of Christology, both works, the Florilegium and John's apologia, missed their target. He articulated his critique first in the Philalethes, dedicated to Cyril 'the lover of truth', and then in exile in the Liber contra Grammaticum.

The works of Leontius of Byzantium and of Leontius of Jerusalem are to be placed in the perspective characteristic of Cyril. For Leontius of Jerusalem, the great theme of Christology is the divinisation of the human nature in Christ, which remains preserved in its individuality in the hypostatic union. Only this type of union can exclude the mingling, propounded by the Mono-physites, which results in a single God-human nature. Leontius of Byzantium attempted to interpret Chalcedon in a systematic fashion and consequently asks about 'the first principles' or axioms. Only their plausibility can demonstrate the single dogma of Chalcedon that corresponds to them. To carry this out, he concentrates on the anthropological paradigm of Christology, to which we have already referred. The attempt of some scholars to identify him with that Leontius who between 531 and 543 is attested as one of the monks from Palestine, who propagated the Origenism condemned in 553 and who for that reason had as a central theme the nous-Christology of Evagrius Pon-ticus, has failed to convince.40 If Leontius of Byzantium in an early writing emphasised the preservation of the natures and to this extent elaborated a symmetrical picture of Christ, he nevertheless started from a Cyrillian perspective. As he later stressed against critics, the Cyrillian perspective of the union in the Logos is richer than any other and at the same time the highest possible union.

With this position Leontius of Byzantium is close to the remarkable idea of Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), that the human nature in what is proper to it is all the more realised the more it is united with God. For Maximus this insight arose with regard to the human existence of Christ.

Apologists for Chalcedon during the Justinian era, particularly Anastasius I of Antioch (sed. 559-70, 593-98/9), emphasised that the divinisation of the human nature of Christ, the divine-human activity of Christ, is grounded in the unity of the natures in the one hypostasis. It is against the background of this theology and its reception that the theological development of Maximus the Confessor can be understood as a process leading to a position which, while preserving Cyril's dynamic view focused on salvation history, tried to differentiate and to stress, in particular, the salvific significance of 'the human beingJesus Christ' (1 Timothy 2.5).

40 The recent attempt ofD. B. Evans (Leontius of Byzantium) to demonstrate the Origenism of Leontius has been almost unanimously rejected by other scholars.

0 0

Post a comment