The Rise of the Classical Theory and the Challenge of Christology

This chapter traces the initial reception of the Cappadocian philosophy. In a first section, two major early fifth-century thinkers, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus, are shown to presuppose all major principles of the Cappadocian theory. A second section argues that this unique position of the three fourth-century thinkers was related to their role as paradigms of Christian education. The remainder of the chapter turns to the Christological controversy. Remarkably, the Cappadocian theory was applied to a wide variety of doctrinal topics but not initially to Christology. Yet this application became universally shared from the early sixth century onwards. The present chapter therefore examines the roots of this later convention. To this end, two distinct phenomena are examined: the Apollinarian controversy of the late fourth century and the emergence of the so-called double homoousion as an increasingly accepted formula suggesting a conceptual parallel between the Trinity and Christology.

The Cappadocians and their Christian Philosophy

This chapter offers an in-depth analysis of the philosophy underlying the teaching of the so-called Cappadocian fathers. After an introductory overview of their historical and intellectual background in the trinitarian controversy of the fourth century, the chapter initially turns to Basil of Caesarea. He introduced a distinctive terminological and conceptual framework to articulate his proposal for a solution to the trinitarian controversy. Philosophically, it is geared towards grammar and logic; it is therefore called the ‘abstract’ dimension of the Cappadocian theory. All three Cappadocians accept this abstract theory. Subsequently, the chapter turns to Gregory of Nyssa who in his cosmological and trinitarian writings develops a corresponding theory geared towards physics and ontology. It will be referred to as the ‘concrete’ dimension of Cappadocian philosophy. These two are conceived as complementary but their difference introduces a conceptual tension into the Cappadocian theory.

Conclusion

The final chapter begins by summarizing the argument of previous parts of the book. It reiterates how the conceptual demands of Christology were in tension with the tenets of Cappadocian philosophy. Yet as the latter had firmly become part of the intellectual tradition among the later Fathers, this tension was not resolved by abandoning the terms and concepts of the Cappadocian theory. Instead, individual authors sought to rework it in order to make it conducive to the specific challenges of the Christological controversy. A second part of the chapter moves from the technicalities of the Patristic debates to the larger philosophical issues hidden in them. Especially, the problem of historical individuality is identified as gaining increasing centrality. A third and final part sketches some trajectories on which Patristic philosophy was passed on to posterity in Byzantium, in Islamic thought, in the Western Middle Ages, and in early modern religious thought.

The Climax of Chalcedonian Philosophy

This chapter discusses the philosophical contributions of Maximus Confessor and John of Damascus. Confronted with dramatic political and cultural ruptures, they both produced remarkable philosophical syntheses. Both emerge from this analysis as representatives of Chalcedonian philosophy but in rather different ways. Maximus represents the most radical attempt to return to the spirit of the original Cappadocian theory. He leaves largely unaddressed the conceptual conundrums that caused the various philosophical innovations among his immediate predecessors and instead sought to develop a system on Cappadocian foundations, read through the spectacles of ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite. The Damascene, by contrast, is a more natural end-point of the transformation of Cappadocian philosophy in the service of Christology. His thought is radically centred on the concept of hypostasis as pure existence and, as such, the ontological basis of all other being. In John of Damascus, Patristic philosophy comes close to introducing a duality of essence and existence.

From the Council of Constantinople to the Monenergist Controversy

In this chapter, a range of Chalcedonian thinkers is discussed. They all are historically obscure but probably flourished between the Council of 553 and the monenergist controversy beginning in the 730s. All these individuals, Pamphilus the Theologian, Theodore of Raïthu, and Leontius of Jerusalem find themselves confronted with the need to adapt inherited philosophical principles to respond to the twin challenge of the advanced Christological controversy and the new threat of tritheism. As a result, they show surprising willingness to innovate. Pamphilus and Theodore closely follow Leontius of Byzantium in making the substance central at the level of the individual too. By contrast, Leontius of Jerusalem reconstructs Cappadocian philosophy largely as a philosophy of the hypostasis. The chapter also discusses a fascinating anonymous text of Patristic philosophy, contained in Codex Coislin 387. While the contextualization and interpretation of all these texts poses major difficulties, they are remarkable for their intellectual creativity and inventiveness.

Laying the Foundations

This chapter turns to the Chalcedonian side of the debate. At its centre are two individuals who in different ways set out the case for the use of Cappadocian philosophy in the service of the Chalcedonian cause. John the Grammarian seems to have been the first to suggest that the classical, Cappadocian theory could be applied to Christology. He considered the two natures of Jesus Christ as universal divinity and humanity. Of those, humanity only existed as realized through insubsistence in the hypostasis of the Logos. Leontius of Byzantium shared the Grammarian’s intuition that the language of Cappadocian philosophy could underwrite Chalcedonian Christology, but he rejected his asymmetric insubsistence Christology. To explain the presence of the universal nature at the level of hypostasis he influentially introduced the term enhypostaton. Both John and Leontius rely almost exclusively on the abstract dimension of the Cappadocian theory. Thus far they modify it as much as their miaphysite contemporaries do.

John Philoponus

This chapter discusses John Philoponus, the major Christian philosopher of the sixth century. A first section discusses his special position as a Christian philosopher who taught Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy at Alexandria. The account then turns to his contributions to the Christological debate, primarily his Arbiter. This writing advances a remarkably irenic proposal for a new Patristic philosophy that could bring together Chalcedonians and miaphysites. While his introduction of particular natures follows the logic of miaphysitism, Philoponus in other ways adopts positions connected at the time with Chalcedonian thought. The third section of the chapter introduces the tritheistic controversy. This debate indicates for the first time that adaptations applied to the Cappadocian theory in the interest of Christology had consequences for the original trinitarian settlement. Philoponus’ role in the controversy is discussed in detail. Contrary to most scholars’ views, it can be largely explained within the context of Patristic philosophy.

Severus of Antioch

This chapter addresses the transformations of the Cappadocian philosophy introduced by the miaphysite opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. It begins with a critical assessment of a scholarly tradition that saw miaphysite thought as opposed to Cappadocian principles. In reality, all major representatives of this tradition drew on Cappadocian insights although their reception was partial. Central to the chapter is an analysis of Severus of Antioch’s use of Cappadocian philosophy in his controversy with John the Grammarian. It is shown that Severus throughout exploited the concrete dimension of the Cappadocian theory but left the abstract dimension to one side. To explain the ontological continuity between universal natures and their individual manifestations, he came close to introducing particular natures. Ultimately, he recognized the need to adapt the Cappadocian theory in light of the Christological debate but was reluctant to move beyond the terms and concepts he found in the fathers.

Introduction

This chapter provides an overall introduction to the book. It outlines its methodological approach, explains the selection of authors, and sets out the case that will be argued. Central for the approach is the concept of Patristic philosophy meant to stem the traditional dualism of Christian thought and philosophy. Christian writers themselves are thus seen as philosophers. While Christian philosophy in this sense began in the second century, it obtains a distinctive shape at the end of the fourth century through the work of the Cappadocian fathers. The book recounts the history of this uniquely influential, classical theory. It is subsequently received but also modified and transformed. The history must represent the diversity of this development and cannot be restricted to Chalcedonian authors only. The tensions between the needs of the Christological controversy and the inherited Cappadocian theory lead to philosophical innovations that prepare much later developments.

Damian of Alexandria and Peter of Callinicus

This chapter is in its entirety devoted to the debate between the miaphysite Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, Damian and Peter of Callinicus. It is part of the tritheistic controversy. Damian accused Peter of tritheism while the latter thought Damian pandered to the heresy Sabellian. Much of the controversy turned on the interpretation of Cappadocian proof texts. It is therefore an excellent indicator of the extent to which these texts were the foundation of sixth-century debates. Damian identified hypostasis with the particular property. The three hypostases would thus inhere in the single divine substance. Peter objected that the properties were only characteristic of the hypostasis. Neither side was able to propose a plausible reconstruction of Cappadocian philosophy for the needs of the time, but their detailed discussions about universal substance, individual hypostases, properties, and substrates is indicative of the direction Patristic philosophy was taking at the time.