Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

13.12.2012 Views

DIFFICULTY 5 INTRODUCTION The fifth Difficulty of the later set is the only one in either set to discuss a passage from anyone else other than St Gregory of Nazianzus, ‘the Theologian’. It differs from the others, too, in that it is not simply a discussion of the text cited, but of the whole (brief) letter of which the words cited are the beginning. The Difficulty has been analysed above at some length in chapter 4 of the Introduction. 1 There is little to add here, except to remind readers that it comes from the mid-630s, after Sophronius had raised his protest against the monenergism of the Alexandrian Pact of Union of 633, but long before Maximus had declared himself as a defender of Christological Orthodoxy against Monothelitism. Much of the point of the Difficulty is textual: to justify the Orthodox reading of ‘a certain theandric energy’ in the fourth letter of Denys the Areopagite against the longstanding Monophysite reading of ‘one theandric energy’, to which Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and other Monenergists and Monothelites made (and were to make) appeal. 1045D TEXT In the letter from Saint Denys the Areopagite to Gaius the monk: How, you ask, is Jesus, who is beyond everything, ranked together with all human beings at the level of being? For here he is not called a man as the cause of humankind but as one who is himself in his whole being truly a man. 2

170 TEXTS 1048A B C D Since, according to the simple interpretation of Holy Scripture, God as the cause of all is designated by the names of everything that he has produced, and again after the Incarnation is only in this mode 3 called man, the great Denys corrects the monk Gaius with these words, teaching that the God of all, as Incarnate, is not simply said to be man, but is himself truly a man in the whole of his being. The sole, true proof of this is its natural constitutive power, and one would not err from the truth in calling this a natural energy properly and primarily characteristic of it, being a form-enduing movement that contains every property that is naturally added to it, apart from which there is only non-being, since, according to this great teacher, only that which in no way is is without movement or existence. 4 Most clearly therefore he teaches that God Incarnate is to be denied nothing at all of what is ours, apart from sin (which does not belong to nature), and that he is expressly called not simply a man, but himself truly a man in all his being. He [Denys] contends in what follows 5 that to be called onewho exists humanly is properly his, saying, ‘We do not confine our definition of Jesus to the human plane’, since we do not decree that he is a mere man, severing the union that transcends thought. For we use the name human being of the One who is God by nature and who truly shared our being in an essential way, not simply because he is the cause of humankind. For he is not man only, because he is also God himself, ‘nor beyond being only’, because he is also himself a man, if there exists neither mere man nor bare God, ‘but one who is in different ways truly man and the lover of man’. For out of his infinite longing for humankind he has himself become by nature that for which he longed, neither suffering anything in his own nature in his inexpressible selfemptying, nor changing anything of what is human through his ineffable assumption, 6 nor in any way diminishing nature, which the Word properly supports as constituting it. ‘Beyond what is human’, because divinely [conceived] without a man, ‘in accordance with the human’, because humanly [conceived] after the law of child-birth. ‘The one beyond being assumed being from the being of humankind’, for he did not appear to us simply in the mere form of flesh, in accordance with the silly tales of the Manichees, 7 nor did he come down from heaven to share being with the flesh, after the Apollinarian myths, 8 but he himself became truly a man in the whole of his being, by the assumption of flesh endowed with an

DIFFICULTY 5<br />

INTRODUCTION<br />

The fifth Difficulty of the later set is the only one in either set to<br />

discuss a passage from anyone else other than St Gregory of<br />

Nazianzus, ‘the Theologian’. It differs from the others, too, in that it is<br />

not simply a discussion of the text cited, but of the whole (brief) letter<br />

of which the words cited are the beginning. The Difficulty has been<br />

analysed above at some length in chapter 4 of the Introduction. 1 There<br />

is little to add here, except to remind readers that it comes from the<br />

mid-630s, after Sophronius had raised his protest against the<br />

monenergism of the Alexandrian Pact of Union of 633, but long before<br />

Maximus had declared himself as a defender of Christological<br />

Orthodoxy against Monothelitism. Much of the point of the Difficulty<br />

is textual: to justify the Orthodox reading of ‘a certain theandric<br />

energy’ in the fourth letter of Denys the Areopagite against the<br />

longstanding Monophysite reading of ‘one theandric energy’, to which<br />

Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and other Monenergists and<br />

Monothelites made (and were to make) appeal.<br />

1045D<br />

TEXT<br />

In the letter from Saint Denys the Areopagite to Gaius the<br />

monk:<br />

How, you ask, is Jesus, who is beyond everything, ranked<br />

together with all human beings at the level of being? For here he<br />

is not called a man as the cause of humankind but as one who is<br />

himself in his whole being truly a man. 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!