Ever since Grillmeier's volume II/4 of Jesus der Christus, the
Christology of Shenoute of Atripe has been interpreted in Monophysite
terms, or is at least associated with Monophysite Christologies.
Especially in the latest work on his Christology, written by Stephen
Davis, this Monophysite reading of Shenoute is most obvious and
explicit. This paper will argue, based mainly on Contra Origenistas and The Lord Thundered,
that Shenoute is not the Monophysite theologian some make him out to
be, and that, because of his monastic and practical context and content
of his writings, relating Shenoute to these larger Christological
debates in this manner is at odds with his work. Shenoute does not speak
to, nor is he concerned with, Christology in the way needed to able to
label someone a ‘Monophysite.' Trying to label him in this way makes one
ask questions of him which he simply does not answer. First, I will
briefly present the main arguments for interpreting Shenoute in
Monophysite terms and why I think they do not hold. These arguments
concern the bond of trust between Shenoute and the Alexandrian
Patriarchs (mainly Cyril and Dioscorus), the sporadic use of the
Christological termini technici, the use of the Theotokos,
and the utilisation of some metaphors. Second, the paper will indicate
some of the ways in which Shenoute himself speaks about Christology.
No comments:
Post a Comment