|
(詳細はJesus Christ. It maintains that in view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred to his other nature so that the theologian may speak of "the suffering of God".〔Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143〕 The germ of the idea is first found in Ignatius of Antioch (c.100 AD) (see below) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two distinct natures of Christ. In the sixteenth century, the Reformed and Lutheran churches disagreed on this question. The philosopher J.G. Hamann argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: 'This ''communicatio'' of divine and human ''idiomatum'' is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy'. ==Developments in the Patristic period== (section is under development ) Ignatius of Antioch emphasised both the oneness of Christ and the reality of his two-fold mode of existence: "There is one physician, composed of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, authentic life from death, from Mary and from God, first passible then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord".〔Letter to Theophorus, 7〕〔Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143, quoting ''Eph 7,2''〕 but he uses phrases like 'the blood of God', 'the suffering of my God' and 'God ... was conceived by Mary';〔 Tertullian(c.200 AD) stated that the Savior was composed of two 'substances' and the human substance was in every respect genuine. He was the first theologian to tackle the question of the relationship between them; each preserved its particular qualities but Christians observe "a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man"〔Contra Praxeas, 27〕〔Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) pp.151,2, quoting ''Adv. Prax. 27'' & ''c. Marc. 2.27''〕 On the whole he referred what the one person experienced to the appropriate substance but at times uses phrases such as "God was truly crucified, truly died" 〔De Carne Christi, 5.2〕 thus anticipating the ''communicatio idiomatum''.〔 When the question as to how deity and humanity could be combined in the Savior was investigated in depth, two schools of thought emerged: one associated with Alexandria and the other with Antioch. Alexandrian thought drew heavily on Platonism and was markedly dualist, while its biblical exegesis was mystical and allegorical.〔Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974). "Alexandrian Theology" & "Antichene Theology". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.〕 Its Christology has been labelled the ''Word-flesh'' model. It took no real account of a human soul in Christ, but viewed the incarnation as the union of the Word with human flesh, thus drawing on the platonic concept of the human being as a soul which inhabited an essentially alien body. Antiochene thought was based far more on Aristotelian principles and its biblical exegesis tended to be literal and historical thus taking the genuine humanity of the Savior very seriously. The traditional label for this second type of Christology is ''Word-man'': the Word united himself with a complete humanity, i.e. soul plus body, which did justice to the genuinely human being described in the Gospels. The Antiochene-style Christology stresses the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; while the Alexandrian-type Christology underscores the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Communicatio idiomatum」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|