The Christology of Abu Ra’ita at-Takriti: Continuity or Break with TraditionХристианство на Ближнем ВостокеSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference PortalThe National Endowment for the HumanitiesThe International Balzan Prize FoundationDavid A. Michelsoncbsc_adminRecord added to Zotero bycbsc_adminSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference Portalhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/NR579T7N/tei
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
2025-05-20-05:00
Born digital.
CREATED: This bibl record was autogenerated from a Zotero record.OlegDavydenkovThe Christology of Abu Ra’ita at-Takriti: Continuity or Break with Traditionhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/NR579T7Nhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/a_comprehensive_bibliography_on_syriac_studies/items/NR579T7Nhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/4861694/items/NR579T7NХристианство на Ближнем Востоке8:3202421-33In the first part of this article, an attempt is made to reconstruct the Christological system of the Jacobite theologian Abu Ra’ita at-Takriti (1st half of the 9th century). Abu Ra’ita teaches about one essence of the incarnate God the Word, which is composed of two essences — Divine and human. However, for at-Takriti, the unity of essence does not mean the merging of Divinity and humanity in the sense of the formation of a new property; he recognizes the preservation of the qualitative difference between the components of the composition (“difference in natural quiddity”). Abu Ra’ita’s Christological polemics indicate that he does not make a fundamental distinction between Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology and Nestorianism. In the second part a comparison is made of the Christological systems of Abu Ra’ita and Severus of Antioch, as a result of which it is established that, from the point of view of both Christological problematics and the theological language used, there are very significant differences between the two authors. The final part notes the features of the Christological teaching of Abu Ra’ita. He understands the incarnation not as a unity of two essences, but rather as a kind of “development” of substance (ḏāt) of the Word: the Son of God acquires new, human, essential properties, and the complexity of His essence after incarnation lies in the fact that He has two rows of essential attributes (aṣ-ṣifatān) — Divine and human. Unlike Severus, who resolutely rejected the doctrine of the unity of the essence of Christ, at-Takriti conceives of the complex essence of the incarnate Word in fact as a new species, although represented by only one individual. In this respect, Abu Ra’ita is close to Sergius the Grammarian, one of Severus’ opponents within the Monophysite camp. According to formal criteria, Abu Ra’ita’s Christology should be qualified as a type of moderate monophysitism. However, it is absolutely impossible to consider Abu Ra’ita as a successor of the Severian tradition. His doctrine is an example of a significantly different and, moreover, more radical Monophysite teaching.
Davydenkov, Oleg. “The Christology of Abu Ra’ita at-Takriti: Continuity or Break with Tradition.” Христианство на Ближнем Востоке 8:3 (2024): 21–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24412/2587-9316-2024-0120.
Oleg Davydenkov, The Christology of Abu Ra’ita at-Takriti: Continuity or Break with Tradition,Христианство на Ближнем Востоке 8:3 (2024): 21–33, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24412/2587-9316-2024-0120.