by a critique of the Christology of Apollinarius, written by two anonymous authors in Alexandria and preserved under the name of Athanasius. One of these works was to influence the Nestorian crisis.13

In Cappadocia as well, Apollinarius' Christology encountered fierce opposition. In 381 Gregory of Nazianzus cautioned his congregation against the Apollinarian machinations. In 382 Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-95) attacked Apollinarius' teaching, on the basis of his Christology of the two natures, which emphasised the paradox of the incarnation and concepts such as 'unmingled mixing' and the appropriation of the human by the Logos. Gregory of Nyssa broke new ground with his statement that 'the new human being' in Christ is the first and only one who possesses 'in his soul and body' a 'mode of hypostasis' produced by the divine power (dynamis) creating this human being and 'permeating' the entire nature of the mixed. Gregory's proposal was to influence theologians of the sixth and seventh centuries, like Leontius of Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor. On the other hand, in his Antirrhetikos, Gregory did not dare speak of Christ's single prosopon. Yet he had introduced this concept, solely on biblical grounds, two years before against the neo-Arian, Eunomius of Cyzicus. In the context of his arguments against Apollinarius, he cites the 'anthropological paradigm', speaking of individual human beings as 'one sole prosopon' from two natures.

Another type of critique from the Antiochene neo-Nicenes had the most historical impact. Diodore of Tarsus (d. before 394) and Theodore of Mopsues-tia (c. 352-428) presented in treatises about the incarnation their own detailed image of Christ. This Christology had arisen out of the confrontation with Ari-anism emphasisingthe human being of Christ as 'God and man' and was for this reason already different from the exegesis of both Athanasius and Apollinarius.

Diodore, the bishop of Tarsus from 378, certainly wrote at least one work against Apollinarius; the Laodicean at least twice took up the pen against Diodore. All but one of Diodore's extant fragments stem from two dossiers. They were used by all the sources known to us and presumably derive from a single dossier compiled by the followers of Apollinarius. It is therefore difficult to establish an adequate picture of Diodore's Christology. One thing, however, is clear: Diodore rejected Apollinarius' presentation of the mixing that interpreted the unity of the Logos with the flesh. For Diodore that mixing cannot preserve the properties of the divine and human in Christ. However,

13 Cf. the two writings named in CPG 2231. In their critique, both writings, like Gregory of Nyssa (discussed below), objected to the theologoumenon of the descent of the Logos into Hades, held by Apollinarius, but also by Athanasius and the Arians; like Eustathius of Antioch (n. 8) they ascribed this descent to the soul of Christ.

0 0

Post a comment