Search

Byzantium, throughout its thousand-year reign, left a significant legacy that continues to be rediscovered within the framework of modern academic studies. The Byzantine Empire embodied the heritage of Hellenic culture and tradition alongside the continuity of the Roman Empire. However, its most distinct characteristic, besides the two aforementioned, was Christianity in its specific form known as the Eastern Orthodox tradition. A pivotal moment for the modern study of philosophy within Byzantium arrived in the mid-20th century. This specifically refers to the publication of Byzantine Philosophy by Vasilios Tatakis in Emil Bréhier's History of Philosophy series (1949). In the introductory remarks of this work, Tatakis emphasizes that while increased interest in Byzantium emerged in the 18th century, philosophy often seemed to be an afterthought within this growing focus. John of Damascus (8th century) did not live within the borders of the Byzantine Empire, but rather in Damascus, which was then part of the Umayyad Caliphate. Nevertheless, his significant influence can be traced primarily within Byzantine philosophy and literature, particularly through his work Dialectica. Additionally, his contribution to culture is evident in the preservation of visual art and the veneration of icons within Byzantium, thanks to his theoretical considerations and persistent rhetorical and polemical writings. Furthermore, his rich literary output encompasses both poetry and prose works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the continuity in the formulation of Christological terminology between two Orthodox Fathers of the Church — St. Anastasius of Sinai (7th century) and St. John of Damascus (8th century). The definition, etymology, relationship and use of these fathers of the most important terms in Christology are investigated: “nature”, “essence”, “hypostasis”, “person”, “property”, “energy”, “will” and “enhypostaton”. The origins of theological terminology in ancient philosophy are traced — in Aristotle and his commentators, in Stoics and in Neoplatonism; the implementation of the great Cappadocians in triadology and its transfer to the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor, Leontius of Byzantium, presbyter John the Grammarian of Caesarea, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and other Orthodox theologians. St. Anastasius of Sinai shows strict adherence to the Orthodox Christology expressed at the Council of Chalcedon. According to the Sinaite, the Christology of heretics contradicts patristic Tradition and therefore they fall under the anathemas of the first three Ecumenical Councils. The Holy Father actively uses the developments of Neo-Chalcedonian theology. At the same time, he uses not only the achievements of the Orthodox theologians who preceded him and systematizes them, but also brings original arguments into the polemic with heretics, which allows him to more fully sanctify the Christological teaching of the Church. Most of the Christological teaching of St. John of Damascus, as well as of St. Anastasius of Sinai, has a polemical orientation. To successfully conduct a polemic, it is necessary first of all to determine the basic concepts on which the parties will rely, or to point out specific terminological errors of the opponents. Both components are widely represented in the works of Damascene. The result of the study is the statement of a great contribution to the development and systematization of the Christological terminology of the Orthodox Church by St. Anastasius, who is the predecessor of St. John with his “Source of Knowledge”. He worked out the most developed terminological theological and philosophical system for the period of the 8th century.

This article examines the definitions of place or location (topos) and as a consequence, space, in Byzantine philosophy, from Maximos the Confessor to Photios. These philosophers draw, on one hand, on the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Neoplatonic sources, and on the other hand, on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Firstly, Maximos the Confessor sets out a novel definition in which place is conceptually inseparable from time, is needed for substances to exist, and in which place is the boundary between the created and uncreated. In Anastasios of Sinai's writing, God is the archetypical place for all things and is likewise necessary for substances. John of Damascus, in contrast, extends Aristotle's definition of place in the Physics in new directions, by investigating the place of angels, which is determined by their incorporeal limits. Finally, Photios produces a systematic and astute account of how the properties of the containing and contained bodies come together to make places. The article concludes with an evaluation of these theories, and briefly considers their relationship to theories of place and location in modern physics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Filosofia Medieval and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

What is true of God? And what is God like? What are God’s qualities? These are perennial questions in theology. These questions receive an answer via the doctrine of the divine attributes. The doctrine unfolds God’s names, what is true of the one essence of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In dialogue with Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, this article explores in a scripturally charged fashion three key attributes, namely goodness, holiness, and love. Each of these attributes tells us something important about what God is. While showing the significance of Aquinas’ contribution as a refinement and extension of Augustine’s, this article remains sensitive to modern Protestant objections to a metaphysically motivated account of God’s goodness, holiness, and love. The worries exemplified by Barth (and some of those under his influence) are instructive. They help us to see how the notion of God as an acting subject who loves in freedom constrains the field of reference for an account of these attributes in ways positive and negative. What is also important to consider is the affective dimension and consequences of God’s goodness, holiness, and love. One learns to know and love the God of the Bible by worshipping him, and in so doing elucidating what the church’s worship throughout the ages assumes to be true about the one supremely good, holy, and loving God.

The aim of this article is to briefly present a defence of Christian art, more precisely icons, in the first half of the eighth century. This movement reached its peak with John of Damascus. Although some ancient writers had already commented on the subject of Christian art before the public appearance of John of Damascus, the Syriac Theologian became an especially ardent defender of holy images and tried to vindicate their presence in Christian churches on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. This article outlines how the monk of Mar Saba uses the Holy Scriptures and Tradition in the Three Discourses against those who decry holy images. He quotes the Scriptures quite frequently, both the Old and New Testaments. So, of course, do his opponents. Therefore, the Syriac monk had to find another pillar to support his point of view. Tradition, represented almost exclusively by the Eastern Fathers, became his sure foundation. John's approach reveals his inner conviction that he is called to present the uncorrupted truths of the faith, which in their fullness every Christian can find precisely in the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Church Fathers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zbornik radova Fakulteta islamskih nauka u Sarajevu is the property of Zbornik radova Fakulteta islamskih nauka u Sarajevu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper is going to draw a comparison between pagan and Christian apologies for holy images. To this end, after giving a general history of the issue, the most important criticisms made of the images and veneration of them will be briefly considered. The next step is a detailed comparison between the two groups of apologies. These apologies are mostly concentrated on demonstrating the necessity of images, their functions, and their compatibility with the spiritual core of religion. The comparison will show that the Christian apologies are analogical in their basic aspects to the pagan apologies. In other words, the apologies that some Christian theologians made for images in response to the other Christians and Jews, was in a way the reproduction of apologies that pagan philosophers made in response to early Christians. A subsidiary result of this analogy is the transformation and restriction of the meaning of idolatry. Idolatry's definition in this transition becomes more and more restricted to the object of worship and no longer heeds to the rituals and appearances.

The theoretical legacy of John of Damascus still attracts the attention of researchers, as his works had a significant impact not only on the development of the theological discourse of the Eastern and Western Churches, but also on the further development of the theory and practice of the veneration of icons. One of the debatable questions is which theological and philosophical ideas became the structural basis of his apology of images. This article aims to study the theoretical basis of the theology of St. John of Damascus on holy images. The most important structural elements of the theory of the icon, their dogmatic foundation, as well as philosophical and theological ideas that became the basis of the doctrine have been analyzed. It is substantiated that John, based on a thorough philosophical and theological traditions, significantly deepens the theory of image. According to Damascus, images are not only intermediaries that provide a link between the spiritual and the material, the Divine and the human, but also authoritative representatives of the Divine Word, full of grace, which opens the way to salvation. The theologian determines the meaning and veneration of the icon not only by the relationship of similarity between the image and the original, but primarily by its involvement to the existence of the archetype. Such important components of his doctrine of icons as the apology of matter and the justification for the veneration of icons as sacred symbols in which the Divine energies are located are directly related to the truth of the Incarnation. Therefore, the theory of icon veneration of John of Damascus should be considered in the broader context of his Christology, in particular, the dialectical interpretation of the paradoxical essence of the Christological dogma of non-fusion and at the same time the unity of two natures – Divine and human. He relies on the theoretical basis developed by the early Byzantine Fathers of the Church, especially Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, consolidated by the Ecumenical Councils, and developed by theologians of the post-Chalcedonian period. One of the promising areas for further research on this issue is a comparative analysis of the main points of the theology of the icon in John’s doctrine with the provisions of theologians of the post-iconoclastic period – Theodore the Studit and The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople.

The present article reports the discovery of a previously unknown ninth-century Arabic paraphrase of Dionysius the Areopagite and demonstrates that this paraphrase was accessible to al-Ġazālī (and, probably, to other authors, notably the Brethren of Purity). It also proves that this paraphrase was produced by the same translator as the Doxography of Pseudo-Ammonius. The doctrinal content of the Arabic Dionysian paraphrase is then analyzed in relation to Arabic Neoplatonic texts as well as al-Ġazālī's writings. The influence of Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus on some Arabic philosophical texts (notably al-Kindī's Book of Definitions) is also considered. The origin of "Interpositional Neoplatonism" (i.e., the kind of Neoplatonism that interposes an intermediate hypostasis between the First Principle and the Intellect) is examined. The Appendix discusses the relationship between the Doxography of Pseudo-Ammonius and Hippolytus of Rome's Refutatio omnium haeresium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Ruthenian version of the Early Rus᾿ Exegesis on John of Damascus᾿ Easter Canon is published here according to the sole known mid-16th century manuscript from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Saint Petersburg, The Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Dobrokhotov collection (f. 37), No. 18, f. 302‒308). The text belongs to the little known in Early Slavic studies genre of exegesis (commentaries) on hymnography and is a part of a larger (and still unpublished) set of Old Church Slavonic hymnopgraphic commentaries compiled in Pre-Mongol Kievan Rus in the late 12th‒early 13th c. From the entire set, merely the exegesis on the Easter Canon is known to be translated from Old Church Slavonic into Ruthenian. The translation confirms the earlier conclusion that Ruthenian was never used in liturgical singing in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, since it was functioning as a lingua ad homines and clearly differed from Old Church Slavonic, which was used as a lingua ad Deum, e.g. the only Slavic Eastern Orthodox liturgical language directly addressed to God. The publication is accompanied by a description of the most important general characteristics of the Ruthenian version, which is a later and already corrupted copy of the original translation.

In his article, "Between History and Exegesis: the Origins and Transformation of the Story of Muḥammad and Zaynab bt Ǧaḥš," published in Arabica , 65/1-2 (2018), p. 31-63, Andreas Görke argues that the reference in Kor 33, 37 to Muḥammad's marriage to the former wife of a man named Zayd "seems to refer to an historical event" and that later exegetical expansions of the episode are based on an "historical kernel." He adds that these exegetical expansions were modeled on the encounter between David and Bathsheba in II Samuel 11-12 and that the connection between the Islamic and biblical episodes stands at the beginning of the Muslim "preoccupation" with v. 37. Building upon Görke's scholarship, I show how the early Muslim community created a plausible Sitz im Leben for the episode; establish with greater precision the starting point of the Muslim "preoccupation" with the connection between Muḥammad's marriage to Zayd's former wife and David's marriage to the wife of Uriah the Hittite; and suggest that the qurʾānic treatment of the episode contains a seed of what would become the doctrine of ʿiṣma or the impeccability of prophets. Finally, I propose that the important question for historians is not the event to which the episode purportedly refers but rather the larger geo-political context for the emergence of the qurʾānic proclamation that Muḥammad is ḫātam al-nabiyyīn or the Seal of Prophets. To this end, I seek to shift the scholarly gaze from a domestic crisis in the household of Muḥammad in Medina ca AH 5 to early Christian polemics against Islam and its Prophet and to Byzantine imperial ideology. Résumé: Dans son article « Between History and Exegesis: the Origins and Transformation of the Story of Muḥammad and Zaynab bt Ǧaḥš » publié dans Arabica , 65/1-2 (2018), p. 31-63, Andreas Görke soutient que, dans le verset coranique 37 de la sourate al-Aḥzāb (33), la référence au mariage de Muḥammad avec l'ancienne épouse d'un homme nommé Zayd « semble renvoyer à un événement historique » et que les développements exégétiques postérieurs de l'épisode reposent sur « un noyau historique ». Il ajoute que ces développements exégétiques prirent pour modèle la rencontre entre David et Bethsabée dans II Sam 11-12 et que le lien entre les épisodes islamiques et bibliques se retrouve dès les débuts des débats de la tradition musulmane sur le verset Kor 33, 37. Dans le prolongement de l'étude d'Andreas Görke, j'entends montrer comment la première communauté musulmane forma un Sitz im Leben plausible pour cet épisode, établir avec plus de précision le point de départ des « débats » musulmans concernant le lien entre le mariage de Muḥammad avec l'ancienne épouse de Zayd et le mariage de David avec la femme d'Urie le Hittite et suggérer que le traitement coranique de l'épisode contient les germes de ce qui deviendrait la doctrine de la ʿiṣma ou l'impeccabilité des prophètes. Enfin, je soutiens que la question importante pour les historiens n'est pas l'événement historique auquel l'épisode est supposé renvoyer, mais plutôt le contexte historique et géopolitique plus large conduisant à l'émergence de l'affirmation coranique que Muḥammad est le Sceau des Prophètes (ḫātam al-nabiyyīn). À cette fin, je propose de déplacer le regard des chercheurs de la crise domestique du foyer de Muḥammad à Médine vers l'an 5 de l'hégire aux premières polémiques chrétiennes contre l'islam et son prophète et à l'idéologie impériale byzantine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecologically related discourse generally argues that changed human behaviour is necessary for addressing the environmental crisis and that a view that the natural world is worthy and essentially good encourages people to live sustainably. Ecological theology endorses the importance of viewing the created world kindly and benevolently. One set of Christian texts that portrays the material world in a positive way is the Three Treatises on the Divine Images by John of Damascus. The treatises argue in favour of the making and veneration of images and suggest that because matter is divinely created and indwelled, it is inherently good. If the material world is intrinsically good, then it is to be respected and cared for, a notion which contests positivist or mechanised worldviews that have sanctioned environmental neglect or abuse. The treatises draw on, and are representative of, a strong Christian trajectory which can undergird a revitalised theology of matter that might enable a Christian response to the present ecological crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Artuklu Akademi is the property of Artuklu Akademi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 754 emperor Constantine V sought to defame the iconophile opposition by labeling John Damascene an agent of Arab influence. The fathers of Nicaenum II in 787 made a case for justifying external interference in the religious life of the Byzantine Empire. This stance was nuanced in polemical writings of the early 9th century. The author of the Life of St. Stephen the Younger presented external political pressure as internal by making the saint deliver a sermon on the geography of the iconoclast world in which political borders and ecclesiastical jurisdictions were deliberately tempered with. In late 810ies Theodore Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus launched a diplomatic enterprise aiming to increase the political pressure exercised from abroad over the recently reestablished iconoclast regime of Leo V. A close reading of Theodore’s letters and Nicephorus’ writings from exile sheds light on the underlying ideological basis of this trend. Michael II in his turn appropriated his opponents’ stratagem and tried to win over to his side an expanding external power -- the Carolingian empire -- and use it to suppress the iconophile opposition. In spite of the fact that the iconophile diplomatic efforts had negative rebound effects during the reign of Michael II, they were allotted a proper place in Byzantine cultural memory.

The transmission and reception of the mathesis carried by Diophantus' Arithmetica has not attracted much attention among historians of Greek mathematics, who have devoted their scholarly activity almost exclusively to questions about the proper understanding of the character of the mathematical undertaking of the Alexandrian mathematician. As a result, the common belief is that Diophantus' Arithmetica is presented as an isolated, and thus uncontextualized phenomenon in the history of ancient Greek mathematics. The aim of this paper is to investigate testimonies and other piece of evidence suggesting that Diophantus' heritage was present in intellectual milieus of the Greek-speaking world during the late antique and early medieval times. Special emphasis is given to a number of scholia to the arithmetical epigrams of the Palatine Anthology which witness the persistence of the method of problem solving taught by Diophantus in the late antique world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

St. John Damascene’s writings on heresies – specifically those texts against Nestorianism and Monophysitism – demonstrate a careful consideration of how thin the line is between schism and heresy. In the texts on heresies, Damascenus endeavors to reread the separation of certain Churches as an ecclesial problem and not only a theological problem. His writings blur the lines between heresy, nor­mally a theological concern, and schism, an ecclesiastical term normally reserved for the separation of Christian Churches. St. John Damascene’s teachings against heresies fit well within the culture of florilegia and compilations. John’s goal, particularly in the De haeresibus, seems to have been to contribute scholarly to the growing world of anti-heretical texts. His texts add to the already large list of known heresies, registering heresies that arose after the council of Chalcedon. Yet John’s texts against heresies are not meant simply to combat false tea­chings. In some cases, particularly Monophysitism, Damascenus contends that the terms used by orthodox (pro-Chalcedonian) Christians and Monophysite Chris­tians mean the same thing. We must read the Liber de haeresibus in the context of his other writings (e.g. Contra Jacobitas or Contra Nestorianos) in order to determine his true purpose. These definitions aim not to divide Christians based only on teachings, but to show the common understanding present in Christology in spite of different vocabulary. With a proper understanding of heresy, John of Damascus is able to provide a more complete description of the schisms in the Church of his time.

Copyright of XVIIe Siècle is the property of Presses Universitaires de France and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Overlooked textual evidence demonstrates Eusebius of Caesarea's authorship of the treatise Contra Hieroclem, on which doubt has recently been cast by Tomas Hägg and Aaron Johnson. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanitas: Revista de Estudos Greco-Latinas is the property of Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As most scholars agree, devotion to Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, begun to receive formal expression in most liturgical or theological sources until approximately the beginning of the fourth century. Among other canonical and apocryphal texts of the late second century, the Protevangelium is unique in its focus on the person of the Virgin Mary. Based on the Protevangelium we will examine Middle Byzantine homilies and sermons to the Mother of God on the occasion of the feasts of Mary's Conception, Nativity and Presentation into the Temple, while we will focus also on the origins of the Marian feasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to saint John of Damascus, Islam is one of the Christian sects. The difference between Islam and Christianity is mainly in understanding Logos (Logos as an eternal Word of God) and “logias” – the words of God that were revealed and written down. Christians understand Logos as the eternal Word of God directed to people by God. This Word is Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, Muslims refer to Jesus as a prophet and teacher. The Word of God for them is Koran, but initially it was also the Holy Bible. Muslims could not comprehend the person of the Holy Spirit and perceived Him only as a Divine power. Nevertheless, the biggest problem for Muslims living at the time of John of Damascus was to understand the embodiment.

This article focuses on the term enhypostaton. It makes the case that this term was originally coined in order to express three modes of being: "by itself", "with another" and "in another". The first and third of these modes could not explain the status of the flesh as a nature, which does not have a hypostasis of its own, since they denoted fullblown hypostases and mere accidents. By contrast, the second mode was tailored to the specific case of the human being where soul and body as complete natures come together to form a single hypostasis, which had traditionally served as a paradigm for the incarnation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Antik Tanulmanyok is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article is a review of how the Monophysite concept of «compound nature» and the Dyophysite concept of «compound hypostasis» were introduced into the context of Christological debates of the 6th century. A clash of these concepts revealed how deep the diff erence between moderate Monophysites Severian and Orthodox Dyophysites was. An analysis of the «compound hypostasis» concept and the author’s attempt to defi ne its place and meaning in the history of Orthodox Christology allowed him to suggest that this concept was not self-suffi cient. Instead, it was part of a full complex of theological and philosophical ideas that shaped the development of Dyophysite Christology of the sixth and seventh century.

Christians and Muslims encounter began during prophet Muhammad, its theological relations and discussions gradualy increased from second century. Muhammad prophethood's was one of the main topic in mutual theological relations and debates. In Christian environment, prophethood of Muhammad is refused in accordance with the Christian beliefs and conception of history. However some theologians have more positive statements about Prophet Muhammad. In this study, from the middle ages to the modern period, Christian Theologians two aproach to Muhammad's envision is evaluated. These two aproaches described as traditional and moderate is represented by prominent representatives such as John of Damascus, Patrik Timothy and Montgomery Watt. There is a lot of work about Prophet Muhammad conceived in the Christian world. In this article the issue is discussed in theological perspective. Consequently, especially moderate aproach which is increased in modern period how was the perception among muslims, how this perception is consistent with the facts and is this approach means to accept the prophethood of Muhammad. In this study these truths is evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article takes as its springboard the well-known text of Psalm 2:7, in which the Psalmist – presumably David, king of Israel – refers to himself as a ‘begotten’ son of God by virtue of his Lord's decree. The article first explores various linguistic and theological options as to the identity of the ‘son’ to whom the passage refers; and analyses the relationship between that son and the one who is stated to have begotten him. In this context, the article addresses ways in which the passage more generally sheds light on the relationship between God and Israel, including through analysis of a number of fluctuating usages of singular and plural terms in the Old Testament to describe that relationship. Second, and against that background, the article examines texts in the New Testament which quote or refer to Psalm 2:7 to see whether they provide a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between the father and the son described in the Psalm; and further to see whether any enhanced understanding of that relationship reciprocally sheds light on the relationship of God the Father to God the Son as revealed in the New Testament. The article then seeks to determine whether these passages, taken as a whole, provide explicit, implicit, or proto-Trinitarian concepts in anticipation of those given fuller expression in orthodox Church doctrine. Finally, the article explores the concept of circumincession, or coinherence, John of Damascus’ highly abstracted and nearly poetic effort at the close of the Patristic era to provide an extra-biblical explanation of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship among the three members of the Trinity. The article concludes by finding that his attempted articulation, and quite possibly all such efforts, will ultimately fail, leaving intact the mystery of the Trinity as one escaping, or rather surpassing, conceptual analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

W przeciwieństwie do opinii wielu współczesnych badaczy, według której nauka Jana Damasceńskiego stanowi kompilację neoplatońskich komentarzy i tekstów patrystycznych, przez przedstawicieli Zachodniego i wschodniego Chrześcijaństwa. Damasceńczyk był uznawany za jeden z największych autorytetów w kluczowych problemach filozofii i teologii. Jeden z owych problemów stanowiła interpretacja pojęcia hipostazy zgodna z potrzebami teologii. Damasceńczyk uznaje hipostazę za zasadę istnienia tworzących ją komponentów. Niezależne aktualne istnienie, które przynależy hipostazie, pozwala na hipostatyczne zjednoczenie różnych natur w jednym indywiduum. Zjednoczone natury istnieją przez partycypację w jednej i tej samej hipostazie jako jej komponenty, lecz pozostają odrębne i niezmienne. Taka interpretacja filozoficzna pozwoliła Damasceńczykowi wyjaśnić teologiczne problemy związane z uznaniem ludzkiej jednostki za złożoną z różnych natur oraz z przyjęciem unii hipostatycznej Chrystusa. W niniejszym artykule poddane są analizie teologiczne konsekwencje wynikające z filozoficznej koncepcji hipostazy Jana Damasceńskiego. Procedura ta pozwala właściwie ocenić oryginalność i znaczenie koncepcji Damasceńczyka, która winna być uznana za ważny wkład w rozwój myśli chrześcijańskiej.

Although Christian theologians find the yin-yang perspective in Taoism relevant to Christology, the yin-yang's movement of "harmony with conflict as complementary beings for each other" is not accord with complexities of the diverse realities of Christ's two natures. Nonetheless, the yin-yang perspective based on its cosmo-anthropology sheds new light 011 the controversies over the relationship between Christ's nature and his person. While patristic Christology was conceptualized by the Greek dualism in understanding the relationship between Christ's nature and his person, the yin-yang perspective connects the ultimate root of all things (...) to humans. With both continuity and distinctiveness between nature and person understood, we may find a clue that Christ's divinity, without losing its distinctive nature from humanity, has continuity with Christ's sacrificial death and that his humanity participates in Christ's person as he shares and bears all things on the cross. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Hegel once said, in Byzantium, between homoousis and homoiousis, the difference of one letter could decide the life and death of thousands. As this article seeks to argue, Byzantine thinking was not only attentive to conceptual differences, but also to iconic ones. The iconoclastic controversy (726–842 AD) arose from two different interpretations of the nature of images: whereas iconoclastic philosophy is based on the assumption of a fundamental ‘iconic identity’, iconophile philosophy defends the idea of ‘iconic difference’. And while the reception in the Latin West of the controversies over the image as a mere problem of referentiality of the letter explains why its originality has remained underestimated for centuries, re-examining Byzantine visual thinking in the light of today’s ‘pictorial turn’ reveals its striking modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper explores possible reasons for the comparatively low estimation of the potential philosophical significance of Byzantine theological thought, which, in contemporary studies, is frequently viewed as lacking philosophical depth and originality. The ultimate question here, though, is whether we should grant that theology may, in fact, contain original and valuable philosophy. In order to subject the issues involved to scrutiny, I undertake an analysis of the important case of the legacy of John of Damascus, which, in my opinion, actually furnishes some answers to these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The arrival of Muslim rulers who were insistent on the unity of God among Christians who testified to the unity of God in His triune nature introduced a considerable challenge to those Christians who were in the ascendency throughout the Middle East. Now they were on the defensive, needing to stem the movement of members of their own community to Islam which would eventually lead to Muslims becoming the majority. In the period of gradual transfer from majority to minority status Christian theologians attempted both to make their faith in the Trinity intelligible to Muslim intellectuals with whom they debated, and to give reasons to Christians for holding firm to their faith. These theologians are hardly known to the global church of the 21st century and it is the purpose of this paper to make them come alive for Christians who are witnessing to their faith before Muslims in our time in the hope that a contemporary testimony to the Triune God can be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Anthropos: Revija za Filozofijo in Psihologijo is the property of Anthropos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)