The Argument of Severus of Antioch on the Absurdity of Confessing Two Common Natures in Christ, The Reciprocal Argumentation of Johannes of Caesarea and the Monophysite-Chalcedonite Christological Debates of the VI–VII Centuries. Part 1

The article considers the controversy over the famous argument of Severus of Antioch, compliant to the general formula of which the confession of two natures in Christ taken as common natures of deity and humanity necessarily entails agreeing with that the incarnation of Christ signifies the incarnation of the whole Trinity in the whole humankind, namely, the incarnation of each of the hypostases of the Trinity in each human being. This argument was responded by Johannes of Caesarea in his “Apology for the Counsil of Chalcedon”. The focus of the article is a detailed analysis of the given argument, the reciprocal argumentation of Johannes of Caesarea and Severus’ reply to his objections in chapters 17–19 of the book II of the treatise “Against impious Grammaticus”. Besides, the topical area of the research includes studying the issue of conceptual frames of Monophysite and Chalcedonite theology wherein this Severus’ argument receives its theological and polemical significance, discussion over the historical context of its appearance and the reaction on it in the Chalcedonite camp, as well as some issues of its reception in the consequent tradition of Monophysite disputations. 

1. Говорун С. Н. Севир Антиохийский о единой энергии и воле Христа // Церковь и время. 2005. № 3 (32). С. 188–205. Давыденков О., иерей. Христологическая система Севира Антиохийского: Догматический анализ. М.: ПСТГУ, 2007.

2. Кожухов С. А. Каппадокийская традиция понимания термина «природа» Иоанном Грамматиком в полемике с Севиром Антиохийским // Вестник ПСТГУ I: Богословие. Философия. 2013. Вып. 2 (46). С. 34–51.

3. Кожухов С., диак. Иоанн Кесарийский и Севир Антиохийский: тексты и полемика халкидонитов и их противников (508–520) // Богословский вестник. 2017. № 3–4 (26– 27). С. 328–354.

4. Сидоров А. И. Иоанн Грамматик Кесарийский: К характеристике византийской философии в VI в. // Византийский временник. 1988. T. 49. С. 81–99.

5. Evans D. B. Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1970. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies; vol. 13).

6. Grillmeier A., Hainthaler T. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604). Part 2: The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century / trans. by J. Cawte, P. Allen. London; Louisville (Ky.): Mowbray; WJK, 1995.

7. Lang U.-M. John Philoponus and Controversies over Chalcedon in the Six Century. A Study and Translation of the «Arbiter». Leuven: Peeters, 2001 (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Études et documents; vol. 47).

8. Lebon J. Le monophysisme sévérien. Étude historique, littéraire et théologique de la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’Église jacobite. Louvain: J. Van Linthout, 1909.

9. Uthemann K.-H. Rev. of: Iohannes Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici Opera quae super­ sunt. Ed. M. Richard, appendicem suppenditante M. Aubineau. Turnhout; Louvain, 1977 // Bizantinische Zeitschrift. 1980. Bd. 73. S. 70–73.

10. Uthemann K.-H. Antimonophysitische Aporien des Anastasios Sinaites // Byzantinische Zeit­ schrift. 1981. Bd. 74. S. 11–26.