We ended up with this last night:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

The "symbol" or definition of Chalcedon.

It's been a number of years (ten?!) since I've read the definition.

Of course, Jim maintains that the Apostles would not recognize this language, even the few who knew Greek. And while I think he sympathizes with those council fathers who wanted only biblical terminology in the formulations of Christian faith, he realizes how impossible that was, especially as the Church spread West and the vernacular changed to Latin.

The recipe of Christ is known as the hypostatic union and Jim printed out the five instances in Scripture where the Greek word, ὑπόστασις, appears. He printed out the Greek alongside English from the RSV and the NAB. I had with me my NASB so I was able to compare a third English translation. His point was that, since the word is translated in various ways, one can assume that ὑπόστασις is not a technical (theological) term. So, it brings no pre-Chalcedon usage with it, formally, into the Definition.

"Confidence" and "assurance" he had the hardest time accepting as translation choices.¹ I think those are traditional choices; readers would expect those words in those familiar verses.

Anyway, that wraps up the Christology course. I know everything about the Incarnation now, just ask. (Just kidding). It was probably the best class from him (although I did enjoy Psalms way back when).

In the fall, we'll read Paul's letters in honor of this "Year of Paul" that Benedict has declared. I suggested that we read the Letters in canonical order because, frankly, I never have. Jim said that since we can't be certain about composition dates, etc., canonical is just as good as chronological. That isn't my reasoning. I actually hope that by reading them in order, I'll get a better sense of which Letters contain which of Paul's arguments, analogies, metaphors, etc. because it tends to be jumbled in my mind. "The body of Christ analogy is where? The Potter and the clay metaphor? The grafting of the wild root?"

I didn't mention this, but I also don't want Jim to pass over those books of doubtful Pauline authorship: I WANT ROMANS TO HEBREWS.

---

¹ This NAB footnote touches on the difference, the choices:

There is dispute about the meaning of the Greek words hypostasis and elenchos, here translated realization and evidence, respectively.

Hypostasis usually means "substance," "being" (as translated in Hebrews 1:3), or "reality" (as translated in Hebrews 3:14); here it connotes something more subjective, and so realization has been chosen rather than "assurance" (RSV).

Elenchos, usually "proof," is used here in an objective sense and so translated evidence rather than the transferred sense of "(inner) conviction" (RSV).