Enhypostaton: Being “in Another” or Being “with Another”?—How Chalcedonian Theologians of the Sixth Century defined the Ontological Status of Christ’s Human Nature
This article focuses on the term enhypostaton. It makes the case that this term was originally coined in order to express three modes of being: “by itself”, “with another” and “in another”. The first and third of these modes could not explain the status of the flesh as a nature, which does not have...
| Publicado en: | Vigiliae Christianae |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Brill
2017
|
| En: |
Vigiliae Christianae
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | KAD Alta Edad Media NBE Antropología NBF Cristología |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Christology
Chalcedonian Formula
Enhypostaton
Hypostasis
John of Damascus
|
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Sumario: | This article focuses on the term enhypostaton. It makes the case that this term was originally coined in order to express three modes of being: “by itself”, “with another” and “in another”. The first and third of these modes could not explain the status of the flesh as a nature, which does not have a hypostasis of its own, since they denoted full-blown hypostases and mere accidents. By contrast, the second mode was tailored to the specific case of the human being where soul and body as complete natures come together to form a single hypostasis, which had traditionally served as a paradigm for the incarnation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0720 |
| Obras secundarias: | In: Vigiliae Christianae
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341306 |