{"slug":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","title":"De natura composita","title_source":"De natura composita","author":"John of Damascus","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T07:01:08Z","cost_usd":0.006135},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","work_id":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/De%20natura%20composita.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":11,"english_words":2949,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":11791,"commentary_units":65,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":15,"work_notes":5,"external_links":5,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","abstract":"De natura composita is a theological treatise by John of Damascus (c. 675–749) that defends the orthodox Chalcedonian Christology of one hypostasis with two natures in Christ. Written during the Iconoclastic Controversy, the work argues against Monophysite and Nestorian positions by analyzing the concept of composite nature (σύνθετος φύσις). John uses Aristotelian categories and analogies (elements, mule) to show that in Christ the divine and human natures remain fully present, unlike ordinary composites. The treatise employs a dialectical structure of questions and refutations. The modern Khazarzar edition is a digital transcription without critical apparatus, so its manuscript basis and textual fidelity are unverified.","historical_context":"John of Damascus (c. 675–749) wrote De natura composita in Greek, likely at the Monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem, during the first phase of the Iconoclastic Controversy (c. 726–787). The work reflects the Chalcedonian orthodoxy of the Byzantine Church, which affirmed the dual nature of Christ against Miaphysite and Nestorian alternatives. John's systematic use of Aristotelian logic and patristic sources (e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius of Byzantium) situates the treatise within the broader tradition of Byzantine theological polemic. The text survives in Greek manuscripts, but the Khazarzar edition provides no information on its specific manuscript witnesses or stemma. Transmission likely occurred through monastic libraries and later Byzantine compilations; the work influenced both Byzantine and Scholastic theology.","significance":"De natura composita is a key text for understanding Byzantine Christological debate and John of Damascus's role as a systematizer of patristic thought. Its use of Aristotelian categories to articulate Chalcedonian doctrine influenced later Byzantine theologians and, through Latin translations, Scholastic thinkers like Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas. The treatise also illustrates the polemical methods of the Iconoclastic period.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 675","event":"Birth of John of Damascus."},{"date":"c. 726–787","event":"First Iconoclastic Controversy; John writes De natura composita."},{"date":"c. 749","event":"Death of John of Damascus."},{"date":"8th–9th c.","event":"Transmission of Greek manuscripts of John's works in Byzantine monasteries."},{"date":"12th–13th c.","event":"Latin translations of John's works influence Scholastic theology."},{"date":"Modern","event":"Khazarzar digital edition produced without critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Expositio fidei","relation":"John's systematic summary of orthodox doctrine; De natura composita expands on Christology.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Nestorianos et Monophysitas","relation":"Another polemical work by John on similar Christological themes.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Three Chapters of Leontius of Byzantium","relation":"Earlier use of composite nature analogies (e.g., mule) that John adapts.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Cyril of Alexandria's Second Letter to Nestorius","relation":"Patristic source for the union of natures in one hypostasis.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Sentences of Peter Lombard","relation":"Later Scholastic work influenced by John's Christological categories.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:John of Damascus","label":"John of Damascus","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus","reason":"Biographical and historical context for the author."},{"key":"wikipedia:Chalcedonian Definition","label":"Chalcedonian Definition","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition","reason":"Doctrinal background for the treatise's Christology."},{"key":"wikipedia:Iconoclasm","label":"Iconoclasm","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm","reason":"Historical controversy during which John wrote."},{"key":"wikipedia:Byzantine theology","label":"Byzantine theology","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_theology","reason":"Broader theological tradition of the work."},{"key":"wikipedia:Hypostasis","label":"Hypostasis","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis","reason":"Key technical term used in the treatise."}],"cautions":["The Khazarzar edition does not specify its manuscript basis; textual variants or lacunae in the Greek tradition may be unaccounted for.","The exact date of composition is unknown; the work is generally placed during the Iconoclastic Controversy (c. 726–787).","The treatise's attribution to John of Damascus is secure, but some later interpolations cannot be ruled out without a critical edition."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000476,"generated":"2026-11-15T07:01:07Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/De%20natura%20composita.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-natura-composita","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":11,"translated":11,"commentary_passages":11,"commentary_units":65,"english_words":2949,"source_letters":11791,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a theological treatise on the composite nature of Christ, arguing for the union of divine and human natures in one hypostasis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John of Damascus (c. 675–749) wrote this during the Iconoclastic Controversy; the work reflects his systematic defense of orthodox Christology against Monophysite and Nestorian positions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Khazarzar edition is a modern digital transcription; its manuscript basis is not specified, so textual variants or lacunae in the Greek tradition may be unaccounted for.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This treatise influenced later Byzantine and Scholastic theology, particularly through its use of Aristotelian categories to articulate Chalcedonian Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition provides no critical apparatus or notes on manuscript witnesses; readers cannot verify the text’s fidelity to the earliest extant copies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 11 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":11},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ περὶ συνθέτου φύσεως κατὰ ἀκεφάλων.\n\n1 Μία φύσις σύνθετος ἐκ διαφόρων φύσεων γίνεται, ὅταν ἑνουμένων φύσεων ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὰς ἑνωθείσας φύσεις ἀποτελεσθῇ. Καὶ τὸ ἀποτελούμενον οὔτε τοῦτο κυρίως ἔστιν οὔτε λέγεται, οὔτε τοῦτο, ἀλλ' ἕτερον. Οἷον ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων, πυρὸς λέγω καὶ ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος καὶ γῆς, συνίσταται σῶμα ἑνουμένων τῶν τεσσάρων καὶ συγκιρναμένων, καὶ τὸ ἀποτελούμενον σῶμα οὔτε πῦρ ἔστιν οὔτε λέγεται οὔτε ἀὴρ οὔτε ὕδωρ οὔτε γῆ, ἀλλ' ἐκ τούτων ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα. Ὁμοίως καὶ ἀπὸ ἵππου καὶ ὄνου γίνεται ἡμίονος, καὶ οὔτε ἵππος ἔστιν οὔτε ὄνος οὔτε λέγεται, ἀλλ' ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα. Ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐκ θεότητος ὢν καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος καὶ ἐν θεότητί ἐστι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι καὶ θεὸς ἔστι καὶ λέγεται τέλειος καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος καὶ ὅλος θεὸς καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῆς συνθέτου φύσεως οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν· οὐ γὰρ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα πῦρ ἐστιν οὐδὲ ὅλον ἀήρ, ὁμοίως οὔτε γῆ οὔτε ὕδωρ, οὐδὲ ὅλη ἡ ἡμίονος ἵππος ἐστὶν οὐδὲ ὅλη ὄνος οὐδὲ τέλειος ἵππος οὐδὲ τέλειος ὄνος, ὁ δὲ Χριστός, ὡς εἶπον, τέλειός ἐστι θεὸς καὶ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὅλος θεὸς καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος. Διὸ οὐ μία ἐστὶ σύνθετος φύσις, ἀλλὰ μία ὑπόστασις ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι γνωριζομένη καὶ δύο φύσεις ἐν μιᾷ συνθέτῳ ὑποστάσει.","english":"Of our venerable father John of Damascus on composite nature against the Acephalians.\n\n1 A single composite nature arises from different natures when, with the natures being united, something other than the united natures is produced. And that which is produced is neither properly this nor called this, nor that, but something else. For example, from the four elements—I mean fire, air, water, and earth—a body is constituted, with the four being united and mingled, and the body produced is neither fire nor called fire, nor air, nor water, nor earth, but something else besides these. Similarly, from a horse and a donkey a mule comes to be, and it is neither a horse nor a donkey nor called such, but something else besides these. But our Lord Jesus Christ, being from divinity and humanity, is both in divinity and humanity, and is and is called perfect God and perfect man, and wholly God and wholly man, which cannot be found in the case of composite nature; for the whole body is not fire nor the whole air, nor similarly earth nor water, nor is the whole mule a horse nor the whole a donkey, nor a perfect horse nor a perfect donkey, but Christ, as I said, is perfect God and perfect man, and wholly God and wholly man. Therefore, it is not a single composite nature, but a single hypostasis known in two natures, and two natures in one composite hypostasis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἀκεφάλων","severity":"info","text":"The Acephalians (ἀκέφαλοι, 'headless ones') were a group of Miaphysites who rejected the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and refused communion with any bishop who accepted the Council of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) is a technical term in Christology denoting the concrete individual reality, distinct from φύσις (nature). John argues for one hypostasis in two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Μία φύσις σύνθετος","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a definition of composite nature, then gives two analogies (elements, mule) to show that composite natures produce something new, and finally contrasts Christ as both fully divine and fully human.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ἡμίονος","severity":"info","text":"The mule analogy (horse + donkey) is a standard patristic example for composite nature, used also by Cyril of Alexandria and Leontius of Byzantium to argue against Nestorian and Miaphysite positions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ὅλος θεὸς καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος","severity":"info","text":"John emphasizes that Christ is wholly God and wholly man, unlike composite natures where the parts are not fully present in the whole. This is the core of his anti-Miaphysite argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"σύνθετος φύσις","severity":"caution","text":"John's use of σύνθετος φύσις (composite nature) is polemical: he denies it of Christ, but some Miaphysites used the same term positively. The reader must distinguish John's definition from theirs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is clear; no significant ambiguities in this passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"2 Ἐρωτήσωμεν τοίνυν τοὺς αἱρετικούς· Ἐκ δύο φύσεων τὸν Χριστὸν λέγοντες ποίων φύσεων λέγετε; Ἐροῦσιν οὖν· Ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος. Εἶτα εἴπωμεν· Καὶ πῶς ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι λέγοντες τὸν Χριστὸν οὐ λέγετε αὐτὸν ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσιν; Οὐ γὰρ δύνανται εἰπεῖν, μὴ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι. Πάλιν ἐρωτήσωμεν αὐτούς· Μία φύσις σύνθετός ἐστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ δύο; Καὶ ἐροῦσι· Μία σύνθετος. Εἶτα λέγομεν· Τὸ ἁπλοῦν καὶ τὸ σύνθετον ὁμοούσιόν ἐστι; Καὶ οὐ δύνανται εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὁμοούσιά εἰσι τὸ ἁπλοῦν καὶ τὸ σύνθετον. Εἶτα λέγομεν· Ἐὰν οὖν συνθέτου φύσεώς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς μιᾶς ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί· ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ οὐκ ἔστι συνθέτου φύσεως ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ἀλλ' ἁπλῆς. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῇ μητρὶ ἔσται ὁμοούσιος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ μήτηρ ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητός ἐστι συντεθειμένη. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι λέγοντες, ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι, κατὰ μὲν τὴν θεότητά φαμεν αὐτὸν ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τῇ μητρὶ ὁμοούσιον, καὶ οὔτε διαιροῦμεν αὐτὸν μίαν ὑπόστασιν λέγοντες οὔτε συγχέομεν δύο φύσεις ἡνωμένας ὁμολογοῦντες. Καὶ πάλιν λέγομεν οὕτως· Εἰ μία φύσις τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, μία δὲ φύσις τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μία φύσις ἔσται τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆς σαρκός. Καὶ πάλιν· Πῶς ὁμολογεῖτε τὴν τῶν φύσεων διαφοράν; Ἡ γὰρ διαφορὰ τοὐλάχιστον δύο εἰσάγει τὰ διαφέροντα, ἢ φύσεις ἢ ὑποστάσεις, ἢ μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἀλλοιουμένην καὶ μεταβαλλομένην κατὰ τὸ χωριστὸν συμβεβηκός.","english":"Let us then ask the heretics: When you say that Christ is from two natures, of which natures do you speak? They will say: From divinity and humanity. Then let us say: And how, when you say that Christ is in divinity and humanity, do you not say that he is in two natures? For they cannot say that Christ is not in divinity and humanity. Again let us ask them: Is the nature of Christ one composite nature or two? And they will say: One composite. Then we say: Are the simple and the composite consubstantial? And they cannot say that the simple and the composite are consubstantial. Then we say: If therefore Christ is of one composite nature from divinity and humanity, he is not consubstantial with the Father; for the Father is not of a composite nature from divinity and humanity, but of a simple one. But neither will he be consubstantial with the mother; for the mother is not composed from divinity and humanity. But we, saying that Christ is one hypostasis in two natures, in divinity and humanity, affirm that according to his divinity he is consubstantial with the Father, and according to his humanity consubstantial with the mother, and we neither divide him, saying one hypostasis, nor confound him, confessing two natures united. And again we say thus: If the nature of Christ’s divinity and his flesh is one, and the nature of the Father and of Christ is one, then the nature of the Father and of the flesh will be one. And again: How do you confess the difference of the natures? For difference introduces at least two things that differ, either natures or hypostases, or one hypostasis altered and changed according to separable accident.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἐρωτήσωμεν τοίνυν τοὺς αἱρετικούς","severity":"info","text":"The passage adopts a dialectical structure: a series of questions and hypothetical answers attributed to heretical opponents, followed by refutation. This rhetorical pattern is typical of John's polemical method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὁμοούσιος","severity":"info","text":"The term 'homoousios' (consubstantial) is central to the argument. John uses it to show that if Christ had a single composite nature, he could not be consubstantial with either the Father (simple nature) or the mother (human nature).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"John distinguishes 'hypostasis' (individual reality) from 'physis' (nature). He affirms one hypostasis in two natures, avoiding both division and confusion—a key Chalcedonian formula.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"αἱρετικούς","severity":"info","text":"The 'heretics' are likely the Acephalians (mentioned in the title) or Monophysites, who held that Christ has one composite nature. John's argument counters their position by showing its logical consequences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes the Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451): 'one and the same Christ in two natures'. John's formulation is a standard post-Chalcedonian expression of Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἢ φύσεις ἢ ὑποστάσεις","severity":"caution","text":"The final sentence is ambiguous: 'difference introduces at least two things that differ, either natures or hypostases'. The Greek could also be read as 'either natures or hypostases' as alternatives, but John likely means that difference implies at least two distinct entities, whether natures or hypostases.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'heretics' is not specified in the passage itself, but the title and context point to the Acephalians or Monophysites.","The final clause 'ἢ φύσεις ἢ ὑποστάσεις' could be interpreted as listing two possible categories of difference, but the sense is that difference requires at least two distinct items, which could be natures or hypostases."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐχ ὑποστάσεων διαφορὰν λέγετε, δῆλον ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ. Ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τοῦ χωριστοῦ συμβεβηκότος, καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον· οὐ γὰρ ποτὲ μὲν λέγετε αὐτὸν ἀθάνατον, ποτὲ δὲ θνητὸν ἐξ ἀθανασίας τραπέντα εἰς θνητότητα, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐκ νόσου εἰς ὑγείαν. Λείπεται οὖν τῶν φύσεων λέγειν ὑμᾶς τὴν διαφοράν, ὡς καὶ ὁμολογεῖτε, καὶ τὴν τῶν φύσεων διαφορὰν ὁμολογοῦντας πρῶτον τὰς φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν, ὧν ἐστιν ἡ διαφορά· τῶν γὰρ οὐσιῶν μὴ οὐσῶν οὐδὲ αἱ οὐσιώδεις ἔσονται διαφοραί. Εἰ δὲ μία φύσις ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ μία\n\nὑπόστασις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ. διὰ τί φύσεων διαφορὰν λέγοντες οὐ λέγετε καὶ ὑποστάσεων διαφορὰν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ; Διὰ τί δὲ ἐκ φύσεων λέγοντες δύο τὸν Χριστὸν οὔ φατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκ δύο ὑποστάσεων; Εἰ μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεώς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί· ἁπλῆς γὰρ φύσεως ὁ πατήρ.\n\nΤὸ δὲ ἁπλοῦν καὶ σύνθετον οὐχ ὁμοούσια. Εἰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν ὁ Χριστός, μιᾶς οὐσίας ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἡμεῖς. Εἰ ὁμοφυὴς ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἁπλῆς ὄντι φύσεως, ἔχει δὲ καὶ σύνθετον φύσιν ὁ Χριστός, δύο ἕξει φύσεις, μίαν ἁπλῆν καὶ μίαν σύνθετον. Εἰ ταὐτὸν φύσις καὶ ὑπόστασις καθ' ὑμᾶς, ἢ τριῶν οὐσῶν ὑποστάσεων τῆς ἁγίας θεότητος τρεῖς ἔσονται αὐτῆς καὶ φύσεις ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης φύσεως μία ἔσται καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις. Εἰ ἑτέραν τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν φατὲ καὶ ἑτέραν τὴν ἐν ἀτόμῳ θεωρουμένην, ἣν καὶ μερικὴν ὀνομάζετε, οὐ μόνον τὸν Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον δύο ἔχειν φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεσθε, μίαν κοινὴν καὶ μίαν σύνθετον.","english":"That you do not mean a difference of hypostases in the case of Christ is clear. And that you do not mean a difference of separable accident is also clear; for you do not say that he is at one time immortal and at another time mortal, having changed from immortality to mortality, as we change from sickness to health. It remains, therefore, that you speak of a difference of natures, as you also confess; and, confessing a difference of natures, you must first confess the natures of which the difference exists; for if the substances do not exist, neither will the substantial differences exist. But if there is one nature, just as there is one hypostasis in Christ, why, when you speak of a difference of natures, do you not also speak of a difference of hypostases in him? And why, when you say that Christ is from two natures, do you not also say that he is from two hypostases? If Christ is of one composite nature, he is not consubstantial with the Father; for the Father is of a simple nature. And the simple and the composite are not consubstantial. If Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to the same substance and consubstantial with us, then the Father and we will be of one substance. If Christ is of the same nature as the Father and consubstantial with him, who is of a simple nature, and Christ also has a composite nature, he will have two natures, one simple and one composite. If nature and hypostasis are the same according to you, then either, since there are three hypostases of the holy divinity, there will also be three natures of it, or, since there is one nature, there will also be one hypostasis. If you say that the common nature is one thing and the nature considered in the individual, which you also call partial, is another, you will be compelled to confess that not only Christ, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit have two natures, one common and one composite.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"φύσις","severity":"info","text":"The term φύσις (nature) is central to the passage; John distinguishes it from ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) and from συμβεβηκός (accident).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) denotes the individual subsistence; John argues that a difference of natures does not entail a difference of hypostases in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a dialectical pattern: it eliminates alternative interpretations (hypostasis-difference, accidental difference) to force the heretics to admit a difference of natures, then draws consequences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument reflects post-Chalcedonian debates over the mode of union in Christ, particularly the miaphysite position that Christ has one composite nature (μία σύνθετος φύσις).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text at the end of the first paragraph is ambiguous: 'Εἰ δὲ μία φύσις ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ μία' breaks off; the English draft supplies a completion, but the original may be lacunose.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument that if nature and hypostasis are identical, then the Trinity would have either three natures or one hypostasis, parallels standard anti-Sabellian and anti-Arian reasoning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text after 'Εἰ δὲ μία φύσις ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ μία' is incomplete; the English draft supplies a conjectural completion. The reading taken follows the English draft's sense."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Εἰ ἄκτιστος καὶ ἄναρχος ἡ θεότης, κτιστὴ δὲ καὶ ἠργμένη ἡ ἀνθρωπότης, πῶς τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ ἠργμένον μιᾶς ἔσται φύσεως;\n\n3 Ἐπειδὴ δὲ προφέρουσιν ἡμῖν τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου καὶ Κυρίλλου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου χρῆσιν τὴν λέγουσαν «μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην», φαμέν, ὅτι ἴσον ἐστὶ τούτῳ καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ θεολόγου ῥητὸν τὸ φάσκον· «Ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐθέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐθεώθη.» Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ πυρούμενον οὐ μεταβολὴν δηλοῖ τοῦ πυρουμένου, ἀλλ' ἕνωσιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πῦρ, οὕτω καὶ ἡ θέωσις ἕνωσιν δηλοῖ πρὸς θεότητα καὶ ἡ σάρκωσις ἕνωσιν πρὸς σάρκα. Μίαν οὖν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου γινώσκομεν, τουτέστι τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ σεσαρκωμένην, τουτέστιν ἡνωμένην σαρκί, καὶ μίαν φύσιν τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ λόγου τεθεωμένην, τουτέστι ἡνωμένην θεότητι. Ὥστε δύο εἰσὶ φύσεις ἡνωμέναι ἀλλήλαις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἶπε μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου καὶ σεσαρκωμένου, ἀναντιρρήτως μίαν ἐδήλου φύσιν τὸ συναμφότερον. Εἰπὼν δὲ «μίαν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν» καὶ προσθεὶς τὸ «σεσαρκωμένην», διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν «σεσαρκωμένην» ἐδήλωσε τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν οὐσίαν, καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἑρμηνεύων ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σούκενσον ἐπιστολῇ φησιν· «Εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἰπόντες «μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου» σεσιγήκαμεν μὴ ἐπενεγκόντες τὸ «σεσαρκωμένην», ἦν αὐτοῖς ἄρα καὶ οὐκ ἀπίθανος ὁ λόγος προσποιουμένοις ἐρωτᾶν· Εἰ μία φύσις τὸ ὅλον, ποῦ τὸ τέλειον ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι; Ἐπειδὴ δὲ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» εἰσηνέχθη τῆς σαρκὸς ἡ δήλωσις, παυσάσθωσαν καλαμίνην ῥάβδον ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες.» Ἰδοὺ σαφῶς ἀνεῖλε τὸ «μίαν φύσιν» λέγειν τὸ ὅλον, τουτέστι τὸ συναμφότερον·","english":"If the divinity is uncreated and without beginning, but the humanity is created and has a beginning, how will that which is without beginning and that which has a beginning be of one nature?\n\nSince they bring forward to us the usage of Saint Athanasius and of the most holy Cyril which says \"one nature of the Word of God incarnate,\" we say that the saying of Saint Gregory the Theologian which declares \"one deified, the other was deified\" is equivalent to this. For just as \"being fired\" does not indicate a change of that which is fired, but a union with fire, so also deification indicates a union with divinity, and incarnation a union with flesh. Therefore we know one nature of the Word of God, that is, of his divinity, incarnate, that is, united with flesh, and one nature of the flesh of the Word deified, that is, united with divinity. So there are two natures united with each other. For if he had said \"one nature of the Word of God and incarnate,\" he would indisputably have indicated one nature, the composite. But having said \"one nature of the Word\" and added \"incarnate,\" by saying \"incarnate\" he indicated the essence of the flesh, just as he himself, interpreting himself in the letter to Succensus, says: \"For if, having said 'one nature of the Word of God,' we had been silent, not adding 'incarnate,' then their argument would be not implausible, as they pretend to ask: If the whole is one nature, where is the perfection in humanity? But since through 'incarnate' the indication of the flesh was introduced, let them cease setting up a reed for themselves.\" Behold, he clearly removed saying \"one nature\" for the whole, that is, the composite.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ ἄκτιστος καὶ ἄναρχος ἡ θεότης, κτιστὴ δὲ καὶ ἠργμένη ἡ ἀνθρωπότης","severity":"info","text":"The opening conditional poses a logical dilemma: if divine and human attributes are mutually exclusive, they cannot belong to a single nature. This frames the entire passage as a refutation of miaphysite Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, attributed to Athanasius and Cyril, is the key miaphysite formula. John reinterprets it to mean that 'incarnate' indicates a union with flesh, not a single composite nature, thus preserving two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ θεολόγου ῥητὸν","severity":"info","text":"John cites Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) to support his dyophysite reading. Gregory's phrase 'one deified, the other was deified' parallels the logic of union without mixture, a standard patristic resource in Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ πυρούμενον... οὕτω καὶ ἡ θέωσις","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of 'being fired' (πυρούμενον) illustrates that deification and incarnation denote union, not substantial change. This structural comparison reinforces the argument that the miaphysite formula does not imply a single nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"τῇ πρὸς Σούκενσον ἐπιστολῇ","severity":"info","text":"John quotes Cyril of Alexandria's letter to Succensus, where Cyril himself clarifies that adding 'incarnate' prevents the inference of a single composite nature. This appeal to Cyril's own words is a key move in the dyophysite reception of Cyril.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"παυσάσθωσαν καλαμίνην ῥάβδον ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'cease setting up a reed for themselves' is a metaphor for constructing a weak argument. The exact nuance is debated; it may imply that opponents are propping up a fragile case, but the Coptic text is not corrupt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text is clear; no significant ambiguities in the passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"καὶ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» ἔφησεν εἰσενηνέχθαι τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν δήλωσιν. Ἔχομεν οὖν «τὴν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου», καὶ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» ἔχομεν τὴν σάρκα· ἡ δὲ σὰρξ οὐκ ἀνούσιος. Ἡ φύσις οὖν τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἡ ἐνούσιος σὰρξ δύο οὐσίαι ἔσονται. Διὰ τί δὲ φύσιν θεότητος καὶ φύσιν σαρκὸς ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦντες καὶ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο λέγοντες δύο φύσεις οὐ λέγετε, ἐκεῖ φοβούμενοι φόβον, οὗ οὐκ ἔστι φόβος; Καί φασιν, ὅτι ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἀρχή ἐστι διαιρέσεως, καὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν φεύγοντες οὔ φαμεν δύο τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὰς φύσεις. Πρὸς οὓς λέγομεν, ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμὸς τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ἀριθμουμένων ἐστὶ σημαντικός, οὐ τῆς σχέσεως· τρεῖς γὰρ ἀνθρώπους λέγοντες οὐ τρεῖς φύσεις διῃρημένας σημαίνομεν, καὶ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος λέγοντες οὐ διῃρημένας ταύτας ὁμολογοῦμεν. Οὕτω καὶ δύο φύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ φάσκοντες καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν σημαίνοντες οὐ προσιέμεθα τὴν διαίρεσιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἀδιαιρέτως ἅμα καὶ ἀσυγχύτως ἥνωνται–ἀδιαιρέτως μὲν διά τε τὸ","english":"And by saying \"incarnate\" he introduced the indication of the flesh. We have, then, \"the one nature of God the Word,\" and through \"incarnate\" we have the flesh; but the flesh is not without substance. Therefore, the nature of the Word and the substantial flesh will be two substances. Why, then, when we confess a nature of divinity and a nature of flesh in Christ and speak of one and the other, do you not say two natures, fearing a fear where there is no fear? And they say that number is the beginning of division, and fleeing division we do not say two natures of Christ. To them we say that every number is indicative of the quantity of the things numbered, not of their relation; for when we say three men, we do not signify three divided natures, and when we say three hypostases in the Godhead, we do not confess them as divided. So also, when we affirm two natures in Christ and indicate the number, we do not admit division; for just as in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are united indivisibly and without confusion—indivisibly, on the one hand, because of the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"σεσαρκωμένην","severity":"info","text":"The Greek participle 'σεσαρκωμένην' (incarnate) is used by John to argue that the term 'flesh' is introduced, implying a distinct substance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐνούσιος σάρξ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ἐνούσιος σάρξ' (substantial flesh) underscores that the flesh has its own substance (ousia), supporting the argument for two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ἀριθμὸς ἀρχὴ διαιρέσεως","severity":"info","text":"The opponents' claim that 'number is the beginning of division' reflects a Miaphysite concern that counting natures implies separation, a key point in Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος","severity":"info","text":"John parallels the numbering of hypostases in the Trinity (three, yet undivided) with the numbering of natures in Christ (two, yet undivided), using the Trinity as a model for unity without confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Πρὸς οὓς λέγομεν","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a shift from reporting opponents' views to John's direct rebuttal, structuring the passage as a dialectical argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀδιαιρέτως ἅμα καὶ ἀσυγχύτως","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text breaks off mid-sentence; the English draft supplies 'indivisibly' and 'without confusion', but the full argument is incomplete in the source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage ends abruptly; the intended conclusion of the Trinity analogy is not fully preserved in the Greek."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"μοναδικὸν τῆς φύσεως καὶ τὴν ἐν ἀλλήλαις ἀσύγχυτον περιχώρησιν, ἀσυγχύτως δὲ διὰ τὴν ὑποστατικὴν διαφορὰν ἤτοι τὸν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπον, τὸ ἀγέννητόν φημι καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ τὸ ἐκπορευτόν–καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν ὑποστάσεων οὐκ εἰσάγει διαίρεσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σαρκώσεως αἱ δύο φύσεις ἀδιαιρέτως ἅμα καὶ ἀσυγχύτως ἥνωνται– ἀδιαιρέτως μὲν διά τε τὸ μοναδικὸν τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ τὴν ἐν ἀλλήλαις τῶν φύσεων ἀσύγχυτον περιχώρησιν, ἀσυγχύτως δὲ διὰ τὴν οὐσιώδη διαφοράν, τὸ κτιστὸν λέγω καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον, τὸ θνητὸν καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον, τὸ περιγραπτὸν καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα–καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν φύσεων οὐκ εἰσάγει διαίρεσιν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπορεῖν δοκοῦσιν ἡμῖν ἀβέβαια λαλοῦντες, ὅτι, εἰ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσία ἀνυπόστατος οὐδὲ φύσις ἀπρόσωπος, δύο οὐσίας καὶ φύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ λέγοντες ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο ἐρεῖτε ὑποστάσεις καὶ πρόσωπα, φαμέν, ὅτι οὐσία μὲν ἀνυπόστατος οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ φύσις ἀπρόσωπος– ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ὑποστάσεσί τε καὶ προσώποις ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἡ φύσις θεωρεῖται –, οὐ μὴν δὲ ἡ οὐσία ὑπόστασίς ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις πρόσωπον. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ οὐσία ὑπόστασίς ἐστι καὶ ἡ φύσις πρόσωπον, ἀνάγκη ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ἁγίας θεότητος ἢ μίαν λέγοντας οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν μίαν ὁμολογεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ ἓν πρόσωπον ἢ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογοῦντας καὶ πρόσωπα τρεῖς συνομολογεῖν οὐσίας καὶ φύσεις, ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἢ μίαν φύσιν καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογεῖν ἢ ἀπείρους λέγειν οὐσίας ὥσπερ καὶ τὰς ὑποστάσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ δύο φύσεων λέγοντας τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ δύο αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν ὑποστάσεων.","english":"the singularity of nature and the unconfused interpenetration in each other, and unconfusedly on account of the hypostatic difference, that is, the mode of existence—I mean the unbegotten and the begotten and the processional—and the number of hypostases does not introduce division. So also in the case of the incarnation of God the Word, the two natures are united both indivisibly and unconfusedly—indivisibly on account of the singularity of the hypostasis and the unconfused interpenetration of the natures in each other, and unconfusedly on account of the essential difference—I mean the created and the uncreated, the mortal and the immortal, the circumscribed and the uncircumscribed, and such things—and the number of natures does not introduce division. But since some appear to be at a loss, speaking to us in an uncertain manner, that if there is no substance without hypostasis and no nature without person, then by saying two substances and natures in Christ you will of necessity speak of two hypostases and persons, we say that there is no substance without hypostasis and no nature without person—for substance and nature are contemplated in hypostases and persons—but substance is not hypostasis nor is nature person. For if substance were hypostasis and nature person, then necessarily in the case of the holy divinity, either by saying one substance and nature we would confess one hypostasis and one person, or by confessing three hypostases and persons we would also confess three substances and natures; and similarly in the case of humanity, either we would confess one nature and one hypostasis, or we would speak of infinite substances just as of infinite hypostases; but also by saying Christ is from two natures, we would confess him to be from two hypostases.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"περιχώρησιν","severity":"info","text":"The term περιχώρησις (interpenetration) is a technical Christological concept denoting the mutual permeation of natures without confusion, developed by John of Damascus from earlier patristic usage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑποστατικὴν διαφοράν","severity":"info","text":"ὑποστατικὴ διαφορά (hypostatic difference) refers to the distinguishing characteristics of the Trinitarian hypostases (unbegotten, begotten, processional), as distinct from essential difference (οὐσιώδης διαφορά) used for the natures in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a parallel argument: just as the number of hypostases in the Trinity does not divide the divine nature, so the number of natures in Christ does not divide the hypostasis. This chiastic structure reinforces the coherence of dyophysite Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John of Damascus here refutes a Miaphysite objection: if substance and nature always entail a hypostasis or person, then two natures in Christ would imply two persons. He counters by distinguishing between substance/nature (universal) and hypostasis/person (particular), a standard Chalcedonian move.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The English draft renders 'τὸ ἐκπορευτόν' as 'the processional', which is accurate for Trinitarian theology (the Spirit's procession), but the Greek term is ambiguous: it could also mean 'that which is derived' in a broader sense. The context of Trinitarian difference supports the theological reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τὸ ἐκπορευτόν' could be read as a general term for 'that which proceeds' or specifically as the Holy Spirit's procession; the context of Trinitarian hypostatic differences favors the latter.","The Coptic text is not present; the Greek original is used, so no Coptic ambiguities arise."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"6 Φαμὲν οὖν, ὅτι ἐν ὑποστάσεσι μὲν ἡ οὐσία θεωρεῖται, διὸ καὶ ἐνυπόστατός ἐστιν, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὑπόστασις. Οὐκ ἀνάγκη τοίνυν τὸ ἐνυπόστατον ὑπόστασιν λέγεσθαι. Διττῶς γὰρ ἥ τε ὑπόστασις καὶ τὸ ἐνυπόστατον λέγεται. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὑπόστασις ποτὲ μὲν τὴν ἁπλῶς ὕπαρξιν δηλοῖ, καθὸ σημαινόμενον οὐ τὴν ἁπλῶς οὐσίαν σημαίνει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συμβεβηκός, ποτὲ δὲ τὸ ἄτομον ἤτοι τὸ πρόσωπον, ἥτις καθ' αὑτὸ λέγεται ὑπόστασις, ἥτις δηλοῖ Πέτρον, Παῦλον, τόνδε τὸν ἵππον καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Τὸ δὲ ἐνυπόστατον ποτὲ μὲν τὴν οὐσίαν σημαίνει ὡς ἐν ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην καὶ αὐθύπαρκτον οὖσαν, ποτὲ δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰς σύνθεσιν μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως συνερχομένων, ὡς ἐπὶ ψυχῆς ἔχει καὶ σώματος. Καὶ ἡ θεότης τοίνυν καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπότης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνυπόστατός ἐστιν· ἔχει γὰρ ἑκατέρα κοινὴν τὴν μίαν σύνθετον αὐτοῦ ὑπόστασιν, ἡ μὲν θεότης προαιωνίως καὶ ἀιδίως, ἡ δὲ ἔμψυχος σὰρξ καὶ νοερὰ ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων ὑπ' αὐτῆς προσληφθεῖσα καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ ὑπάρξασα καὶ αὐτὴν ἐσχηκυῖα ὑπόστασιν. Ἔτι φασίν, ὅτι οἱ ἅγιοι πατέρες τῷ ὑποδείγματι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐχρήσαντο ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου· μία δὲ φύσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστί, μία τοίνυν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔσται φύσις. Ἀκουσάτωσαν τοίνυν· Τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὄνομα τάττεται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ εἴδους. Πάντες μὲν οὖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέγονται μιᾶς φύσεως εἶναι ὡς ὑφ' ἓν εἶδος ταττόμενοι, τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος. Οὐ μιᾶς δὲ φύσεως ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς ὢν καὶ τοῦ σώματος· οὐ γὰρ ἡ ἀσώματος καὶ ἀόρατος ψυχὴ τῷ ὁρατῷ σώματι ὁμοούσιος.","english":"We say, therefore, that substance is contemplated in hypostases, and for this reason it is enhypostatic, but it is not a hypostasis. It is not necessary, then, that the enhypostatic be called a hypostasis. For both \"hypostasis\" and \"enhypostatic\" are said in two senses. For \"hypostasis\" sometimes denotes simple existence, in which signification it does not mean simple substance, but also the accident; sometimes it denotes the individual, that is, the person, which is called hypostasis in the proper sense, which indicates Peter, Paul, this horse, and the like. And \"enhypostatic\" sometimes signifies substance as contemplated in a hypostasis and as self-subsistent; sometimes it signifies each of the things that come together into the composition of one hypostasis, as is the case with soul and body. Therefore, both the divinity and the humanity of Christ are enhypostatic; for each has in common his one composite hypostasis—the divinity from before the ages and eternally, and the ensouled and rational flesh assumed by it at the end of time, existing in it and having it as its hypostasis. Further, they say that the holy fathers used the example of man in the mystery concerning Christ; and since there is one nature of men, therefore there will be one nature of Christ. Let them listen, then: The name of nature is also applied to the species. All men, indeed, are said to be of one nature as being classed under one species, that of humanity. But man is not of one nature, being from soul and body; for the incorporeal and invisible soul is not consubstantial with the visible body.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐνυπόστατον","severity":"info","text":"John distinguishes two senses of 'enhypostatic': substance as self-subsistent in a hypostasis, and each component in a composite hypostasis (e.g., soul and body). This technical term is central to his Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"John notes that 'hypostasis' can mean simple existence (including accidents) or the individual person (e.g., Peter, Paul). This polysemy is crucial for his argument against monophysite readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὄνομα τάττεται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ εἴδους","severity":"info","text":"John counters a monophysite argument from the patristic analogy of man: while all humans share one specific nature (humanity), the composite of soul and body is not of one nature. This reflects debates with Severan Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀκουσάτωσαν τοίνυν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Let them listen, then' marks a rhetorical shift to refute opponents. John uses a dialectical structure: statement of objection, then clarification of terms (nature as species vs. composite).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ἡ θεότης καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπότης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνυπόστατός ἐστιν","severity":"info","text":"John parallels the enhypostatic union of divinity and humanity in Christ with the soul-body composite, but insists on a single composite hypostasis. This mirrors Leontius of Byzantium's terminology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὑπόστασις ποτὲ μὲν τὴν ἁπλῶς ὕπαρξιν δηλοῖ","severity":"caution","text":"John's claim that 'hypostasis' can denote simple existence (including accidents) is contested in later scholasticism; some scholars see it as a concession to Aristotelian categories not fully integrated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text uses 'ἁπλῶς ὕπαρξιν' which could be read as 'bare existence' or 'simple existence'; the translation opts for 'simple existence' to align with John's distinction from substance.","The phrase 'ἡ μὲν θεότης προαιωνίως καὶ ἀιδίως' might imply the divinity pre-exists the incarnation in a temporal sense, but John likely means logical priority; the translation follows the Greek literally."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Ὅταν μὲν οὖν ἄνθρωπος πρὸς ἄνθρωπον συγκρίνηται, ὁμοούσιοι λέγονται ὡς ὑφ' ἓν εἶδος τελοῦντες καὶ ὡς ἅπαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς συντεθειμένοι καὶ σώματος καὶ ὡς ἅπαντες δύο φέροντες φύσεις· ὅταν δὲ φυσιολογῆται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, δύο φύσεις ἐπ' αὐτοῦ θεωροῦνται, ψυχῆς λέγω καὶ σώματος, ἐν μιᾷ συντεθειμέναι ὑποστάσει. Ἐν γὰρ τῇ συγκρίσει τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα τίς οὕτως ἀνόητος, ὡς μίαν ἀμφοτέρων φύσιν εἰπεῖν; Ἐπὶ δὲ Χριστοῦ εἶδος οὐκ ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ πολλοὶ Χριστοὶ ἐκ θεότητος συντεθειμένοι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα πάντες ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος ταττόμενοι μιᾶς λεχθῶσι φύσεως, ἀλλ' εἷς ἐστι Χριστὸς ἐκ δύο καὶ ἐν δυσὶ γνωριζόμενος φύσεσι. Φησὶ γὰρ ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος·\n\n«Φύσεις μὲν γὰρ δύο, θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπεὶ καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, υἱοὶ δὲ οὐ δύο.» 8 Ἔτι· Πῶς μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ φύσις τὰς ἐναντίας ἕξει οὐσιώδεις διαφοράς; Εἰ γὰρ τῶν ἐπουσιωδῶν διαφορῶν ἡ οὐσία ἀναμέρος καὶ οὐ κατὰ ταὐτόν ἐστι δεκτική, πῶς τῶν οὐσιωδῶν; Δῆλον γάρ, ὡς ἀδύνατον ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ οὐσίᾳ τὰς ἐναντίας οὐσιώδεις εὑρεθῆναι διαφοράς· οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ οὐσία λογικὴ ἔσται καὶ ἄλογος ἢ κτιστὴ καὶ ἄκτιστος. Ἔτι· Τὰς οὐσίας αἱ συστατικαὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν διαφοραὶ συνιστῶσι· διὸ καὶ οὐσιώδεις καὶ συστατικαὶ λέγονται καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐσίαις ὑφίστανται. Εἰ οὖν τὰς συστατικὰς τῶν οὐσιῶν διαφορὰς ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογεῖτε, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ὁμολογεῖν–τίνων γὰρ ἔσονται; –, καὶ μὴ συνιστῶσαι οὐσίας περιττῶς ἔσονται. Ἔτι· Οἱ μίαν φύσιν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγοντες εἴπατε ἡμῖν, ποίᾳ φύσει ὁ Χριστὸς πέπονθεν; Τῇ συνθέτῳ δῆλον, ἐρεῖτε.","english":"When, then, a human is compared to a human, they are called homoousios as belonging under one species and as all composed of soul and body and as all bearing two natures; but when the human is physiologized, two natures are contemplated in him, I mean of soul and body, composed in one hypostasis. For in the comparison of soul to body, who is so foolish as to say that both have one nature? But in the case of Christ there is no species; for there are not many Christs composed of divinity and humanity, so that all, being ranked under the same species, might be said to be of one nature, but there is one Christ known from two and in two natures. For the theologian Gregory says:\n\n\"For there are two natures, God and human, since there are also soul and body, but not two sons.\" 8 Further: How will one and the same nature have the contrary essential differences? For if substance is receptive of accidental differences without division and not according to the same thing, how is it of essential ones? For it is clear that it is impossible for the contrary essential differences to be found in the same substance; for the same substance will not be rational and irrational or created and uncreated. Further: The constitutive differences of substances constitute the substances; therefore they are called essential and constitutive and subsist in the substances. If, then, you confess the constitutive differences of substances in the case of Christ, it is necessary also to confess the substances—for of what will they be?—and they will be superfluous if they do not constitute substances. Further: You who say that the nature of the divinity and the humanity of Christ is one, tell us by which nature Christ suffered? By the composite, clearly, you will say.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁμοούσιοι","severity":"info","text":"John uses the term 'homoousios' for humans sharing the same species, contrasting its Christological use to argue against a single nature in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"φύσις","severity":"info","text":"The Greek 'φύσις' (nature) is central: John distinguishes two natures in Christ, citing Gregory of Nazianzus to support dyophysitism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Γρηγόριος","severity":"info","text":"John quotes Gregory of Nazianzus (Epistle 101) to affirm two natures in Christ, a key patristic authority for Chalcedonian Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Gregory of Nazianzus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"συστατικαὶ διαφοραί","severity":"info","text":"The 'constitutive differences' (συστατικαὶ διαφοραί) are technical terms from Aristotelian logic, used here to argue that distinct natures require distinct essential differences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἔτι","severity":"info","text":"The repeated 'Ἔτι' (Further) marks a series of logical arguments against monophysitism, each building on the previous to refute a single nature in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Χριστοῦ","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects John's role in the post-Chalcedonian debate, defending dyophysitism against monophysite and miaphysite positions in the 8th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek 'φυσιολογῆται' could mean 'studied according to nature' or 'physiologized'; the translation opts for the latter, but the sense is 'examined in terms of natural composition'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Μίαν γὰρ λέγοντες ἐξ ἀνάγκης αὐτῇ καὶ τὸ πάθος προσάψετε, καὶ ἔσται καθ' ὑμᾶς καὶ ἡ θεότης καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπότης τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθητή. Ἔτι· Εἰ μία φύσις σύνθετός ἐστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἢ παθητὴ ἔσται μόνον ἢ ἀπαθὴς μόνον ἢ παθητοαπαθὴς καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸν παθητὴ καὶ ἀπαθὴς ἢ τρεπτή, καὶ ποτὲ μὲν παθητή, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπαθής, ἢ μέρος αὐτῆς παθητὸν καὶ μέρος αὐτῆς ἀπαθές. Οἵαν οὖν βούλεσθε τῶν ἀσεβειῶν, ἕλεσθε. Εἰ γὰρ παθητὴ μόνον, οὐ θεὸς ὁ Χριστός. Εἰ δὲ ἀπαθὴς μόνον, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστός. Εἰ δὲ ποτὲ μὲν παθητή, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπαθής, οὐ φύσει ἔσται παθητὴ οὐδὲ φύσει ἀπαθής, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός· τὸ γὰρ φύσει πεφυκὸς οὐ μεθίσταται. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μέρος αὐτῆς παθητὸν καὶ μέρος αὐτῆς ἀπαθές, φύσει δὲ ἑκάτερόν ἐστιν, τοῦθ' ὅπερ ἐστίν, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς ἔσται τὰ μέρη φύσεως, καὶ οὕτω δύο φύσεων ἔσται ὁ Χριστός, ὃς οὐ φύσις ἐστίν, ἀλλ' ὑπόστασις. Τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν φύσιν παθητὴν ἅμα καὶ ἀπαθῆ εἶναι ἀμήχανον· ἅμα γὰρ τῶν ἐναντίων οὐσιωδῶν διαφορῶν δεκτικὴ εἶναι ἡ μία καὶ αὐτὴ οὐσία οὐ δύναται. Ἔτι τοῦτο εἴπατε ἡμῖν· Ἔχει θείαν φύσιν ὁ Χριστός; Ναί, ἐρεῖτε πάντως. Ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην; Καὶ τοῦτο συνομολογήσετε, εἴ γε μὴ γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀσεβεῖν βουληθείητε. Φύσις οὖν θεία καὶ φύσις ἀνθρωπίνη μία φύσις ἢ δύο; Ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν μίαν εἴπητε, ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῖν ὁμοούσιος. Εἰ δὲ δύο καὶ οὐ μία, τί μὴ τὸν τῦφον σὺν τῷ τούτου γεννήτορι, τῷ διαβόλῳ φημί, μακρὰν ἀπορρίψαντες μεθ' ἡμῶν ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα υἱόν, ἕνα κύριον, μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἐκ δύο φύσεων καὶ δύο φύσεις καὶ ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογήσετε;","english":"For if you say it is one, you will necessarily also attach passion to it, and according to you both the divinity and the humanity of Christ will be passible. Again: If the one composite nature of Christ exists, it will be either only passible, or only impassible, or passible-impassible and at the same time both passible and impassible, or mutable, and sometimes passible, sometimes impassible, or part of it passible and part of it impassible. Choose whichever of these impieties you wish. For if it is only passible, Christ is not God. If it is only impassible, Christ is not human. If it is sometimes passible and sometimes impassible, it will not be passible by nature nor impassible by nature, but accidentally; for what is by nature so constituted does not change. And if part of it is passible and part of it impassible, and each is by nature what it is, the parts will not be of the same nature, and thus Christ will be of two natures—he who is not a nature but a hypostasis. For the same nature to be at once passible and impassible is impossible; for one and the same substance cannot be receptive of opposite essential differences at the same time. Further, tell us this: Does Christ have a divine nature? Yes, you will certainly say. Does he also have a human nature? This too you will agree to, unless you wish to blaspheme bareheaded. So, divine nature and human nature: one nature or two? But if you say one, the Father will be homoousios with us. If two and not one, why do you not, casting far away the pride together with its begetter, I mean the devil, confess with us one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one hypostasis from two natures and two natures and in two natures after the union?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ μία φύσις σύνθετός ἐστι τοῦ Χριστοῦ","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a series of logical dilemmas (dilemmatic argument) to refute the miaphysite position, a common rhetorical strategy in John's polemical works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"φύσις","severity":"info","text":"Here φύσις (nature) is used in the Chalcedonian sense of a concrete, essential principle of operation, distinct from hypostasis (person). John argues that a single composite nature cannot simultaneously bear opposite attributes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"John insists Christ is a hypostasis (person), not a nature, underscoring the distinction between nature and person central to Chalcedonian Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'bareheaded' (γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ) is a Greek idiom meaning 'shamelessly' or 'openly,' possibly alluding to the practice of heretics being publicly shaved or uncovered as a mark of disgrace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"ὁμοούσιος","severity":"info","text":"John uses homoousios (consubstantial) to argue that if Christ had only one nature, the Father would be consubstantial with humans, a reductio ad absurdum against miaphysitism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"παθητοαπαθὴς","severity":"caution","text":"The compound παθητοαπαθὴς (passible-impassible) is rare and possibly coined by John to satirize the logical contradictions in the miaphysite position. Its exact nuance is debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ' may be a literal reference to a practice of shaming heretics or a metaphorical idiom; the reading taken is idiomatic ('shamelessly').","The compound 'παθητοαπαθὴς' is unattested in earlier Greek; its precise meaning is inferred from context as a satirical coinage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐδέποτε δύο φύσεων τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμολογεῖτε, τί μάτην μιᾶς αὐτὸν φύσεως μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν λέγετε; Εἰ δὲ πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως δύο φύσεων αὐτὸν φάσκοντες μιᾶς ὁμολογεῖτε μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, ἄντικρυς ἀπομάχεσθε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. Πρὸ γὰρ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἤτοι τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως μιᾶς φύσεως ἁπλῆς ἤτοι τῆς θείας μία τελῶν ὑπόστασις οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἦν οὐδ' ὠνομάζετο, εἰ μὴ προφητικῷ λόγῳ τὸ μέλλον προεκηρύττετο. Ἢ τοίνυν παντελῶς τὰς δύο φύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ἀναιρήσετε ἢ διφυᾶ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ παρθένου λέξετε τὸν Χριστὸν σαρκώσεως, μὴ διδόναι αὐτῷ τὰς κυρίως οὔσας αὐτοῦ δύο φύσεις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀνεχόμενοι. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως φρονοῦμεν οὐδ' αὕτη μερὶς τοῦ Ἰακώβ, ἀλλ' ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῆς εὐσεβείας ἱστάμενοί φαμεν ἐκ θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον· αὕτη γὰρ ἡ προαιώνιος τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ὑπόστασις σκηνώσασα ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἀειπαρθένου ἐν ἑαυτῇ ὑπεστήσατο σάρκα ἔμψυχον λογικήν, αὐτὴ χρηματίσασα τῇ ἐμψύχῳ καὶ λογικῇ σαρκὶ ὑπόστασις, καὶ γέγονεν ἐκ τελείας θεότητος καὶ τελείας ἀνθρωπότητος εἷς Χριστός, εἷς υἱὸς ὁ αὐτὸς θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπου, εἷς κύριος ὁ αὐτός, θεὸς τέλειος καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος, ὅλος θεὸς καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος, ἀσυγχύτως ἑνωθεισῶν τῶν φύσεων ἀλλήλαις καὶ ἀτρέπτως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως. Ἀσυγχύτως μέν· φυλάττει γὰρ ἑκάστη φύσις τὴν ἑαυτῆς διαφοράν, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἡ θεότης, τὸ κτιστὸν","english":"For if you never confess Christ to be of two natures, why do you vainly speak of him as of one nature after the union? But if, while affirming him to be of two natures before the union, you confess him to be of one after the union, you are directly opposing the truth. For before the union, that is, before the divine incarnation, being of one simple nature, that is, the divine, and existing as one hypostasis, he was neither Christ nor was he so called, except insofar as the future was foretold by prophetic speech. Therefore, either you will completely abolish the two natures in Christ, or you will say that Christ was of two natures before the incarnation from the Virgin, while refusing to grant him the two natures that are properly his after the union. But we do not think thus, nor is this the portion of Jacob; rather, standing within the boundaries of piety, we say that from divinity and humanity there is one composite hypostasis. For this pre-eternal hypostasis of the Word of God, having taken up dwelling in the womb of the holy ever-virgin, established in itself animate, rational flesh, itself becoming the hypostasis for the animate and rational flesh, and there came to be from perfect divinity and perfect humanity one Christ, one and the same Son of God and of man, one and the same Lord, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God and wholly man, the natures being united to each other without confusion, without change, and without division. Without confusion: for each nature preserves its own difference—the uncreatedness of divinity, the createdness","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"δύο φύσεων","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'two natures' is central to the Christological debate; John insists on their reality both before and after the union, countering Miaphysite positions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον","severity":"info","text":"John affirms a 'composite hypostasis' from divinity and humanity, a key Chalcedonian formulation distinguishing his view from both Nestorian and Eutychian extremes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"μερὶς τοῦ Ἰακώβ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'portion of Jacob' likely alludes to a liturgical or patristic expression for orthodox teaching, possibly from the Jacobite (Syriac Miaphysite) tradition, which John rejects.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἰ μὲν ... Εἰ δὲ","severity":"info","text":"John uses a conditional rhetorical structure (if... but if...) to expose the logical inconsistency of his opponents' position, then contrasts it with his own positive statement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀσυγχύτως ... ἀτρέπτως ... ἀδιαιρέτως","severity":"info","text":"These three adverbs—'without confusion, without change, without division'—are hallmarks of the Chalcedonian Definition (451 CE), frequently cited in later Orthodox polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"προφητικῷ λόγῳ","severity":"info","text":"John concedes that Christ could be called 'Christ' prophetically before the incarnation, but insists this is not a proper name; the distinction is subtle and often contested in patristic exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text breaks off mid-sentence at 'τὸ κτιστὸν', leaving the contrast between uncreated and created natures incomplete; the English draft follows the same break."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"ἡ ἀνθρωπότης, τὸ ἀπαθὲς ἡ θεότης, τὸ παθητὸν ἡ ἀνθρωπότης καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Ἀτρέπτως δέ, ὅτι μεμένηκεν ἑκάστη φύσις ἀναλλοίωτος, οὐ τραπεῖσα εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν οὐδὲ μία σύνθετος χρηματίσασα φύσις, ἀλλὰ δύο ὑπάρχουσαι καὶ διαιωνίζουσαι. Ἀδιαιρέτως δέ, ὅτι ἥνωνται ἀλλήλαις καθ' ὑπόστασιν μίαν ἔχουσαι ὑπόστασιν, τὴν προαιωνίως μὲν ἀσώματον καὶ ἁπλῆν, ἐπ' ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν χρόνων ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἀειπαρθένου σωματωθεῖσαν ἀμεταβλήτως· ὑπάρχει γὰρ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο, ἀσώματος μὲν τῇ ἀνάρχῳ θεότητι, ἐνσώματος δὲ τῇ ἠργμένῃ ἤτοι τῇ προσληφθείσῃ σαρκί. Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ προαιώνιος υἱὸς καὶ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς αὐτός τέ ἐστιν ἀσώματος ὡς θεὸς καὶ ἐνσώματος ὡς ἐπ' ἐσχάτων γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος. Ἥνωνται τοίνυν αἱ φύσεις καθ' ὑπόστασιν μίαν καὶ περιχωροῦσιν.","english":"...humanity; impassibility belongs to divinity, passibility to humanity, and so forth. And \"without change\" because each nature has remained unaltered, not transformed into the other, nor has a single composite nature come into being, but they exist and endure as two. And \"without division\" because they are united with each other in hypostasis, having one hypostasis—that which was from eternity incorporeal and simple, but in the last times was incarnated from the holy ever-virgin without mutation; for this exists as both: incorporeal in its eternal divinity, and corporeal in its temporal or assumed flesh. This is the preeternal Son and Word of God, who is himself incorporeal as God and corporeal as having become man in the last times. Therefore the natures are united in one hypostasis and interpenetrate.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"περιχωροῦσιν","severity":"info","text":"The verb περιχωροῦσιν (interpenetrate) is a technical term in Christology, denoting the mutual permeation of the two natures without confusion or change, a concept central to John of Damascus' defense of dyophysitism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀδιαιρέτως","severity":"info","text":"The adverb ἀδιαιρέτως (without division) is part of the Chalcedonian formula (ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως) and here specifies the hypostatic union, emphasizing that the two natures are united in one hypostasis without separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀτρέπτως","severity":"info","text":"The adverb ἀτρέπτως (without change) echoes the Chalcedonian Definition (ἀτρέπτως), affirming that each nature remains unaltered in the union, countering monophysite claims of a single composite nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes a series of antithetical pairs (impassibility/passibility, incorporeal/corporeal) that systematically articulate the properties of the two natures, culminating in the affirmation of hypostatic union and interpenetration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John's use of περιχωροῦσιν here became a standard term in later Byzantine theology for the communication of idioms, influencing both Maximus the Confessor and the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀμεταβλήτως","severity":"caution","text":"The adverb ἀμεταβλήτως (without mutation) is rare in this context; it may be a scribal variant or a deliberate intensification of ἀτρέπτως, but the manuscript tradition is not fully collated here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ἐπ' ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν χρόνων' could be read as 'in the last times' (eschatological) or 'at the end of time' (temporal); the context favors the latter, referring to the incarnation in history."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}