In the Bible, prosopon is mostly translated as 'face'. In English language, prosopon is used mainly in scholarly works, related to theology, philosophy or history of religion. While it is commonly translated as person, it is also translated as "role,"[8] or "character," like a character in a play.[9] The term prosopon should not be confused with the term hypostasis. Both terms are used to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit but hypostasis indicates a reality of existence that prosopon may not have.[10] Whether the Trinity should be described as three hypostases or three prosopa was a core issue in the Arian Controversy.
Prosopon is a Greek term. The Latin equivalent, traditionally used in Western Christianity, and from which the English term person is derived, is persona.
The term prosopon originally designated one's "face" or "mask". Most of the instances in the New Testament are translated as 'face' or as figurative application of 'face', such as appearance or presence. Paul the Apostle uses the term when speaking of his direct apprehension in the heart of the face (prosopon) of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6). In that sense, it was used in Greek theatre, since actors wore specific masks on stage, in order to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience.[11]
The term prosopon was important in the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It was the subject of many theological debates and disputes, particularly through early centuries of Christian history.[12] It was the core issue in the Meletian Schism; a dispute between two pro-Nicene groups.
“The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.” (Philip Schaff)
While prosopon can mean hypostasis, it can also indicate a role played in a theatre. Applied to the Trinity, it can indicate different roles played by a single Person. For that reason, the Sabellians accepted the term[13] but Basil of Caesarea rejected it. Basil, insisted that each Person (Father, Son, and Spirit) must be described as a hypostasis. He wrote:
"It is not enough to count differences in the Persons (prosōpa). It is necessary also to confess that each Person (prosōpon) exists in a true hypostasis. The mirage of persons (prosōpa) without hypostaseis is not denied even by Sabellius, who said that the same God, though he is one subject, is transformed according to the need of each occasion and is thus spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now as Holy Spirit.”[14][15]
As another example of the distinction, Jerome, writing in Latin, strongly opposed Basil's three hypostaseis and explained "the tri-unity as ‘one substance, three persons' (una substantia, tres personae)."[16] In other words, for Jerome, there was a real and important distinction between hypostasis and prosopon (Greek)/persona (Latin).
Prosopon in Christian triadology
[edit]Cretan School icon representing three persons of the Trinity, Venice (16th century)
In Christian triadology, the study of the Trinity, three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to number and mutual relations of divine persons:
monoprosopic concept advocates that God has only one person;[17]
dyoprosopic concept advocates that God has two persons (Father and Son);
triprosopic concept advocates that God has three persons (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit).
The most notable example of monoprosopic views is represented in ancient Sabellianism and its later variants, including teachings of some modern Christian denominations, like those of Oneness Pentecostalism.[18]
However, given that prosopon means 'role', to say that God has three prosopa does not mean that God exists in three hypostases. Sabellius, for example, taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three prosopa (plural for prosopon) but a single hypostasis (a single existence with a single mind). The second-century Monarchians taught one prosopon. They merely claimed that Son is another name for Father.
The traditional Trinity doctrine uses the term "Person" in the sense of role, not 'person' in the normal sense of the term, because, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind. (See here)
Within Christology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Person of Christ:
monoprosopic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has only one person;
dyoprosopic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has two persons (divine and human).[19]
During the first half of the 5th century, some Antiochene theologians, including Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his disciple Nestorius, questioned the concept of hypostatic union of the two natures (divine and human) of Jesus, but accepted a more loosely defined concept of the prosopic union. Since their views on hypostatic union were seen as controversial, additional questions arose regarding their teachings on the prosopic union.[20]
Theodore believed that incarnation of Jesus represents an indwelling of God different from the indwelling experienced by the Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles. Jesus was viewed as a human being who shared the divine sonship of the Logos; the Logos united itself to Jesus from the moment of Jesus' conception. After the resurrection, the human Jesus and the Logos reveal that they have always been one prosopon.[21]
Theodore addresses the prosopic union in applying prosopon to Christ the Logos. He accounts for two expressions of Christ – human and divine. Yet, he does not mean Christ achieved a unity of the two expressions through the formation of a third prosopon, but that one prosopon is produced by the Logos giving his own countenance to the assured man.[22] He interprets the unity of God and man in Christ along the lines of the body-soul unity. Prosopon plays a special part in his interpretation of Christ. He rejected the Hypostasis concept – believing it to be a contradiction of Christ's true nature. He espoused that, in Christ, both body and soul had to be assumed. Christ assumed a soul and by the grace of God brought it to immutability and to a full dominion over the sufferings of the body.[23]
Nestorius furthered Theodore's views on the prosopic union, claiming that prosopon is the "appearance" of the ousia (essence), and stating: "the prosopon makes known the ousia".[24] On several instances, he emphasized the relation of each of the two natures (divine and human) with their respective appearances, using the term prosopon both in plural forms, and also as a singular designation for the prosopic union.[25] Such terminological complexities and inconsistencies proved to be challenging not only for his contemporary critiques or followers, but also for later commentators and scholars.[26]
The very suggestion of prosopic duality was challenging enough to cause heated debates among Christian theologians in the first half of the 5th century, resulting in official condemnation of such views. The Council of Ephesus of 431 affirmed the teaching of "One Person" of Jesus Christ, condemning all other teachings. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 reaffirmed the notion of One Person of Jesus Christ, formulating the famous Chalcedonian Definition with its "monoprosopic" (having one person) clauses, and in the same time explicitly denying the validity of "dyoprosopic" (having two persons) views.[27]
^Basil of Caesarea “can readily use prosopon in the traditional exegetical sense of 'character' or 'part' (almost as in a play) which God or Christ or others were supposed to have assumed.” (Hanson, p. 692)
^“Basil treats hypostasis and πρόσωπον (prosopon, the face) as synonymous, but he also sees πρόσωπον as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism. Hypostasis indicates a reality of existence that he feels πρόσωπον may not.” (Ayres, p. 210)
^“Basil treats hypostasis and πρόσωπον (prosopon) as synonymous, but he also sees πρόσωπον as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism.” (Ayres, p. 210)
Greer, Rowan A. (1966). "The Image of God and the Prosopic Union in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heraclides". Lux in Lumine: Essays to Honor W. Norman Pittenger. New York: Seabury Press. pp. 46–61.
