Apollinarism
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism was a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 390) that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind. It arose after the Trinity had been systematically formulated in 325, but debate about exactly what it meant continued.
Apollinaris taught that the souls of men were propagated by other human souls, as were their bodies, rather than being a direct creation of God. Appolinarism was denounced as a form of Monophysitism, which held that the Incarnation of God in Jesus overshadowed any merely human nature.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus charged Apollinaris with confusing the persons of the Godhead, and with giving into the heretical ways of Sabellius. Basil accused him of abandoning the literal sense of the scripture, and taking up wholly with the allegorical sense. His views were condemned in a synod under Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 362.
As far as the larger church goes, Apollinarism was declared to be a heresy in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, where Christ was officially depicted as both fully human and fully God.
The career of Appolinaris
Apollinarism was christological theory according to which Christ had a human body and a human soul, but thought only the thoughts of God. Apollinaris (Apolinarios), bishop of the ancient and prestigious church at Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, and Jerome, due to his classical and biblical learning, his defense of Christianity against paganism during the reign of Julian the Apostate, and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in popularizing Christian ideas through Greek literary genres. Together they translated the Pentateuch into Greek hexameters, converted the first two books of Kings into an epic poem of 24 cantos, and expressed biblical stories through comedic and tragic dramas. Saint Jerome credits him with many volumes on the scriptures, including two apologies on behalf of Christianity and a refutation of the Arian teacher Eunomius.
The precise time at which Apollinaris began to promulgate the theory which bears his name is uncertain. However, there are apparently two periods in the Apollinarist controversy. Up to 376, Apollinaris' name was never mentioned by his later opponents, including Athanasius and Pope Damasus. Nor is he criticized in church councils such as that of Alexandria (362), and Rome (376). However, from 376 onward open open and bitter theological warfare broke out between him and his critics.
Two late Roman councils, in 377 and 381 plainly denounce and condemn the views of Apollinaris as heretical, as do several of the Church Fathers during the same period. More importantly his views solemnly anathematized at the general Council of Constantinople in 381. Indeed, the first act of this ecumenical synod entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies. Still convinced that he was not in error, he died about 392.
The movement of Apollinarism
Apollinarism had considerable in Constantinople, Syria, and Phoenicia. However, after his death, the movement dissipated. Some of his disciples, such as Vitalis, Valentinus, Polemon, and Timothy, tried to perpetuate the teachings of the master and may be responsible for a number of pseudonymous writings to that end. A contemporary anonymous book: Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum, claims that the Apollinarists, in order to win credence for their teaching, circulated a number of tracts under the approved names of such famous churchmen as Gregory Thaumaturgus (He kata meros pistis, Exposition of Faith), Athanasius (Peri sarkoseos, On the Incarnation), Pope Julius (Peri tes en Christo enotetos, On Unity in Christ), etc. Some of these works, still appear under their supposed authors' names in collections of their works.
The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards 416, many returned to the orthodox Church, while others drifted into Monophysitism and other similar theories.
Doctrine
Apollinaris based his theory on two principles, one objective, and one psychological or subjective. Objectively, it appeared to him that the union of "true God" with "true man" could not be more than a verbal juxtaposition, combing two things which could not logically be combined. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot completely one, especially when one is infinite and purely spiritual while the other is finite and at least partly physical. They are at most an compound, and to make them absolutely one is not unlike the description of demigods in Greek mythology. However, Apollinaris agreed with the Nicene faith, which forbade describing God the Son as anything less than the "same substance" with the Father. Apollinaris attempted to solve this problem by affirming the complete unity substance between the mind of Jesus' and the mind of God. However, he also affirmed that Jesus' body and feelings (soul) were basically human.
Psychologically, Apollinaris, considered the soul as essentially and inherently capable of sin. His conscience would not allow him to affirm Christ's impeccability except by affirming that the mind of Jesus was completely identified with the Divine Logos. Apollinaris appealed to the well-known Platonic division of human nature: body (sarx, soma), soul (psyche, halogos), spirit or mind (nous, pneuma, psyche logike). Christ, he said, assumed the human body and the human soul, but his mind was the mind of God. In other words, the Logos—God the Son—takes the place of the human mind or spirit in Jesus. In this way, God became the rational and spiritual center, the seat of self-consciousness and self-determination, in Jesus Christ.
Though this formula, the Apollinarius sought to save Nice ne Christianity from the logical paradox that so many have seen it. At the same time he hope to preserve the unity of Christ himself, seeing himself not as two things (God and man at the same time and in the same place) but one thing (a man with the mind of God). In Apollinarius' view, this formula preseved Christ's moral immutability, and at the same time made the infinite value of Redemption self-evident. For scriptural confirmation, he quoted from the Gospel John 1:14 ("and the Word was made flesh"), Philemon 2:7 ("Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man"), and I Cor.15:47 (the second man, from heaven, heavenly").
Condemnations
It is to be found in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. "We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man." In answer to Apollinaris's basic principles, the Fathers simply denied the second as Manichaean. As to the first, it should be remembered that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had not yet formulated the doctrine of Hypostatical Union. It will then appear why the Fathers contented themselves with offering arguments in rebuttal, e.g.:
* Scripture holds that the Logos assumed all that is human — therefore the pneuma also — sin alone excepted; that Jesus experienced joy and sadness, both being properties of the rational soul. * Christ without a rational soul is not a man; such an incongruous compound, as that imagined by Apollinaris, can neither be called God-man nor stand as the model of Christian life. * What Christ has not assumed He has not healed; thus the noblest portion of man is excluded from Redemption.
They also pointed out the correct meaning of the Scriptural passages alleged by Apollinaris, remarking that the word sarx in St. John, as in other parts of Holy Writ, was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature, and that the true meaning of St. Paul (Philippians and I Corinthians) was determined by the clear teaching of the Pastoral Epistles. Some of them, however, incautiously insisted upon the limitations of Jesus' knowledge as proof positive that His mind was truly human. But when the heresiarch would have taken them farther afield into the very mystery of the Unity of Christ, they feared not to acknowledge their ignorance and gently derided Apollinaris's mathematical spirit and implicit reliance upon mere speculation and human reasoning. The Apollinarist controversy, which nowadays appears somewhat childish, had its importance in the history of Christian dogma; it transferred the discussion from the Trinity into the Christological field; moreover, it opened that long line of Christological debates which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- This article incorporates content from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, a publication in the public domain. [1] Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- Apollinarism – Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
