Info

according to the hypostasis' that excludes the union ofnatures, understood as prosopa, and thus justifies calling Mary 'the mother of God'.

Nestorius opposes Cyril's subject of the kenosis and the concept of appropriation

In his response, Nestorius drops the concept 'prosopon ofthe nature' and limits himself to showing that the title Christ 'as it were characterises the impassible and passible ousiai in the one single prosopon' (see n. 16, above). Accordingto the confession of Nicaea and Paul in Philippians 2.5-8, the subject of the kenosis is Christ, 'the name common to both natures', and not the Logos. For the latter, Paul could not have stated that he died on the cross (Philippians 2.8). Through this predication, the difference of both natures 'in the one single prosopon' is preserved unmingled; the one sonship is not divided. This prosopon or 'the combining (synapheia) ofthe one prosopon' is Nestorius' counter-expression to Cyril's 'union accordingto the hypostasis'. He says so with reference to Cyril's polemical Contra Nestorium. In that treatise Cyril had employed this very same expression, thereby imputing that Nestorius 'divides' the one Christ 'into two prosopa and hypostases'. Cyril justifies this there with Nestorius' teaching (see above), or, respectively, with that of the Antiochenes, that the titles 'Christ, 'Son', and 'Kyrios' are onomata koina - titles that are common to God and human being. He understands Nestorius as if he and the Antiochene tradition used these titles as common to independent hypostases orpersons, as signifying something like a community. When Nestorius argues with the three classes of biblical statements, Cyril suspects a separation ofhypostases or prosopa because Nestorius ascribes some biblical statements only to the Logos as such, others only 'to him born of a woman' (Galatians 4.4) as such and thus seems ultimately to admit of only two classes.

It is important to recognise that Nestorius introduces something new in the Antiochene tradition. In the conclusion of his reply he takes up the concept of appropriation from Cyril's critique and accepts it, insofar as the term describes the notion of an indwelling God as the connection (synapheia) of God and human being. However, at the same time he excludes a particular understanding of the appropriation's result. He characterises this appropriation with the term oikeiotes, which in the Latin dossiers on the Nestorian crisis is mostly rendered as familiaritas, a term also used in a translation of Cyril's Scholia de incarnatione,20 which Cyril himself had commissioned for Rome. Thus for Nestorius the result cannot be a type of kinship between the

0 0

Post a comment