Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
INTRODUCTION 51 CHRISTOLOGY AS THE CONVERGENCE OF APOPHATIC AND CATAPHATIC THEOLOGY One of the early Ambigua does, however, discuss the doctrine of Christ more closely, and that is the last (Amb. 71), which consists of Maximus’ attempt (or rather several attempts) to work out what Gregory of Nazianzus meant when in one of his poems he talks about ‘the play of the Word’. For Maximus it is in the Incarnation that the Word can be spoken of as ‘playing’: in the Incarnation, the Word is ‘playing’ like a wrestler with ‘a kind of keeping to the middle, staying equidistant between the extremes, by weaving about and quickly changing one’s position’ (1412B). The Incarnate Word mediates between God and man not simply by being constituted as a being that embraces both divinity and humanity, but by something that can only be spoken of in terms of movement—and movement that is paradoxical, a ‘still flowing’ he calls it (it reminds one of the principles of many of the Eastern martial arts, where the point is to make of oneself a still point so that the energy of one’s opponent is turned back on himself). This paradox, that escapes the capacity of human understanding, he expresses in another way: by drawing on the language of apophatic and cataphatic theology (theology of denial and of affirmation), with which he is familiar from the works of Denys the Areopagite. But whereas for the Areopagite, language of apophatic and cataphatic theology is a way of classifying our knowledge of God, for Maximus it is used in relation to the Incarnation. To ascribe ‘play’ to God is already to embark on apophatic theology, for it is only by denial, Maximus asserts, that play can be ascribed to God. It is like St Paul’s ascription to God of ‘foolishness’ and ‘weakness’. Both Paul and Gregory by privation of what with us are most powerful attributes point to what the divine possesses, and by negations of what is ours make affirmation of the divine. For with us foolishness, weakness and play are privations—of wisdom, power and prudence, respectively—but when they are attributed to God they clearly mean excess of wisdom, power and prudence… For the transcendent attributes of the divine, spoken of by us in a contrary sense as privations, fall a long way short of their true meaning. If this in its normal sense is true,…then the mystery of the divine Incarnation is called the foolishness and weakness of God according to the holy Apostle Paul, and God’s play according to the wonderful and great teacher Gregory, since it oversteps in a way that transcends being every order and harmony of all nature and power and activity.
52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST (1409B-D) This transcription to the Incarnation of the language of apophatic and cataphatic theology is found elsewhere in Maximus: we find him making similar remarks in his interpretation of the Transfiguration in Amb. 10.17 and 31, and in the slightly later Centuries on Theology and the Incarnate Dispensation he says: If you theologize in an affirmative or cataphatic manner, starting from positive statements about God, you make the Word flesh (cf. John 1:14), for you have no other means of knowing God as cause except from what is visible and tangible. If you theologize in a negative or apophatic manner, through stripping away of positive attributes, you make the Word spirit as being in the beginning God and with God (cf. John 1:1): starting from absolutely none of the things that can be known, you come in an admirable way to know Him who transcends unknowing. (CT II.39) Although Maximus follows Denys not simply in the language of ‘apophatic’ and ‘cataphatic’, but also in some of his ways of explaining what he means by these terms, the way he focuses these two ways of theology on the Incarnate Word supports the contention of Ysabel de Andia that Maximus regards the distinction between apophatic and cataphatic theology as mirroring the patristic distinction between ‘theology’ and ‘economy’—that is, the distinction between the doctrine of God as He is in Himself (in other words, the doctrine of the Trinity) and the doctrine of God’s dealings with the world, especially in the Incarnation. 5 MAXIMUS AND MONENERGISM: DENYS’ NOTION OF A ‘THEANDRIC ENERGY’ Explicit, though still very tentative, discussions of the doctrine of Christ seem to begin to come from Maximus’ pen around 633. This is hardly surprising, as Sophronius’ protest at the Alexandrian Pact of Union must have provoked discussion and, because of his closeness to the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, Maximus was bound to be involved. One of the pieces translated here directly concerns Christology and is from this period: that is the last of the later Ambigua, the fifth. There is nothing overtly polemical about this piece, which is an exposition of the fourth letter ascribed to Denys the Areopagite. But it is implicitly polemical, since this letter contains the key phrase quoted by the Monenergists—‘one divine-human (or
- Page 10: Introduction
- Page 13 and 14: 4 INTRODUCTION Belgrade: in 584), a
- Page 15 and 16: 6 INTRODUCTION result of an adulter
- Page 17 and 18: 8 INTRODUCTION state eternally from
- Page 19 and 20: 10 INTRODUCTION no division, no sep
- Page 21 and 22: 12 INTRODUCTION THE SEVENTH-CENTURY
- Page 23 and 24: 14 INTRODUCTION nature of the theol
- Page 25 and 26: 16 INTRODUCTION abandoned the hope
- Page 28 and 29: 2 THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOG
- Page 30 and 31: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 32 and 33: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 34 and 35: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 36 and 37: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 38 and 39: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 40: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 43 and 44: 34 INTRODUCTION the practice of the
- Page 45 and 46: 36 INTRODUCTION kind of academic st
- Page 47 and 48: 38 INTRODUCTION THE WAY OF LOVE 10
- Page 49 and 50: 40 INTRODUCTION attachment to the t
- Page 51 and 52: 42 INTRODUCTION that continually ri
- Page 53 and 54: 44 INTRODUCTION necessity of asceti
- Page 55 and 56: 46 INTRODUCTION to another and buil
- Page 57 and 58: 48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 59: 50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 63 and 64: 54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 65 and 66: 56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 67 and 68: 58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 69 and 70: 60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 71 and 72: 62 INTRODUCTION Conversely the huma
- Page 73 and 74: 64 INTRODUCTION original equality a
- Page 75 and 76: 66 INTRODUCTION to Maximian as to O
- Page 77 and 78: 68 INTRODUCTION clear and limpid to
- Page 79 and 80: 70 INTRODUCTION Difficulty 41 is bu
- Page 81 and 82: 72 INTRODUCTION liturgy, but other
- Page 83 and 84: 74 INTRODUCTION vision, when our Go
- Page 86 and 87: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTS A
- Page 88: GENERAL INTRODUCTION 79 all modern
- Page 91 and 92: 82 LETTER 2 human person, revealing
- Page 93 and 94: 84 LETTER 2 D 397A B C grace, throu
- Page 95 and 96: 86 LETTER 2 401A C D B Perhaps it w
- Page 97 and 98: 88 LETTER 2 C D 405A B particular t
- Page 99 and 100: 90 LETTER 2 B and the same thing, t
- Page 101 and 102: 92 DIFFICULTY 10 veil describes for
- Page 103 and 104: 94 DIFFICULTY 10 1108A B C 1 Introd
- Page 105 and 106: 96 DIFFICULTY 10 D 1112A B C to mak
- Page 107 and 108: 98 DIFFICULTY 10 C D 1116A Spirit o
- Page 109 and 110: 100 DIFFICULTY 10 C unshakeable lan
52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST<br />
(1409B-D)<br />
This transcription to the Incarnation of the language of apophatic and<br />
cataphatic theology is found elsewhere in Maximus: we find him<br />
making similar remarks in his interpretation of the Transfiguration in<br />
Amb. 10.17 and 31, and in the slightly later Centuries on Theology and<br />
the Incarnate Dispensation he says:<br />
If you theologize in an affirmative or cataphatic manner,<br />
starting from positive statements about God, you make the Word<br />
flesh (cf. John 1:14), for you have no other means of knowing God<br />
as cause except from what is visible and tangible. If you<br />
theologize in a negative or apophatic manner, through stripping<br />
away of positive attributes, you make the Word spirit as being in<br />
the beginning God and with God (cf. John 1:1): starting from<br />
absolutely none of the things that can be known, you come in an<br />
admirable way to know Him who transcends unknowing.<br />
(CT II.39)<br />
Although Maximus follows Denys not simply in the language of<br />
‘apophatic’ and ‘cataphatic’, but also in some of his ways of explaining<br />
what he means by these terms, the way he focuses these two ways of<br />
theology on the Incarnate Word supports the contention of Ysabel de<br />
Andia that Maximus regards the distinction between apophatic and<br />
cataphatic theology as mirroring the patristic distinction between<br />
‘theology’ and ‘economy’—that is, the distinction between the doctrine<br />
of God as He is in Himself (in other words, the doctrine of the Trinity)<br />
and the doctrine of God’s dealings with the world, especially in the<br />
Incarnation. 5<br />
MAXIMUS AND MONENERGISM: DENYS’<br />
NOTION OF A ‘THEANDRIC ENERGY’<br />
Explicit, though still very tentative, discussions of the doctrine of<br />
Christ seem to begin to come from Maximus’ pen around 633. This is<br />
hardly surprising, as Sophronius’ protest at the Alexandrian Pact of<br />
Union must have provoked discussion and, because of his closeness to<br />
the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, Maximus was bound to be<br />
involved. One of the pieces translated here directly concerns<br />
Christology and is from this period: that is the last of the later<br />
Ambigua, the fifth. There is nothing overtly polemical about this piece,<br />
which is an exposition of the fourth letter ascribed to Denys the<br />
Areopagite. But it is implicitly polemical, since this letter contains the<br />
key phrase quoted by the Monenergists—‘one divine-human (or
Change language