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...
| Publié dans: | Vigiliae Christianae |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2017
|
| Dans: |
Vigiliae Christianae
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | KAD Haut Moyen Âge NBE Anthropologie NBF Christologie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Christology
Chalcedonian Formula
Enhypostaton
Hypostasis
John of Damascus
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | In: Vigiliae Christianae
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341306 |