SPICILEGIUM SACRUM LOVANIENSE ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS FASCICULE 47 JOHN PHILOPONUS AND THE CONTROVERSIES OVER CHALCEDON IN THE SIXTH CENTURY A STUDY AND TRANSLATION OF THE ARBITER Pwe Michael LANG LEUVEN SPICILEGIUM SACRUM LOVANIENSE RAVENSTRAAT 98 PEETERS 2001 © Copyright 2001, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven ISBN 90-429-1024-0 D. 2001/0602/46 Tous droits de reproduction, d'adaption et de traduction réservés pour tous pays. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ν ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix ABBREVIATIONS χ ι I The Christology of John Philoponus 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 John Philoponus: Philosopher and Christian Theologian 3 1.2 Literature on Philoponus' Christology . ί . . . . 10 1.3 Scope and Method of This Study 13 2 The Textual Evidence for Philoponus' Christological Trea- tises 15 2.1 The Manuscripts of the Ancient Syriac Version . . . 15 2.2 The Greek Fragments 20 2.2.1 Doctrina Patrum and John of Damascus . . . 20 2.2.2 Nicetas Choniates 21 3 The Chronology and Historical Context of Philoponus' Christological Works 22 3.1 The Letter to Justinian 23 3.2 The Arbiter, the Epitome of the Arbiter, and the Two Apologies on behalf of the Arbiter 28 3.3 The Four Tmêmata against Chalcedon 31 3.4 The Treatise on the Whole and its Parts; to the Presby- ter Sergius 32 3.5 The Treatise on Difference. Number and Division . . 33 3.6 Chronology 40 4 The Christological Argument in Philoponus' Arbiter . . 41 4.1 Stating the Common Ground - The Posture of the Arbiter 42 4.2 Defending Miaphysite Christology 47 4.2.1 Christ is one 48 4.2.2 Christ is identical with his single n a t u r e . . . . 50 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.2.3 "Christ" is indicative of one nature viz. substance 51 4.2.4 Christ admits of no duality 53 4.2.5 One definition - one nature 58 4.3 Examining the Formula of Chalcedon 60 4.3.1 Nature, hypostasis and prosopon 60 4.3.2 Union of natures - union of hypostases . . . . 66 4.3.3 One nature - or three natures? 73 4.4 Refuting Objections 75 4.5 In Two Natures - Out of Two Natures: Towards a Rap- prochement 85 5 Philoponus' Defence of the Arbiter 88 5.1 The First Apology 90 5.2 The Second Apology 98 6 The Anthropological Paradigm in Christology . . . . 101 6.1 From Pre-Nicene Beginnings to the Fourth Century . . 105 6.1.1 The Synod of Antioch in 268/9 and its Christo- logical Controversy 105 6.1.2 Arian and Apollinarian Christologies . . . . 117 6.2 Cyril of Alexandria and the Post-Chalcedonian Contro- versy 121 6.2.1 The Antiochene Tradition and Cyril 121 6.2.2 After Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Leon- tius of Byzantium 128 7 The Paradigm of the Human Composite in Philoponus . 135 7.1 Philosophical Background: The Soul-Body Relationship 135 7.1.1 Aristotle and Plotinus 135 7.1.2 Porphyry 140 7.1.3 Philoponus 143 7.2 The Soul-Body Relationship in Philoponus'Christology 150 7.2.1 Synopsis 150 7.2.2 Criticism 153 8 Conclusion: Perspectives on Philoponus' Christology . . 157 8.1 Christian Theology and Aristotelian-Neoplatonic Philo- sophy 157 8.2 Philoponus and Chalcedon 166 TABLE OF CONTENTS VII II John Philoponus, Arbiter 171 9 A Translation of the Arbiter 173 10 The Philoponus-Fragments in Nicetas Choniates . . . 217 10.1 The Manuscripts 217 10.2 Principles of the Critical Edition 219 10.3 Text 222 Bibliography 231 1 Ancient Sources 231 2 Secondary Literature 238 Indices 253 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is my pleasure to express my gratitude to all those who contributed in many ways to the completion of this book, which originated as a doc- toral thesis at the University of Oxford. First I would like to thank Dr Mark Edwards, who initiated me into the study of Patristics and super- vised the growth of my thesis with his gentle guidance and generous en- couragement. Dr Sebastian Brock gave me indispensable support in mat- ters of Syriac language and literature. I greatly profited from the discus- sions with Professor Michael Frede, who showed considerable interest in my work and provided stimulating criticism, in particular regarding my treatment of ancient philosophy. I am indebted to Fr Joseph Munitiz, S.J., for his help with the manuscript research on which my edition of the Philoponus-fragments in Nicetas is based. Mr George Karamanolis kindly permitted me to draw on the results of his research on Porphyry in chapter seven. 1 would like to thank Dr Lionel Wickham and Fr Brian Daley, S.J., for examining my thesis in August 1999 and for providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. My translation of Philoponus' Arbiter owes much to Lionel Wickham, who carefully checked my ren- dering of the Syriac. I am happy to acknowledge my debt to all those who read parts of this book and offered their criticism regarding its contents and style, Fr Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap., Fr Gabriel Flynn, Dr Johannes Zach- huber, Dr Nicholas Healy, Dr Daniel Keating, and, most of all, Mr Richard Dobbins. They helped to improve the diction of the author, who encountered the difficulties of writing in a language other than his native tongue. I also profited much from discussing matters of Patristic theol- ogy with them. I am grateful to those institutions without which this project could not have been undertaken, above all the alma mater Oxoniensis, and in par- ticular Saint John's College. Thanks are due to the Stiftung Maximilia- neum and its former Vorstand, Mr Hans Angerer, the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, the British Academy, and the Deutscher Akademi- scher Austauschdienst for their financial support over the years. The Bodleian Library in Oxford, the British Library in London, the Biblio- theca Apostolica Vaticana, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana in Florence furnished me with micro- χ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS films and photocopies of the manuscripts I needed. I am grateful to Fr Peter Willi, F.S.O., Rector of the Seminary Collegium Paulinum in Rome, for his generous hospitality, which enabled me to explore the treasures of the Vatican Library. Finally, kind thanks are due to my brethren in the Oratory of St Philip Neri who generously provide me with the opportunity for further study and research. This book is dedicated to Tante Marie piae memoriae. Vienna, Candlemas 2001 ABBREVIATIONS ACO Acta Conciliorum Œcumenicomm, ed. Ε. Schwartz, Berlin 1914￿40 ￿ J. Straub, Berlin 1971￿84 ￿ R. Riedinger, Berlin 1984￿95 CCG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, Turnhout 1977ff. CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout 1953ff. CPG C lavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard, Turnhout 1974ff. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Wien 1866ff. CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Romae et al. 1903ff. GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Leipzig ￿ Berlin 1898ff. LCL Loeh Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. ￿ London 1912ff. PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus, accurante J.￿P. Migne, Series Graeca Paris 1857ff. PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus, accurante J.￿P. Migne, Series Latina, Paris 1841ff. PO Patrologia Orientalis, Paris 1907ff. SC Sources Chrétiennes, Paris 1941ff. SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, collegit Ioannes ab Arnim, 4 vol., Leipzig 1903-24 ET English translation Greek and Latin texts are usually quoted in the original language. An English translation is provided when it seems expedient to illustrate a specific point of the passage in question. Syriac texts are generally cited in English translation. Unless otherwise noted, the translations are my own. In the case of primary sources references are usually made to the texts in the original language or in an ancient translation (Latin, Greek, Syriac); square brackets [] indicate translations of Syriac texts into Latin and modern languages. I THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JOHN HHLOPONUS 1 Introduction The Alexandrian polymath John Philoponus (c. 490￿575 AD) is best known to scholars as the outstanding philosopher from the Neoplatonic school of Ammonius Hermeiou (435/445￿517/526 AD) and prolific com- mentator on Aristotle who launched an overall attack on the dominant Aristotelian scientific world￿view of his day. Among historians of an- cient thought his reputation as one of the most original thinkers of late antiquity has been established for some time. Philoponus the Christian theologian, however, has not attracted such scholarly enthusiasm. Patristic research often concentrated on the intricacies of the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, and was in- clined to underestimate the gravity of the controversies in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This has changed in recent years, and considerable attention is now given to post￿Chalcedonian Christo- logy. It is one of the major achievements of the monumental work by the late A. Grillmeier to have gathered together the highly specialised re- search undertaken in various departments of academia. Still, only a few, far from comprehensive studies have been devoted to the specifically Christian doctrines of the Alexandrian philosopher and lay￿theologian Philoponus. 1.1 John Philoponus: Philosopher and Christian Theologian There are two plausible explanations for the sobriquet "Philoponus". Φιλόπονος was a name given to studious scholars in antiquity because of its literal meaning "lover of work". Damascius praised the φιλο - πονία of various Neoplatonists in his Life of Isidore (written around 500 AD)1. Athanasius quoted approvingly from the "labour￿loving (φιλόπονου) Origen"; it is likely that this had already been a well￿ known epithet of Origen, whom Epiphanius of Salamis branded with the hostile version µαταιόπονος, "he who strives in vain"2. In the same way our author's name was changed in the long catalogue of heretics 1 See Zintzen's word index in his edition of Damascius, Vitae Isidon Reliquiae, s. v. φιλοπονία, φιλόπονος. 2 Athanasius, De Decretis 27,1: 23.19 Opitz; Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 64,63,8: GCS 31,501.8.