Institute of Sociology
of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Shchukin T., Nogovitsin O. Difficulties in Particular: Theological and Historical Context of the Anonymous Treatise On the Common Nature and the Trinity. Scrinium Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography, 2019, Vol. 15, pp. 238-258.



Shchukin T., Nogovitsin O. Difficulties in Particular: Theological and Historical Context of the Anonymous Treatise On the Common Nature and the Trinity. Scrinium Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography, 2019, Vol. 15, pp. 238-258.
ISSN 1817-7565
DOI 10.1163/18177565-00151P15

Posted on site: 02.10.19

URL: https://brill.com/view/journals/scri/15/1/article-p218_15.xml ( 02.10.2019)


Abstract

The anti-Monophysitic anonymous treatise On the common nature and the Trinity was written in the 550560s for the educational purposes in philosophy and theology. Therefore, its content was perceived in those days as something certainly traditional. It reflects theological discussions of its time, thus making feel the degree of complication of the current theological situation and the extent of mutual comprehension between the rival parties. The anonymous author normally keeps himself within the conceptual language of the late Neoplatonism, especially the school of Ammonius of Alexandria known by its interest to peripatetic instruments. The author himself is a Chalcedonian. When rejecting both Nestorian and Severian Christologies, he claims that the human nature became a constitutive element of the hypostasis of Christ (consisting of two common natures) and by no means an independent hypostasis. There are some similarities with the teaching of Leontius of Byzantiums Against the Nestorians and the Eutychians and Solution of the Syllogisms of Severus, whereas the present author is much more succinct, and his exposition is simplified. For instance, unlike Leontius of Byzantium, he does not distinguish the contexts, where the notions of nature and substance could be used differently; he does not state explicitly that the human nature within the hypostasis of Christ is the common nature and not a particular nature. The latter term is used but never explained. The treatise is a curious witness of the relevance of an intra-Monophysite controversy for Chalcedonites.

:

..,