DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0037 BZ 2020; 113(3): 853–878 Dirk Krausmüller When Christologyintersects with embryology: the viewpointsofNestorian, Monophysite and Chalcedonian authorsofthe sixth to tenth centuries Abstract: The notion that the soul comes into existencesimultaneouslywith the bodyatthe moment of conception was originallyintroduced into the Patristic discourse as an alternative to the Origenist notion of apre-existing soul. Yet from the sixth century onwards it was itself regarded as an Origenisttenet. Now it was claimedthat onlythosewho believed the soul to be created after the bodyweretrulyorthodox. The present article examines the links between this development and the Christologicalconversies. Adresse: Dr.Dirk Krausmüller,Gratian-Marx-Str.8/25, 1110 Wien, Österreich; [email protected] In Patristic literature the ensoulment of the embryoisexplainedinthree differ- ent ways:the soul either pre-exists the bodyand enters it at the moment of con- ception (prohyparxis), or comes into being at the moment of conception (synhy- parxis), or appears after the bodyhas been formed (methyparxis). From the late fourth century onwardsthe first option, which had once been proposed by Ori- gen, met with increasingresistence since manyconsidered it to be irreconcilable with the Christian faith. By contrast, the second and third options werewidely regarded as equallyorthodox. Their proponents disagreed but did so without rancour as nothing much was at stake. This situation, however,changed in the middle of the sixth century when two developments took place. On the one hand, not only prohyparxis but also synhyparxis was now widelysuspected This article is partofthe project “Reassessing ninth century philosophy.Asynchronic approach to the logical traditions” (SALT)that hasreceivedfunding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the EuropeanUnion’sHorizon research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. ). 854 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung of being an Origenist position, and on the other hand,the Christological impli- cationsofthe different positions wereseen more clearlythan before. This article makes the case thatNestorians,Monophysites and Chalcedonians chose the op- tion that best fitted their understanding of the incarnation and at the same time allowed the most effective polemic. Accordingly, it does not offer an exhaustive discussion of all evidence regarding the ensoulment of the embryobut deals mainlywith texts wherethe specific case of Christ’sbodyand soul is discussed. The timeframe is between the sixth and the tenth century. The debate is not al- ways continuous and it is not always possibletosituate aparticularstatement in its historical context.Yet comparison of the texts shows thatthe representatives of the different views werecognizant of alternative interpretations.¹ Before delving into the discussion afew words are in order about the terms of the debate. Those who were in favour of prohyparxis borrowed from Platonic phi- losophythe notionofanever-moving and self-moving soul.² The championsof synhyparxis alsoturned to Platobut chose amore selective approach since they onlysought to provethat the soul was fullydeveloped at the moment of concep- tion. Those who defended methyparxis could appeal to Scripture and to Aristotle. In the first casethreeverses playedanimportant role: Genesis 2:7: ‘AndGod formedthe human being as dust from the earth and breathed into his face a breath of life and the human being became aliving soul’ (καὶἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπονχοῦνἀπὸτῆςγῆςκαὶἐνεφύσησενεἰςτὸπρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴνζωῆςκαὶἐγένετο ὁἄνθρωπος εἰςψυχὴνζῶσαν), which seemed to implyatemporal sequence; Exodus 21:22– 23: ‘But when two men fight and hit apregnant woman and her child comes out not yetfigured, he shall be made to paythe penalty,asthe husband of the woman maylay upon him, he shall paywith avaluation, but if it is figured he shall give asoul for asoul’ (ἐὰνδὲμάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσινγυναῖκα ἐνγαστρὶἔχουσαν καὶἐξ- έλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆςμὴἐξεικονισμένον ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται καθότι ἐπι- βάλῃὁἀνὴρτῆςγυναικὸςδώσει μετὰἀξιώματος, ἐὰνδὲἐξεικονισμένον ἦν The debatebetween creatianists and traducianists will not be consideredsinceall authors dis- cussed in this article were creatianists of one stripe or another.See R. Hennings,Disputatio de origine animae (CPL , )orthe victory of creatianism in the fifth century,inE.A.Living- stone (ed.), Studia Patristica .Leuven , –.This does,ofcourse, not mean that therewere no longerany traducianists. See Symeon Stylites (the YoungerofAntioch), Sermo ;ed. A. Mai, NovaPatrum Bibliotheca VIII/.Rome , –,which dates to the later sixth century. Plato, Phaedrus, c–a.See D. Blyth,The ever-movingsoul in Plato’s “Phaedrus”. TheAmerican Journal of Philology (), –,esp. –. D. Krausmüller,When Christology intersects with embryology 855 δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς), which gave the impression as if the embryowas not considered ahuman being before the formation of the bodywas completed; and Zachariah 12:1 ‘Says the Lord … who forms the spirit of ahuman being in him’ (λέγει κύριος … πλάσσων πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου ἐναὐτῷ), which suggested that the soul was createdinanalreadyexistingbody. In the second casethe main point of reference was twotreatises of Aristotle, De anima and De genera- tione animalium. AccordingtoDe anima asequence of souls appears in the human embryo, first the nutritive soul, which is also found in plants and is re- sponsiblefor growth and nutrition, then the sensitive soul, which is alsofound in animalsand is responsible for movement and perception, and lastlythe ra- tional soul, which is onlyfound in human beingsand which appears when the bodyisfullyformed.³ By contrast, De generatione animalium introduces the notion of amind thatcomes from the outside.⁴ Knowledge of these theories was mediated through the commentary tradition whereitwas debated whether or not Aristotle considered the highest faculty to be separable from the body.⁵ Towards the end of the fourth century the bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa composed the treatise De hominis opificio in which he set out his views about the make-up of the human being.⁶ Following Aristotle, he distinguished between anutritive power,asensitive power,and arational power,which appear in sequence in the human embryo. Yetinone point he parted ways with the phi- losopher.Heclaimed that the rational soul was present in the embryofrom the Aristotle, De anima II/, a–b. Aristotle, De generatione animalium II., b. Arguments for inseparability can be found in the writings of the Peripatetic philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias.Bycontrast,Neoplatonic philosophers stressed the independence of the highestfaculty from the body, which allowed them to reconcile the views of Plato and Aristotle. See P. Moreaux, Alexandre d’Aphrodise: exégète de la noétique d’Aristote. Liège/ Paris ;and H.J. Blumenthal,Aristotle and Neoplatonism in lateantiquity:interpretations of De anima. London .Evenmodern historians of philosophyhavenot agreed on the exact meaningofAristotle’sstatements.See C. Shields,Aristotle, De anima, translated with an intro- duction and commentary.Oxford , –;J.M.Rist,NotesonAristotle De anima .. TheClassicalPhilology (), –;L.P.Gerson,The unity of intellect in Aristotle’s “De anima”. Phronesis (), –;and R. Polansky,Aristotle’sDeanima. Cambridge , –. Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio.PG, –.See C. Scholten,Welche Seele hat der Embryo? Johannes Philoponos und die antikeEmbryologie. Vigiliae Christianae (), –,esp. –;A.Meredith,The concept of the mind in Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonists,inE.A.Livingstone (ed.), Studia patristica .Oxford , –; and S. Wessel,The reception of Greek scienceinGregory of Nyssa’s “De hominis opificio”. Vig- iliae Christianae (), –. 856 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung moment of conception and that it regulated the actitivy of the lower faculties, which werenot part of it.⁷ He did not,however,gosofar as to accept the Platonic concept of apre-existent soul, which Origenhad introducedinto the theological discourse.⁸ In the twenty-eighth chapter he dealt with the question in systematic fashion. He maintained that synhyparxis was the golden mean between two dia- metricallyopposite but equallywrong extremes, prohyparxis and methyparxis.⁹ Accordingtohim, those who defendedthe latter theory basedtheir arguments on Genesis 2:7. ¹ ⁰ He rejected their interpretation, arguingthat if the bodycame first the soul would be created for the sake of the bodyand thus have alower ontological status thanit.¹¹ All three positions reappear in the ensuingperiod of Christological contro- versies. Foralong time, however,they werenot aligned with the different camps. Theodoret of Cyrus and Eutherius of Tyanawereboth representatives of the ‘Antiochene school’.¹² In theirwritingsthey emphasised the differencebe- tween the divinity and the humanityofChrist.¹³ Yetthey did not hold the same views about the formation of the human being.Eutherius explained thatthe human being was one ‘because neither part has ahypostasis that precedes with- out the other’ (διὰ τὸ μηδέτερονχωρὶςτοῦἑτέρου προάγουσαν ἔχειν τὴν ὑπόστασιν),¹⁴ whereas Theodoretclaimed ‘that the embryoisensouled when the bodyhas been fullyformed in the womb’ (τοῦ σώματος ἐντῇμήτρᾳ τελείου διαπλασθέντος, τότε ψυχοῦσθαι τὸἔμβρυον), in accordancewith Genesis2:7 and Exodus 21:22.¹⁵ The same observation can be made whenweturn to the Mono- physites. Philoxenus of Mabbugdeclared that the soul was created in the body Gregory of