Krausmuller D.14.07.20192019-07-1614.07.20192019-07-1620141817-7530https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-90000104https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12514/1183The Chalcedonian theologians considered Christ as a hypostasis which is a composite of two parts. At the same time they adapted the conceptual framework that the Cappadocians had developed for the Trinity (the beings which share a set of natural idioms are distinguished from each other through specific characteristics that accede to these idioms). Having taken these steps, however, they ran into a serious problem. One can only meaningfully speak of hypostases within a particular species because if beings have different sets of natural idioms one cannot single out the specific characteristics that would constitute them as hypostases. Yet Christ does not belong to a species. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Christ is not a hypostasis. In this article I will explore how four different Chalcedonian theologians of the sixth and early seventh centuries - Leontius of Byzantium, Pamphilus, Eutychius of Constantinople and Leontius of Byzantium - approached this problem and what solutions they proposed.en10.1163/18177565-90000104info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessBook Review10361382