Abstract:
Greek terms φύσιѕ and ύπóστασιѕ, which constituted the main
issue of the Christological controversy in the 5th-6th centuries, in their
turn, caused certain problems both in Greek and Syriac. The negative
attitude of Catholicos Ishoʿyahb II is known towards the definitions of
the Council of Chalcedon, when the discussion concerned two natures
and one hypostasis. Great theologian Severos of Antioch also expressed
the same disapproval.
Certainly, Ishoʿyahb and Severos have different starting points: the
former unequivocally considers unity in incarnated Christ, and the latter
considers as absolute reality the possession of two natures, divine and
human in one and the same incarnated Christ. But, in addition to different
starting points, these two theologians also understand differently the
meaning of these technical terms. Ambiguity is both in Greek and in
Syriac. However, in the latter, an additional difficulty appears which is
related to the different connotations of Syriac equivalents. It may be
noted that for Severos φύσιѕ is in fact a synonym of ύπóστασιѕ. Such an
interpretation of the term is definitely unacceptable for the Dyophysite
wording of Chalcedon. For Ishoʿyahb, on the contrary, kyana/φύσιѕ
according to the meaning is much closer to oύσια than to ύπóστασιѕ.
Hence, the Dyophysite position is given principal importance.
