John Scythopolita (c. 536–550), also known as "the Scholasticus", bishop of Scythopolis in Palestine, where Beit She'an is today, was a Byzantine theologian and lawyer adhering to neo-Chalcedonian theology.[1]
He is famous for several works (lost) against Monophysite heresy: his major one is a treatise written ca. 530, defending the theory of "dioenergism",[2] against his contemporary Severus of Antioch. Another work attacked the heretic Eutyches, one of the founders of Monophysitism.
We have some data about him by Photius, learned bishop of Byzantium.[3]
Hans Urs von Balthasar suggested than John was the author of much of Maximus the Confessor's scholia.[4][5]
A recent theory by Byzantinist Carlo Maria Mazzucchi suggests that John of Scythopolis' was aware that the Corpus Dionysiacum was a forgery and that his awareness is revealed by his extensive marginal commentary—despite the fact that John's commentary apparently defends the originality of the Corpus.[6]
Notes
edit- ^ A doctrine following the Christological path of the general council of Chalcedon (451), about the dual (human & divine) nature of Christ, integrated with the orthodox tenets of Cyril of Alexandria on the predominance of the divinity in Christ's unity.
- ^ Teaching Christ's dual source of vital activity: both human and divine.
- ^ "Photius, Bibliotheca or Myriobiblion (Cod. 1-165, Tr. Freese)".
- ^ Daley The Cambridge companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar - Page 206 Edward T. Oakes, David Moss - 2004
- ^ Critica et philologica, Nachleben, first two centuries, Tertullian ... - Page 120 Maurice F. Wiles, International Conference on Patristics - 2001 Corderius' edition also attributes the entirety of the scholia to a single author — Maximus the Confessor — but this attribution has long been questioned. In 1940, Hans Urs von Balthasar attempted to resolve the question of authorship.
- ^ Mazzucchi, Carlo Maria (2017). "Impudens societas, sive Ioannes Scythopolitanus conscius Areopagiticae fraudi" [An insolent coven, or: John of Scythopolis being aware of the Areopagite fraud]. Aevum (in Latin). 91 (2): 289–94. JSTOR 26497004 – via JSTOR.