Anhypostatos-enhypostatos: church fathers, Protestant orthodoxy and Karl Barth.

In a recent article F. LeRon Shults(1) examines the origins of the doctrine that the human nature of Christ has no hypostasis of its own but subsists in the divine person or hypostasis of the Son of God. This theologoumenon lies at the heart of Karl Barth's Christology, and indeed, as Bruce MacCormack claims in his comprehensive study of the genesis and development of Barth's theology in the crucial years between 1909 and 1936, marks a watershed in that it made the incarnation of the Logos into the contradiction of human existence the fundament and model of the analogia fidei: `With the adoption of the anhypostatic-enhypostatic model of Christology, Barth's theology had moved into a new phase. The anhypostatic-enhypostatic model had supplanted the time-eternity dialectic as the central parable for expressing the Realdialektik of God's veiling and unveiling'.(2) According to MacCormack, Barth's adoption of this christological doctrine was such a decisive event in his development that we may speak of a `Dialectical Theology in the Shadow of an Anhypostatic-Enhypostatic Christology', divided into a pneumatocentrist stage from 1924 to 1936 and a christocentrist stage from September 1936 onwards.(3) As is obvious from Barth's own testimonies in his Unterricht in der christlichen Religion of 1924/1925, usually called The Gottingen Dogmatics in the English-speaking world, he adopted this doctrine from the late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Protestant theology, both Lutheran and Reformed, which is known as Protestant orthodoxy (Altprotestantische Orthodoxie).(4) Apparently, he encountered it first in the standard textbooks of Heinrich Schmid and Heinrich Heppe.(5) The main point of LeRon Shults is that the dual formula of anhypostasis-enhypostasis is dubious, since under the influence of Friedrich Loofs' pioneering work on Leontius of Byzantium of 1887(6) it has been wrongly traced back to this sixth-century author, as has been made evident in recent studies by Brian Daley.(7) Leontius does not employ [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in an innovative fashion such as to mean `existing within', but keeps its current meaning in contemporary Greek, namely `having a concrete existence' or simply `real', without any overtones of the humanity's in-existence in the hypostasis of the Logos. Therefore the `dual formula of anhypostasis-enhypostasis' should rather be considered an `invention of Protestant scholasticism', since neither in Leontius nor elsewhere has it any warrant in the patristic tradition.(8)

I agree with LeRon Shults that anhypostasis-enhypostasis as a christological formula cannot be found in any of the Church Fathers.(9) It is noteworthy, however, that anhypostasis-enhypostasis as a `dual formula' is not found in Protestant orthodoxy either. As we shall see later, when these divines discuss the in-existence of the humanity of Christ in the hypostasis of the Logos, they rather employ the traditional patristic terms [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], while they may denote the human nature's `carentia propriae subsistentiae' as `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]'. Despite their inclination to innovative terminology for which they are known -- `Christology' itself is an example apparently coined in the early seventeenth century(10) -- a brief look into the major works of three important representatives of the Lutheran orthodoxy of Wittenberg, Abraham Calov (1612-1686), Johann Andreas Quenstedt (1617-1688), and David Hollaz (1648-1713), confirms the impression that here their terminology remains rather conservative and follows their patristic sources. Barth himself in his Gottingen Dogmatics either speaks of the anhypostasis of Christ's human nature or of it being anhypostatos or rather enhypostatos.(11) It is in his later Church Dogmatics that he refers to the doctrine `of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of the human nature of Christ'(12) and introduces the actual term enhypostasis as being `indirectly maintained' by the anhypostasis.(13) If there is indeed anything like a `dual formula' anhypostasis-enhypostasis, it is Barth's own innovation rather than that of Protestant orthodoxy.

The main point, however, about this christological theologoumenon is not so much the coinage and usage of the formulaic anhypostasis-enhypostasis. As I shall contend in this article, the doctrine that the humanity of Christ subsists in the hypostasis or person of the Logos is championed by Chalcedonian authors in the controversy on the Christology of the Council of 451 from the sixth century onwards (though not by Leontius of Byzantium, as was taken for granted in the wake of Loofs), whereby the technical meaning of enhypostatos as expressing this doctrine gradually emerges.

For the purpose of my argument, I will briefly point to the use of enhypostatos in pagan philosophy and in trinitarian theology. John of Caesarea is the first theologian to give prominence to this term in Christology, and therefore his writings will receive considerable attention. After some cursory remarks on Leontius of Jerusalem, it will be shown that the well-established point that Leontius of Byzantium does not employ enhypostatos in the sense of `in-existent' is actually confirmed by his early interpreter and follower, Pamphilus. Subsequently, I will treat the terminology of anhypostatos, enhypostatos and hypostasis which is developed in the treatise De Sectis. An explicit doctrine of the humanity's in-existence in the hypostasis of the Logos which is, however, not yet denoted by the term enhypostatos emerges, as will be seen, in the Chalcedonian patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch. Eventually, it is John of Damascus, the great compiler of the patristic tradition, who binds these different strands of thought together, when he uses the term enhypostatos for the humanity's in-existence in the Logos. In conclusion, I will suggest that it was the reception of Damascene's works in the sixteenth and seventeenth century which facilitated the explication of the `anhypostatic-enhypostatic model' in the Christology of the orthodox Protestant divines that was later to become so important in Karl Barth's theology.

It has been argued by Daley that the usage of the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the sixth century does not allow for a translation as `existing within'. For just as one would expect from such pairs as [GREEK WORD TEXT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], or [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], in contemporary Greek the prefix '[Epsilon]v- is not localizing, but rather the opposite of an alpha privativum, whence [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] should be taken as `hypostatic', `having a concrete existence' or simply `real' as opposed to [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. without a concrete existence'.(14) However, if this implies that a `standard' usage of the word is to be expected in late antiquity, the argument appears rather overstated. [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is a highly specific technical term which is found virtually exclusively in philosophical and theological literature; it is rare in pagan authors, while it is employed in the trinitarian and christological debates from the fourth century onwards. Judging from similar Greek forms, it would be more natural to assume that the prefix '[Epsilon]v- is indeed localizing, as in [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or (`infleshed') or [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (`in-man-ing'-sit venia verbo). Daley's example of the pair [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](15) confirms this impression, for when Aristotle in De Anima A.1:403a25 says that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], this suggests that '[Epsilon]v- should be understood as a localizing prefix: `on the analogy of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], this might mean either "notions embedded in matter" or notions containing a reference to matter".(16) Thus one would rather expect from similar compound adjectives that the prefix [Epsilon]v- in fact localizing and so [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] should be translated as existing in' or in a similar way. But Daley shows convincingly that this is apparently not the case, as e.g. in John Philoponus' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, written in AD 517.

That `by nature' is said also of things which have a nature he showed at the start, saying: `Of things which are, some are by nature', speaking of concretely existing things ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), which are the things which have a nature ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]).(17)

Elsewhere in the same commentary Philoponus contrasts `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] with those that have existence only conceptually, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](18) Similarly, Asclepius in his commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics reports the view that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](19) Finally, both in the lexicographer Hesychius and in the Suida we find [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] under the entry [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. `subsisting'.(20) Nonetheless caution is demanded when we attempt to assess the precise meaning of this term in sixth-century philosophers, for the case is complicated still more by the question of whether [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] might have to be considered in the context of contemporary discussions on the ontological status of universals and particulars. In the sense of `existent, real' it might in fact imply that it is in the individual thing, i.e. in the hypostasis, in which the universal has concrete existence.

In ecclesiastical writers, the term is attested more frequently than in pagan authors, as early as in Irenaeus, Origen and Didymus.(21) Its meaning is well-established in the trinitarian discussions of the fourth century onwards, namely `having (divine) reality' as a hypostasis or person of the Trinity, as in Epiphanius of Salamis(22) and Jerome.(23) Commenting on the Johannine prologue, John Chrysostom distinguishes between the manifold logoi of God, which can also be uttered by angels and are known to us as prophecies and commandments, and God the Logos, who is called `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', Coming forth from the Father himself.(24) Cyril of Alexandria speaks in his Thesaurus de Trinitate VIII of those things as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] that exist on their own as opposed to those things that exist in ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) another subject, as `knowledge', `wisdom' or `will' exist in such beings as angels or humans. In this sense, the Son of God as the second person of the Trinity is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](25)

This trinitarian sense of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as `having (divine) reality as a hypostasis' is still current in the second decade of the sixth century, as is evident from one of the spurious letters of Pope Felix to Peter the Fuller: `...[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(26) As will be seen later in John Damascene, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] can also be employed of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not of the Father. Does this imply that the second and the third person of the Trinity have their reality as divine hypostases in God the Father, i.e. the [Alpha][Rho][Chi][Eta] of the Godhead?(27) These glimpses into the trinitarian usage of enhypostatos may suffice to establish the point that it is not as clear as Daley suggests that the prefix '[Epsilon]v- is not to be understood in a localizing sense. On the contrary, there is some evidence that the term bears the connotation of in-existence, although this rather tenuous evidence presented here would still have to be confirmed by a more detailed study of the relevant texts.

When we turn to the use of enhypostatos in the christological controversies, it will become obvious that the term did not acquire any prominence prior to the sixth century, apart from two elusive references in the Apollinarian treatise Quod unus sit Christus(28) and in the Ps.-Athanasian De Incarnatione contra Apollinarium.(29) It will therefore be essential for our purpose to examine in which way the term enhypostatos was employed in the christological debates from the sixth century onwards.

The most appropriate starting-point for our enquiry is John of Caesarea, known as the opponent of Severus of Antioch, who introduces the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in his Apologia Concilii Chalcedonensis where he responds to Severus. The latter argues that there is no nature without prosopon, i.e. concrete individual ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] -- an axiom often used by miaphysites in their attacks on Chalcedonian Christology(30)) and that therefore the doctrine of one prosopon or hypostasis in two natures is merely a disguised Nestorianism, since it necessarily implies two prosopa. The Grammarian reciprocates this charge and replies that on the grounds of this principle Severus, who holds that the union in Christ has been effected out of two natures ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), would be obliged to believe that it has also been effected out of two prosopa ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). The Chalcedonian via media -- a frequent pattern of argument among defenders of the Council -- achieves a balance between the extremes of a union according to substance and of a union according to relationship by its doctrine of a `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', in which the divine and human natures are united `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]'.(31) It should be noted that John does not employ the well-known Cyrillian formula `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', but coins a new expression to represent the Christology of Chalcedon. That he uses [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the sense of `existing' or `real' is made evident by his interpretation of Athanasius' exegesis of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Jer 9:9 (LXX):(32)

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Therefore if someone according to this comment speaks of the substances as enhypostatoi, that is existing, not even we would deny that. For the hypostasis is not different from the substance as for existence, but insofar as the one exists as common, namely the substance, the hypostasis, however, as proper, whenever together with that which is universal it is also in possession of that which is proper.(33)

John's interpretation presupposes the Cappadocians' distinction between [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]and [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],(34) when he differentiates between the modes of existence of the common substance and of the proper hypostasis. He is obviously hesitant to say that both the divine and the human substance (or nature) of Christ are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], for this might give the impression that he was speaking of two proper individuals, i.e. hypostases. So Severus' charge against the Christology of Chalcedon, that along with the two natures two hypostases are introduced, would appear justified. For this reason the Grammarian argues that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], if applied to substance or nature, only indicates its concrete existence, not its mode of existence, and thus does not imply that it is a proper hypostasis over and above the common substance. Still, however, John is reluctant to speak of Christ's human nature as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which he accepts only with an important qualification:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Consequently we do not say that our [i.e. the human] substance is enhypostatos in Christ, as a characteristic hypostasis on its own and being a prosopon, but insofar as it has a concrete existence and is. For sometimes hypostasis, i.e. substance, indicates having a concrete existence, as is shown when it is deprived of the properties characteristic of it and seen as belonging to the prosopon.(35)

He is anxious to avoid the conclusion that the human substance in Christ is a hypostasis or prosopon of its own that is characterized by a set of properties. Therefore he emphasizes that the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] means the humanity's existence or reality abstracted from the characteristic idiomata which constitute the individual. While he attempts to account for the undiminished reality of Christ's human nature by attributing [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the sense of `existing' or 'real' to both his humanity and his divinity, he is aware that, if the term is taken to denote a hypostasis that subsists on its own, his defence of the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] fall victim to Severus' accusation of a Nestorian doctrine of two hypostases or prosopa. Thus John emphasizes that [GREEk TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], if applied to substance, does not imply individuality that is marked off from the universal by characteristic properties. The terminological difficulty into which the Grammarian is brought here is caused by the fact that before Chalcedon hypostasis and ousia could have been used interchangeably, which is indeed the case in some of the writings of Cyril of Alexandria. In the heated controversies after the Council of 451 on the correct interpretation of pre-Chalcedonian Christology, Cyril was the supreme authority that was claimed both by the Chalcedonians and by the miaphysites for their own cause. In his defence of the definition of Chalcedon against miaphysitism John of Caesarea is obliged to admit that there is an ambiguity in the term hypostasis, as it is used by the Alexandrian patriarch. For on the one hand it is distinguished from ousia as the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is distinguished from the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and so the conceptual distinction achieved by the Cappadocians for the doctrine of the Trinity is applied to Christology. On the other and hypostasis is employed as a synonym for ousia, thus not indicating the concrete individual, but the common nature. Consequently, the Grammarian falls back behind the important distinction that he has already achieved in his Christology.

Intriguingly, john holds that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. concrete existence, can be attributed to the ousia, even if it is deprived of individualizing properties that make it a prosopon, and in this respect that it may be called [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. It is therefore legitimate to ask in what way the common nature, in our case that of Christ's humanity, can be said to be concretely existing, if not as a prosopon or hypostasis of its own, which is strictly to be avoided. The answer to this question is given by John himself, when he says that the human nature is indeed [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Christ.

The force of Severus' argument that there is no nature without hypostasis or prosopon compels John to specify the manner in which the human ousia of Christ is united [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] with the divine hypostasis of the Logos. His response is conceived within the lines drawn by Cyril of Alexandria. Starting from John 1:14, the Grammarian explains that what belongs to the flesh becomes the property of the God-Logos, since it is his own flesh:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

It is obvious that this passage echoes the language and thought of Cyril, as in his Epist. 2 ad Succensum ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]'(37)), and especially in his Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti 2 ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](38)) In John's own interpretation of Cyrillian Christology, this process of appropriation implies that the human nature of Christ is taken up into the hypostasis of the second person of the Trinity so that individual existence is communicated to it as the ensouled flesh that becomes proper to the Son of God. This is the way in which the human nature of Christ is to be conceived as individualized.(39) The Grammarian's formula [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] serves the purpose to denote this unique manner of existence. It is for this reason, as I suggest, that he prefers to use it instead of the established Cyrillian formula [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], though there does not seem to be any difference of principle between the two.

Evidently, the Grammarian is anxious to meet two essential requirements of Christology: first, to account for the full reality of the two natures in Christ; and second, to dismiss Severus' charge of Nestorianism. For this reason he affirms that not only the divinity, but also the humanity is proper to Christ, with the difference that the former belongs to him by nature ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), whereas the latter belongs to him by virtue of the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(40) The term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]enables him on the one hand to avoid the consequence that could be drawn from the principle [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] that each nature is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. has a hypostasis of its own:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Two or more natures can be seen in one and the same prosopon, when there is an enhypostatos union of them. For if they were divided, each would be recognized in a person of its own hypostasis.(41)

On the other hand, the term safeguards the full reality of Christ's human nature, for -- and this is an important point to bear in mind -- the mode of existence of a nature or substance in an individualized hypostasis as an [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is opposed to the mode of existence of accidents which are, properly speaking, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(42) Therefore one would be utterly mistaken to interpret the relation between the divine hypostasis of the Logos and the human nature of Christ, as John of Caesarea conceives of it, according to the model of substance and accident. Thus I contend that his formula of an [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] indicates that both the divinity and the humanity of Christ exist in one hypostasis, namely that of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, for they can be seen in one and the same prosopon. Although the term enhypostatos in John's usage primarily means 'having a concrete existence', it is implied that a common nature or substance always exists as being individualized in a hypostasis. It is the peculiarity of the incarnation that the ensouled flesh is taken up into the hypostasis of the Son of God and is so given individual existence in a unique manner.

We have another witness to such an understanding of the term enhypostatos in Leontius of Jerusalem, whose active period falls between 536 or 538, the condemnation or the death of Severus of Antioch, and 543/544, the outbreak of the controversy on the `Three Chapters'.(43) When Leontius speaks ipsa voce in his polemical treatise Adversus Nestorianos(44) [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], is attributed to [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the sense of `having concrete existence', yet with the connotation of being individualized in a hypostasis. As it is said of the Trinity that there are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], so it is said of Christ that there are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Thereby Leontius wants to exclude first that the two natures of Christ are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]t, i.e. without a concrete reality, and second that there are two hypostases.(45) Evidently, he finds himself in a similar position as John of Caesarea and is obliged to respond to the misconceived interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition of two natures in Christ by which it is insinuated that the two natures are [GREEK TEXT NOT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which would lead to a doctrine of two hypostases.(46) It is interesting to see that, while in the case of the Grammarian this charge is uttered by the miaphysite Severus, here it is Leontius' unknown Nestorian interlocutor who employs this argument. As John of Caesarea before him, so Leontius of jerusalem emphasizes that it is necessary for the divinity and the humanity of Christ, insofar as they are natures, to be [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. to exist concretely ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII)].(47) The term enhypostatos connotes that the two natures exist in one and the same hypostasis:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

For we say that the two natures concretely exist in one and the same hypostasis, not as if one of them could exist without a hypostasis in it, but as if both could subsist in the one common hypostasis; and so each of the two is enhypostatos according to one and the same hypostasis. ... Thus it is evident that the enhypostaton cannot be heterohypostaton, but must be thought of in one and the same hypostasis for both of them.(48)

By contrast, Leontius of Byzantium, his contemporary and namesake, does not use the term enhypostatos in order to indicate the in-existence of the human nature in the Logos (as used to be a widespread opinion in patristic scholarship in the wake of Loofs). For the sake of brevity it will be assumed that this point which has been shown convincingly by Daley(49) does not need any further vindication. Notably, the notorious passage in the Epilyseis which contains the phrase [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] does not represent Leontius' own position, but is rather a report of an argument held by some with which he partly agrees and partly disagrees, namely that `because the Lord's humanity was not formed or did not exist prior [sc. to its union with the Logos in the incarnation], and was not assumed already complete, but subsists in the Logos, therefore they make one hypostasis of both'.(50) As Daley has suggested, this may indeed refer to a view current among supporters of the Christology of Chalcedon.(51)

Significantly, Daley's revised reading of Leontius is confirmed by a work strongly indebted to the latter, Pamphilus' Diversorum Capitum seu Difficultatum Solutio.(52) This treatise does not allow of a precise dating; its author's account of tritheism, however, and his silence on the monothelete and monenergist controversies of the seventh century suggest a terminus post quem of 557 (the year when John Ascoutzanges left his native town Apamea which is seen as the rise of tritheism(53)) and a terminus ante quem of 630. While Marcel Richard had argued previously for an earlier date being more likely than a later one,(54) in more recent articles he tended to put it rather into the seventh century.(55) The resemblance between a number of passages in the Solutio and in the Corpus Leontii had made Johann Peter Junglas(56) believe that Leontius of Byzantium was largely indebted to Pamphilus who preceded him. In fact the relation between the two is the reverse, as Richard showed convincingly,(57) and it is Pamphilus who quotes extensively from the works of the other. Among these citations there is the key passage from the Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos (CNE) which provides good evidence for Daley's interpretation of Leontius. Even more, the particular way in which Pamphilus quotes from Leontius confirms precisely the point made by Daley that interpreters such as Loofs were mistaken in relating the phrase [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and thus holding it to be 'in some kind of halfway stage between subsistent and accidental being'.(58) The correct punctuation and translation of this phrase make it evident that the contrary is meant: the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [Tau][Alpha][Tau][Omicron][Upsilon] is not an accident; it does not have its existence in another thing. Rather it denotes the substance that exists [Kappa][Alpha][Theta] [Epsilon][Alpha][Upsilon][Tau][Theta] and is seen in itself. It is remarkable that Pamphilus has read Leontius of Byzantium in exactly this way. Therefore the passage in question shall be given in full, with the quotations underlined:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

A nature, i.e. substance, can never be without hypostasis, but is enhypostatos, i.e. a subsisting thing that is seen in itself and does not have its being in anything else, such as accidents; for these are seen as belonging to substance, while they cannot subsist by themselves, but with the nature that is compounded and by origin joined with them. But the enhypostaton, i.e. nature, and hypostasis are not the same thing. For the enhypostaton, as has been said, indicates the substance and means what is common to the species; the hypostasis, however, makes up the individual human being, by defining [it] as a person by characteristic properties, and distinguishing [it] as what is proper from that which is common. Again the enhypostaton means that which is itself not an accident, but which is seen in itself and in its own concrete existence.

Pamphilus' clarity on this point leaves no doubt: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] indicates a [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], a subsisting thing that is seen in itself, by which it is distinct from accidents that have their existence in another subject, namely in a substance. What distinguishes the enhypostaton or `concretely existing' from the hypostasis is the distinction between the specific and the individual. The hypostasis defines the individual human being or the person by its characteristic properties and thus marks him off from the common species of human beings.(60)

As in Leontius of Byzantium,(61) the concept of the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is employed in order to reconcile the principle that there is no [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] with the definition of Chalcedon. Pamphilus argues that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is opposed to [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], as opposed to [GREEK NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and therefore, since it is the accidents which are [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. without a concrete reality that is seen in themselves, we may conclude from the negative assertion that there is no nature without hypostasis that nature itself presupposes the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. a reality of its own. Applied to Christology, we may say correctly that there are two natures of Christ existing concretely ``[GREEK NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]'(65) after the union."' Again the two misconceptions that are excluded are, first, the view that the human nature which is assumed by the God-Logos is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. has an hypostasis of its own apart from the hypostasis of the Logos;(63) and, second, the view that Christ's humanity is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], for as a nature and substance it is not [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and could only be called so catachrestically, since it is proper to what is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to be seen in a substance and hypostasis -- a definition which indeed is that of a accidents.(64).

By using the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for both the divine and the human nature of Christ, Pamphilus affirms that they are real, existent and not just phantasmal. Thus any sort of docetism, which either reduces the humanity of Christ to a mere phantasma or reduces the divinity of Christ to a mere relation of the man Jesus to the second person of the Trinity, is to be banned. This is exactly the purpose of Leontius of Byzantium's CNE, namely to refute the `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]'(65) of either provenience and to show the conclusiveness of the Chalcedonian via media. Pamphilus is an eclectic writer who exploits different sources and juxtaposes them without an inner conjunction, which accounts for the lack of consistency in his Christology; with respect to his use of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and however, he proves to be a close disciple of Leontius.(66)

The treatise De Sectis, attributed to Leontius of Byzantium by Loofs, is now generally acknowledged to have been written between 580 and 608 by an otherwise unknown author,(67) who turns out to be a defender of the strictly Chalcedonian doctrine of two natures in one hypostasis. One of the main arguments brought forward by Richard against Loofs' identification of its author with Leontius of Byzantium is their different understandings of the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. We have already seen that in Leontius it denotes an [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], a subsisting thing that is seen in itself and thus has its existence not in another subject, as accidents do. The author of the De Sectis, however, claims:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

It should therefore be recognized that the enhypostaton or hypostasis means two things. For it means that which simply exists; according to this meaning we also speak of `enhypostata accidents', even if they have their existence in other things. It also means that which exists on its own, as the individual instantiations of substances; therefore it occurs that the enhypostaton itself is called enhypostatos in two ways, insofar as it exists, and insofar as it exists on its own, i.e. Peter and Paul. But also the anhypostaton is twofold. For also that is called anhypostatos which never exists, as the goat-stag and the horse-centaur. Furthermore, it is not that which does not exist which is called anhypostatos, but that which has its hypostasis in another thing and does not subsist on its own, as accidents do.(68)

Thus the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which is equated with hypostasis, in the first sense indicates that which simply exists ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or just [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and so may even be predicated of accidents that have their existence in another subject. Notably, it does not necessarily denote independent existence, which would be expressed by the Aristotelian category of substance ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). In the second sense, it indicates that which exists on its own ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and so equals hypostasis or individual. Correspondingly, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; can be said in two ways, meaning first that which never exists, such as a goat-stag or a horse-centaur, and second that which does not exist on its own, but which has its hypostasis in another subject, such as accidents. The author of the De Sectis even argues that the two natures of Christ may be called both [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], depending in which sense the two terms are understood.(69) If [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is taken to denote simply `being', it can be attributed to the two natures of Christ without introducing two hypostases or persons. For nothing more is said than that they belong to the realm of being. Yet if it is taken to denote `being on its own', the two natures of Christ are rather [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], for they do not exist for themselves; otherwise two persons and two sons would be introduced.

Evidently, the author's terminology is considerably at variance with that of Leontius of Byzantium. The points of divergence have been marked by Richard:(70) The De Sectis equates hypostasis and the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Leontius opposes them (cf. CNE: PG 86, 1277C); for the De Sectis accidents can be, in a certain sense, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], while Leontius defines the [GREEK TEXT as not being an accident (ibid.); according to the De Sectis a nature can be said to be [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],(71) which is ruled out by Leontius (1277D-1280a). Eventually, the De Sectis also takes [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in a double sense, which is the same as that of the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], namely being as such and being for itself, while Leontius would only admit of a hypostasis that exists on its own (1280, cf. Epilyseis: PG 86, 1933A and 1945A(72)). The assertion that in fact there are two meanings of these terms in ecclesiastical usage is remarkable, for no author that has discussed the use of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Christology prior to the De Sectis would have admitted such an ambiguity on this point. This terminology is extremely unsatisfactory, for if the two natures of Christ are called [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the sense of not existing on their own, this evidently applies to his divine nature as well. The author of the De Sectis does not seem aware of the damaging consequence to be drawn from his argument, namely that the nature of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, would be said to be [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. not existing on its own. Thus it is obvious why John Damascene, who in his Christology, as will be seen below, at first endorses the distinction made by the De Sectis, then attempts to overcome it.

An important, but rather neglected source for the christological use of enhypostatos in the sixth century is the Jerusalem Dialogue with a Tritheist by the Chalcedonian patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch (559-598).(73) In this dialogue the miaphysite interlocutor (the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; indeed three-quarters of the Dialogue deals with Christology, not with the doctrine of the Trinity) raises the question of how the two natures of Christ can effect one hypostasis, whether they have undergone change or not. In his reply, the Orthodox says that the two natures have not constituted the one hypostasis of Christ, but that the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] of the Logos of God has assumed the nature of human being, without either of them having undergone change. He is anxious to exclude that the human nature of Christ is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] i.e. without hypostasis:(74)

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

O: I have said that the enousios hypostasis of the Logos has assumed the enhypostatos substance of the man, which though not yet in existence came to subsist in the Logos; and it is not a hypostasis.

A: Is the subsisting [i.e. substance] then not a hypostasis?

O: While subsisting, it has not acquired a proper hypostasis, but the common one.

A: It has acquired a proper nature, but not a proper hypostasis?

O: Such is the case.

A: And whence is this evident?

O: Since Christ is the common hypostasis, but his natures are divinity and humanity.

Evidently, the Christology of Chalcedon is again challenged on the grounds of the principle that there is no nature without a hypostasis or concrete individual. In his response the Orthodox, accepting this principle, insists that the hypostasis of the Logos assumed the concretely existing ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] human nature or substance; however, the humanity of Christ has no hypostasis of its own, but subsists in the Logos ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Indeed, the hypostasis of the Logos is the common hypostasis of both divinity and humanity. While it is a point already made by Leontius of Jerusalem that the two natures subsist in one common hypostasis,(76) Anastasius explicitly conceives of the humanity of Christ as having a concrete existence only in that it has been taken up into the hypostasis of the Logos, i.e. the second person of the Trinity, and subsists in it. Note, however, that he employs the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to emphasize the undiminished concrete reality of the human nature of Christ and thus to account for the principle that there is no [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], not to denote its subsistence in the Logos, as is evident from the subsequent passages:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Anything that exists concretely, whether on its own, or whether it has its existence with or in another thing, is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or, as we may simply translate here, `real'. This applies e.g. to a quality in a body, such as whiteness or blackness, while it does not subsist for itself and is therefore not called hypostasis.(79) There is a significant difference between the meaning of enhypostatos in Anastasius on the one hand, and in theologians such as John of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium and Pamphilus on the other hand, for they would emphasize that, on the contrary, the enhypostaton is a subsisting thing or substance and not that which is seen as belonging to a substance, such as qualities, which are rather anhypostata. Not unlike the author of the De Sectis, Anastasius allows for the term to be used for that which simply exists -- whether substance or accident.

John of Damascus, in an attempt to reformulate the Christology of Chalcedon, takes up the strands of thought we have traced until now and binds them together. The character of Damascene's Christology is essentially synthetical, as can be expected from a theologian whose explicit aim was [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(80) Nonetheless the synthesis achieved by him is original in that for the first time an explicit doctrine of the humanity's in-existence in the hypostasis of the Logos emerges that is -- and here he differs from Anastasius of Antioch -- denoted by the term enhypostatos. Before examining how John of Damascus applies this terminology to Christology, it will be useful to take into account his Dialectica or Capita Philosophica in which he sets out his understanding of anhypostatos, enhypostatos and hypostasis. At first he appears to be a follower of the De Sectis in that he allows for hypostasis to be used in a double sense, denoting both simple being or substance, and being on its own as an individual; similarly [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] on the one hand means simple being ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and can thus be used not only for substance, but also for accidents, on the other hand it is equated with hypostasis or individual, i.e. being on its own; finally, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is either that which never exists [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], or the accident which has no existence of its own, but only in another subject.(81) This line is taken up in the following passage from the Dialectica:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

And the enhypostaton sometimes means that which simply exists; according to this meaning we say not only that the simple substance is enhypostatos, but also the accident, which is properly speaking not enhypostatos but heterohypostatos. Sometimes, however, it also indicates the hypostasis on its own or the individual which is properly speaking not enhypostatos, but is and is said to be a hypostasis.(82)

Subsequently, however, Damascene introduces another meaning of the term which he then applies to Christology:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Again the nature which has been assumed by another hypostasis and has its existence in this is called enhypostaton. For this reason also the flesh of the Lord which does not subsist by itself, not even for an instant, is not a hypostasis, but rather enhypostatos; for it came to subsist in the hypostasis of the Logos, having been assumed by it, and has obtained and still has this very hypostasis.(83)

He shows himself unsatisfied with the terminological ambiguity left by the De Sectis and introduces yet another ([Pi][Alpha][Lambda][Iota][Upsilon]) sense of enhypostatos which is specifically applicable to Christology: a nature that has been taken up by another hypostasis and has its existence in it is called enhypostatos. It is precisely for this reason that the human nature of Christ does not subsist by itself and is not a hypostasis, but is rather enhypostatos.

This theory is also put forward in a central passage in one of Damascene's most important works, the Expositio Fidei:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

For the flesh of the God-Logos did not subsist with its own subsistence, nor has it become another hypostasis in addition to the hypostasis of the God-logos, but it has rather become enhypostatos, subsisting in it [i.e. the hypostasis of the God-Logos] and not a hypostasis for itself with its own subsistence. Therefore it is neither without hypostasis nor has it introduced another hypostasis into the Trinity.(84)

The interpretation of this passage has been disputed among scholars. Whereas the late nineteenth-century Munich theologian Josef Bach in his history of medieval Christology provides a paraphrase of it in which he renders the crucial enhypostatos as `inexistent',(85) Daley argues that there is no need for such a translation here.(86) The fact, however, that enhypostatos is used here in combination with the phrase [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], suggests that it is employed to denote the humanity's inexistence in the hypostasis of the Logos. This becomes even more evident if we consider the history of the term in patristic Christology, as we have attempted to do in this paper and if we consider its usage in other works of John Damascene. So ambiguities that might still exist will eventually be resolved.

A key text is found in his Contra Jacobitas where the crucial passage from Leontius of Byzantium's CNE is quoted in which the difference between hypostasis and the enhypostaton is conceived of in terms of the person that is defined by characteristic properties and of the substance that is distinct from the accident in that it does not have its existence in another subject.(87) It should, however, not be assumed that John of Damascus conforms to Leontius' definition. On the contrary, he starts from the distinction between that which is in something ([Tau][Omega] [Epsilon][Upsilon] [Tau][Iota][Upsilon][Iota]) and that in which it is, ([Tau][Omicron][Epsilon] [Upsilon][Omega]). Thus the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is that which is seen in the substance, i.e. the collection of accidents which indicates the hypostasis, but is not itself the substance; the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is not identical with the hypostasis, but is rather that which is seen in the hypostasis.(88) John's very definition of ousia or `whatever exists' as that `which exists in what manner soever, whether on its own, whether with another thing or in another thing' allows indeed for its existence in another hypostasis. Two examples for in-existence are given by Damascene himself, that of fire in a wick(89) and that of the flesh of Christ in the eternal hypostasis of the Logos:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](90)

A later passage in the same treatise is explicit about the use of enhypostatos for the in-existence of the human nature of Christ in the hypostasis of the Logos:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

The human nature of Christ is enhypostatos or, as I propose, in-existent, since it does not subsist as a proper hypostasis of its own, but has its concrete existence in the hypostasis of the Logos. Notably this passage is strongly reminiscent of Anastasius of Antioch's Jerusalem Dialogue with a Tritheist and echoes the latter's conception of the enhypostaton as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which is specified as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(92)

The point of Damascene's Christology lies in avoiding an identification of nature or substance and hypostasis in order to exclude the erroneous conclusion that might be drawn from the definition of Chalcedon that two natures necessarily imply two hypostases, i.e. concrete individual -- which is indeed the core of the miaphysite accusation against the `Nestorianism' of the Council. The distinction between [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [Tau][Omicron][Epsilon][Upsilon][Omega] applied to Christology provides John with the concepts of the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] on which his response to this charge is grounded. For while the substance or the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is always seen in the hypostasis, and there is no nature viz. substance without a hypostasis ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and vice versa the hypostasis or the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is always seen in the nature or substance, and there is no hypostasis without a substance ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), nonetheless nature viz. substance and person viz. hypostasis are not identical. Therefore it is possible that there is a nature or substance which has no particular subsistence of its own and that there is a hypostasis which has no separate nature or substance of its own.(93) It is evident that this applies to the doctrine of the Trinity and to Christology and serves the purpose of excluding heretical options on both sides.

An assessment of Damascene's terminology is complicated by the fact that in his trinitarian use of enhypostatos there seem to be different stages. In fact, he may employ the term in his doctrine of the Trinity in the widely established sense of `having (divine) reality as a hypostasis' that is prominent in the spurious letters of Pope Felix to Peter the Fuller(94) and is found as early as in the controversies of the fourth century. Thus Damascene calls the Son of God [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII];(95) in his Epistola de hymno trisagio he refers to the Logos and the Holy Spirit as `[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', which originate from the Father, exist in him and are related to him as their [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(96) In the Contra Jacobitas, on the other hand, it is the divine nature which is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. existing in three hypostases, while each of the hypostases is designated [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], i.e. in the nature of the Trinity.(97) Do, therefore, such writings as the Contra Nestorianos, De duabus in Christo voluntaribus, Epistola de hymno trisagio and Sermo in sabbatum sanctum represent an earlier stage in the development of Damascene's synthesis of patristic thought? An attempt to answer this question would have to take into account the totality of his opus, and, given that its chronology is notoriously tenuous,(98) this is a task which cannot be undertaken here.

Therefore I shall conclude my examination of John Damascene's Christology with a passage from his treatise De Natura Composita contra Acephalos where he applies the [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] -- terminology to the union of divinity and humanity in Christ:

[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(99)

In some cases the enhypostaton means the substance, as it is seen in the hypostasis and exists on its own, while in other cases it denotes each of the individual components that have come into union in order to compose a single hypostasis. It is patent to which particular cases the second usage applies: as soul and body are united in human beings to compose one hypostasis, so the divinity and the humanity of Christ have come into union and effect one common composite hypostasis. In this respect both natures may be said to be [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(100) So far, Damascene's account of the union in Christ seems symmetrical. Subsequently, however, he discards this symmetry, for between the divine and the human nature there is a paramount difference in that the divinity of Christ exists hypostatically from eternity, while the ensouled flesh of the God-man only came into existence when it was assumed in due time by the hypostasis of the Logos. The humanity of Christ exists in the divine hypostasis of the Son of God. Thus a crucial asymmetry is introduced into Damascene's Christology which we have already found in his Dialectica.

In short, I propose that at the heart of John Damascene's Christology there lies the theologoumenon that the humanity of Christ has no hypostasis of its own, since it is taken up by the hypostasis of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, and exists in it. In order to denote this in-existence of the human nature, the term [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is explicitly used by Damascene. Especially when it is combined with such formulae as [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the prefix [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]- in the compound adjective has a localizing sense, wherefore [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] may legitimately be translated as `in-existent'.(101)

I have argued that in the controversy over the Christology of Chalcedon, John of Caesarea introduces the term enhypostatos in order to rebut the miaphysite charge that because of the principle that there is no nature without a hypostasis, i.e. a concrete individual, a doctrine of two natures implies two hypostases and persons and thus is nothing else than Nestorianism in disguise. While enhypostatos is indeed used by John in the sense of `existing, real', it connotes that the common nature or substance exists as individualized in the hypostasis or prosopon. Applied to Christology, this means that the two natures of Christ have their existence in one and the same hypostasis, namely that of the Son of God. While the thought of Leontius of Jerusalem is indebted to John of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, by contrast, is rather reluctant about the use of enhypostatos in Christology and does not endorse the notion of the humanity's in-existence in the Logos. This impression is confirmed by Leontius' early interpreter and close follower, Pamphilus. A quite different conception of anhypostatos and enhypostatos is developed in the late sixth-century treatise De Sectis, yet it is wholly unsatisfactory for Christology, since it does obviously not account for the eternity of the divine Logos, as is evident from John Damascene's reworking of it. A major step towards a formulated doctrine of the humanity's subsisting in the hypostasis of the Logos is taken by the Chalcedonian patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch in the late sixth century. But it is John of Damascus, who, by restating the Christology of Chalcedon, explicates the theologoumenon that as a result of the incarnation the ensouled flesh of Christ is taken up by the hypostasis of the Son of God and exists in it as enhypostatos.

Are there any indications that the formulation of this specific christological doctrine by the orthodox Protestants of the seventeenth century was stimulated by a reception of Damascene's writings? It is a well-established fact that both Renaissance Humanism and the Reformation saw a rise in patristic studies, which was not only due to a humanist appreciation of vetustas, but also served for apologetic purposes on both the Catholics' and the Reformers' sides. The rise of print facilitated the publication of the Church Fathers' works and made them widely available;(102) thus John Damascene's II [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] was published in a Latin translation from 1507 onwards by Faber Stapulensis, and the first complete edition in Latin, partly with the Greek text, was edited by Billius in 1577. In 1712 Lequien accomplished his Greek edition which is the basis of the Migne text.(103) We know that Zwingli, when still a Catholic, had his own copy of the Latin translation of the Expositio fidei which he read thoroughly and filled amply with glosses, thereby showing particular interest for its long christological passages; notably, the Reformer Zwingli kept Damascene in good memory.(104) The Lutheran divine Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) in his posthumous Patrologia (a term probably coined by him(105) of 1653 has a fairly exhaustive list of Damascene's works(106) published in Greek and Latin. Thus it is not surprising to find that Wittenberg divines Calov, Quenstedt and Hollaz, the pillars of Lutheran orthodoxy, explicitly refer to Damascene in their discussion of the anhypostasis of Christ's human nature. Calov's own account is obviously dependent on the more detailed one of the Reformed theologian Johann Heinrich Alting (1583-1644), professor in Heidelberg and later in Groningen.(107) Whereas Calov does apparently not mention the term anhypostasis,(108) we find it defined as `carentia propriae subsistentiae' in Quenstedt; in a note the latter adds immediately afterwards, he refers to John of Damascus, whose use of the anhypostatos and enhypostatos he nonetheless regards as somewhat ambiguous, when he remarks that the former expression is used for things which simply do not exist, the latter for things which either exist per se or inhere in another thing, such as an accident in a subject; in the case of the humanity's in-existence in the hypostasis of the Logos it is different:

Hic autem [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] est, quod per se and secundum propriam personalitatem non subsistit, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]I vero, quod in alio subsistit, and alterius hypostaseos particeps factum est. Quando ergo Humana Natura Christi dicitur [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], non aliud significatur, quam quod non per se, and secundum seipsam in propria personalitate subsistat, [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] autem dicitur, quia alienae [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] particeps facta est, & in [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] subsistit.(109)

Later, however, Quenstedt takes Damascene's Expositio fidei III 9 as a locus classicus for the doctrine of the subsistence of Christ's human nature [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(110) Hollaz, on the other hand, while following his predecessor at the cathedra Lutheri in the latter's definition of anhypostasia, is very straightforward about the patristic origin of the doctrine of the humanity's in-existence in the Logos:

Particeps facta est caro Christi diuinae subsistentiae .... Ad denominationem; ut inde non dicatur quidem [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ut loquitur DAMASCEVUS L. III. de O. F. c. II., subsistens in Filio Dei, adeoque non persona, sed personata, qua voce utitur commentator Damasceni.(111)

To conclude, it is evident that the Protestant divines of the seventeenth century drew upon John of Damascus when they conceived of Christ's human nature as anhypostatos, i.e. lacking a hypostasis of its own, and enhypostatos, i.e. subsisting in the Logos as the second person of the Trinity. I have argued that their reading of Damascene is indeed legitimate and that there is a warrant in the patritic tradition for this theologoumenon,(112) though not in Leontius of Byzantium as was taken for granted until resently under the influence of Loofs' misinterpretation. The doctrine -- though certainly not the technical formula -- of the humanity's enhypostasis in the Logos has its origins in the sixth century (and may have been current among some Chalcedonians, as the report in the Epilyseis of Leontius of Byzantium indicates). It is this patristic tradition of christological thought which is endorsed by Barth when he makes the `anhypostatic-enhypostatic model' the central paradigm of his theology. Barth's central point of reference, both in the Gottingen Dogmatics and in the Church Dogmatics, is the Christology of Protestant orthodoxy(113) which, as I suggest, is indebted to John of Damascus, who was not only a compiler of a yet older patristic tradition, but also archieved an original synthesis in which the Chalcedonian Christology of two natures in one hypostasis was combined with the radical asymmetry of the hypostatic union of the divine and the human nature in the hypostasis of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity(*).(114)

(1) F. LeRon Shults, `A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth', Theological Studies 57 (1996), 431-46.

(2) B. L. MacCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology. Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford, 1995), p. 367.

(3) Cf. op. cit., pp. 21 f. and passim.

(4) Cf. op. cit., pp. 361 f.

(5) H. Schmid, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (Erlangen, 1843); H. Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (Elberfeld, 1861); cf. MacCormack, op. cit., pp. 327 and 362.

(6) F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz und die gleichnamigen Schriftsteller der griechischen Kirche (TU III/1-2) (Leipzig, 1887).

(7) Cf. B. E. Daley, `"A Richer Union": Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ', in Studia Patristica 24 (Leuven, 1993), PP. 239-65; and already his `master theme' at the 1979 Oxford Patristics Conference `The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium: Personalism or Dialectics?' I am grateful to Fr. Daley for sending me a copy of this unpublished paper.

(8) LeRon Shults, art. cit., 431. In [438.sub.24], however, he allows for one possible exception in the case of a passage from John Damascene's Expositio fidei III 3 which could imply a `subsisting in another'. This trace will be taken up below.

(9) There is a reference in the Alexandrian lexicographer Hesychius (probably fifth century): [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, [Alpha] 8112: K. Latte (ed.), I, 274.

(10) The earliest occurrence seems to be in the Commentarius in Pauli apostoli epistolam ad Romanos by the Lutheran divine Friedrich Balduin (1575-1627) of Wittenberg, dating from 1611: Vera [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] seu doctrina de Christo continetur [Romans 8] v. 3.4, according to T. Mahlmann, `Christologie', in J. Ritter et al. (eds.), Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie I (Darmstadt, 1971), pp. 1016 f.

(11) Cf. K. Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics. Instruction in the Christian Religion, H. Reiffen (ed.), G. W. Bromiley (trans.), vol. I (Grand Rapids, 1991), pp. 90 and 157, ET of Unterricht in der christlichen Religion. II. Die Lehre von Gott/Die Lehre vom Menschen. 1924/1925, H. Stoevesandt (ed.) (Zurich, 1990).

(12) Id., Kirchliche Dogmatik I/2 (Zollikon, 1938), pp. 178-80=ET Church Dogmatics I/2, trans. G. T. Thomson and H. Knight (Edinburgh, 1956), pp. 163-165. Intriguingly, as a proof-text for the actual doctrine Barth cites Hippolytus, Contra haer. Noeti 15: PG 10, 824D-825A: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

(13) Cf. Op. Cit. IV/2 (Zollikon/Zurich, 1955), pp. 52 f., 100=ET IV/2, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh, 1958), pp. 49 f., 91.

(14) Cf. Daley, The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, 2.

(15) Cf. LSJ, s.v.

(16) D. Ross, Aristotle. De Anima (Oxford, 1961), ad loc., where he refers to R. D. Hicks, Aristotle. De Anima (Cambridge 1907), ad loc. Cf. also LSJ, s.v.

(17) Philoponus, In Phys. II.1: CAG XVI, 205. 18-20, in the translation of A. R. Lacey, Philoponus. On Aristotle Physics 2 (London, 1993), 19 (lightly altered).

(18) Op. cit., I.1: 4.19 f.

(19) Aselepius, In Metaph.: CAG VI/2, 363.17-19.

(20) Hesychi Alexandrini Lexicon, v 893: ed. M. Schmidt, IV, 222; Suida v 715.1: ed. A. Adler, IV, 686.

(21) Cf. Lampe, GPL, s.v.

(22) Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 72.11: ed. K. Holl, III, 266-4 f.: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

(23) Jerome, Ep. 5, 3: CSEL 54, 65: si quis tres hypostases ut tria [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], hoc est tres subsistentes personas, non confitetur, anathema sit. Cf. A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2 (Freiburg i. Br., 1989), pp. 63-66=ET Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, trans. J. Cawte and P. Allen (London/Louisville, Kentucky, 1995), pp. 61-63.

(24) John Chrysostom, In Iohannem, hom. 4: PG 59, 47. Notably, this passage becomes one of the proof-texts for the claim of the tritheists of the sixth century that the Fathers already used the term `ousia' for each of the three divine persons in the sense of an individual, particular substance. Cf. A. van Roey/P. Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (OLA 56) (Leuven, 1994), pp. 127, 134, 232 f.

(25) Cyril, Thesaurus de Trinitate VIII: PG 75, 101D. This text has already been pointed out by Daley, The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, 16. For a comprehensive account of the use of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the Cyril's trinitarian theology cf. M.-O. Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1994), pp. 292-94 and 420. Similar also the fourth-century(?) Ps.-Justin Martyr, Quaestiones Graecorum ad Christianos 3.1: PG 6, 1432D.

(26) Collectio Sabbaitica VIII, Ep. Felicis altera: ACO III, 21.12-16, cf. 17-21. 29 f.

(27) Similar to Dionysius of Rome, Ep. ad Dion. episc. Alex: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [Tau][Omega] [Theta][[Epsilon][Omega] [i.e. the Father!] [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. ap. Athan., De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 26.3: H. G. Opitz (ed.), Athanasius Werke II/i (Berlin-Leipzig, 1935), 22.9 f. Notably, this text is also quoted in Severus of Antioch, C. Imp. Gr., Or. III, 28: CSCO 101 [102], 84.27-29 [60.34-36].

(28) ... [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tubingen, 1904), [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

(29) [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1.20: PG 26, 1128B.

(30) John of Caesarea, Apologia Concilii Chalcedonensis. Excerpta Graeca: CCG 1, 51.82-84; cf. Severus, Or. 2 ad Nephalium: CSCO 119 [120], 16.11-15 [13-1-5]; Hom. LVIII: PO 8, 225; Philoxenus of Mabbug, Lettre aux moines de Senoun: CSCO 231 [232], 11 f. [9 f.]; and already Timothy Aelurus, cf. J. Lebon, `La christologie de Timothee Aelure, archeveque monophysite d'Alexandrie d'apres les sources syriaques inedites', in Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 9 (1908), pp. 677-702, here 693.

(31) Cf. John of Caesarea, op. cit.: 52-94-114 and 53.118-21, which is also extant in the Syriac version of Severus, C. Imp. Gramm. 11.17: CSCO III, 150-29-151.2.

(32) In his Ep. ad Afros 4: PG 26, 1036B: `H [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

(33) John of Caesarea, op. cit. 55.200-56.211.

(34) As e.g. in Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 236,6: ed. Courtonne III, 53.

(35) John of Caesarea, op. cit. 55-205-56.208.

(36) Op. cit.: 57.259-61.

(37) L. R. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters (Oxford, 1983), 86.24 f., cf. 88.1-3.

(38) ACO I.5.1, 222.1 f. and passim.

(39) This is a point also conceded by Grillmeier, op. cit., 2/2, 69 = ET 67.

(40) [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] John of Caesarea, op. cit., 55.180-84.

(41) Id., Capitula XVII contra Monophysitas: CCG 1, 64.107-10, cf. 122-24.

(42) [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Manichaeos Homilia I: CCG 1, 85.40-86.43, cf. 89.165-68.

(43) Cf. M. Richard, `Leonce de Jerusalem et Leonce de Byzance', in Melanges de Science Religieuse I (1944), 35-88 (= id., Opera Minora (Turnhout-Leuven, 1976 f.), III, n. 59), here 62 f.

(44) The quotations from his Nestorian opponent have been identified by L. Abramowski, `Ein nestorianischer Traktat bei Leontius von Jerusalem', in III. Symposium Syriacum 1980 (OCA 221) (Rome, 1983), pp. 43-55.

(45) Leontius of Jerusalem, Adversus Nestorianos II.13: 1560B.

(46) Cf. op. cit. II.5: 1540CD; II.10: 1556A; II. 13: 1561C.

(47) Op. cit. II.13: 1561C.

(48) Cf. op. cit. II.13: 1561B.

(49) Cf. the references cited in n. 7.

(50) Leontius of Byzantium, Epilyseis: PG 86, 1944C.

(51) Cf. Daley, The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, 18 f.

(52) Ed. J. H. Declerck in the Diversorum Postchalcedonensium Auctorum Collectanea I: CCG 19 (Turnhout-Leuven, 1989), pp. 127-261.

(53) Cf. Elias of Nisibis, Opus Chronologicum. Pars Prior, ed. E. W. Brooks, CSCO 62 [63] (Paris, 1910), P. 121 [59].

(54) Cf. M. Richard, 'Leonce et Pamphile', in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 27 (1938), 27-52 (= Opera minora III, n. 58), here 52, and id., `La lettre de Theodoret a Jean d'Egees, in Les Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 2 (1941-42), 415-23 (=Opera minora II, n. 48), here 421, (second half of the sixth century).

(55) Cf. id., 'Les 'Chapitres a Epiphane sur les heresies' de Georges Hieromoine ([VII.sup.e] siecle)', in [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 25 (1955), 331-62 (= Opera minora III, n. 61), here 346, and id. ([dagger]), `Notes additionelles a Leonce et Pamphile', in Opera minora III, Appendice, I-III, here III.

(56) J. P. Junglas, Leontius von Byzanz. Studien zu seinen Schriften, Quellen und Anschauungen (Paderborn, 1908), pp. 57 ff.

(57) Cf. Richard, `Leonce et Pamphile', passim.

(58) Daley, The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, 18. This is actually the view of Junglas, op. cit., p. 88. Cf. also A. Grillmeier, `Die anthropologisch-christologische Sprache des Leontius von Byzanz und ihre Beziehung zu den Symmikta Zetemata des Neuplatonikers Porphyrius', in H. Eisenberger (ed.), `EPMHNEYMATA. Festschrift Hadwig Horner (Heidelberg, 1990), pp. 61-72, here 68 f.

(59) Pamphilus, Solutio VII, 9-23:173 f.

(60) Interestingly, Maximus Confessor quotes from the same passage in Leontius of Byzantium; starting, however, from the etymology [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], he exactly reverts the sense of terminology in Leontius and can -- mutatis mutandis -- even be said to have anticipated the Loofsian misreading when he adds: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Opuscula theologica et polemica: PG 91,261AB.

(61) Cf. CNE: PG 86, 1277CD and 1280D.

(62) Cf. Pamphilus, op. cit. VII, 32-40: 174.

(63) Cf. op. cit. VII, 77-88: 176 and X, 116 f.: 200.

(64) Cf. op. cit. II, 132-40: 140.

(65) Leontius of Byzantium, CNE: PG 86, 1276A.

(66) Cf. Richard, `Leonce et Pamphile', 38, and J. H. Declerck, `Encore une fois Leonce et Pamphile', in A. Schoors/P. van Deun (eds.), Philohistor. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii, (OLA 60) (Leuven, 1994), pp 199-216, here 199, 206 f. and 209.

(67) Pace M. van Esbroeck, `La date et l'auteur du De sectis attribue a Leonce de Byzance', in C. Laga, J. A. Munitiz, L. van Rompay (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday (OLA 18) (Leuven, 1985), pp. 415-24.

(68) De Sectis VII.2: PG 86,1240C-1241A.

(69) Op. cit.: 1241AB.

(70) Cf. M. Richard, `Le traite "De Sectis" et Leonce de Byzance', in Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 35 (1939), 695-723 (=Opera minora II, n. 55), 704.

(71) Cf. De Sectis VII.2: 1241B: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

(72) Notably, when the author of the Doctrina Patrum quotes from De Sectis 1240C-1241D (ed. F. Diekamp, 191.20-193.12), he deliberately alters the text in order to bring it into agreement with the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, as Richard, art. cit., 715 ff., has shown convincingly.

(73) K. H. Uthemann (ed.), `Des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien Jerusalemer Streitgesprach mit einem Tritheiten', in Traditio 37 (1983), 73-108.

(74) Op. cit., 98 (1.621-27).

(75) Op. cit., 99 (1.635-44).

(76) E.g. Adversus Nestorianos 11.13: PG 86,1561B.

(77) Dialogue: Uthemann, 103 (ll. 779-81).

(78) Op. cit., 104 (l. 795 f.).

(79) [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], op. cit., 104 (ll. 798-800).

(80) Cf. B. Kotter ([dagger]), `Johannes von Damaskus', in TRE 17 (1988), 127-32.

(81) John of Damascus, Dialectica. fus. 30.1-11: ed. Kotter 1, 93; cf. fus. 46.1-4: I,110.

(82) Id., Dialectica. fus. 45.1-7: I, 109 f.; cf. Dialectica. brev. "Er. kappa epsilon phi. 119-30: I,146.

(83) Op. cit. fus. 45.17-22: I,110.

(84) Id., Expositio fidei 53.14-18 (III 9): ed. Kotter II, 128.

(85) `Denn nicht fur sich existirend ist geworden das Fleisch des Logos, noch ist es eine eigene Hypostase geworden ausser der des Logos; sondern in dieser geworden ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) ist sie ihr inexistent ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) vielmehr und nicht fur sich eine selbststandige Hypostase ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), wesswegen es auch nicht existenz- oder personlos ([GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) ist und keine andere Hypostase in die Trias bringt', J. Bach, Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christologischen Standpunkte oder Die mittelalterliche Christologie vom achten bis sechzehnten Jahrhundert. I. Theil: Die werdende Scholastik (Wien, 1873), 58.

(86) Cf. Daley, The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium, 17. Cf. also LeRon Shults, art. cit., [438.sub.24], who admits that this passage might be considered a `locus (the only other likely patristic locus besides Leontius that I know of) for the Protestant Scholastic misreading of the terms'.

(87) CNE: PG 86, 1277D, quoted in Contra Jacobitas 11.1-5: ed. Kotter IV, 114.

(88) Cf. Maximus Confessor, who defines [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Opusc. theol. et polem.: PG 91,261A, and explains: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], op. cit.: 149BC, cf. 152D-153A; and Ep. 15: Doctrina Patrum 137.4-7. 10-15.

(89) Leontius' own example from CNE: PG 86,1304C.

(90) John of Damascus, Contra Jacobitas 11.6-12: ed. Kotter IV, 114.

(91) Op. cit. 79.10-14: IV, 136.

(92) Uthemann, art. cit., 104 (l.795 f.) and 103 (l. 779-81).

(93) Cf. John of Damascus, De Fide contra Nestorianos 6: ed. Kotter IV, 239; cf. J. Bilz, Die Trinitatslehre des hl.Johannes von Damaskus (Paderborn, 1909), pp. 21 f.

(94) Cf. above n. 26.

(95) Id., Contra Nestorianos 43.24-44: ed. Kotter IV, 287; cf. De duabus in Christo voluntaribus 3.14-17: ed. Kotter IV, 176: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Prov 8:30).

(96) Id., Ep. de hymno trisagio 8.20-25: ed. Kotter IV, 315; cf. Sermo in sabbatum sanctum 4.1-18: ed. Kotter V, 123.

(97) Cf. id., Contra Jacobitas 12.4-6: ed. Kotter IV, 115.

(98) The problem of dating Damascene's writings is evident from the cautious remarks of the late Benedictine Father Bonifatius Kotter in his critical edition.

(99) Id., De Natura Composita contra Acephalos 6.1-15: ed. Kotter IV, 413 f.; cf. already Bach, 52 ff.

(100) Similarly in Contra Jacobitas 12.8-11: ed. Kotter IV, 115.

(101) Thus I agree with K. Rozemond, La Christologie de Saint Jean Damascene (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 8) (Ettal, 1959), pp. 18 ff., who sees in `la notion de l'enhypostasie ... la base terminologique de la christologie' (op. cit., p. 22); though she is wrong in tracing the origin of both the doctrine and the formula back to Leontius of Byzantium.

(102) Cf. Wagenmann, `Patristik', in [RE.sup.2] II (1883), 300-309; E. Muhlenberg, `Patristik', in TRE 26 (1996), 97-106; L. Grane/A. Schindler/M. Wriedt (eds.), Auctoritas Patrum. Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 25th and 16th Century (Mainz, 1993).

(103) Cf. Kotter, art. cit., 130.

(104) Cf. A. Schindler, `Zwingli als Leser von Johannes Damascenus', in Auctoritas Patrum, 185-95.

(105) M. Honecker, `Gerhard, Johann', in TRE 12 (1984), 448-53, here 44-9.

(106) J. Gerhard, Patrologia sive De Primitivae Ecclesiae Christianae Doctorum Vita ac Lucubrationibus Opusculum posthumum (Jena, 1653), pp. 496-500.

(107) Calov refers to Alting's Theologia problematica nova, sive Systema problematum theologicorum (Amsterdam, 1662), Cf. here XII, 563 and 575-80. Another Reformed divine who endorses this understanding of anhypostatos and enhypostatos is F. Turrettin (1662-87) of Geneva, cf. his Institutio theologiae elencticae XIII 6, 5 (1st. edn. 1679-85). For this reference I am indebted to E. P. Meijering, Reformierte Scholastik undpatristische Theologie (Nieuwkoop, 1991), p. 326.

(108) Cf. A. Calov, Systema locorum theologicorum t. VIII (Wittenberg, 1677), art. III, c.I, q.i, 205-9.

(109) J. A. Quenstedt, Theologia didacto-polemica, sive systema theologicum, in duas sectiones, didacticam et polemicam, divisum (Wittenberg, 1691), p. III, c. III, m. I, s. I., [Theta][epsilon][Sigma][iota][sigma] XIII, 77.

(110) Op. cit., s. II, q. IV, "E[Kappa][Theta][Epsilon][Sigma][Iota][Sigma] 135.

(111) D. Hollaz, Examen theologicum acroamaticum, denuo edidit et auxit R. Tellerus (Stockholm/Leipzig, 750), p. III, s. I, c. III, q. XXII obs. II, 669.

(112) Cf. also the historical and systematic study of A. van de Beek, De menselijke persoon van Christus. Een onderzoek aangaande de gedachte van de anhypostasie van de menselijke natuur van Christus, (doctorate thesis Leiden, 1980). His argument is based on an analysis of texts from Hippolytus, Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius of Byzantium, Justinian and the Councils of 431 and 553.

(113) Except for two explicit references to Hippolytus and John Damascene in the Church Dogmatics, Barth usually cites orthodox Protestant divines for the doctrine of anhypostasis and enhypostasis, cf. E. P. Meijering, Von den Kirchenvatern zu Karl Barth. Das altkirchliche Dogma in der `Kirchlichen Dogmatik' (Amsterdam, 1993), pp. 126, 151 and 355.

(114) Thus the strongly negative answer to the question whether Damascene was an original theologian given by B. Studer, Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 2) (Ettal, 1956), appears overstated. Cf. already the careful remarks in the review by E. von Ivinka in Byzantinische Studien 56 (1957), 454-56. A well-balanced estimation is set out by Kotter, art. Cit., 129: `Johannes ist vorwiegend Kompilator .... Er erweist sich darin nicht als originaler Denker, wohl aber als der originalste Mosaizist innerhalb der Kunst der Theologie (Beck). ... Gleichwohl zeigt Johannes in den Bilderreden und an nicht wenigen Stellen gerade der kleineren theologischen Abhandlungen eigenstandiges Denken.'

(*) I am very grateful to Professor Michael Frede for his most stimulating criticism of this paper.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	Lang, U.M.
Publication:	The Journal of Theological Studies
Date:	Oct 1, 1998
Words:	12764
Previous Article:	What Papias said about John (and Luke): a 'new' Papian fragment.
Next Article:	Did Origen apply the word 'homoousios' to the Son?
Topics:	Church fathers Criticism and interpretation Divinity of Christ Fathers of the church Criticism and interpretation Protestant theology Analysis Theology, Protestant Analysis