Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
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
- Page 127 and 128: 118 DIFFICULTY 10 B C D 22 Twofold
- Page 129 and 130: 120 DIFFICULTY 10 D 1152A B invisib
- Page 131 and 132: 122 DIFFICULTY 10 C D 1156A circums
- Page 133 and 134: 124 DIFFICULTY 10 1157A B C corrupt
- Page 135 and 136: C D 1161A 126 DIFFICULTY 10 B 31 Fu
- Page 137 and 138: 128 DIFFICULTY 10 B C D 1165A which
- Page 139 and 140: 130 DIFFICULTY 10 1168A B C through
- Page 141 and 142: 132 DIFFICULTY 10 C D 1172A B sense
- Page 143 and 144: 134 DIFFICULTY 10 B 1176B C D heap.
- Page 145 and 146: D 1180A 136 DIFFICULTY 10 B limitle
- Page 147 and 148: 138 DIFFICULTY 10 C D 1184A B uncir
- Page 149 and 150: B C D 1188A 140 DIFFICULTY 10 compa
- Page 151 and 152: 142 DIFFICULTY 10 B C D with the in
- Page 153 and 154: 144 DIFFICULTY 10 D 1193A B C unnat
- Page 155 and 156: 146 DIFFICULTY 10 C D 1197A Trinity
- Page 157 and 158: 148 DIFFICULTY 10 B D 1201A the spi
- Page 159 and 160: 150 DIFFICULTY 10 1204A B C 50 Cont
- Page 161 and 162: 152 DIFFICULTY 10 for whose sake th
- Page 163 and 164: 154 TEXTS The structure of the Diff
- Page 165 and 166: 156 TEXTS B C D no longer tied to e
- Page 167 and 168: 158 TEXTS 1312A D B C (Heb. 9:24),
- Page 169 and 170: 1316A 160 TEXTS C D earth (Col. 1:2
- Page 171 and 172: 162 TEXTS 1408C D 1409A B TEXT Of t
- Page 173 and 174: 164 TEXTS C D 1413A —we dare to t
- Page 175 and 176: 166 TEXTS B C D Another contemplati
- Page 177: 168 TEXTS B C stop the movement of
- Page 181 and 182: 172 TEXTS D 1052A B C specified in
- Page 183 and 184: 174 TEXTS 1056A D B shows that what
- Page 185 and 186: 1060A 176 TEXTS C D energy, have ac
- Page 187 and 188: 178
- Page 189 and 190: 180 OPUSCULE 7 C D 72A B to his mys
- Page 191 and 192: 182 OPUSCULE 7 D 76A B C imperfect
- Page 193 and 194: 184 OPUSCULE 7 80A C B C has a natu
- Page 195 and 196: 186 OPUSCULE 7 84A C D B the revere
- Page 197 and 198: 188 OPUSCULE 7 88A C D I forbear fr
- Page 199 and 200: 190 OPUSCULE 7 B Since I have now s
- Page 201 and 202: 192 OPUSCULE 3 48A C D B Let no-one
- Page 203 and 204: 194 OPUSCULE 3 C 52A B C The purpor
- Page 205 and 206: 196 OPUSCULE 3 56A B C D the manife
- Page 207 and 208: 198 NOTES the Persians. But there s
- Page 209 and 210: 200 NOTES (1962). For Maximus’ at
- Page 211 and 212: 202 NOTES 9 It is perhaps worth emp
- Page 213 and 214: 204 NOTES 2 Discussed above, chapte
- Page 215 and 216: 206 NOTES 48 Cf. the Dionysian tria
- Page 217 and 218: 208 NOTES Faith 13 (Kotter [1973],
- Page 219 and 220: 210 NOTES hêmin (see On human natu
- Page 221 and 222: 212 NOTES 7 By which Maximus seems
- Page 223 and 224: 214 NOTES 13 This is a good definit
- Page 225 and 226: 216 NOTES 20 Gregory is here referr
- Page 227 and 228: 218
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