical distinction be- tween common and particular natures. This distinction, as it is well known, was elaborated by Aristotle and introduced to the Christian theology through his Neoplatonic commentators, such as Porphyrius. Christian theo- logians applied it to explain the Trinity and Incarnation. Sometimes they were truly inventive in utilising the distinction. Thus, Leontius of Byzan- tium tried to think about this distinction outside the box. For him, each

5 See Severus of Antioch, Philalethes 42: CSCO 133, 260–261 and CSCO 134, 214.

6 See Apologia Severi in J. Lebon, Severi Antiocheni orationes ad Nephalium. Eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epistulae mutuae, CSCO 120, 140.

7 See John of Damascus, Expositio fidei 60: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II = PTS 12 (Berlin 1973), 153–155.

8 See A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2/2 (London, Louisville 1995), 358–359.

238

Herder 38348 / p. 239 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

particular human being – a person – has one nature, which is composed of body and soul. The human nature is one, and not two, because it is shared by all people, who belong to the common species (εἶδος). Precisely because there is a single eidos of people, each particular person has only one nature. The case of Jesus Christ is different, according to Leontius, because there is not an eidos of Jesuses, as it were. Christ is a unique individual, who is both a human being and God. If Jesus’s nature is „composite“, then there should be more than one Christs 9 . Leontius apparently based his conclusions on Porphyrius’s introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. For Porphyrius, a com- mon nature can be shared only by multiple individuals 10 . For Aristotle him- self, unique individuals (ἁπλῶς τὰ ἄτομα καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ) do not partici- pate in any common nature (κατ’ οὐδενὸς ὑποκειμένου λέγεται) 11 . Maximus the Confessor added to these sophistic deliberations of Leon- tius a few tweaks 12 . First, all parts of a composite nature must begin their existence simultaneously, as in the case of a human being. According to this rule, Christ cannot have a „composite nature,“ because his divinity existed eternally, while his humanity began its existence in a particular moment of time. Second, divinity and humanity in Jesus are not equal, unlike body and soul in a human being 13 . „Composite nature,“ in contrast, according to Maximus, should consist of equal parts. Third, the parts of a „composite nature“ coexist not by free choice, but by necessity. Christ, in contrast to this, accepted the human nature freely 14 . Finally, God did not assume the human nature in order to supplement his own nature with a missing part – something that applies to the union of soul and body in a human being 15 . John of Damascus addressed the issue of „composite nature“ in a special treatise, On the Composite Nature or Against Akefals 16 . He begins this treatise with a general definition of the composite nature. According to this defini- tion, such a nature comes from the union of other natures. At the same time, it cannot be identified with any of its parts. John exemplified this

9 See Leontius of Jerusalem, Contra Nest. et Eutych.: PG 86, 1289–1293.

10 See ßblockakß. Busse (ed.), Porphyrii isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias commentarium (Berlin 1887) 4,1.3.2–5.

11 Aristotle, Categ. 1b,6–7: L. Minio-Paluello, Aristotelis categoriae et liber de interpreta- tione (Oxford 1949) 4.

12 Maximus the Confessor, Ep. 13: PG 91, 528D–529A.

13 Maximus the Confessor, Ep. 13: PG 91, 532A.

14 Maximus the Confessor, Op. 5: PG 91, 64D–65A.

15 Maximus the Confessor, Ep. 12: PG 91, 492A.

16 John of Damascus, De natura composita sive contra Acephalos: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II = PTS 12 (Berlin 1973), 409–417.

239

Herder 38348 / p. 240 / 6.3.2019

Cyril Hovorun

statement by the model of human body, which consists of four elements:

fire, air, water and earth. It is noteworthy that John wisely chose as his ex- ample the body and not human being. Because human beings, who are composite natures according both Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, could be identified with their parts. In English, we say somebody, and in Russian, for instance, they use for „per capita“ the expression „for the soul of population.“ These examples would make John wrong, if he chose to support his argument by the model of the whole human being. Another example that John brings is a mule, which is partly a horse and partly a donkey. In all such cases, according to the Damascene, the final composite nature is not identical with any of its parts. Jesus Christ can be called and truly is God and man. Therefore, the concept of a composite nature does not apply to him. In addition to this philological argument, John used a rhetorical method loved by all polemicists: reductio ad absurdum. If Christ is a composite nat- ure, then the Father and the Son are not consubstantial, because the single composite nature of Jesus cannot be consubstantial with the nature of the Father. Alternatively, Christ should have had one composite and another simple nature – to remain consubstantial with the Father. In this case, how- ever, the logics demand that the Father and the Spirit also should have both composite and simple natures. Finally, John brought to the table the argu- ment of incompatibility of createdness and uncreatedness. The one „com- posite nature“ of Jesus cannot stand the coexistence of created and uncre- ated elements 17 .

Composite hypostasis

The formula „composite hypostasis“ overarches the single hypostasis of the Logos and the two natures of Christ, including the properties, actions, and wills of each nature. It was coined in the theological battles surrounding the council of Chalcedon 18 . However, there were attempts to present it as an antique device. In the homily on the burial of Christ, which was attributed to Epiphanius, Joseph was depicted as carrying on his shoulders the „com- posite hypostasis“ of Jesus (πᾶσαν τὴν σύνθετον τοῦ Κυρίου ὑπόστασιν

17 Ibid., 2.

18 See A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2/2 (London, Louisville 1995), 336–338. On the background and origin of synthesis see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 458–461.

240

Herder 38348 / p. 241 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

κομισάμενος) 19 . Another pseudepigraphic work, De Trinitate 20 , created an impression that Cyril himself coined the phrase. Here, the „composite hy- postasis“ was presented as consisting of two natures (ἐκ δύο συντεθειμένην φύσεων) 21 . It seems, however, that the true authors of the formula „composite hy- postasis“ were not Cyril or earlier theologians, but the Neo-Chalcedonians, who counterposed it to the Severan „composite nature.“ Thus, Justinian, a main sponsor of Neo-Chalcedonianism at its early stage, stressed:

If some say that since they speak of Christ as a single composite hypostasis, they should also speak of a single composite nature … – this is contrary to piety 22 .

It is noteworthy that the expression „composite hypostasis“ can be also found in various monenergist-monothelite texts of the seventh century. In particular, the expression „composite hypostasis“ was used in the founda- tional text for monenergism – the Pact of Union between the Melkites and Severans signed in Alexandria in 633 23 . The monenergist Patriarch of Con- stantinople Sergius also mentioned the formula in his letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria Cyrus – the protagonist of the Alexandrian Union of 633 24 . We should not be surprised by this, as monenergism-monotheletism was an edition of Neo-Chalcedonianism 25 . The formula „composite hypostasis“ was theologically substantiated further by Maximus the Confessor 26 , who revised the monothelite edition of Neo-Chalcedonianism. On the one hand, Maximus traditionally asso-

19 Epiphanius, Hom. in divini corporis sepulturam [Spuria]: PG 43, 444,50–54.

20 See B. Fraigneau-Julien, Un traité anonyme de la sainte Trinité attribué à saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie, RSR 49 (1961), 188–211, 386–405.

21 Cyril of Alexandria, De Sancta Trinitate 18 : PG 77, 1157,2–3; 1161,54–55; 1172,20–21.

22 Justinian, Edictum rectae fidei: E. Schwartz, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians, ed. M. Amelotti, R. Albertella, and L. Migliardi (Milan 2 1973), p. [86] 144.

23 R. Riedinger, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, series secunda = ACO 2 (Berlin 1992)

II 2, p. 598,7 (cap. 6, satisfactio).

24 Serg. Const., Ep. ad Cyr. Alex.: ACO 2 I, p. 138,4 (Conc. Lateran., Secret. III).

25 See C. Hovorun, Maximus, a Cautious Neo-Chalcedonian, in: P. Allen, B. Neil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (Oxford 2015) 106–126.

26 See Ep. 12, PG 91, 489C–493B; Ep. 13, PG 91, 517C, 525C–529A; Ep. 15, PG 91,

553D, 556C; Amb. 2, 21–22, (CCG 48, 9); Amb. 3, 18, (CCG 48, 10); Op. 2, PG 91, 41B; Op. 3, PG 91, 56A; Op. 7, PG 91, 73B; Op. 13, 3, PG 91, 148A; Op. 16, PG 91, 197D–204D; Thal. 62, 33, 89, (CCG 22, 117, 119). See V. Grumel, L’union hypostatique et

la comparaison de l’âme et du corps chez Léonce de Byzance et saint Maxime le Con-

fesseur, EOr 25 (1926) 393–406; J.-C. Larchet, La divinisation de l’homme selon saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996), 327–332; N. Madden, Composite Hypostasis in Maxi- mus Confessor, StPatr 27 (1993) 175–197.

241

Herder 38348 / p. 242 / 6.3.2019

Cyril Hovorun

ciated the „composite hypostasis“ with the single being of Jesus Christ – in full accordance with Cyril’s Orthodoxy. On the other hand, he explicated the composite character of the hypostasis as implying the double identity of Jesus – as „one of the Holy Trinity“ and „one of us“ 27 . This was a reference to the „theopaschite“ formula „unus ex Trinitate“ suggested by the Scythian monks, who invented Neo-Chalcedonianism 28 . John of Damascus rendered the same idea in a slightly different wording:

the hypostasis of Jesus is „composite,“ because he is „by nature identical with the Father and the Spirit, as well as with the mother and us“ 29 . The composite character of Jesus’s hypostasis is a result of the Incarnation. Before the Incarnation, the „composite“ hypostasis was „simple“ 30 . The „composite hypostasis,“ according to John of Damascus, is a sum of the „hypostasis with its essence“ (ὑπόστασις ἐνούσιος) and „a particular nat- ure“ (φύσιν ἐνυπόστατον) 31 . John plays here with nouns („hypostasis,“ „nature“) and adjectives produced from the nouns „essence“ and „hyposta- sis.“ This play helps him identify the exact composition of the „composite hypostasis.“ Namely, it consists of the hypostasis of the Son, who shares essence (οὐσία) with the Father and the Spirit. At the same time, the formu- la does not imply a separate human hypostasis. Instead, the human compo- nent in the formula is presented as „nature,“ which is „ἐνυπόστατος.“ There was a long debate on how to understand this word. There is more or less a consensus among modern scholars that the word enhypostaton is not a noun or derivative of a verb, but an adjective 32 . It means that something or someone has a particular existence. It differentiates this existence from being an abstract commonality 33 . The „ἐνυπόστατος φύσις“ in the above quote from John of Damascus applies to the humanity of Jesus, which be- comes substantiated not by itself, but by the hypostasis of the Logos. For John, thus, the „composite hypostasis“ is not a sum of two hypostases, but a particularity shared by divinity and humanity and stemming from the divi-

27 Maximus the Confessor, Ep. 13: PG 91, 525C.

28 See A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2/2 (London, Louisville 1995), 321.

29 Ibid., 74.

30 John of Damascus, Contra Nest. 2: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos IV = PTS 22 (Berlin 1981), 264–265.

31 John of Damascus, Contra Jacobitas, 79: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Da- maskos IV = PTS 22 (Berlin 1981), 136–137.

32 See Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 193–198; 282–286.

33 See С . Говорун , К истории термина ἐνυπόστατον воипостасное‘, in: А. Фокин (ed.), Леонтий Византийский . Сборник исследований ( Москва 2006), 655–65.

242

Herder 38348 / p. 243 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

nity only. John used this argument to contest the idea of the „composite nature.“ The train of his thought was as follows: as the „composite hypos- tasis“ of Jesus is not a sum of two hypostases, so the sum of two natures cannot be equal to a „composite nature“ 34 . John explained the concept of „composite hypostasis“ using a model, which was as much popular in the Christological debates as the model of human being – red-hot sword. The sword, for him, is a hypostasis of the nature of iron. The flames constitute the hypostasis of the nature of fire. The sword, when placed in fire, does not take on fire’s hypostasis, but adopts „a kind of first-fire.“ The sword, thus, which until now was a „simple“ hypo- stasis of the nature of iron, becomes a „composite hypostasis.“ It does not assume the hypostasis of fire though. In other words, it does not turn to a flame. However, it becomes a hypostasis of two natures: iron and fire 35 . Not all Chalcedonians accepted the idea of the „composite hypostasis“ of Jesus. For Leontius of Jerusalem, for instance, this was a dangerous for- mula, which implied Nestorianism. It meant, to Leontius, that the hyposta- sis of Christ comes from two hypostases – human and divine 36 .

Composite action and will

Now let us come back to John of Damascus for a bit. He interpreted the „composite hypostasis“ of Jesus not only in the terms of the duality of his nature, but also as a duality of his activities (ἐνέργειαι) and wills (θελήμα- τα): „The same Jesus exists in two intelligent, willing, acting, and self-deter- mined natures … and in one composite hypostasis“ 37 . We should ask our- selves in this regard a question: can the „composite hypostasis“ translate to a „composite activity“ or „composite will“? Such a translation would certainly fit the ecumenical project of the Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610–641), who tried to reconcile the Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian populations on the basis of „one activity“ and „one will“ formulas. The „composite activity“ and „composite will“ would have been regarded as a compromise between the anti-Chalcedonian „composite nature“ and the Neo-Chalcedonian „composite hypostasis.“

34 John of Damascus, Dialectica 67:30–32: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Da- maskos I = PTS 7 (Berlin 1969), 139–140.

35 Ibid.

36 Leontius of Jerusalem, Contra Nest.: PG 86, 1485D.

37 John of Damascus, Exp. fid., 2: B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II = PTS 12 (Berlin 1973), 9–10.

243

Herder 38348 / p. 244 / 6.3.2019

Cyril Hovorun

That is how the opponents of the monenergete-monothelites read the intentions of their adversaries. For instance, Maximus the Confessor ac- cused the Patriarch of Constantinople Pyrrhus of introducing a „composed will“ (σύνθετον θέλημα). This, to him, inevitably leads to the idea of „com- posite nature“ 38 . However, precisely because of bad associations with the idea of „composite nature,“ Pyrrhus and his confederates avoided the phrase „composite will.“ As it was mentioned, monenergists-monothelites were not against the Chalcedon, but followed the Neo-Chalcedonian line. Therefore, the idea of „composite nature“ was not acceptable for them. They also decided to avoid using such terms as „composite activity“ or „composite will.“ Nevertheless, they used different euphemisms to describe a similar idea. Pyrrhus, for instance, spoke about „something composed of the two natural wills“ 39 . He decided not to define this „something“ (ἕν τι) with more preci- sion. Another euphemism was borrowed from Ps.-Dionysius, who in his epistle to Gaius wrote that Jesus exercised his divine and human activities not separately from each other, but as „a new theandric activity“ (καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡμῖν πεπολιτευμένος) 40 . Severus was among the first who interpreted this saying as implying one activity 41 . The same rendering of the Ps.-Dionysian phrase was inserted to the text of the Alexandrian Union 42 . Their opponents, nevertheless, protested against such an interpretation, because, as they said, Dionysius did not use the word „single.“ They faced a dilemma. On the one hand, Ps.-Dionysius had been recently canonised as an Orthodox theologian, and the dyo-energists did not want to revise this status of him. On the other hand, they could not accept the formula „one activity,“ which he clearly implied. They tried to solve the dilemma by appealing to a formality: Ps.-Dionysius indeed did not use the word μία in application to the activity of Christ. However, the phrase „καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν“ is in singular and cannot be understood otherwise. In this regard, Severus was right when he wrote to Abbot John that „we cannot understand [the phrase] otherwise“ 43 . The dyo-

38 Maximus the Confessor, Disputatio cum Pyrrho: PG 91, 295C.

39 Ibid., 296A.

40 Dionysius the Areopagite, Ep. 4: G. Heil, A. M. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum II. Pseudo- Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theo- logia, epistulae = PTS 36 (Berlin 1991), p. 161,9–11.

41 See Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 170.

42 See ACO 2 II 2, p. 598,18–22 (Constantinople III, Actio XIII, satisfactio).

43 See F. Diekamp, Doctrina patrum de incarnatione Verbi (Münster 1907), p. 309,17–22.

244

Herder 38348 / p. 245 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

energist strategy of hiding behind a formal reading of Dionysius’s phrase, as if it was a mathematical formula, was not convincing. More solid arguments were needed. Maximus suggested considering the „new theandric energy“ of Jesus as composite. For him, the phrase of Ps.- Dionysius implies not a single activity, but a unity of two different activities:

divine and human 44 . Jesus, to Maximus, did not demonstrate his divine and human activities separately from each other, but always in unity: „in one another and through one another“ (ἐν ἀλλήλαις τε καὶ δι’ ἀλλήλων) 45 . This standpoint of Maximus was reflected in the decisions of the Lateran council (649). Pope Martin at the council interpreted the Dionysian phrase in the sense of two activities, which are united in the same way as the two natures of Jesus Christ are 46 . The interpretation offered by Maximus and then reflected in the pro- ceedings of the Lateran council, contrasted with the earlier interpretations by John of Scythopolis and Sophronius of Jerusalem. For them, not all activities of Jesus were theandric, i. e. consisted of divine and human com- ponents. Some of his activities were purely divine, and some were purely human. John of Scythopolis, who edited the texts of Ps.-Dionysius and supplied them with scholia, explained:

For he acted as God alone when he, although absent, healed the centurion’s child (John 4:46–52); but as human alone, although he was God, in his eating and passion 47 .

For Sophronius, the theandric activities take a middle place (μέσιν τινὰ τάξιν ἐπέχουσα) between purely divine and purely human activities 48 . The theandric activity still was not one, but always composed of divine and human elements 49 . Thus, we can conclude that, both sides of the theological divide in the seventh century elaborated on the concepts of „composite activity“ and „composite will.“ At the same time, both sides were cautious enough not to call the activities and wills of Jesus „composite.“ Just as Pyrrhus did not call „composite“ the single will of Jesus, which he advocated, so Maximus

44 Maximus the Confessor, Amb. 5: PG 91, 1056A–1060C.

45 Maximus the Confessor, Op. 8: PG 91, 100D.

46 ACO 2 I, p. 148,9–150,3 (Conc. Lateran., Secret. III).

47 P. Rorem and J. C. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Anno- tating the Areopagite (Oxford 2008), 253.

48 Sophronius, Ep. synodica ad Serg. Const.: ACO 2 II 1, p. 456,12–13.

49 Id., ACO 2 II 1, p. 456,13–15.

245

Herder 38348 / p. 246 / 6.3.2019

Cyril Hovorun

did not use the phrase „σύνθετος ἐνέργεια“ in application to the theandric activity, which he struggled to interpret as two ἐνέργειαι 50 .

Composite properties

Theologians in the seventh century tried to avoid any association with „composite nature,“ because they realized that both „composite will“ and „composite activity“ would lead them there. They regarded activities and wills as natural properties. According to Sophronius of Jerusalem,

As each nature in Christ preserves without omission its property, in the same way each form (μορφή) acts in communion with the other whatever is proper to it (τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκε) 51 .

Pope Martin made a similar statement regarding wills: „Activity and will of our essence constituted its (= of the essence) natural property“ 52 . Hence is the question: would it be possible to speak about a „composite property“ of Christ’s natures? There are no indications that the Byzantine authors, particularly in the period of Christological controversies, used the word σύνθετος in application to natural properties. There are a couple of instances in the late Byzantine period – such as Theophanes of Nicaea in the fourteenth century 53 . However, these are rather exceptions from the rule of keeping silence on the „composite property“ of Christ’s two natures. In conclusion, from the perspective of the Byzantine theology, nature, natural properties, activities, and wills were intrinsically linked with each other. Any change in one of the links would incur change in the entire chain. The Chalcedonians hesitated to apply the word „composite“ to any of these links, because this would make the word „composite“ applicable to the entire chain. This, in turn, would lead them to concur with the anti- Chalcedonians, who applied it to the single nature of Jesus. The Chalcedo- nians did not apply the word, even though it suited well their understanding of Orthodoxy. This, for instance, was the case of „theandric activity,“ which, according to the description of such authors as Sophronius or Maximus, would have effectively meant „composite activity.“ Yet, they refrained from using the adjective „composite.“ In the same way, Pyrrhus refrained from

50 See Amb. 5: PG 91, 1057A.

51 Sophronius, Ep. syn. ad Serg. Const.: ACO 2 II 1, p. 442,14–16.

52 Martin. Pp., Ep. 1: ACO 2 II 1, p. 406,12–13; 407,11–12.

53 Ed. M. Jugie, Theophanes Nicaenus († 1381). Sermo in sanctissimam Deiparam = Lat. 1 (Rome 1935), p. 152,15.

246

Herder 38348 / p. 247 / 6.3.2019

One Composite Christ

using σύνθετος in application to the will of Jesus, even though this adjec- tive best describes what he meant. The word σύνθετος remained reserved only for the hypostasis of Jesus – at least in the Neo-Chalcedonian camp. How else this concept would be rendered, without being called „compo- site“? I guess the best formula for that would include the term communicatio. The theological trope communicatio idiomatum is applicable not only to the natural properties of Jesus, but also to other aspects of his theandric being. Thus, „composite activity“ could be safely rendered as communicatio opera- tionum, while „composite will,“ as communicatio voluntatum. There is a ques- tion, which remains open: can the phrase „composite hypostasis“ be inter- changeable with the phrase „composite nature“? As we have seen, this was impossible in the period of Christological controversies. Can it become possible in the era of advanced hermeneutical tools and ecumenical dialo- gues? My guess would be that when differentiated, in the sense of mathema- tical analysis, and not taken with their face value, these formulas can equal to each other.

247