 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
Preview first page |
Document Details : Title: 'Der Herr der Herrlichkeit wurde gekreuzigt' Subtitle: Theopaschitische Sprache in Augustinus' Christologie im Kontext spätantiker Christologien Author(s): JANSSEN, David Burkhart Journal: Augustiniana Volume: 75 Issue: 1 Date: 2025 Pages: 111-136 DOI: 10.2143/AUG.75.1.3294281 Abstract : During the 6th century, a group of Scythian monks promoted a 'theopaschitic' Christology while interpreting Chalcedon. In support of their 'theopaschitic' Christology they employed Augustine as one of their main sources. This article argues that the later 'theopaschitic' language (such as Deus passus/crucifixus) was already a central facet of Augustine’s Christology. With these terms, Augustine primarily defended his trinitarian doctrine against Arianism while arguing that scriptural assertions in regard to the incarnation also approve the divinity of Christ. Moreover, Augustine employed 'theopaschitic' terminology (together with assumption-terminology) to emphasise the unity of Christ and his person (unitas personae). With this 'theopaschitic' language, Augustine radically focused on the kenosis of the Son, thus, he emphasised that Christ was God himself who (newly) created and assumed a human. Thus, with the use of 'theopaschitic' language, Augustine focused on the radical divine self-identification with humanity. In this regard, his 'theopaschitic' Christology has points of commonality with his soteriological theology of the cross: both approaches claim that God (in Christ) is operating grace without independent human cooperation. Augustine’s use of 'theopaschitic' Christology is primarily based on the Latin tradition, which he extended in regard to soteriology and the idea of Christ as unitas personae. However, due to his simultaneous use of 'theopaschitic' and assumption-terminology, Augustine’s Christology could be regarded as a middle course and/or alternative to the main positions during the Christological controversy. In regard to the 'theopaschitic' language, Augustine’s Christology even differs from Leo’s approach substantially. |
|
