4 (74) 2017 | Адам әлемі 99
be noted that it is still embodied in the framework of Arianism and, later, in the
60s of the IV century it became more systematic by Apollinarius. The information
about the Apollinarius is mainly derived from anti-Apollinarian literature,
which, naturally, needs an unbiased analysis. The difficulty is that “the past,
expressing such a favorable opinion about Apollinarius writings, did not preserve
its manuscripts that would allow to have an idea of those opposite opinions.
Apollinarius’ writings have had the same destiny as his fate ... Apollinarius
writings were not interesting for the V century historians and he has remained
unrevealed in the history ... Similarly, many of his writings have been forgotten,
lost and thrown away within the course of history“ [Spaskii 1914, p. 93]. Church
history has quite a number of facts for that conclusion. Thus, in 30s and 40s of the
IV century the Arians considered one of the most important arguments against
the Orthodox church „the complete absence of Christ‘s human soul“ because
they regarded Christ as a „limited God.“
Thus, the Apollinarian doctrine, published in the second half of the
350s, was clearly directed against one of the Antiochian theological extreme
movements – Arianic anti-Trinitarianism. Consequently, it should be admitted
that Apollinarius’ Christology was not intended to be monophyisitic beforehand.
This is the final outcome of his doctrine. Therefore, it can be argued that proposing
this teaching, Apollinarius just tried to formulate an anti-Arianic doctrine on the
true divine nature of Jesus Christ. This assumption is supported by the statement
of Epiphanius of Cypros: „Even Athanasius did not want to believe the first
news about Apollinarius heresy, he did not believe that such an authoritative and
competent person began to preach a false teaching“ [Epiphanii, 1864, col. 77].
Perhaps this is the reason why, in principle, being opposed to the heretical
doctrines on imcarnation, Athanaius of Alexandria, as well as the Alexandrian
council of 362 leaded by him asserted the contradictions of Antiochian Christology
and Apollinarian doctrine on incarnation of Christ and rejected their extremal
perceptions – that God-Logos „had settled in the human body“ and that the body
of Christ had been „without anxiety and intelligence“ [Svitok Afanasy 1903, p.
171]. However, taking into account the unchangeable position of Apollinarius
towards Nicean decisions, the council decided not to ban him and to maintain
relations with the followers of Apollinarius [Ibid, pp. 170-172]. But it cannot be
described as passive adaptation at all, as both Athanasius of Alexandria and the
Cappadocian fathers struggled against the doctrine of Apollinarius consistently.
In this sense Athanasius of Alexandria points out that for the Arians the human
flesh of Christ is the outer cover of divinity, which (divine) substitutes for his human
soul. The Arians identified the Christ’s incarnation with his „human body” for
justification of the perfect unity of the Savior‘s personality, the limited knowledge
on semi-divine Logos and Christ‘s sufferings. Moreover, at the same time, they
accused the orthodoxes that their teachings leads to the doctrine on two sons or two
natures of God (even though it is not differentiated) „[Harnak 2001, p. 298].
Hovhannisyan H. Armenian Apostolic Church and the commencment of Christological...
100 Адам әлемі | 4 (74) 2017
These conclusions were found in the Christological system of Apollinarius
of Laodicea in 60s of the IV century and only in 70‘s of the IV century the church
began a struggle against the Apollinarian doctrine. Thus, the historical sources on
dogmatic debates, as well as the theological and ecclessiological writings point
out that the first stage of the Christological debate is connected with the name of
one of the most prominent anti-Arian figures of this timeperiod – Apollinarius of
Laodicea. German theologian A. Harnack, for example, considered Apollinarius
as „the founder and the first coordinator of the orthodox doctrine on Trinity.“
[Harnack 1894, p. 285]. Theologian W. Frend insists that equal to Athanasius
the Great and Basil of Caesaria, the Apollinarius was regarded as one of the best
theologians of the era. The author is also critical that Apollinarius dealt with
Christological problems within the framework of the Nicean confession when
he tried to answer two questions – if Jesus Christ is consubstantial (homusius)
with God the Father, then what is his true human nature, and second, how divine
and human natures interact within Christ. Is Christ‘s human spirit (rational –
H.H.) not replaced by divine Logos? In other words, to what extent can Christ be
considered consubstantial (homusius) to God? [Frend 1982, pp. 165-166].
First of all, it should be noted that the theologians‘ opinions about
Apollinarius of Laodicea are not only very different, but also opposed to teach
other using completely different methodologies. A. Lebedev argues that at the
beginning of his theological activities Apollinarius had acted as a fierce defender
of the Nicean faith and he had been standing in the front line of the Nicean
apologists throughout his lifetime. Because of such a clear theological position he
had enjoyed respect and support of the church and clergy [Lebedev 1896, p. 86].
According to A. Kartashev Apollinarius was the „brilliant theologian of his era,“
„a persistent old Nicean, the most stable anti-Arian and a talented writer,“ who
had a great number of prominent descendants. Basil of Caesarea had a respectful
relationship with him at the young age, and the Athanasius the Great personally
valued Apollinarius for his zeal support to the Nicene Creed „[Kartashev 2002,
p. 196].
A number of other theologians express an opposite view on the Apollinarius.
Chalcedonian Theodoret writes that „hiding under the cover of piety and showing
support to apostolic dogmas, he (Apollinarius – H.H.) soon became their open
enemy because he insisted that the divine sacrament is imperfect, and the rational
soul leading the flesh (of Christ – H.H.) is deprived of salvation abilities. In his
words, the Word of God has not taken the spirit of wisdom.“ [Feodorit episk.
Kirskiy 1852, p. 305]. The Church historian Sozomenos presents the history of
formation of Apollinarianism from a different angle. He claims that, with the
support of priest Vitaliyos, Apollinarius published a „private doctrine“ and gained
a large number of supporters. And when Apollinarius „made a sincere friendship“
with Athanasius the Great, the Bishop of Laodicea – George deprived him of
the sacrament of Eucharist and expelled from the church. This is the reason why
Религиоведческие и исламоведческие исследования
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |
