Prosopon

Last updated

Prosopon [lower-alpha 1] is a theological term [4] used in Christian theology as designation for the concept of a divine person. [5] The term has a particular significance in Christian triadology (study of the Trinity), and also in Christology. [6] [7]

Contents

In English language, the form prosopon is used mainly in scholarly works, related to theology, philosophy or history of religion, while it is also commonly translated as person , both in scholarly or non-scholarly writings. The term prosopon should not be confused with the term hypostasis, which is related to similar theological concepts, but differs in meaning.

The greek term for prosopon, traditionally used in Western Christianity, and from which the English term person is derived, is persona.

Overview

In Ancient Greek, term prosopon originally designated one's "face" or "mask". In that sense, it was used in Greek theatre, since actors wore specific masks on stage, in order to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. [8]

The term prosopon was important in the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It was the subject of many theological debates and disputes, particularly through early centuries of Christian history. [9] It was an important issue in the Meletian Schism; a dispute between two pro-Nicene groups.

“The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.” (Philip Schaff)

While prosopon can mean hypostasis, it can also indicate a role played in a theatre. Applied to the Trinity, it can indicate different roles played by a single Person. For that reason, the Sabellians accepted the term [10] but Basil of Caesarea rejected it. Basil, insisted that each Person (Father, Son, and Spirit) must be described as a hypostasis. He wrote:

"It is not enough to count differences in the Persons (prosōpa). It is necessary also to confess that each Person (prosōpon) exists in a true hypostasis. The mirage of persons (prosōpa) without hypostaseis is not denied even by Sabellius, who said that the same God, though he is one subject, is transformed according to the need of each occasion and is thus spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now as Holy Spirit.” [11] [12]

As another example of the distinction, Jerome, writing in Latin, strongly opposed Basil's three hypostaseis and explained "the tri-unity as ‘one substance, three persons' (una substantia, tres personae)." [13] In other words, for Jerome, there was a real and important distinction between hypostasis and prosopon (Greek)/persona (Latin).

Paul the Apostle uses the term when speaking of his direct apprehension in the heart of the face (prosopon) of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Prosopon in Christian triadology

Cretan School icon representing three persons of the Trinity, Venice (16th century) Soprestol'e Venetsiia.jpeg
Cretan School icon representing three persons of the Trinity, Venice (16th century)

In Christian triadology, the study of the Trinity, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to number and mutual relations of divine persons:

The most notable example of monoprosopic views is represented in ancient Sabellianism and its later variants, including teachings of some modern Christian denominations, like those of Oneness Pentecostalism. [15]

Prosopon in Christology

Within Christology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Person of Christ:

During the first half of the 5th century, some Antiochene theologians, including Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his disciple Nestorius, questioned the concept of hypostatic union of the two natures (divine and human) of Jesus, but accepted a more loosely defined concept of the prosopic union. Since their views on hypostatic union were seen as controversial, additional questions arose regarding their teachings on the prosopic union. [17]

Theodore believed that incarnation of Jesus represents an indwelling of God different from the indwelling experienced by the Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles. Jesus was viewed as a human being who shared the divine sonship of the Logos; the Logos united itself to Jesus from the moment of Jesus' conception. After the resurrection, the human Jesus and the Logos reveal that they have always been one prosopon. [18]

Theodore addresses the prosopic union in applying prosopon to Christ the Logos. He accounts for two expressions of Christ – human and divine. Yet, he does not mean Christ achieved a unity of the two expressions through the formation of a third prosopon, but that one prosopon is produced by the Logos giving his own countenance to the assured man. [19] He interprets the unity of God and man in Christ along the lines of the body-soul unity. Prosopon plays a special part in his interpretation of Christ. He rejected the Hypostasis concept – believing it to be a contradiction of Christ's true nature. He espoused that, in Christ, both body and soul had to be assumed. Christ assumed a soul and by the grace of God brought it to immutability and to a full dominion over the sufferings of the body. [20]

Nestorius furthered Theodore's views on the prosopic union, claiming that prosopon is the "appearance" of the ousia (essence), and stating: "the prosopon makes known the ousia". [21] On several instances, he emphasized the relation of each of the two natures (divine and human) with their respective appearances, using the term prosopon both in plural forms, and also as a singular designation for the prosopic union. [22] Such terminological complexities and inconsistencies proved to be challenging not only for his contemporary critiques or followers, but also for later commentators and scholars. [23]

The very suggestion of prosopic duality was challenging enough to cause heated debates among Christian theologians in the first half of the 5th century, resulting in official condemnation of such views. The Council of Ephesus of 431 affirmed the teaching of "One Person" of Jesus Christ, condemning all other teachings. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 reaffirmed the notion of One Person of Jesus Christ, formulating the famous Chalcedonian Definition with its "monoprosopic" (having one person) clauses, and in the same time explicitly denying the validity of "dyoprosopic" (having two persons) views. [24]

In Mandaeism

In the Mandaean scripture of the Ginza Rabba (in Right Ginza books 1 and 2.1), the face or countenance of Hayyi Rabbi is referred to as the "Great Countenance of Glory" (Classical Mandaic : ࡐࡀࡓࡑࡅࡐࡀ ࡓࡁࡀ ࡖࡏࡒࡀࡓࡀ, romanized: parṣupa rba ḏ-ʿqara; pronounced parṣufa in Modern Mandaic; also cognate with Classical Syriac : ܦܪܨܘܦܐ, romanized: prṣupa, lit.  'countenance', attested in the Peshitta including in Matthew 17:2 [25] ). [26] This Aramaic term is a borrowing from the Greek word prosopon. [27]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ UK: /ˈprɒsəpɒn/ , [1] [2] US: /prəˈsoʊ-/ ; [3] from Ancient Greek: πρόσωπονprósōpon; plural: πρόσωπα prósōpa

Related Research Articles

The Chalcedonian Definition is the declaration of the dyophysitism of Christ's nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor. The council was the fourth of the ecumenical councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christology</span> Theological study of Jesus Christ

In Christianity, Christology is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions such as whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin.

Nestorianism is a term used in Christian theology and Church history to refer to several mutually related but doctrinarily distinct sets of teachings. The first meaning of the term is related to the original teachings of Christian theologian Nestorius, who promoted specific doctrines in the fields of Christology and Mariology. The second meaning of the term is much wider, and relates to a set of later theological teachings, that were traditionally labeled as Nestorian, but differ from the teachings of Nestorius in origin, scope and terminology. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nestorianism as:

"The doctrine of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by which Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trinity</span> Christian doctrine that God is three persons

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God in most Christian churches, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion). As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds. In this context, one essence/nature defines what God is, while the three persons define who God is. This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus, the entire process of creation and grace is viewed as a single shared action of the three divine persons, in which each person manifests the attributes unique to them in the Trinity, thereby proving that everything comes "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."

Chalcedonian Christianity is a term referring to the branches of Christianity that accept and uphold theological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth ecumenical council, held in 451. Chalcedonian Christianity accepts the Christological Definition of Chalcedon, a Christian doctrine concerning the union of two natures in one hypostasis of Jesus Christ, who is thus acknowledged as a single person (prosopon). Chalcedonian Christianity also accepts the Chalcedonian confirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus acknowledging the commitment of Chalcedonism to Nicene Christianity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nestorius</span> Christian theologian (c. 386–c. 451)

Nestorius was an early Christian prelate who served as Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to August 431. A Christian theologian from the Catechetical School of Antioch, several of his teachings in the fields of Christology and Mariology were seen as controversial and caused major disputes.

John I of Antioch was Patriarch of Antioch (429–441). He led a group of moderate Eastern bishops during the Nestorian controversy. He is sometimes confused with John Chrysostom, who is occasionally also referred to as John of Antioch, though John of Antioch is indeed mentioned in the Book of the Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary. John gave active support to his friend Nestorius in the latter's dispute with Cyril of Alexandria. In the year 431, he arrived too late for the opening meeting of the First Council of Ephesus. Cyril, suspecting John of using procrastinating tactics to support Nestorius, decided not to wait and convened the council without John and his supporters, condemning Nestorius. When John reached Ephesus a few days after the council had begun, he convened a counter-council that condemned Cyril and vindicated Nestorius.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodore of Mopsuestia</span> 4/5th-century Eastern Christian theologian; Archbishop of Mopsuestia

Theodore of Mopsuestia was a Christian theologian, and Bishop of Mopsuestia from 392 to 428 AD. He is also known as Theodore of Antioch, from the place of his birth and presbyterate. He is the best known representative of the middle Antioch School of hermeneutics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School of Antioch</span>

The Catechetical School of Antioch was one of the two major centers of the study of biblical exegesis and theology during Late Antiquity; the other was the School of Alexandria. This group was known by this name because the advocates of this tradition were based in the city of Antioch in Syria, one of the major cities of the ancient Roman Empire. Although there were early interpreters from Antioch, like Theophilus of Antioch, the proper school of exegesis at Antioch belongs to the period of the late fourth and the fifth centuries.

Babai the Great was an early church father of the Church of the East. He set several of the foundational pillars of the Church, revived the monastic movement, and formulated its Christology in a systematic way. He served as a monastic visitor and coadjutor with Mar Aba as unofficial heads of the Church of the East after Catholicos Gregory until 628 AD, leaving a legacy of strong discipline and deep religious Orthodoxy. He is revered in the modern Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henana of Adiabene</span>

Henana of Adiabene was a Christian theologian, and headmaster of the School of Nisibis, the main theological center of the Church of the East (571–610).

Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual personhood.

Miaphysitism is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the "Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one 'nature' (physis)." It is a position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and differs from the Chalcedonian position that Jesus is one "person" in two "natures", a divine nature and a human nature (dyophysitism).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eutychianism</span> Specific understanding of how the human and divine relate within the person of Jesus

Eutychianism, also known as Real Monophysitism, refers to a set of Christian theological doctrines derived from the ideas of Eutyches of Constantinople. Eutychianism is a monophysite understanding of how the human and divine relate within the person of Jesus Christ, with Christ being in one nature and of two, with the humanity of Christ subsumed by the divinity.

Hypostasis, from the Greek ὑπόστασις (hypóstasis), is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. But it is not the same as the concept of a substance. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: Hypostasis of the Father, Hypostasis of the Son, and Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

Homoiousios is a Christian theological term, coined in the 4th century to identify a distinct group of Christian theologians who held the belief that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, essence with God the Father.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dyophysitism</span> Christological position

Dyophysitism is the Christological position that Jesus Christ is one person of one substance and one hypostasis, with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human. It is related to the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Those who insisted on the "two natures" formula were referred to as dyophysites.

The social trinitarianism is a Christian interpretation of the Trinity as consisting of three persons in a loving relationship, which reflects a model for human relationships.

Spanish Adoptionism was a Christian theological position which was articulated in Umayyad and Christian-held regions of the Iberian peninsula in the 8th- and 9th centuries. The issue seems to have begun with the claim of archbishop Elipandus of Toledo that – in respect to his human nature – Jesus Christ was adoptive Son of God. Another leading advocate of this Christology was Felix of Urgel. In Spain, Adoptionism was opposed by Beatus of Liebana, and in the Carolingian territories, the Adoptionist position was condemned by Pope Hadrian I, Alcuin of York, Agobard, and officially in Carolingian territory by the Council of Frankfurt (794).

The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the Filioque controversy is defined by their interpretation of the Bible, and the teachings of the Church Fathers, creeds and definitions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, as well as the decisions of several particular councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

References

  1. ↑ "Prosopon". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 2021-01-20.
  2. ↑ "Prosopon" . Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.(Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  3. ↑ "prosopon". Merriam-Webster Dictionary .
  4. ↑ González 2005, p. 142.
  5. ↑ Daley 2009, p. 342–345.
  6. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 501-519.
  7. ↑ Meyendorff 1989, p. 173, 190-192, 198, 287, 338.
  8. ↑ Meyendorff 1989, p. 191.
  9. ↑ Meyendorff 1989.
  10. ↑ “The use of prosopon which was not characteristic of Marcellus but was apparently used by Sabellius …” (Hanson, The Search ... p. 328)
  11. ↑ Epistle 210.5.36–41
  12. ↑ “Basil treats hypostasis and πρόσωπον (prosopon) as synonymous, but he also sees πρόσωπον as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism.” (Ayres, p. 210)
  13. ↑ Jerome, Epistle 15.4.
  14. ↑ Ramelli 2011, p. 474.
  15. ↑ Reed 2014, p. 52–70.
  16. ↑ Spoerl 1994, p. 545-568.
  17. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 432, 463.
  18. ↑ Norris 1980, p. 25.
  19. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 432.
  20. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 424-427.
  21. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 510.
  22. ↑ Grillmeier 1975, p. 463.
  23. ↑ Chesnut 1978, p. 392–409.
  24. ↑ Meyendorff 1989, p. 177-178.
  25. ↑ "Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament". Dukhrana Biblical Research. 2021-02-13. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
  26. ↑ Gelbert, Carlos (2011). Ginza Rba. Sydney: Living Water Books. ISBN   9780958034630.
  27. ↑ Häberl, Charles (2021-09-19). "Mandaic and the Palestinian Question". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 141 (1). doi: 10.7817/jameroriesoci.141.1.0171 . ISSN   2169-2289.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.