Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in Christ Hovorun, Serhiy How to cite: Hovorun, Serhiy (2003) Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in Christ, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND WILLS IN CHRIST Serhiy Hovorun Faculty of Theology University of Durham Ph.D. Thesis 2003 ABSTRACT The primary purpose of the thesis is to fill the existing gaps in our understanding of various theological and political aspects of the controversy that took place in both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire in the seventh century the main theological point of which was whether Christ had one or two energeiai and wills. Before coming to any conclusions on this subject, I shall investigate the preliminary forms of Monenergism and Monothelitism i.e., belief in a single energeia and will of Christ, which were incorporated in the major Christological systems developed by Apollinarius of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Severus of Antioch (chapters 1-3). Against this background, it becomes obvious that the Chalcedonian Monenergism and later Monothelitism emerged from the movement of neo- Chalcedonianism. It was an attempt by the political and ecclesiastical authorities to achieve a theological compromise with various non-Chalcedonian groups, mainly Severian, but also 'Nestorian'. Their ultimate goal was to reconcile these groups with the Catholic Church of the Empire (chapter 4). However, this project of reconciliation on the basis of the single-energeia formula was contested by the representatives of the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition and consequently condemned at the Councils of Lateran (649) and Constantinople (680/681). Thus, the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition produced two self-sufficient and antagonistic doctrines. A major concern of the thesis is to expose and compare systematically their doctrinal content per se and in the wider context of the principles of neo-Chalcedonianism (chapter 5). A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND WILLS IN CHRIST Serhiy Hovorun Ph. D. Thesis University of Durham Department of Theology 2003 3 0 SEP ZMk TABLE OF CONTENT Declaration 6 Acknowledgements 7 Introduction 8 1. Four main kinds of Monenergism-Monothelitism 14 2. Pre-Chalcedonian Monenergism-Monothelitism 21 2.1. Apollinarius of Laodicea 21 2.2. Antiochian tradition 26 3. Anti-Chalcedonian Monenergism and Monothelitism 35 3.1. Severus and his disciples-adversaries 35 3.1.1. Monenergism of Severus of Antioch 35 3.1.2. Monothelitism of Severus 48 3.1.3. Julian of Halicarnassus 53 3.1.4. Sergius the Grammarian 56 3.1.5. Conclusions 59 3.2. Theopaschism 61 3.3. A special case of Severan Monenergism: Agnoetes 75 3.4. The refutation of the Agnoetes by the Severans 80 3.4.1. Theodosius of Alexandria 80 3.4.2. Anthimus of Trebizond 84 3.4.3. Colluthus 86 3.4.4. Constantine of Laodicea 87 2 3.5. Monophysite Monenergism on the eve of and during the controversy 89 4. History 93 4.1. Historical premises 93 4.2. Setting up the new doctrine 97 4.3. Alexandrian union 117 4.4. The Ecthesis 128 4.5. Maximus and the West: strategic alliance 134 4.6. The Typos 142 4.7. The Lateran Council 144 4.8. The sixth ecumenical Council 148 4.9. Monothelitism after the Council 156 4.10. Conclusions 160 5. 'Imperial' Monenergism-Monothelitism versus Dyenergism- Dyothelitism 162 5.1. Key notions 162 5.1.1. The oneness of Christ 162 5.1.2. One hypostasis and two natures 164 5.1.3. Natural properties 167 5.1.4. Energeia 171 5.1.4.1. Notion 171 5.1.4.2. 'Anew theandric energeia' 177 3 5.1.4.3. Two energeiai 193 5.1.4.4. Created and uncreated energeiai 198 5.1.5. WUl 200 5.1.5.1. Notion 200 5.1.5.2. One or two wills 203 5.2. Relations between main categories 220 5.2.1. Energeia - One-Who-Acts 220 5.2.2. Will - One-Who-Wills 234 5.2.3. Will-'nous' 242 5.2.4. Energeia - nature 246 5.2.5. Will-nature 254 5.2.6. Energeia - will - natural properties 261 5.2.7. Energeia - will 264 5.3. The Contribution of Anastasius of Sinai 266 5.3.1. Who was Anastasius addressing? 268 5.3.2. Hypostasis - nature -will - energeia 272 5.3.3. Theandric energeia 296 5.3.4. Arguments in favour of two energeiai 299 5.3.4.1. Diversity of activities 300 5.3.4.2. The Connection between energeiai and properties 320 5.3.4.3. Image of Christ 321 5.3.5. Will - energeia - sin 326 4 5.3.6. Fear of Christ 327 5.4. The Monothelitism of the Maronites 335 Conclusion 350 Bibliography 354 5 DECLARATION No part of the material offered in this thesis previously has been submitted for a degree in this or in any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation and information derived from this thesis should be acknowledged. This thesis does not exceed the maximum length allowable by the university. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Andrew Louth. His supervision allows his students to realise their full potential and skills in a unique atmosphere of creative freedom. At the same time they benefit from his immense erudition, which he combines with a special 'patristic' approach to the Fathers of the Church. This is an approach that the Fathers applied themselves. I also feel indebted to my Professors at the University of Athens, Stylianos Papadopoulos and Vlasios Pheidas, who taught me to apply the same approach in my studies of the Fathers. Professor Pheidas also suggested the topic of the thesis and gave initial guidelines. I am especially grateful to Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) as it he who inspired me to continue my education in Britain. I also wish to express gratitude to Dr. Sebastian Brock for his elucidating explanation concerning the transmission of the text of ps-Dionysius into the Syriac tradition; to Dr. Richard Sorabji for his invaluable suggestions concerning the philosophical background of the controversy; to Irina Kukota who helped me gain access to some books and to read a Syriac manuscript; and to Magnus Wheeler and Jackie Keirs who undertook strenuous task of proofreading this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank the Aid to the Church in Need, St Andrew's Trust and particularly its former director Daryl Hardman, and the Church Mission Society for their financial assistance during my research. Without their support, this thesis would have never been written. INTRODUCTION The controversy concerning energeiai and wills in Christ was for a long time understudied. It remained a subject of interest for a few scholars only who touched on it occasionally, often in the context of other problems.1 Only recently a series of researches appeared which dramatically widened our understanding of the controversy in its various aspects. First, a series of critically edited sources on the theology of the seventh century endowed the scholarship with powerful tools of research. Among the most important of these were the acts of the Lateran (649) and Constantinopolitan (680/681) Councils edited by Rudolf Riedinger2, the works of Maximus the Confessor that have been published so far in the series Corpus 1 See Werner Elert, Wilhelm Maurer, and Elisabeth Bergstrasser. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie: eine Untersuchung iiber Theodor von Pharan und seine Zeit als Einfiihrung in die alte Dogmengeschichte. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957; Siegfried Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes. Bonn: [s.n.], 1962. 2 Rudolf Riedinger. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Series Secunda; 1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1984 (henceforth ACCh I); Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones I-Xl, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Series Secunda; 2,1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1990 (henceforth ACO2 II1); Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones XII-XVIH, Epistulae, Indices, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Series Secunda; V. 2,2. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1992 (henceforth ACO2 IP). The same scholar published a series of materials related to the text of the acts and the history of the Councils: 'Die Lateranakten von 649: ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes.' Byzantina 13. (Dorema ston I. Karagiannopoulo) (1985); Die Prasenz- und Subskriptionslisten des VI. Oekumenischen Konzils (680/81) und der Papyrus Vind. G.3, Abhandlungen/Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; n.F., Heft 85. Munchen: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: In Kommission bei C.H. Beck, 1979; Lateinische Ubersetzungen griechischer Haretikertexte des siebenten Jahrhunderts, Sitzungsberichte/Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.