Shortly before 518, John the Grammarian composed a writing in which he established the basis of this correction.37 He understands the Definitio of Chalcedon as a condemnation of two positions at the same time. By rejecting Eutyches as well as Nestorius, he argues, the Definitio dialectically maintains only that there is in Christ a twofold homoousion, perfect in every way, the divine and the human ousiai. They are 'unconfused', which excludes Eutyches, but nevertheless 'undivided', which introduces Cyril's critique of Nestorius. Both ousiai exist as something common (koinon) to all their hypostases 'unconfused in Christ', yet they are 'in Christ undivided', for there is only one single subject of the incarnation, the Logos, who from the first moment of the incarnation had united to himself Christ's human existence, his 'flesh'. Therefore this 'flesh' is undivided from the hypostasis of the Logos and - insofar as it is unique -no mere human being, but an individual ousia which is distinguished from all other human individuals.

Unlike all other human individuals, this 'flesh' possesses everything that characterises it in its individuality in the Logos. To him 'belong on the basis of his nature [as God] everything divine and on account of the enhypostatic union everything human' which the Bible says about Christ. For his 'flesh' possessed in him its hypostasis. 'In two ousiai, which are united and individual, I acknowledge the one Christ,' namely Christ, 'God and human being'. The union of both is 'the one person, the one hypostasis of Christ'. Thus the Grammarian distinguishes between individuality and being a person. The latter means in the real sense an independent subsistence, a 'subsisting in and for itself.38 On account of this difference the author sees in anthropology the paradigm for Christology. For him, then, the human being is an unconfused and yet undivided unity of two individual natures, body and soul 'in a single hypostasis'.

In John the Grammarian all statements about the two natures of Christ are tied to Cyril's dynamic salvation-historical view of 'the one incarnate Logos', who appropriates to himself everything that befits the human being Jesus Christ, i.e., his 'flesh'. Just as the Florilegium Cyrillianum (which was published in Alexandria c. 482)® had already maintained, John to this extent understood the definitio of Chalcedon as the reception of Cyrillian Christology. From the viewpoint of the most important Miaphysite theologian, Severus of Antioch (sed. 512-38, after 518 in exile), an outstanding expert on the history

37 On the following, see K.-H. Uthemann, 'Definitionen'.

38 On the starting point and constant relationship to the Aristotelian theory of predication, see ibid., 83-7.

39 R. Hespel, Leflorilege cyrillien.

0 0

Post a comment