Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
INTRODUCTION 53 theandric) activity’. According to all the manuscripts of the Corpus Areopagiticum that we possess, this letter in fact refers to ‘a new theandric activity’, and this is the reading Maximus knows and uses as the basis for his exposition. But since all the Greek manuscripts of the Dionysian writings go back to the edition prepared by John of Scythopolis in the middle of the sixth century, and John was himself anxious to present Denys as an orthodox Cyrilline Chalcedonian, the authenticity of the Monophysite/Monenergist/Monothelite reading ‘one theandric activity’ cannot be ruled out. Amb. 5 consists of a lengthy paraphrase of Denys the Areopagite’s fourth letter. In this letter Denys explains that in the Incarnation God is called human, not as being the cause of humanity (which is the ground of ‘cataphatic’ theology, in accordance with which God can be called everything of which he is the cause, that is, everything that is), but because ‘he is himself in his whole being truly a man’. Denys then goes on to explain how in the Incarnation there is a comherence of divine and human, so that Christ does human things divinely and divine things humanly, and thus manifests ‘a certain new theandric activity’. It is not difficult to suspect Denys’ language of deliberately contradicting the Tome of Leo with its assertion that ‘each form does what is proper to it in communion with the other’. It is hardly surprising that those who rejected the Tome of Leo called in support of their position this letter of Denys’. Maximus’ paraphrase is intended to show that the fourth letter is entirely in accordance with Chalcedonian orthodoxy. It is, however, Chalcedonian orthodoxy read in the light of Cyril—Cyrilline Chalcedonianism. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the interpretation of Jesus’ walking on the water— listed by Leo as an example of an unequivocably divine activity— where Maximus seems to be following Severus of Antioch (entirely unwittingly, one imagines, given his habitual denunciation of the Monophysite patriarch): ‘if then with unmoistened feet, which have bodily bulk and the weight of matter, he traversed the wet and unstable substance, walking on the sea as on a pavement, he shows through this crossing that the natural energy of his own flesh is inseparable from the power of his divinity’ (1049BC: and see my note ad loc.). For the rest Maximus insists on the integrity of the human nature assumed by the divine Person. He spells out, in accordance with the Chalcedonian Definition, that the human nature of Christ included a human soul, and was in every way like ours, save for sin. He also cites his favourite Christological text from Gregory the Theologian about the natures being ‘instituted afresh’, applying this first to the virginal conception, and then to the new form that the activity of the Incarnate One takes (his principal example being the walking on the water, already mentioned). But even as he explains how, in the Incarnation,
54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST ‘natures are instituted afresh’, he makes clear that this newness in no way encroaches on the logoi (principles) of the natures. What is new is the tropoi ‘preserved in the constancy of the natural logoi’ (1052A). The integrity of the natures entails the integrity of their activities or energies: the coming together of these [natures] effects the great mystery of the nature [physiologia] of Jesus who is beyond nature, and shows that in this the difference and the union of the energies are preserved, the [difference] beheld without division in the natural logos of what has been united, and the [union] acknowledged without confusion in the monadic mode [tropos] of what has come to pass. (1052B) Further on, Maximus spells out—using the language of apophatic and cataphatic theology in relation to Christ in the way we have already discussed—that Christ, as the God-man, embraces the extremes of divinity and humanity, but not so as to be himself something in between (he is not like a ‘griffin’). He has a double energy, not an intermediate energy. What is new is not a newly fashioned unique nature (with a correspondingly new and unique energy), but rather a new mode of existence: the logos of the mystery of Christ, is in fact an ineffable ‘mode of coming together’ [tropos tês symphuias] (1056C– 1057A). Whether Maximus’ interpretation of Denys is one that Denys himself would have recognized may be doubted, but it is hard to say that it is not a possible one, and it certainly stands in a tradition of interpretation that goes back at least to John of Scythopolis. If Denys has been ‘Chalcedonized’, we must also recognize that, in the meantime, Chalcedon had been ‘Cyrillized’. MAXIMUS AND MONOTHELITISM The two theological opuscula translated below belong to the early 640s, by which time Maximus had come out as an opponent of Monothelitism. The earlier one (Opusc. 7) is a treatise against Monothelitism, in the form of a letter addressed to Marinus, a Cypriot deacon; the other (Opusc. 3) seems to be part of a lengthy treatise On Energies and Wills, but in its present form is the third part of another treatise, addressed to the same Marinus, in which Maximus explains in what sense we must, and in what sense we cannot, say that there are two wills in the Incarnate One. Together they make clear
- 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 and 60: 50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 61: 52 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
- Page 111 and 112: 102 DIFFICULTY 10 D 1121A B 9 Conte
54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST<br />
‘natures are instituted afresh’, he makes clear that this newness in no<br />
way encroaches on the logoi (principles) of the natures. What is new is<br />
the tropoi ‘preserved in the constancy of the natural logoi’ (1052A).<br />
The integrity of the natures entails the integrity of their activities or<br />
energies:<br />
the coming together of these [natures] effects the great<br />
mystery of the nature [physiologia] of Jesus who is beyond<br />
nature, and shows that in this the difference and the union of the<br />
energies are preserved, the [difference] beheld without division<br />
in the natural logos of what has been united, and the [union]<br />
acknowledged without confusion in the monadic mode [tropos] of<br />
what has come to pass.<br />
(1052B)<br />
Further on, Maximus spells out—using the language of apophatic and<br />
cataphatic theology in relation to Christ in the way we have already<br />
discussed—that Christ, as the God-man, embraces the extremes of<br />
divinity and humanity, but not so as to be himself something in<br />
between (he is not like a ‘griffin’). He has a double energy, not an<br />
intermediate energy. What is new is not a newly fashioned unique<br />
nature (with a correspondingly new and unique energy), but rather a<br />
new mode of existence: the logos of the mystery of Christ, is in fact an<br />
ineffable ‘mode of coming together’ [tropos tês symphuias] (1056C–<br />
1057A).<br />
Whether Maximus’ interpretation of Denys is one that Denys<br />
himself would have recognized may be doubted, but it is hard to say<br />
that it is not a possible one, and it certainly stands in a tradition of<br />
interpretation that goes back at least to John of Scythopolis. If Denys<br />
has been ‘Chalcedonized’, we must also recognize that, in the<br />
meantime, Chalcedon had been ‘Cyrillized’.<br />
MAXIMUS AND MONOTHELITISM<br />
The two theological opuscula translated below belong to the early<br />
640s, by which time Maximus had come out as an opponent of<br />
Monothelitism. The earlier one (Opusc. 7) is a treatise against<br />
Monothelitism, in the form of a letter addressed to Marinus, a Cypriot<br />
deacon; the other (Opusc. 3) seems to be part of a lengthy treatise On<br />
Energies and Wills, but in its present form is the third part of another<br />
treatise, addressed to the same Marinus, in which Maximus explains<br />
in what sense we must, and in what sense we cannot, say that there<br />
are two wills in the Incarnate One. Together they make clear
Change language