Recent commentators
have distanced themselves from Antoine Guillaumont’s supposition that the anathemas
of 543 are a reliable guide to Evagrius’ Christology, but have nonetheless concluded
that for him Christ is not truly the Logos Incarnate but instead a pre-existent
nous united to the Logos, and that accordingly his Christology was unorthodox
according to the standards of his own day. This communication challenges this
view by (i) summarising evidence from Evagrius’ writings that he did indeed
believe Christ to be the Logos made flesh, and (ii) arguing that his doctrine
of pre-existence (which was in any case only condemned in association with
Evagrius himself) has no implications for Christ’s divinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment