Enhypostaton: Being “in Another” or Being “with Another”?—How Chalcedonian Theologians of the Sixth Century defined the Ontological Status of Christ’s Human Nature

in Vigiliae Christianae
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article focuses on the term enhypostaton. It makes the case that this term was originally coined in order to express three modes of being: “by itself”, “with another” and “in another”. The first and third of these modes could not explain the status of the flesh as a nature, which does not have a hypostasis of its own, since they denoted full-blown hypostases and mere accidents. By contrast, the second mode was tailored to the specific case of the human being where soul and body as complete natures come together to form a single hypostasis, which had traditionally served as a paradigm for the incarnation.

Enhypostaton: Being “in Another” or Being “with Another”?—How Chalcedonian Theologians of the Sixth Century defined the Ontological Status of Christ’s Human Nature

in Vigiliae Christianae

Sections

References

17

Cf. e.g. D. Krausmüller“Aristotelianism” 151-64.

21

Cf. GleedeDevelopment146.

22

Cf. GleedeDevelopment144-45.

35

Cf. GleedeDevelopment174-81.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 6
Full Text Views 128 128 62
PDF Downloads 6 6 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0