The development of the term [enypostatos] from Origen to John of Damascus
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Libro electrónico |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Leiden ; Boston :
Brill
2012.
|
| Colección: | Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae ;
v. 113. |
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Click para texto completo desde fuera UPSA Click para texto completo desde UPSA |
| Ver en Biblioteca de la Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca: | https://koha.upsa.es/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=326323 |
Solicitar por préstamo interbibliotecario:
Correo
| Formulario
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Acknowledgements; Abbreviations; Introduction; Part I. The Pre-Neochalcedonian enupostatos-Tradition; 1. The Origin of the Term; 1.1. Basic Considerations; 1.2. Enupostatos
- A Genuinely Christian Theological Term; 1.2.1. Irenaeus?; 1.2.2. Origen; 1.2.3. Origin and the Genuine Meaning(s) of the Term; 2. Enupostatos as a Technical Term of Trinitarian Theology; 2.1. The Rise and Development of a Technical Usage during the Arian Controversy; 2.1.1. A First Instance of Theological Relevance: The Letter of the Six Bishops. 2.1.2. A 'Third Kind' of Logos: proforikos, endiathetos, enupostatos2.1.3. The Hypostatical Independence of the Logos in the Creeds; 2.2. The Establishment of the Technical Usage in Late Fourth- and Early Fifth-Century Authors; 2.2.1. Ps-Athanasius and Didymus; 2.2.2. Epiphanius of Salamis; 2.2.3. John Chrysostom; 2.2.4. Cyril of Alexandria; Part II. The Christological Application of enupostatos; Introduction; 3. enupostatos, the 'Insubsistence Formula', Their Connection and Relevance for Post-Chalcedonian Christology during the Sixth-Century Debate. 3.1. John the Grammarian and the Introduction of enupostatos into the Christological Debate3.1.1. Enupostatos and Insubsistence in JohnÕs Apology for Chalcedon; 3.1.2. Background and Possible Sources; 3.2. Leontius of Byzantium and the Distinction between enupostaton and hupostasis; 3.2.1. Interpreting the ÔLocus ClassicusÕ; 3.2.2. Leontius and the Insubsistence Formula; 3.3. Philosophical Excursus: The Distinctio kath' hauto
- en alloi, the Problem of Substantial Qualities and Inexisting Natures; 3.3.1. Origin and Problems of the Distinction. 3.3.2. Attempted Solutions in the Later Commentaries on Aristotle3.3.3. Inherence of Accidents; 3.3.4. Inherence of Substantial Parts (Specific Differences, Substantial Qualities); 3.3.5. Inherence of Genera and Species; 3.3.5.1. The Problem of Participation; 3.3.5.2. The Problem of Individuation and Immattered Forms; 3.4. Ephrem of Amid; 3.5. Pamphilus the Theologian; 3.5.1. Pamphilus Reading Leontius of Byzantium; 3.5.2. Complementary Neochalcedonian Arguments: Pamphilus and the Insubsistence Formula. 3.6. De sectis, Anastasius of Antioch and the Christological Disadvantages of the Common Usage3.6.1. De sectis, Praxis VII; 3.6.2. Anastasius I. of Antioch, the Disadvantages of the Common Usage and the Systematical Problems of Insubsistence-Christology; 3.7. Leontius of Jerusalem; 3.7.1. Leontius' Usage of enupostatos; 3.7.2. Leontius and the Insubsistence Formula; 4. enupostatos, the 'Insubsistence Formula', Their Connection and Relevance for the Culmination of Chalcedonian Christological Thought; 4.1. Maximus the Confessor; 4.1.1. Maximus' Usage of enupostatos. 4.1.2. The Insubsistence Formula in Maximus.
