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.
Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore Abu Qurrah, Christology, individual nature, hypostasis, Council of Chalcedon, Dyophysites, Monophysites.
1. Cross R. 2002 “Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium” in: Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2002, vol. 10/2, pp. 245–265.
2. Dell’Osso K. Il calcedonismo Leonzio di Bisanzio, Rome, 2003.
3. Gray P.T.R. 2006 “Introduction” in: Gray P. T. R. (ed.) Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites: Testemonies of the Saints and Aporiae, Oxford, 2006, pp. 38–40.
4. Grillmeier A. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Wien, 2002, vol. 2/3.
5. Helmer S. Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes, Bonn, 1962.
6. Krausmüller D. 2001 “Leontius of Jerusalem, a Theologian of the 7th Century” in: Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, vol. 52, pp. 637–657.
7. Mаthew J. Christology of Severus of Antioch mainly Basing His First Thirty One Cathedral Homilies, Salzburg, 2001.
8. Van Roey A. 1980 “Les Fragments trithéites de Jean Philopon” in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 1980, vol. 11, pp. 135–163.
9. Wesche K. P. 1987 “The Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem. Monophysite or Chalcedonian?” in: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quartely, 1987, vol. 31, pp. 65–95.
10. Benevich G. I. “Ioann Filopon” (John Filoponus) in: Pravoslavnaja Jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2010, vol. 24, pp. 628–647.
11. Benevich G. I. Leontij Ierusalimskij, Feodor Abu-Kurra, Leontij Vizantijskij. Polemicheskie sochinenija (Leontius of Jerusalem, Theodore Abu-Qurrah, Leontius of Byzantium. Polemical Writings), Krasnodar, 2011.
12. Bolotov V. V. Lekcii po istorii Drevnej Cerkvi (Lectures on Ancient Church History), Moscow, 1994, vol. 4.
13. Davydenkov O. V. 2012 “Problema sootnoshenija obshhego i edinichnogo v hristologii umerennogo monofizitstva VI veka: Ioann Filopon (k voprosu o filosofskoj problematike hristologicheskih diskussij jepohi Vselenskih Soborov)” (Problem of the Correlation of the Common and the Single in VIth Cent. Moderate Monophysitism’ Christology: John Filoponus (Concerning Philosophical Problem of Christological Discussions during the Period of Ecumenical Councils)) in: Vestnik OGU. Serija: «Novye gumanitarnye issledovanija», Orel, 2012, vol. 2 (22), pp. 212–216.
14. Davydenkov O. V. 2012 “Problema sootnoshenija obshhego i edinichnogo v hristologii umerennogo monofizitstva VI veka: Ioann Filopon (k voprosu o filosofskoj problematike hristologicheskih diskussij jepohi Vselenskih Soborov)” (Problem of the Correlation of the Common and the Single in VIth Cent. Moderate Monophysitism’ Christology: John Filoponus (Concerning Philosophical Problem of Christological Discussions during the Period of Ecumenical Councils)) in: Uchjonye zapiski OGU, 2012, vol. 5, pp. 136–141.
15. Davydenkov O. 2013 “Koncepcija «individual'naja priroda» v hristologii Leontija Vizantijskogo” (The Concept of “Individual Nature” in Leontius of Byzantium’s Christology) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2013, vol. 3 (47), pp. 7–17.
16. Dobrohotov A. L. 2000 “Filosofija i hristianstvo” (Philosophy and Christianity) in: Sbornik dokladov konferencii «Hristianstvo i filosofija», Moscow, 2000, pp. 18–19.
17. D'jakonov A. P. Ioann Jefesskij i ego cerkovno-istoricheskie Trudy (John of Ephesus and His Church-Historical Writings), Saint-Petersbourg, 2006.
18. Koplston F. Ch. Istorija srednevekovoj filosofii (History of Medieval Philosophy), Moscow, 1997.
19. Larshe Zh.-K. 2007 “O pis'mah svjatogo Maksima” (On St Maximus the Confessor’s Letters) in: Prp. Maksim Ispovednik. Pis'ma. Saint-Petersbourg, 2007, pp. 15–68.
20. Lur'e V. M. Istorija Vizantijskaja filosofii (History of Byzantine Philosophy), Saint-Petrsbourg, 2006.
21. Mejendorf I., protopr. Iisus Hristos v vostochnom pravoslavnom bogoslovii (Jesus Christ in Orient Orthodox Theology), Moscow, 2000.
22. Sokolov V., svjashh. Leontij Vizantijskij: ego zhizn' i literaturnye trudy. Opyt cerkovno-istoricheskoj monografii (Leontius of Byzantium: His Life and Writings. Experience of Church-historical Monography), Moscow, 2006, pp.
Davydenkov Oleg, archpriest