Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The TrinityAn Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall SJ, and Gerald O'Collins SJ

Print publication date: 2002

Print ISBN-13: 9780199246120

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0199246122.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 16 December 2018

Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’

Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’

(p.99) 5 Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’
The Trinity

Joseph T. Lienhard

Oxford University Press

Joseph Lienhard points out how the ‘Cappadocian solution’ to the fourth‐century Trinitarian controversy, summarized in the phrase ‘one ousia, three hypostaseis — (one essence and three persons)’, is often presented as widely employed, and greeted with relief and enthusiasm. But the phrase, as such, is rare in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, and may not be the best short expression of their teaching on the Trinity. The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century, and was — to some writers — less than convincing. Another tradition, called ‘miahypostatic theology’, was more widely and forcefully represented than is usually assumed. Its most visible proponent was Marcellus of Ancyra, but it is found to some extent in Athanasius, in many other Egyptian bishops, and in much of the West. In the course of the fourth century, the miahypostatic tradition, which first appears as a late form of monarchianism, gave up all of its distinctive contours except one: it would not accept the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ as orthodox. The chapter suggests, at the end, that perhaps some elements of this miahypostatic theology are worth retrieving.

Keywords:   Athanasius, Cappadocian solution, Egyptian bishops, essence, hypostaseis, Lienhard, Marcellus of Ancyra, miahypostatic, monarchianism, ousia, persons

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .