Preview

Bible and Christian Antiquity

Advanced search

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 2

https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2022.14.2.004

Abstract

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.

About the Author

O. N. Nogovitsin
Sociological institute of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Oleg N. Nogovitsin - PhD in Philosophy Senior Researcher

25/14 7-ya Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Saint Petersburg 190005



References

1. Кожухов С., диак. «Неохалкидонизм» Иоанна Кесарийского: термин ἐνυπόστατον и формула unus de Trinitate passus est carne // Богословский вестник. 2018. № 1 (28). С. 72–95.

2. Ноговицин О. Н. «Антропологическая парадигма» и парадигматический метод: частная и общая природы в трактате Леонтия Византийского Contra Nestorianos et Eutychia nos и школьная неплатоническая философия (II) // Платоновские исследования. 2020. Вып. 13. № 2. С. 174–208.

3. Ноговицин О. Н. Аргумент Севира Антиохийского об абсурдности исповедания двух общих природ во Христе, ответная аргументация Иоанна Кесарийского и христологическая полемика монофизитов и халкидонитов VI–VII веков. Часть 1 // Библия и христианская древность. 2021. № 4 (12). С. 66–91.

4. 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).

5. Richard M. Léonce de Jerusalem et Léonce de Byzance // Mélanges de Science Religieuse. 1944. Vol. 1. P. 35–88.

6. Torrance I. R. Christology After Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius Monophysite. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1988.


Review

For citations:


Nogovitsin O.N. 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 2. Bible and Christian Antiquity. 2022;(2):128-146. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2022.14.2.004

Views: 68

JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2658−7815 (Print)
ISSN 2713-1122 (Online)