fbpx
Wikipedia

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

January 01, 1970

Hypostasis (plural: hypostases), 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.[1] In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: Hypostasis of the Father, Hypostasis of the Son, and Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.[2]

Ancient Greek philosophy edit

Pseudo-Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance.[3]

Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.[1][4]

Christian theology edit

 
Italo-Greek icon, representing the Holy Trinity, Venice (16th century)
See also: Hypostatic union

The term hypostasis has a particular significance in Christian theology, particularly in Christian triadology (study of the Holy Trinity), and also in Christology (study of Christ).[5][6]

In Christian triadology edit

In Christian triadology three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history,[7] in reference to number and mutual relations of divine hypostases:

  • the Monohypostatic (or miahypostatic) concept advocates that God has only one hypostasis;[8][9]
  • the Dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son);[10]
  • the Trihypostatic concept advocates that God has three hypostases (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit).[11]

Origen "taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead."[12]: 185  "Arius ... spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."[12]: 187  Asterius, a leading Arian, "said that there were three hypostases".[12]: 187 

Eustathius and Marcellus promoted a monohypostatic interpretation of the Nicene Creed;[13]: 235  They were Sabellians: "It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism."[13]: 211  Marcellus of Ancyra "cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism".[14]

The "clear inference from [Athanasius'] usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God."[15]: 48  The Western Church also preferred a one hypostasis theology: "[Athanasius] had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact."[12]: 444 

Both traditional Trinity doctrine and the Arians taught three distinct hypostases in the Godhead. The difference is that, in the Trinity doctrine, they are one ousia ('substance').

Hypostasis and ousia edit

Hypostasis is the individual aspect of ousia, this means ousia is the parent characteristic that is shared by the hypostasis under it. Ousia can be shared by numerous hypostasis, as hypostasis is the individual expression of that ousia just how ego is an expression of the underlying soul. In this case it's clear to see that the ego and the soul are seemingly different as well as the same thing for the ego is not without the soul, they can however coexist. Ousia is the nature of that existence and all things that exist have ousia, as it's the nature of that existence in the way that it exists. Ousia is what makes a rock a rock and hypostasis is the various kinds of rocks; ousia is the form as well as nature of particles that construct an entity in the case of physical phenomena. On the other hand for spiritual phenomena it's the level of presence & creative force that differentiates one ousia from another. Like it has been said earlier this nature of existence(ousia) maybe shared by various hypostasis or instances of ousia.

Hypostasis is not the same as type or part, a Hypostasis holds all the nature described by its ousia. This means the ousia is equally possessed by each hypostasis & in that sense they are all the same. Each hypostasis is one as well as many at once. This is because all of them hold the same ousia, the difference is in their expressions of it.

Nicene Creed edit

"One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ousia and hypostasis."[15]: 92 

"Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out."[12]: 181  "The ambiguous anathema in N (the Nicene Creed) against those who believe that the Son is 'from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father' ... (is one example) of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding."[12]: 181  R. P. C. Hanson says that the Nicene Creed "apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia."[12]: 188 

Trinitarian doctrine edit

Hanson described Trinitarian doctrine, as developed through the fourth-century Arian controversy, as follows:

"The champions of the Nicene faith ... developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word 'Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as God." Hanson Lecture

Hanson explains hypostases as 'realities', 'entities', 'ways of being', and 'modes of existing' but says that the term person is misleading. Person, as used in English, where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will, is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the "doctrine of God as a Trinity."

But the main point of the definition is that God is one "ousia who existed as three hypostases." The purpose here is to show that the Nicene Creed probably uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed to enable the formulation of the central doctrine of the Trinity.

Greek philosophy edit

These terms originate from Greek philosophy, where they had essentially the same meaning and meant the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, this concept may refer to God or the Ultimate Reality.

The Bible edit

According to Hanson, "the only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as 'the impression of the nature' [hypostasis] of God."[12]: 182  "The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. ... At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God's hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term 'impression of his nature'."[12]: 182 

The Bible never refers to God's ousia.

Early Church Fathers edit

In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote 'being' or 'substantive reality' and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ousia ('essence'), substantia ('substance') or qnoma (specific term in Syriac Christianity).[16] It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen.[7]

"Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God ... God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space. ... It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal. ... He can use the expression Unius substantiae ('of one substance'). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea ... But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian's materialism is ... a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century."[12]: 184 

During Arian controversy edit

When the Arian controversy began, hypostasis and ousia were synonyms:

"For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning."[12]: 181  "For at least the first half of the period 318–381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms."[12]: 183 

Therefore, when dealing with documents from or before the beginning of the Arian controversy:

[The two terms] did not mean, and should not be translated, 'person' and 'substance', as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.[12]: 181 

Even for Athanasius, some decades after the controversy began, "hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous."[12]: 440 

Alternative views edit

Among those who regarded them as synonyms, two groups may be identified:

Three hypostases edit

One group said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct realities), each with his own ousia:

Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, Origen "used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son's distinct reality within the Godhead. ... He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.".[12]: 185  As examples from the fourth century, Hanson includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, two of the main anti-Nicenes.

One hypostasis edit

The other group said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis and one ousia, meaning that they are one single reality or being:

Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, "Dionysius of Rome ... said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy 'into three ... separated hypostases ... people who hold this in effect produce three gods'."[12]: 185  In the fourth century, the Sabellians Eustathian and Marcellus] were famous for this teaching.[17] It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category.[18] The "clear inference from [Athanasius'] usage" is that "there is only one hypostasis in God." (LA, 48)

Distinction by Arians edit

It is often said that the first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousia, and for using hypostasis as synonym of person, was Basil of Caesarea,[19] namely in his letters 214 (375 A.D.)[20] and 236 (376 A.D.)[21] However Hanson, in his discussion of the two terms, stated that some Arians had already made this distinction decades before Basil:

With respect to Arius, Hanson wrote: "It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two." "Arius ... spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit" but "no doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance."[12]: 187  Speaking of another prominent Arian, Hanson says: "Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases. ... But he also described the Son as 'the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power' of the Father. Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis."[12]: 187 

Asterius is called an Arian but, as indicated by the quote above, "he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived."[12]: 187 

Cappadocian Fathers edit

The three Cappadocian Fathers are Basil of Caesarea (330 to 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 to 389), and Gregory of Nyssa (335 to about 395) who was one of Basil's younger brothers.[12]: 676 

"Basil's most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary."[12]: 690 

"Basil uses hypostasis to mean 'Person of the Trinity' as distinguished from 'substance' which is usually expressed as either ousia or 'nature' (physis) or 'substratum'."[12]: 690–691 

Not one undivided substance edit

However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance. This can be shown as follows:

Unalterably like in respect of ousia edit

Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. He therefore believed similar to other Homoiousians, that the Son's substance is similar to the Father's:

"[Basil] came from what might be called an 'Homoiousian' background." (RH, 699) Therefore, "the doctrine of 'like in respect of ousia' was one which they could accept, or at least take as a starting point, and which caused them no uneasiness."[12]: 678 

This means that Basil believed in two distinct hypostases with similar substances. Later, he replaced the concept of 'similar substance' with 'exactly the same substance' but retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:

He says that in his own view 'like in respect of ousia' (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word 'unalterably' was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to homoousios." "Basil himself prefers homoousios." "Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.[12]: 694 

This also meant that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance, rather than two beings sharing one single substance.

The general and the particular edit

Basil of Caesarea explains that the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man:

He wrote: "That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis."[12]: 692 

"In the DSS [Basil] discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man."[12]: 698 

"Elsewhere he can compare the relation of ousia to hypostasis to that of 'living being' to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity." This suggests "that the three are each particular examples of a 'generic' Godhead."[12]: 692 

Basil "argued that [homoousios] was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of hypostasis to ousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to 'living beings', forms the strongest argument for Harnack's hypothesis."[12]: 697  "Harnack ... argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a 'generic' sense ... that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance."[12]: 696 

Later developments edit

Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different.[22] Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as 'sub-stantia' (substance); thus when speaking of three hypostases in the Godhead, they may have suspected three substances or tritheism. However, after the mid-fifth-century Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and was used to mean 'individual reality', especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.[23]

In Christology edit

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

  • monohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis;[24]
  • dyohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human).[25]

John Calvin's views edit

John Calvin wrote: "The word ὑπόστασις which, by following others, I have rendered substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (οὐσία) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person. But though it be not the Apostle's object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both."[26]

See also edit

 
Look up hypostasis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References edit

  1. ^ a b Anton 1977, pp. 258–271.
  2. ^ The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 5. Fahlbusch, Erwin, Lochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John S., Pelikan, Jaroslav, 1923–2006, Vischer, Lukas, Bromiley, G. W. (Geoffrey William). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman. 2008. p. 543. ISBN 978-0802824134. OCLC 39914033.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  3. ^ Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 4.19.
  4. ^ Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies) by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press ISBN 0520258347, pp. 48–52.
  5. ^ Meyendorff 1989, pp. 190–192, 198, 257, 362.
  6. ^ Daley 2009, pp. 342–345.
  7. ^ a b Ramelli 2012, pp. 302–350.
  8. ^ Lienhard 1993, pp. 97–99.
  9. ^ Bulgakov 2009, pp. 82, 143–144.
  10. ^ Lienhard 1993, pp. 94–97.
  11. ^ Bulgakov 2009, pp. 15, 143, 147.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Hanson, Richard P. C (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381.
  13. ^ a b Hanson, Richard P. C (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318–381. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. p. 235. Retrieved 2023-12-01. If we are to take the Nicene Creed at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.
  14. ^ Hanson Lecture
  15. ^ a b Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its legacy.
  16. ^ Meyendorff 1989, p. 173.
  17. ^ [1]
  18. ^ [2]
  19. ^ Johannes (2018-03-31). "Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils". Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils. Retrieved 2021-09-23.
  20. ^ "St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 1". www.elpenor.org. Retrieved 2021-09-23.
  21. ^ "St Basil the Great, Letters – Third Part – Full text, in English – 39". www.elpenor.org. Retrieved 2021-09-23.
  22. ^ Weedman 2007, pp. 95–97.
  23. ^ González, Justo L (2005), "Hypostasis", Essential Theological Terms, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 80–81, ISBN 978-0664228101
  24. ^ McGuckin 2011, p. 57.
  25. ^ Kuhn 2019.
  26. ^ John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, 35 (CCEL PDF ed.); https://ccel.org/ccel/c/calvin/calcom44/cache/calcom44.pdf; plain text version: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/hebrews-1.html

Sources edit

  • Anton, John P. (1977). "Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in Plotinus". The Review of Metaphysics. 31 (2): 258–271. JSTOR 20127050.
  • Bulgakov, Sergius (2009). The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0802845740.
  • Daley, Brian E. (2009). "The Persons in God and the Person of Christ in Patristic Theology: An Argument for Parallel Development". God in Early Christian Thought. Leiden & Boston: Brill. pp. 323–350. ISBN 978-9004174122.
  • Kuhn, Michael F. (2019). God is One: A Christian Defence of Divine Unity in the Muslim Golden Age. Carlisle: Langham Publishing. ISBN 978-1783685776.
  • Lienhard, Joseph T. (1993). "The Arian Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered". Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church. New York and London: Garland Publishing. pp. 87–109. ISBN 978-0815310693.
  • Loon, Hans van (2009). The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden & Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-9004173224.
  • McGuckin, John Anthony, ed. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Vol. 1. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405185394.
  • McLeod, Frederick G. (2010). "Theodore of Mopsuestia's Understanding of Two Hypostaseis and Two Prosopa Coinciding in One Common Prosopon". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 18 (3): 393–424. doi:10.1353/earl.2010.0011. S2CID 170594639.
  • Meyendorff, John (1983) [1974]. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (2nd revised ed.). New York: Fordham University Press. ISBN 978-0823209675.
  • Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. ISBN 978-0881410563.
  • Owens, Joseph (1951). The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
  • Pásztori-Kupán, István (2006). Theodoret of Cyrus. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1134391769.
  • Ramelli, Ilaria (2012). "Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis". The Harvard Theological Review. 105 (3): 302–350. doi:10.1017/S0017816012000120. JSTOR 23327679. S2CID 170203381.
  • Toepel, Alexander (2014). "Zur Bedeutung der Begriffe Hypostase und Prosopon bei Babai dem Großen". Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context. Leiden & Boston: Brill. pp. 151–171. ISBN 978-9004264274.
  • Turcescu, Lucian (1997). "Prosopon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea's "Against Eunomius" and the Epistles". Vigiliae Christianae. 51 (4): 374–395. doi:10.2307/1583868. JSTOR 1583868.
  • Weedman, Mark (2007). The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Leiden & Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-9004162242.

January 01, 1970
hypostasis, philosophy, religion, hypostasis, plural, hypostases, from, greek, ὑπόστασις, hypóstasis, underlying, state, underlying, substance, fundamental, reality, that, supports, else, same, concept, substance, neoplatonism, hypostasis, soul, intellect, nou. Hypostasis plural hypostases from the Greek ὑpostasis hypostasis 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 1 In Christian theology the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases Hypostasis of the Father Hypostasis of the Son and Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit 2 Contents 1 Ancient Greek philosophy 2 Christian theology 2 1 In Christian triadology 2 2 Hypostasis and ousia 2 2 1 Nicene Creed 2 2 2 Trinitarian doctrine 2 2 3 Greek philosophy 2 2 4 The Bible 2 2 5 Early Church Fathers 2 2 5 1 During Arian controversy 2 2 6 Alternative views 2 2 6 1 Three hypostases 2 2 6 2 One hypostasis 2 2 7 Distinction by Arians 2 2 8 Cappadocian Fathers 2 2 9 Not one undivided substance 2 2 9 1 Unalterably like in respect of ousia 2 2 9 2 The general and the particular 2 2 10 Later developments 2 3 In Christology 2 4 John Calvin s views 3 See also 4 References 5 SourcesAncient Greek philosophy editPseudo Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance 3 Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles or hypostases each one more sublime than the preceding For Plotinus these are the Soul the Intellect and the One 1 4 Christian theology edit nbsp Italo Greek icon representing the Holy Trinity Venice 16th century See also Hypostatic union The term hypostasis has a particular significance in Christian theology particularly in Christian triadology study of the Holy Trinity and also in Christology study of Christ 5 6 In Christian triadology edit In Christian triadology three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history 7 in reference to number and mutual relations of divine hypostases the Monohypostatic or miahypostatic concept advocates that God has only one hypostasis 8 9 the Dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases Father and Son 10 the Trihypostatic concept advocates that God has three hypostases Father Son and the Holy Spirit 11 Origen taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead 12 185 Arius spoke readily of the hypostases of Father Son and Holy Spirit 12 187 Asterius a leading Arian said that there were three hypostases 12 187 Eustathius and Marcellus promoted a monohypostatic interpretation of the Nicene Creed 13 235 They were Sabellians It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism 13 211 Marcellus of Ancyra cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism 14 The clear inference from Athanasius usage is that there is only one hypostasis in God 15 48 The Western Church also preferred a one hypostasis theology Athanasius had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343 and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one and only one hypostasis as orthodoxy Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359 even though he tried later to suppress this fact 12 444 Both traditional Trinity doctrine and the Arians taught three distinct hypostases in the Godhead The difference is that in the Trinity doctrine they are one ousia substance Hypostasis and ousia edit This section contains close paraphrasing of a non free copyrighted source The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page Please help rewriting it with your own words January 2022 Learn how and when to remove this message Hypostasis is the individual aspect of ousia this means ousia is the parent characteristic that is shared by the hypostasis under it Ousia can be shared by numerous hypostasis as hypostasis is the individual expression of that ousia just how ego is an expression of the underlying soul In this case it s clear to see that the ego and the soul are seemingly different as well as the same thing for the ego is not without the soul they can however coexist Ousia is the nature of that existence and all things that exist have ousia as it s the nature of that existence in the way that it exists Ousia is what makes a rock a rock and hypostasis is the various kinds of rocks ousia is the form as well as nature of particles that construct an entity in the case of physical phenomena On the other hand for spiritual phenomena it s the level of presence amp creative force that differentiates one ousia from another Like it has been said earlier this nature of existence ousia maybe shared by various hypostasis or instances of ousia Hypostasis is not the same as type or part a Hypostasis holds all the nature described by its ousia This means the ousia is equally possessed by each hypostasis amp in that sense they are all the same Each hypostasis is one as well as many at once This is because all of them hold the same ousia the difference is in their expressions of it Nicene Creed edit One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325 is its use of the technical terminology of ousia and hypostasis 15 92 Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out 12 181 The ambiguous anathema in N the Nicene Creed against those who believe that the Son is from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father is one example of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding 12 181 R P C Hanson says that the Nicene Creed apparently but not quite certainly identifies hypostasis and ousia 12 188 Trinitarian doctrine edit Hanson described Trinitarian doctrine as developed through the fourth century Arian controversy as follows The champions of the Nicene faith developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases three distinct realities or entities I refrain from using the misleading word Person three ways of being or modes of existing as God Hanson Lecture Hanson explains hypostases as realities entities ways of being and modes of existing but says that the term person is misleading Person as used in English where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the doctrine of God as a Trinity But the main point of the definition is that God is one ousia who existed as three hypostases The purpose here is to show that the Nicene Creed probably uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed to enable the formulation of the central doctrine of the Trinity Greek philosophy edit These terms originate from Greek philosophy where they had essentially the same meaning and meant the fundamental reality that supports all else In a Christian context this concept may refer to God or the Ultimate Reality The Bible edit According to Hanson the only strictly theological use of the word hypostasis is that of Hebrews 1 3 where the Son is described as the impression of the nature hypostasis of God 12 182 The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant At Wisdom 16 21 the writer speaks of God s hypostasis meaning his nature and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term impression of his nature 12 182 The Bible never refers to God s ousia Early Church Fathers edit In early Christian writings hypostasis was used to denote being or substantive reality and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ousia essence substantia substance or qnoma specific term in Syriac Christianity 16 It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen 7 Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia substance of God God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father Son and Holy Spirit sharing this substance so that the relationship of the Three is in a highly refined sense corporeal He can use the expression Unius substantiae of one substance This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea But this is a far from plausible theory Tertullian s materialism is a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century 12 184 During Arian controversy edit When the Arian controversy began hypostasis and ousia were synonyms For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning 12 181 For at least the first half of the period 318 381 and in some cases considerably later ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms 12 183 Therefore when dealing with documents from or before the beginning of the Arian controversy The two terms did not mean and should not be translated person and substance as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words 12 181 Even for Athanasius some decades after the controversy began hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous 12 440 Alternative views edit Among those who regarded them as synonyms two groups may be identified Three hypostases edit One group said that the Father Son and Spirit are three hypostases three distinct realities each with his own ousia Among the pre Nicene church fathers Origen used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son s distinct reality within the Godhead He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead 12 185 As examples from the fourth century Hanson includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia two of the main anti Nicenes One hypostasis edit The other group said that the Father Son and Spirit are one single hypostasis and one ousia meaning that they are one single reality or being Among the pre Nicene church fathers Dionysius of Rome said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy into three separated hypostases people who hold this in effect produce three gods 12 185 In the fourth century the Sabellians Eustathian and Marcellus were famous for this teaching 17 It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category 18 The clear inference from Athanasius usage is that there is only one hypostasis in God LA 48 Distinction by Arians edit It is often said that the first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousia and for using hypostasis as synonym of person was Basil of Caesarea 19 namely in his letters 214 375 A D 20 and 236 376 A D 21 However Hanson in his discussion of the two terms stated that some Arians had already made this distinction decades before Basil With respect to Arius Hanson wrote It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two Arius spoke readily of the hypostases of Father Son and Holy Spirit but no doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance 12 187 Speaking of another prominent Arian Hanson says Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases But he also described the Son as the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power of the Father Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis 12 187 Asterius is called an Arian but as indicated by the quote above he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived 12 187 Cappadocian Fathers edit The three Cappadocian Fathers are Basil of Caesarea 330 to 379 Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 389 and Gregory of Nyssa 335 to about 395 who was one of Basil s younger brothers 12 676 Basil s most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary 12 690 Basil uses hypostasis to mean Person of the Trinity as distinguished from substance which is usually expressed as either ousia or nature physis or substratum 12 690 691 Not one undivided substance edit However the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia substance as in the Trinity doctrine They said that the Father Son and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance but each has his own substance This can be shown as follows Unalterably like in respect of ousia edit Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian He therefore believed similar to other Homoiousians that the Son s substance is similar to the Father s Basil came from what might be called an Homoiousian background RH 699 Therefore the doctrine of like in respect of ousia was one which they could accept or at least take as a starting point and which caused them no uneasiness 12 678 This means that Basil believed in two distinct hypostases with similar substances Later he replaced the concept of similar substance with exactly the same substance but retained the idea of two distinct hypostases He says that in his own view like in respect of ousia the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra was an acceptable formula provided that the word unalterably was added to it for then it would be equivalent to homoousios Basil himself prefers homoousios Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins 12 694 This also meant that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance rather than two beings sharing one single substance The general and the particular edit Basil of Caesarea explains that the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular as for instance between the animal and the particular man He wrote That relation which the general has to the particular such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis 12 692 In the DSS Basil discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence such as humanity and its concrete manifestations such as man 12 698 Elsewhere he can compare the relation of ousia to hypostasis to that of living being to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity This suggests that the three are each particular examples of a generic Godhead 12 692 Basil argued that homoousios was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases This with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of hypostasis to ousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general or of a man to living beings forms the strongest argument for Harnack s hypothesis 12 697 Harnack argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a generic sense that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance 12 696 Later developments edit Consensus was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different 22 Many Latin speaking theologians understood hypo stasis as sub stantia substance thus when speaking of three hypostases in the Godhead they may have suspected three substances or tritheism However after the mid fifth century Council of Chalcedon the word came to be contrasted with ousia and was used to mean individual reality especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases personae persons 23 In Christology edit Within Christology two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history in reference to the Hypostasis of Christ monohypostatic concept in Christology advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis 24 dyohypostatic concept in Christology advocates that Christ has two hypostases divine and human 25 John Calvin s views edit John Calvin wrote The word ὑpostasis which by following others I have rendered substance denotes not as I think the being or essence of the Father but his person for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ as the essence of both is simply the same But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term hypostasis considering it to be threefold in God while the essence oὐsia is simply one Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person But though it be not the Apostle s object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself but of what he is really to us yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone and also refers to two distinct persons as to the Father and the Son For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him so that a subsistence or person belongs to both 26 See also edit nbsp Look up hypostasis in Wiktionary the free dictionary nbsp Christianity portal Aspect religion Haecceity a term used by the followers of Duns Scotus to refer to that which formally distinguishes one thing from another with a common nature Hypokeimenon Hypostatic union Hypostatic abstraction Instantiation principle Kalyptos in Gnosticism Noema a similar term used by Edmund Husserl Prakṛti a similar term found in Hinduism Principle of individuation Prosopon or persona Reification fallacy Substance theoryReferences edit a b Anton 1977 pp 258 271 The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol 5 Fahlbusch Erwin Lochman Jan Milic Mbiti John S Pelikan Jaroslav 1923 2006 Vischer Lukas Bromiley G W Geoffrey William Grand Rapids Michigan Eerdman 2008 p 543 ISBN 978 0802824134 OCLC 39914033 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint others link Pseudo Aristotle De mundo 4 19 Neoplatonism Ancient Philosophies by Pauliina Remes 2008 University of California Press ISBN 0520258347 pp 48 52 Meyendorff 1989 pp 190 192 198 257 362 Daley 2009 pp 342 345 a b Ramelli 2012 pp 302 350 Lienhard 1993 pp 97 99 Bulgakov 2009 pp 82 143 144 Lienhard 1993 pp 94 97 Bulgakov 2009 pp 15 143 147 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Hanson Richard P C 1987 The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God The Arian Controversy 318 381 a b Hanson Richard P C 1988 The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God The Arian Controversy 318 381 Grand Rapids Michigan Baker Academic p 235 Retrieved 2023 12 01 If we are to take the Nicene Creed at its face value the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men Hanson Lecture a b Ayres Lewis 2004 Nicaea and its legacy Meyendorff 1989 p 173 1 2 Johannes 2018 03 31 Ousia and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils Ousia and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils Retrieved 2021 09 23 St Basil the Great Letters Third Part Full text in English 1 www elpenor org Retrieved 2021 09 23 St Basil the Great Letters Third Part Full text in English 39 www elpenor org Retrieved 2021 09 23 Weedman 2007 pp 95 97 Gonzalez Justo L 2005 Hypostasis Essential Theological Terms Louisville Westminster John Knox Press pp 80 81 ISBN 978 0664228101 McGuckin 2011 p 57 Kuhn 2019 John Calvin Commentary on Hebrews 35 CCEL PDF ed https ccel org ccel c calvin calcom44 cache calcom44 pdf plain text version https www studylight org commentaries eng cal hebrews 1 htmlSources editAnton John P 1977 Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in Plotinus The Review of Metaphysics 31 2 258 271 JSTOR 20127050 Bulgakov Sergius 2009 The Burning Bush On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God Grand Rapids MI William B Eerdmans Publishing ISBN 978 0802845740 Daley Brian E 2009 The Persons in God and the Person of Christ in Patristic Theology An Argument for Parallel Development God in Early Christian Thought Leiden amp Boston Brill pp 323 350 ISBN 978 9004174122 Kuhn Michael F 2019 God is One A Christian Defence of Divine Unity in the Muslim Golden Age Carlisle Langham Publishing ISBN 978 1783685776 Lienhard Joseph T 1993 The Arian Controversy Some Categories Reconsidered Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church New York and London Garland Publishing pp 87 109 ISBN 978 0815310693 Loon Hans van 2009 The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria Leiden amp Boston Brill ISBN 978 9004173224 McGuckin John Anthony ed 2011 The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity Vol 1 Malden MA Wiley Blackwell ISBN 9781405185394 McLeod Frederick G 2010 Theodore of Mopsuestia s Understanding of Two Hypostaseis and Two Prosopa Coinciding in One Common Prosopon Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 3 393 424 doi 10 1353 earl 2010 0011 S2CID 170594639 Meyendorff John 1983 1974 Byzantine Theology Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes 2nd revised ed New York Fordham University Press ISBN 978 0823209675 Meyendorff John 1989 Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions The Church 450 680 A D Crestwood NY St Vladimir s Seminary Press ISBN 978 0881410563 Owens Joseph 1951 The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought Toronto Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Pasztori Kupan Istvan 2006 Theodoret of Cyrus London amp New York Routledge ISBN 978 1134391769 Ramelli Ilaria 2012 Origen Greek Philosophy and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis The Harvard Theological Review 105 3 302 350 doi 10 1017 S0017816012000120 JSTOR 23327679 S2CID 170203381 Toepel Alexander 2014 Zur Bedeutung der Begriffe Hypostase und Prosopon bei Babai dem Grossen Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context Leiden amp Boston Brill pp 151 171 ISBN 978 9004264274 Turcescu Lucian 1997 Prosopon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea s Against Eunomius and the Epistles Vigiliae Christianae 51 4 374 395 doi 10 2307 1583868 JSTOR 1583868 Weedman Mark 2007 The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers Leiden amp Boston Brill ISBN 978 9004162242 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Hypostasis philosophy and religion amp oldid 1210278943, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.