The mid fifth century was largely marked by a Christological controversy that began with private teachings of the ambassador of the Alexandrian see to Constantinople, the prominent Archimandrite Eutyches. The precise teaching of Eutyches remains somewhat obscure, since no written work by him is extant. Thus, everything that the modern historical scholarship knows about Eutyches’ theology comes from secondary sources, such as the writings of his opponents or scontemporary Synodal Acts. Consequently, the fine points of Eutyches’ Christological position are subject of scholarly debate. However, on the basis of the unchallenged contemporary historical evidence, as it is found in the original trial of Eutyches for heresy at the Synod of Constantinople in 448 AD, a critical evaluation of Eutyches’ Christological position seems possible. In this article it was argued that the Christological teaching of Eutyches was inadequate in terms of the later Christological standard set at Chalcedon (451 AD).

This article explores the fundamental Christological principles discussed by Byzantine iconophile writers of the eight and ninth centuries, John of Damascus (675-749), Theodore the Studite (759-826) and Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople (758-828). Within the larger context of theological concerns, the iconophile focus their attention on two key points: (a) the notion of the hypostatic union of human and divine natures in Christ; and (b) the properties of circumscription and uncircumscribability. These Christological aspects play critical part in supporting the main objective of iconophiles, the defense of Chalcedonian formulation, of which the theoretical justification of Christ’s pictorial representation is simply one part, albeit a central one. In support to their theological cause, the iconophiles also make recourse to the distinction between nature and hypostasis and devote an important part of their exposition for the holy images on the dogmatic significance of the Incarnation.