https://ebookmass.com/product/communicatio-idiomatumreformation-christological-debates-richard-cross/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century
Richard Cross
https://ebookmass.com/product/christology-and-metaphysics-in-theseventeenth-century-richard-cross/
ebookmass.com
Rethinking Cybercrime: Critical Debates Tim Owen
https://ebookmass.com/product/rethinking-cybercrime-critical-debatestim-owen/
ebookmass.com
Theandric and Triune: John Owen and Christological Agency
Ty Kieser
https://ebookmass.com/product/theandric-and-triune-john-owen-andchristological-agency-ty-kieser/
ebookmass.com
Anxiety Samir Chopra
https://ebookmass.com/product/anxiety-samir-chopra/
ebookmass.com
The Perfect Heir: A Dark Romanian Mafia Romance (The Lupu Chronicles Book 4) Monique Moreau
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-perfect-heir-a-dark-romanian-mafiaromance-the-lupu-chronicles-book-4-monique-moreau/
ebookmass.com
Physique 3 ondes opt. 5e benson 5th Edition Harris Benson https://ebookmass.com/product/physique-3-ondes-opt-5e-benson-5thedition-harris-benson/
ebookmass.com
Problems from Philosophy 3rd Edition – Ebook PDF Version https://ebookmass.com/product/problems-from-philosophy-3rd-editionebook-pdf-version/
ebookmass.com
Using MIS (10th Edition) 10th Edition (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/using-mis-10th-edition-10th-editionebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Brutal Mercy (Massimo Mafia Book 1) Anya Summers https://ebookmass.com/product/brutal-mercy-massimo-mafia-book-1-anyasummers/
ebookmass.com
Nutritional Fish and Shrimp Pathology: A Handbook (European Association of Fish Pathologists (Eafp) / 5m Books Series) Tran
https://ebookmass.com/product/nutritional-fish-and-shrimp-pathology-ahandbook-european-association-of-fish-pathologists-eafp-5m-booksseries-tran/
ebookmass.com
CHANGINGPARADIGMSINHISTORICAL ANDSYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY GeneralEditors SARAHCOAKLEY
RICHARDCROSS
Thisseriessetsouttoreconsiderthemoderndistinctionbetween ‘historical’ and ‘systematic’ theology.Thescholarshiprepresentedintheseriesismarkedbyattention tothewayinwhichhistoriographicandtheologicalpresumptions(‘paradigms’) necessarilyinformtheworkofhistoriansofChristianthought,andthusaffecttheir applicationtocontemporaryconcerns.Atcertainkeyjuncturessuchparadigmsare recast,causingareconsiderationofthemethods,hermeneutics,geographicalboundaries,orchronologicalcaesuraswhichhavepreviouslyguidedthetheologicalnarrative. Thebeginningofthetwenty-firstcenturymarksaperiodofsuchnotablereassessment oftheChristiandoctrinalheritage,andinvolvesaquestioningoftheparadigmsthat havesustainedtheclassic ‘history-of-ideas’ textbookaccountsofthemodernera.Each ofthevolumesinthisseriesbringssuchcontemporarymethodologicalandhistoriographicalconcernstoconsciousconsideration.Eachtacklesaperiodorkey figure whosesignificanceisripeforreconsideration,andeachanalysestheimplicithistoriographythathassustainedexistingscholarshiponthetopic.Avarietyoffresh methodologicalconcernsareconsidered,withoutreducingthetheologicaltoother categories.Theemphasisisonanawarenessofthehistoryof ‘reception’:thepossibilitiesforcontemporarytheologyareboundupwithacarefulrewritingofthehistorical narrative.Inthissense, ‘historical’ and ‘systematic’ theologyarenecessarilyconjoined, yetalsocloselyconnectedtoadiscerninginterdisciplinaryengagement.
Thismonographseriesaccompaniestheprojectof TheOxfordHandbookofthe ReceptionofChristianTheology (OxfordUniversityPress,inprogress),alsoeditedby SarahCoakleyandRichardCross.
CHANGINGPARADIGMSINHISTORICAL ANDSYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY GeneralEditors
SarahCoakley(Norris-HulseProfessorofDivinityEmertia,UniversityofCambridge) andRichardCross(JohnA.O’BrienProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofNotreDame)
BlaisePascalonDuplicity,Sin,andtheFall
TheSecretInstinct
WilliamWood
TheologyasScienceinNineteenth-CenturyGermany
FromF.C.BaurtoErnstTroeltsch
JohannesZachhuber
GeorgesFlorovskyandtheRussianReligiousRenaissance
PaulL.Gavrilyuk
BalthasarontheSpiritualSenses
PerceivingSplendour
MarkMcInroy
Knowledge,Love,andEcstasyintheTheologyofThomasGallus
BoydTaylorCoolman
PrayerafterAugustine
AStudyintheDevelopmentoftheLatinTradition
JonathanD.Teubner
GodVisible
PatristicChristologyReconsidered BrianE.Daley,SJ
GregoryPalamasandtheMakingofPalamismintheModernAge
NormanRussell
Communicatio Idiomatum ReformationChristologicalDebates RICHARDCROSS GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©RichardCross2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019941384
ISBN978–0–19–884697–0
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198846970.001.0001
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
EleomaundGeorgBodammer gewidmet Preface Thisbookhasbeeninmymindformanyyears indeed,since1991,whenIwas askedtowriteacoupleofarticlesonMedievalandReformationChristologyforan encyclopediawhichneverultimatelymaterialized.Ioccasionallydidlittlebitsof readingonthetopicintheBodleianLibraryatOxford,whichhasamagnificent collectionofalltherelevantmaterial,doubtlesspurchasedonpublicationinthe mid-sixteenthcentury.WhenImovedfromOxfordtoNotreDamein2007,the Bodleianbooksremainedwheretheywere,and asIimagined mybookwould remainunwritten.Buttwothingsoccurredthatmadeworkonthebooknotonly feasiblebutinawayintellectuallypressing.The firstwasreadingTimothyPawl’ s illuminatingaccountofChristologicalsemantics,whichsuddenlyenabledmeto understandwhatwasreallyatstakeintheChristologicaldisagreementsbetween LutherandZwingli(orsoIhope).Thesecondwastheremarkableprojectof digitization,undertakenbyGoogleandvariouslibraries(inparticulartheBayerische StaatsbibliothekandothersinGermanyandSwitzerland),whichallowsthe contentsofthevolumesleftatOxfordtobepresentonacomputerscreenor tablet,andthusintheAmericanMidwesttoo.(AndIshouldalsomentionthe Post-ReformationDigitalLibrary,curatedatCalvinCollege,whichmakes finding thesedigitizedcopiesrelativelystraightforward.)So finallyIhadthemeansto writethebook,andsuf ficientunderstandingofthematerialtomaketheproject worthwhile.Andafteralmostthirtyyears’ delay,thewholething,barringsomeof theworkonLuther,wasresearchedandwritteninlessthanayear,between November2017andSeptember2018.Afterthedecade-longagonyofworkingon DunsScotus’stheoryofcognition,theexperienceofwritingthisbookwasa pleasurefromstartto finish.
Init,IapproachtheReformationtheologiansinawaythatreadersfamiliarwith thetextsandtheliteratureaboutthemmay findunconventional.Itreatthetexts asofferingargumentsforthevariouspositionsdefended,andIreadtheseargumentsascontributionstodiscussionthatshouldbetakenseriously.Andtheway totakeanargumentseriouslyistoconsideritsdialecticalcontextwithinan ongoingconversation,andtoassessitssoundnessgiventhekindsofassumptions thataremadeinthedebatesofwhichitispart.Itisstandardamongstudentsof Medievaltheologytoundertakethiskindofreading.Itisunusualforreadersof theauthorsIexamineheretodoso,inpartbecause,althoughtherearearguments presentinthetexts,theyarenothighlightedinthewaythattheyareinthe Medievalones.Butthisdoesnotmeanthattheargumentswerenotintendedtobe convincing,orthattheywereintendedtobeonlyspeciouslypersuasive.Sowhat
IofferhereisasrigorousananalysisofthedebatesasIcanmanage.Asanyone whoknowsthetextsandsecondaryliteraturewillsee,doingthisshedsconsiderablenewlightonboththecontentofthepositionsdiscussedandthetrajectoryof theoveralldebates.
Ishouldsayattheoutsetthatmanyoftheargumentsthatmadeuppartofthe debatesIdiscussfallshortasarguments indeed,theysimplyfail,andshouldnot havebeentaken(orbetakennow)tobepersuasive.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthe conclusionsthattheargumentsareintendedtosupportarefalse.Theremaybe furtherarguments,orotherconsiderations forexample,ScripturalorPatristic authority thatwouldtellinfavouroftherelevanttheologicalclaims.Infact,the resolutionoftheseissueswasheldbythoseinvolvedinthedisputestobe fundamentallyamatterofScripturalinterpretation.Afullhistoryofthetopic Iexamineherewouldneedtotakeaccountofthis.Indeed,suchathingwould makeawonderfulresearchprojectforsomeoneinterestedinthesystematicissues underdiscussion,orin Wirkungsgeschichte moregenerally.Tothisextent,my aimsherearemerelypropaideutictotheserioustheologicalworkthatwouldbe neededtocometosomekindofdecisiononthesubstantivequestionofthetruth ofthevariouspositionsIdiscuss.ButIhopeneverthelesstoruleoutspecious reasonsinfavourofparticularviews,andtodomyauthorsthejusticeoftaking theirargumentsseriously.Formyself,IhavenoallegiancetoeitherLutheranor Reformedorthodoxies,andhopethisallowsmethedistancetothinkaboutthe debateswithsomedegreeofclarity.
Iprescind,too,fromconsiderationsofthehistoricalandpoliticalcomponents ofthedebates.Insodoing,Idonotdenytheimportanceoftheseissues.But humanactivityanditshistoryoftenseemoverdetermined notbecausewehave toomuchinformationaboutit,butbecausewehavetoolittle.Wecouldgivean explanatoryaccountofconfessionalizationinearlyProtestantism,orofthe divergencesandconcordancesbetweenmythinkers,purelyinpoliticalorcultural terms,andasimilaronepurelyintheologicalterms.Sayingthisbynomeans entailsthatthepoliticalspherehadnoinfluenceonthetheological,orviceversa.It simplymeansthattracingthroughthetopicpurelyattheleveloftheologicaland conceptualanalysisisalegitimatewayofpresentingthematerial.Otheremphases couldtellmuchthesamestoryinverydifferentterms.
Whatfollowsisnotintendedtobeacompletehistoryoftherelevantdebates. Towritesuchathingwouldbeamassiveundertaking.Generally,Idonottrace thediscussionsthroughalltheirtwistsandturns,andinalltheirminutedetail. Theconversationstendedtobehighlyrepetitive,andauthorsfrequentlypublished objectionstotheiropponentsthatsimplyreiteratedtheinitialpositionsthatthe opponentsbelievedthemselvestohaverefuted.Sounlesssomethingcrucialturns onthesequenceofthedebate,IsimplyusewhatItaketobeanauthor’sdefinitive statementoftheirposition veryfrequentlybutnotalwayswritteninLatin.And Isometimesspreadthediscussionofasingleauthorovermorethanonechapter.
Totheextentthatanauthor’sviewsdeveloped,theydidsoentirelyonthebasisof debatewithoneormoreopponents.Itrytotracethedevelopments,sinceinthis kindofcasethereisoftennosyntheticviewtopresent.Thismeansfollowingthe discussionsinanindividualauthoracrosssometimesthirtyormoreyearsof theologicalactivity:hencethesomewhatdiffusenatureofthetreatmentsofcertain individualtheologianshere.
Theissuesarecomplexandthediscussionperforcequitedense.Ieschew generality,andfocusontheparticularitiesofatheologian ’sposition,paying verycloseattentiontodivergencesinexpressioninrelationtoviewsthatmay seemveryclosetoeachother.IntheIntroductionIsetouttherelevantPatristic andMedievalbackground,andsketchthemetaphysicalandsemanticissuesthat ItaketobeintegraltotheReformationdebates.Thematerialinthischapteris ratherabstract,andIhavetriedtowritethebooksothatindividualchapterscan bereadindependently andthussothatitwouldbepossibletoreadlaterchapters withoutworkingcarefullythroughtheIntroduction.ForconvenienceIhavelisted onpp.xxiii–xxivasetofprinciplesthatIrefertofrequentlythroughoutthebook, someofwhichIdescribeanddefendintheIntroduction(andsomeofwhich Idescribeanddefendlateron).Iamsorrythattherearesomanyofthem;they reflectthevastrangeofdifferentviewsamongtheLutherantheologians,andthe highlynuanceddivergencesbetweenthem.Thedevil orinthiscase,Jesus isin thedetails.Iexpresstheprinciplesinawaythatrequiresalittleworkonthepart ofthereader.Theyareintendedtomakemattersultimatelymoreintelligible;but theprinciplessimplyarticulateclaimsthatcanbefoundintheprose,andthe readerwho findsthemunhelpfulcanignorethem.
Asweshallsee,theinfluenceoftheChristologiesofDunsScotusandWilliam ofOckhamispervasiveinthoseReformationtheologianswhopaidanyattention toScholasticthoughtonmattersChristological(whichistosay,almostallof them).NotingthesometimespervasiveChristologicalinfluenceofMedieval Scholasticism,ofcourse,bynomeanscommitsmetoaviewonwhetherornot thethoughtofagivenReformerwasfundamentallyScholasticornot.Myaccount extendsnofurtherthanChristology,andisrestrictedinallofthewaystowhich Ihavejustdrawnattention.
Aftersomeprevaricating,Idecidedtouse ‘ man ’,not ‘humanbeing’,toreferto theincarnatedivineperson.Thereasonisjustsyntactic flexibility:grammatically, wetoleratelocutionsoftheform ‘Godisman’ (aswell,ofcourse,as ‘Godisaman’ , ‘Godisthisman’,forexample).Butwedonottoleratelocutionsoftheform ‘God ishumanbeing ’.Indeed,thislastlocutionsoundslikenonsense;totheextentthat ithasasemanticvalue,thisvalueisdifferentfromthatof ‘Godisman’ ‘Godis human ’ ispossible,asis ‘Godisahumanbeing’,but,again,evenontheassumptionthat ‘ man ’ isunderstoodasgender-neutral,thesedonotcapturetheprecise
semanticrangeof ‘Godisman’.Anditwouldbehardtowritethebookwithout theavailabilityofthisrange notonlybecauseoftheLatin ‘Deusesthomo’,but becauseoftheGerman ‘GottistMensch ’.Tothose(includingmyself)towhom thisismarginallyoffensive,orworse,Iapologize(asIdofortheoddityofthis apology).Idonotseewhatelsetodo.
Acknowledgements Ineedtothankvariouspeoplefortheirhelp.AlisterMcGrath firstsparkedmy interestinthewholesubject,andinthehistoryofChristologymoregenerally. Conversationsand/orcorrespondencewithKennethG.Appold,JohnBetz, EleomaBodammer,PavelButakov,BrianT.Carl,IngolfDalferth,Stephen T.Davis,VolkerDrecoll,RalphKeen,Hans-PeterGrosshans,DavidGura,Ian McFarland,JTPaasch,ChristopherShields,JeffSpeaks,RobertVilain,Rowan Williams,andJohannesZachhuberprovidedmewithinvaluablehelp.Timothy Pawlreadadraftoftheintroductorychapterandprovidedmewithextensive comments,forcingmetodealwithsomepowerfulobjections,andsavingmefrom numerouserrors,somesubtle,somehorrifyinglyobvious.Theresultingversionis muchbetterthantheonehehadtosuffer,andIowehimagreatdebtofgratitude. DeniGamboadiscussedOckham ’ssemanticswithmeduringalongbusjourney throughthemountainsfromPueblatoMexicoCity,andthishelpedmegreatlyin thinkingthroughsomeoftheissuesinChapter1 forwhichIthankher.Versions ofthischapterweredeliveredatvariousconferencesandcolloquia,andIthank theorganizersandparticipantsforlisteningtoandcommentingonthepaper:the ‘AfterObermann’ conferenceorganizedbyChristineHelmeratNorthwestern, withthanksinparticulartoChristine,VolkerLeppin,DavidLuy,GrahamWhite, andthelateMarilynMcCordAdams;aconferenceonthereceptionandretrieval ofChristiantheologyheldattheUniversityofStThomas(MN),organizedby PaulGavrilyuk,withthankstoSarahCoakley,MarkMcInroyandPhilipRolnick; andasystematictheologyseminaratFuller,withthankstoOliverCrispforthe invitation,andtoOliver,CarlMosser,andJTTurnerforcommentsanddiscussion. TwoanonymousrefereesforOxfordUniversityPressprovidedrarehelpand encouragement.KimRichardsonwasahelpfullynon-interventionistcopyeditor, leavingmyproseasIwantittobe.AlanKrieger,thephilosophyandtheology subjectlibrarianatNotreDame,wasunstintingbothwithhistimeandwiththe library’sresources(anditisfairtosaythatthisCatholiclibrarynowhasabetter collectionofProtestantsourcesthanitdidbeforeIstartedthisproject);and KarlStutzman,thelibrarianattheAnabaptistMennoniteBiblicalSeminaryin Elkhart,justdowntheroadfromNotreDame,generouslyprovidedmewith materialsthatIcouldnot findatNotreDame.TobothIexpressthanks.And finally,particularthankstomyco-editor,Sarah,fortakingonsingle-handedlythe workasserieseditorforthisbook,andtoTomPerridge,thePress’sreligioneditor. Defects,ofcourse,aremyownresponsibility.
Abbreviations xix
FrequentlyCitedPrinciples xxiii
Introduction:The CommunicatioIdiomatum and theMetaphysicsoftheIncarnation1
1.LutherandZwingli39
2.EarlyLutheranChristologies86
3.CalvinandhisLutheranOpponents120
4.LutheranandReformedDebatesintheEarly1560s141
5.The GenusMaiestaticum inNon-BrenzianChristologies166
6.TheFormulaofConcordandLutheranChristologyinthe1570s189
7.AndreaeandBezaattheColloquyofMontbéliard226 ConcludingRemarks256
ExtendedTableofContents Abbreviations xix
FrequentlyCitedPrinciples xxiii
Introduction:The CommunicatioIdiomatum and theMetaphysicsoftheIncarnation1
0.1TheCouncilofChalcedonandtheMetaphysicsofthe Incarnation1
0.2ChristologicalSemanticsandthe CommunicatioIdiomatum 11 0.2.1OptionsforChristologicalSemantics11
0.2.2The CommunicatioIdiomatum 21 0.3TheDistinctionbetweenConcreteandAbstract27 0.4OnWhatFollows31
1.LutherandZwingli39
1.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostaticUnion40 1.1.1Luther40
1.1.1.1TheMetaphysicsoftheSuppositalUnion40 1.1.1.2TheHypostaticUnion:SemanticIssues42 1.1.1.3TheDivinePersonandHumanProperties56 1.1.2Zwingli58
1.2Christ ’sHumanNatureandDivineAttributes: MetaphysicalIssues59 1.2.1Luther59
1.2.1.1BodilyOmnipresence59 1.2.1.2FurtherInstancesofSG-Possession65 1.2.2Zwingli70
1.3TheSemanticsofthe CommunicatioIdiomatum 72 1.3.1Zwingli73 1.3.2Luther77
1.3.2.1TheSemanticsofthe CommunicatioIdiomatum 77
1.3.2.2TheDefinitionofthe CommunicatioIdiomatum 82 1.4Luther’sOriginality:ABriefNote84
2.EarlyLutheranChristologies86
2.1Melanchthon’sEarlyChristology86 2.2Melanchthon’sLaterChristology87
2.2.1Melanchthon’sChristology,1533–5087
2.2.2Melanchthon’sChristology,1550–6090
2.3Brenz’sEarlyChristology:TheOriginofthe Genus Maiestaticum 95
2.3.1TheGeneralMetaphysicalandSemanticPrinciples ofBrenz’sChristology95
2.3.2Brenz’sEarlyChristology101
2.3.3BrenzandtheStuttgartColloquywithLasco105
2.4Brenz’sChristologyin1561:Refiningthe GenusMaiestaticum 107
2.4.1Bullinger’sAnti-LutheranArguments108
2.4.2BrenzontheSemanticsofthe GenusIdiomaticum 109
2.4.3BrenzontheMetaphysicsofthe GenusMaiestaticum 111 2.5Schwenckfeld116
3.CalvinandhisLutheranOpponents120
3.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostaticUnion122
3.1.1Calvin122
3.1.2Westphal124
3.1.3Hesshus126
3.2VivificationandBodilyPresence126
3.2.1Westphal127
3.2.2Hesshus128
3.2.3Calvin131
3.3VivificationandCausalPresence135
3.3.1Calvin135
3.3.2Westphal139
3.3.3Hesshus140
4.LutheranandReformedDebatesintheEarly1560s141 4.1Vermigli142
4.2Brenz’sLateChristology145
4.2.1BrenzontheMetaphysicsofUnion145
4.2.2BrenzontheCommunicatedAttributes149
4.3ReformedResponses:BullingerandBeza152
4.3.1Bullinger152
4.3.2Beza153
4.4AndreaeandtheColloquyofMaulbronn157
4.4.1Andreae’sEarlyChristology158
4.4.2TheColloquyofMaulbronn163
5.The GenusMaiestaticum inNon-BrenzianChristologies166
5.1Schegk166
5.2Wigand170
5.2.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsofthe GenusIdiomaticum 170
5.2.2TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsofthe GenusMaiestaticum 174
5.3Chemnitz, DeDuabusNaturisinChristo (1570)178
5.3.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostaticUnion178
5.3.2TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsofthe GenusMaiestaticum 181
6.TheFormulaofConcordandLutheranChristologyinthe1570s189
6.1NegotiatingLuther’sChristologicalHeritage190
6.1.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostaticUnion190
6.1.2Predication inAbstracto 195
6.1.3PowerandBodilyOmnipresence198
6.2TheFormulaofConcord(1577/1580)200
6.3Chemnitz, DeDuabusNaturisinChristo (1578Edition)209
6.3.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostaticUnion210
6.3.2TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsofthe GenusMaiestaticum 215
6.4A ‘SecondMartin’?224
7.AndreaeandBezaattheColloquyofMontbéliard226
7.1Andreae’sLaterChristology227
7.1.1TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsoftheHypostatic Unionandthe GenusIdiomaticum 227
7.1.2TheMetaphysicsandSemanticsofthe GenusMaiestaticum 237
7.2Beza’sResponse244
7.2.1TheMetaphysicsoftheHypostaticUnion244
7.2.2ChristologicalSemantics248
ConcludingRemarks256
Abbreviations PrimarySources Andreae,Jakob
ActaActaColloquiiMonteBeligardensis
AssertioAssertiopiaeetorthodoxaedoctrinaedepersonaliunione DeduabusDisputatiodeduabusnaturisinChristo Demaiest.DisputatiodemaiestatehominisChristi EpitomeEpitomecolloquiiMontisbelgartensis
Aquinas,Thomas DeenteDeenteetessentia STSummatheologiae
Aristotle Cat. Categoriae Dean.Deanima
Athanasius Or.cont.Ar OrationescontraArianos
Augustine Detrin Detrinitate Ep.Epistula
BasilofCaesarea
Ep. Epistula
Beza,Theodore Plac.resp
AdDominiJoannisBrentiiargumenta...placidumetmodestum responsio Resp.AdactacolloquiiMontisbelgardensisTubingaeedita...responsio
Biel,Gabriel Coll Collectoriumcircaquatuorlibrossententiarum
Brenz,Johannes ActaStutt.ActaStuttgardiensia Demaiest.DemaiestateDomininostriIesuChristi Depers.unioneDepersonaliunione Inioann. IndiviIoannisevangelion...exegesis RecognitioRecognitiopropheticaeetapostolicaedoctrinaedeveramaiestate DomininostriJesuChristi
Sent. SententiadelibelloD.HenriciBullingeri
Bullinger,Heinrich
Apol.exp.Apologeticaexpositio
RepetitioRepetitioetdilucidiorexplicatioconsensusveterisorthodoxae catholicaequeChristiEcclesiae
Calvin,John
Dil.exp. Dilucidaexpositiosanaedoctrinaedeveraparticipationecarniset sanguinisChristiinsacracoena
Inst. InstitutioChristianaereligionis
Secundadef.Secundadefensiopiaeetorthodoxaedesacramentis fideicontra
JoachimiWestphalicalumnias
Ult.ad.Ultimaadmonitio...adIoachimumWestphalum
Chemnitz,Martin
Deduabus (1570) DeduabusnaturisinChristo (firstedition)
Deduabus (1578) DeduabusnaturisinChristo (secondedition)
Curaeus,Joachim
Ex.pers.Exegesisperspicua
CyrilofAlexandria
InJoann.InD.JoannisEvangelium
DunsScotus,John Ord Ordinatio
Rep Reportatio
EpitomeKonkordienformel, Epitome
GrundtlicherBerichtWarhafftigerunndgrundtlicherBerichtvondemGesprech...zü Maulbronngehalten
Hesshus,Tilman
DeduabusDeduabusinChristonaturis
Depraes DepraesentiacorporisChristiincoenaDomini
JohnofDamascus
Exp. fid. Expositio fidei
König,Johann
Theol.Theologiapositivaacroamatica
Lasco,Johna
Decl.decoenaDeclaratiodecoena
Lombard,Peter
Sent. Sententiae
Luther,Martin
DassdieseWorteDassdieseWorteChristi ‘DasistmeinLeib’ nochfestestellen
Disp.dediv DisputatiodedivinitateethumanitateChristi
Disp.desent Disputatiodesententia:Verbumcarofactumest(Joh.1,14)
En.53.cap.Es Enarratio53.capitisEsaiae
VomAbendmahlVomAbendmahlChristi:Bekenntnis
VondenKonz. VondenKonziliisundKirchen
Melanchthon,Philip
En.ep.adCol. EnarratioepistolaePauliadColossenses
En.sym.nic.Enarratiosymboliniceni
Erot.dial. Erotematadialectices
Expl.sym.nic. Explicatiosymboliniceni
Loci (1535) Locicommunes (1535)
Loci (1559) Locicommunes (1559)
Mentzer,Balthasar
Def. Necessariaetiustadefensiocontrainiustascriminationes
Nicholai,Melchior
Cons.theol.Consideratiotheologicaquatuorquaestionumcontroversarum
Osiander,Andreas
DeunicoDeunicomediatore...confessio
Osiander,Lucas
BerichtBerichtvomNachtmahl
Piscator,Henry
Rep Sanaeetorthodoxae...doctrinae...repetitio
Porphyry
Isag. Isagoge
Schegk,Jacob
Deunapers.DeunapersonaetduabusnaturisChristi
SolidadecisioSolidaverboquedei...congruadecisio
SolidadeclaratioKonkordienformel,Solidadeclaratio
Vermigli,PeterMartyr
Dial DialogusdeutraqueinChristonatura Westphal,Joachim
Adv.sac. Adversuscuiusdamsacramentariifalsamcriminationem
Apol. ApologiaconfessionisdecoenaDomini
Wigand
Decomm.Decommunicatioidiomatum
WilliamofOckham
Rep. Reportatio
Sum log Summalogicae
Zwingli,Huldrych
AmicaexegesisAmicaexegesis,idest:expositioeucharistiaenegociiadMartinum Lutherum
Fid.exp.Fideiexpositio
Series CCSLCorpusChristianorumseriesLatina
CRCorpusreformatorum
CSCorpusSchwenckfeldianorum
CSELCorpusscriptorumecclesiasticorumLatinorum
LCCLibraryofChristianClassics
LWMartinLuther, Works
NPNFNiceneandPost-NiceneFathers
OPhWilliamofOckham, Operaphilosophica
OThWilliamofOckham, Operatheologica
PGJ.-P.Migne,PatrologiaGraeca
PLJ.-P.Migne,PatrologiaLatina
St.A. Studienausgabe
WAMartinLuther, Werke:kritischeGesamtausgabe
WABr.MartinLuther, Briefwechsel:kritischeGesamtausgabe
WRTRMartinLuther, Werke:kritischeGesamtausgabe:Tischreden
FrequentlyCitedPrinciples SemanticPrinciples AGM₁-semantics: ‘theSonofManis φd ’ =def ‘thedivineperson p exercises Φd-ness throughthehumannature h’;and p exercises Φd-nessthrough h iff h isthesame*person as p.
AGM₂-semantics: ‘theSonofManis φd ’ =def ‘thedivineperson p exercises Φd-ness throughthehumannature h’;and p exercises Φd-nessthrough h onlyif(h bears Φd-ness, and h isthesame*personas p).
BeN-semantics: ‘Godis φp ’ =def ‘Godsustainsahumannaturethatis Φp ’
BeS-semantics: ‘Godisman’ =def ‘Godsustainsahumannature’ .
BGM-semantics: ‘theSonofManis φd ’ =def ‘thehumannature h bears Φd-ness ’;and h bears Φd-nessiff h isthesame*personasthedivineperson.
BGM*-semantics: ‘theSonofManis φd ’ =def ‘thehumannature h bears Φd-ness,and h exercises Φd-ness ’;and(h bears Φd-ness,and h exercises Φd-ness)iff h isthesame* personasthedivineperson.
BH-semantics: ‘theSonofGodis φp ’ =def ‘thedivineperson p bears Φp-ness ’;and p bears Φp-nessiff(thehumannature h bears Φp-ness,and h isthesame*personas p).
BS-semantics: ‘Godisman’ =def ‘thedivinepersonandthehumannaturearethesame* person ’ .
CGM₁-semantics: ‘Christ’shumannature h (orChristaccordingto h)is φd ’ =def ‘the divineperson p exercises Φd-nessinthehumannature h’;and p exercises Φd-nessin h onlyif p bears h
CGM₂-semantics: ‘Christ’shumannature h (orChristaccordingto h)is φd ’ =def ‘h exercises Φd-ness ’;and h exercises Φd-nessonlyif(h bears Φd-ness,and p bears h).
CN-semantics: ‘Christis φ ’ =def ‘Christhasanature n,and n has Φ-ness ’;andChristis φp onlyifitisnotthecasethatChristbears Φp-ness.
DS-semantics: ‘Christis φd (accordingtohishumannature h)’ =def ‘h exercises Φd-ness ’ ; and h exercises Φd-nessonlyif h bears Φd-ness;and h bears Φd-nessiff h ispersonally unitedtothedivineperson.
DS’-semantics: ‘Christis φd (accordingtohishumannature h)’ =def ‘h exercises Φd-ness ’ ; and h exercises Φd-nessiff h bears Φd-ness;and h bears Φd-nessiff h ispersonallyunited tothedivineperson.
H-semantics: ‘ahypostasis x is φ ’ =def ‘ x has φ-ness ’
HF-semantics: ‘ahypostasis x is φ ’ =def ‘ x has Φ-ness ’ .
HGM-semantics: ‘Christ’shumannature h is φd ’ =def ‘h has Φd-ness ’ .
LH-semantics: ‘ahypostasis x is φ ’ =def ‘ x has Φ-ness ’;andChristhas Φp-nessiffChrist bears Φp-ness;andChristbears Φp-nessiff(Christbearsahumannature h,and h bears Φp-ness).
LS-semantics: ‘Godisman’ =def ‘Godandthismanarethesamething’
N-semantics: ‘Christis φ ’ =def ‘Christhasanature n,and n has φ-ness ’ .
NF-semantics: ‘Christis φ ’ =def ‘Christhasanature n,and n has Φ-ness ’ .
P-semantics: ‘ x is φ ’ =def ‘ x hasanaturethatis φ ’ .
WGM-semantics: ‘Christ’shumannature h (orChristaccordingto h)is φd ’ =def ‘h exercises Φd-ness ’;and h exercises Φd-nessonlyif h bears Φd-ness;and h bears Φd-ness iffChristbears h.
MetaphysicalPrinciples
BMP:AnydivinepropertyhadbythewholeChristishadbyChrist’stwonatures (supposingthatthepropertyispossiblyhadbyChrist’stwonatures).
GMP:Anypropertyhadbyawholeishadbythepartsofthatwhole.
IBS:IfChrist’stwonatureslacktwo-wayspatialinseparability,thepersonisnot indivisible.
OtherSiglaandDefinitions
CN: ‘Whenwesayhesufferedandroseagain,[itis]notthatGodtheWordsuffered blows,nail-piercingsorotherwoundsinhisownnature(thedivineisimpassiblebecause itisincorporeal),butthatsincehisowncreatedbodysufferedthesethingshehimself sufferedforoursake,thepointbeingthatwithinthesufferingbodywastheimpassible.’ (CyrilofAlexandria, SecondLettertoNestorius,c.5:seep.13below)
‘GenusmaiestaticumB ’:the genusmaiestaticum construedontheassumptionthatthe SonofManisidenticalwiththehumannature.
‘Realf’:apredication ‘ x is φ ’ isrealf iff x is Φ;the communicatio isrealf iffthepredication expressingitisrealf
‘Realt’:apredicationisrealt iffitistrue.
‘Same*’ signifiesarelationofidentityrelativizedtoasortal.
‘SG-possession’/‘SG-predication’:Christ’shumannature’spossessionof/beingsubjectof predicationbysupernaturalgifts(betheycreatedoruncreated);orChrist’sdoingso/ beingsoinvirtueofhishumannature.
‘UC-ordering’:thelogicalorderingofthemetaphysicalstagesintheunionand communicatio
‘Φ-ness ’ signifiesthepropertyhadorborneby x suchthat x ’shavingorbearing Φ-ness explainsthetruthof ‘ x is φ ’ .
‘ φd-ness ’ signifiesadivineattribute.
‘ φp-ness ’ signifiesanaccidentor proprium inPorphyry’sschemeofpredicables.
Introduction The CommunicatioIdiomatum andthe MetaphysicsoftheIncarnation 0.1TheCouncilofChalcedonandtheMetaphysics oftheIncarnation AccordingtotheCouncilofChalcedon(451),adivineperson,thesecondperson oftheTrinity,whileremainingdivine,becameahumanbeing.Amongother things,thismeansthatthepersonbegantobetwokindsofthing divineand human simultaneously.InthetechnicallanguageofChristiantheology,wecan saythatthepersonbegantohavetwonatures,ahumanoneinadditiontothe divineone:
WeteachtheconfessionofoneandthesameSon,ourLordJesusChrist:the sameperfectindivinityandperfectinhumanity,thesametrulyGodand trulyman,ofarationalsoulandabody;consubstantialwiththeFatheras regardshisdivinity,andthesameconsubstantialwithusasregardshis humanity;likeusinallrespectsexceptforsin;¹begottenofhisFatheras regardshisdivinity,andinthelastdaysthesameforusandforoursalvation fromMary,thevirginGod-bearer,asr egardshishumanity;oneandthesame Christ,Son,Lord,only-begotten,acknowledgedintwonatureswhichundergo noconfusion( ἀ συγχύτως),nochange( ἀτρέ πτως ),nodivision(ἀ διαιρέ τως ), noseparation( ἀχωρ ί στως );atnopointwasthedifferencebetweenthe naturestakenawaythroughtheunion,butrathertheproperty( ἰ διότητος / proprietate )ofbothnaturesispreservedandcomestogetherintoasingle personandasinglehypostasis;heisnotpartedordividedintotwopersons, butisoneandthesameonly-begottenSon,God,Word,LordJesusChrist.²
Anaturalwayofconstruingthiswouldbetotakepersonstobe,minimally,among thekindsofthingthatcannotbepropertiesofanything.Aristotlehadsomething likethisinmindwhenheattemptedtocharacterizewhatitistobeasubstance: ‘Substance,inthetruestandprimaryandmostdefinitesenseoftheword,isthat
¹Forthisclause,seeHeb.4:15.
²InNormanTanner(ed.), TheDecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils,2vols(London:Sheedand Ward;Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,1990),I,*86,slightlyaltered.
Communicatioidiomatum.RichardCross,OxfordUniversityPress(2019). ©RichardCross2019.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198846970.001.0001
