sergey trostyanskiy - A Critical Reassessment of the Late 19th-early 21st Century Scholarship of the Council of Chalcedon and its Theology

The entire scholarship of the Council of Chalcedon, in my opinion, has gone through, and thus can be divided into, three major stages. The first one was initiated in the late 19th century. This period is associated with the publication of the first critical edition of the council’s proceedings and the works of the major Chalcedonian protagonists. In addition, the studies of ancient decedents are on assent at this time. 

The next stage, beginning the 1950^th, was associated with the celebration of the 1500^th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon During this stage the Chalcedonian scholarship proper was established. This stage introduced new schemas and generalizations, which altogether played an important role in making the subject matter discernable for contemporaries. This way of organizing the subject matter, however, had its deficiencies as it attempted to fit ancient discourses and controversies into the narrow boundaries of the mid 20^th century historical theology with its emphasis on the history of dogma. 

Finally, the late 1970^th mark the beginning of the next stage. During this time a significant revision of the previous scholarly efforts (some of which failed to do justice to the ancient minds) was made and many notions previously used were easily disposed OF as antiquated and biased. 

In each stage of development I analyze the scholarly output taking into account the way the scholars understand the major Chalcedonian protagonists and their contribution to Christology. This understanding might depend on various parameters such as: ideological stands, philosophical and anthropological schemas, ecclesiastic traditions, and so on. My task here is to reassess the scholarship related to the Council and to see whether any particular interpretation seems more faithful to what is reflected in the proceedings and other primary sources. On first glance the possibility of an interpretation acceptable to all parties seems impossible as there is no common ground upon which an exclusive and all embracing framework can be established. On the other hand, the historical truth demands such an interpretation. Here I will attempt to discern the possibility of such interpretation.