13.12.2012 Views

Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

NOTES 209<br />

111 Diamonê, taxis, thesis, kinêsis: cf. Nemesius, On human nature 42<br />

(Morani [1987], 120, l.25–121, l.2), though Nemesius has phora instead<br />

of kinêsis: see Amb. 10.35 (1176BC), above.<br />

112 The definitions of providence are taken directly from Nemesius, On<br />

human nature 42 (Morani [1987], 125, ll. 4–8); they also appear in John<br />

Damascene, Exposition of the Faith 43, ll. 2–6 (Kotter [1973], 100).<br />

113 Byzantines distinguished between the ‘outer’ and the ‘inner’ learning:<br />

the ‘outer learning’ was pagan philosophy—either classical or late<br />

antique—the ‘inner learning’ was <strong>Christian</strong> theology. The distinction is<br />

mainly polemical, since both inner and outer learning were indebted to<br />

Greek philosophy, esp. Plato and the Neoplatonists. For a discussion of<br />

this distinction in the later Byzantine period, see D.M.Nicol, <strong>Church</strong><br />

and Society in the Last Centuries of Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge<br />

University Press, 1979), chapter 2. Those who limit providence are<br />

principally the followers of Aristotle (see n. 114, below). The idea that<br />

providence is limited to the realm above the moon was popularized in<br />

the influential treatise On the world, ascribed to Aristotle.<br />

114 A view regularly ascribed to Aristotle in late antiquity and the Byzantine<br />

period. Nemesius (on whom Maximus is drawing) discusses Aristotle’s<br />

views on providence in On human nature 43 (Morani [1987], 127ff.)<br />

115 As Nemesius says: On human nature 43 (Morani [1987], 130, ll. 7–10).<br />

Maximus has modified Nemesius’ first reason.<br />

116 A Stoic idea, that became a commonplace in much late ancient<br />

philosophy.<br />

117 This sentence is very close to Nemesius, On human nature 43 (Morani<br />

118 Another sentence drawn directly from Nemesius, On human nature 43<br />

(Morani [1987], 133, ll. 2–5).<br />

119 Maximus now returns to the text from Gregory Nazianzen’s sermon to<br />

discuss the final phrase about passing beyond the material dyad.<br />

Gregory uses this imagery in other sermons, notably Sermon 23.4, which<br />

is the subject of other Ambigua: Arab. 23, from the early set, and from<br />

the later set, Amb. 1, translated below.<br />

120 This notion of a Trinitarian image of God in man—which is reminiscent<br />

of Augustine (see On the Trinity 9–10)—is derived from Gregory<br />

Nazianzen (Sermon 23.11; PG 35:1161C) and found elsewhere in<br />

Maximus (e.g. Quaestiones et dubia 105: Declerck [1982], 80), who<br />

bequeathed it to John Damascene (Exposition of the Faith 26: Kotter<br />

[1973], 76. In Byzantine theology it never attained the influence that<br />

Augustine’s conception exercised in Western medieval theology.<br />

121 Most of this chapter is a précis of Nemesius, On human nature 15–22<br />

(Morani [1987], 72–82): Maximus begins with chapter 22. The material<br />

appears again, in a form that is indebted to Nemesius, independently of<br />

whatever debt it owes to Maximus, in John Damascene, Exposition of<br />

the Faith, 26–30 (Kotter [1987], 75–83).<br />

122 Literally: is not ‘within us’ (en hêmin), an important category in<br />

Maximus’ ethics. It occurs, too, in Nemesius, On human nature 26<br />

(Morani [1987], 87, l. 22], whose normal expression is, however, eph’

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!