Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T08:53:28.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Composition models of the incarnation: unity and unifying relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2010

ANNA MARMODORO  and
JONATHAN HILL
ANNA MARMODORO*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 10 Merton Street, Oxford, OX1 4JJ
JONATHAN HILL*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 10 Merton Street, Oxford, OX1 4JJ
*
e-mail: anna.marmodoro@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
e-mail: jonathan.hill@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we investigate composition models of incarnation, according to which Christ is a compound of qualitatively and numerically different constituents. We focus on three-part models, according to which Christ is composed of a divine mind, a human mind, and a human body. We consider four possible relational structures that the three components could form. We argue that a ‘hierarchy of natures’ model, in which the human mind and body are united to each other in the normal way, and in which they are jointly related to the divine mind by the relation of co-action, is the most metaphysically plausible model. Finally, we consider the problem of how Christ can be a single person even when his components may be considered persons. We argue that an Aristotelian metaphysics, according to which identity is a matter of function, offers a plausible solution: Christ's components may acquire a radically new identity through being parts of the whole, which enables them to be reidentified as parts, not persons.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 469 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, J. (ed.) (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Bayne, T. (2001) ‘The inclusion model of the incarnation: problems and prospects’, Religious Studies, 37, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, T. (2003) ‘Inclusion and incarnation: a reply to Sturch’, Religious Studies, 39, 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, D. (2004) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, G. (ed.) (1936) Origen on First Principles (London: SPCK).Google Scholar
Chadwick, H. (2003) East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, F. (ed.) (1970) John of Damascus: Writings (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press).Google Scholar
Crisp, O. (2007) Divinity and Humanity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R. (2009) ‘The incarnation’, in Flint, & Rea, (2002), 452–475.Google Scholar
Crouzel, H. (1989) Origen (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).Google Scholar
Daley, B. (2002) ‘Nature and the “mode of union”: late patristic models for the personal unity of Christ’ in Davis, , Kendall, , & O'Collins, (2002), 164–196.Google Scholar
Davis, S., Kendall, S., & O'Collins, G. (eds) (2002) The Incarnation: an Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, R. & Plantinga, C. (eds) (1989) Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
Flint, T. & Rea, M. (eds) (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovorun, C. (2008) Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century (Leiden: Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (2006) Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge MA: Westview).Google Scholar
Le Poidevin, R. (2009) ‘Identity and the composite Christ: an incarnational dilemma’, Religious Studies, 45, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (2002) ‘A timeless God incarnate’, in Davis, , Kendall, , & O'Collins, (2002), 273–299.Google Scholar
Lethel, F.-M. (1979) Théologie de l'Agonie du Christ (Paris: Beauchesne).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T. (1989) ‘The metaphysics of God incarnate’, in Feenstra, & Plantinga, (1989), 110–127.Google Scholar
Noonan, H. (1989) Personal Identity (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Norris, R. (ed.) (1980) The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia PA: Fortress).Google Scholar
O'Neil, C. (ed.) (1975) Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles, IV (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1999) ‘On heresy, mind and truth’, Faith and Philosophy, 16, 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, C. (1923) Apollinarianism: an Essay on the Christology of the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Rosemann, P. (2004) Peter Lombard (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, N. (ed.) (2000) Cyril of Alexandria (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Shields, C. (1999) Order in Multiplicity: Homonymy in the Philosophy of Aristotle (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1970) ‘Persons and their pasts’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 7, 269–285.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1994) The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, I. (1993) Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich: Canterbury).Google Scholar
Trigg, J. (1998) Origen (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
White, T. (2008) ‘Dyotheletism and the instrumental human consciousness of Jesus’, Pro Ecclesia, 17, 396–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar