Apophatic Theology: Introduction to the Hesychast Controversies of Barlaam and Palamas
Apophatic Theology: Introduction to the Hesychast Controversies of Barlaam and Palamas
Palamite Theology part 1: Introduction to the hesychast controversies and the different epistemological systems of Barlaam and Saint Gregory Palamas | 2 forms of apophaticism
Today we begin a new series of articles for paid subscribers on the hesychast controversies. There are a lot of details about the debate between Barlaam and Palamas that are often missed. For this reason, we will be dedicating a significant (and as yet undetermined) amount of time to the topic.
The hesychast controversies of the fourteenth century were occasioned by the collision of two irreconcilable approaches to the knowledge of God:1 the philosophical and the theological. The former would rely upon the analogia entis and analogia fidei2 to provide a theoretical experience of God as a rationally comprehensible, simple substance. First espoused by the neo-Arians of the fourth century, this perspective would read Aristotle’s Metaphysics back into the Christian principle of Divine Simplicity,3 making it difficult for its adherents to adequately uphold the distinction of Hypostases in God.4 The theological approach, on the other hand, would emphasize the direct experience of God through prayer.5 Assessing these two different epistemic methods, Abp. Basil Krivocheine (1900–1985 A.D.) would note that “the two parties in conflict took their stand on positions which differed notably as regards their principles in constructing a theology of God.”6 As such, the different methodologies produced a discrepancy in theological vision – specifically as regards the use of apophatic theology – which, in turn, affected the finer points of the hesychast debates.7 The failure to fully appreciate the disparity between these approaches has extended the dispute to our day.
The original contention revolved around whether or not apodictic arguments were appropriate in theological discussions to refute the Latins. Provoked around 1335 A.D. by a series of Anti-Latin Treatises written by Barlaam the Calabrian (c. 1290–1350 A.D.) who, According to Saint Gregory Palamas (c. 1296–1359 A.D.), professed a dangerous “theological agnosticism”8 and an overdependence on “Aristotelian logic in theological discourse.”9 Although there is some evidence that Palamas initially misunderstood Barlaam’s theology – on account of which he wrote his first Triad10 – he would rightfully point out that Barlaam’s belief that “there is no demonstration for any of the divine realities”11 reveals a lackluster apophaticism. Indeed, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware once remarked, “‘apophaticism’ can be used to denote two profoundly different things.”12
Reflecting on the two different kinds of apophaticism utilized, the editor of the Triads, Fr. John Meyendorff, would write that for Barlaam, “negative theology becomes a species of philosophy, an intellectual technique to establish divine transcendence by stating what God is not. The via negativa for him, thus remains negative, instead of an initiation into mystical experience.”13 This stands in stark contrast to the apophatic theology of the Greek Fathers, for whom it was not simply a negation of cataphatic statements about God but rather an existential reality whereby the initiate ascends beyond discursive reason and communicable language to unmediated, mystical experience of God. In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Saint Paul recalls just such an experience when “he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Given these two different visions of the knowledge of God – one based in negation and the other in positive, although incommunicable, experience of God expressed in negation – it did not take long until
the initial disagreement was forgotten and the discussions focused on two issues that became critical: whether through prayer man may obtain a vision of the uncreated light of God in the way the disciples of Christ had the opportunity to see it on Mount Tabor during the Transfiguration, and whether there is a real distinction between God’s uncreated essence and His uncreated energies, in which man may participate.14
For his part, Barlaam would deny the vision of uncreated light as well as the the uncreated energies. The reason: Barlaam believed that “God’s attributes…are [unknowable]” – but at the same time, human beings can obtain “a knowledge of God’s attributes and God’s existence by an ascent through creation.”15 Much like Eunomious, Barlaam would confess that God’s energies (also called attributes or powers) are created mediaries, concluding that God is known “indirectly…[by] the mediation of his creatures”16 since “[He] is utterly unknowable in himself.”17 This is what would be called φυσική θεωρία – a process whereby one can “reason up” to God who is known “through inference”18 and thereby attain the Glory of God.19
Saint Gregory Palamas would argue that hesychasm is a valid means through which man can attain to the vision of the uncreated light – which signifies union with God himself through direct, unmitigated experience of His uncreated energies. Drawing from the theology of the Cappadocians and Saint John Chrysostom, Palamas would argue that “the apophatic way is no mere philosophical theory, but is inseparable from the practice of imageless prayer…[which is] supremely affirmative in its ultimate aim.”20 In his explanation of this concept, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite would point to the process of sculpting a block of marble into a beautiful figure. Chipping away at the marble is essentially a “negative act” but its destination and the revelatory experience of the final image.
So is God only knowable by analogy? Are his energies created intermediaries by which man can reason up to knowledge of God? Or can man experience a mystical union with God himself through his uncreated energies? In our next article in this series, we will explore in depth the epistemologies and theological visions of Barlaam and Palamas.21
On approach, see R. Sinkewicz, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in the Early Writings of Barlaam the Calabrian, p. 226; Fr. John Romanides, Jesus Christ – the Life of the World, C.11, 12.
See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 13; Gregory Akindynos quoted the Greek version of the Summa (see Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology, p. 77).
See Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 12, chs. 6–10; cf. Categories chs. 4–5; cf. Kallistos Ware, God Hidden and Revealed, p. 126: “God…is treated by these thinkers as a simple philosophical concept, wholly comprehensible to human reason.”
See L. Contos, “The Essence-Energies Structure of St. Gregory Palamas with Brief Explanation of Its Patristic Foundation” in Greek Theological Review, 12,3, pp. 283–294.
See Evagrius of Pontus (On Prayer 61, p. 62) who notes that the theologian is the one who prays – and by this experiences God Himself.
Abp. Basil Krivocheine, The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas, p. 30.
One such point would be how Saint Dionysius the Areopagite is interpreted and understood. Fr. John Meyendorff on Barlaam’s understanding of Dionysius (A Study of Gregory Palamas, pp. 131–132).
Fr. John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 43; cf. Saint Gregory Palamas, Triads, p. 118. In note 5, the editor explains that “it would certainly not be fair to describe Barlaam as an agnostic.” R. Sinkewicz would comment on this difficulty in Doctrine of the Knowledge of God pp. 188–218, noting likewise that Barlaam cannot be considered agnostic but that “[he] cannot be entirely extricated from the dangers of his Aristotelianism” (p. 213).
R. Sinkewicz, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p. 184.
See R. Sinkewicz, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p. 198; cf. A New Interpretation, p. 500.
Gregory Palamas, Epistle 2 to Barlaam, 22.273.3–10; See R. Sinkewicz, Doctrine of God, p. 220.
Kallistos Ware, God Hidden and Revealed, p. 127.
Triads, p. 118, n. 5.
Ioannis Polemis, “The Hesychast Controversy: Events, Personalities, Texts and Trends,” pp. 345–398 in A Companion to the Intellectual Life of the Palaeologan Period (Brill: 2022).
R. Sinkewicz, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p. 212. But human’s could only know him as “transcendent cause” (p. 218).
Gregory Palamas, Triads, p. 118, n. 5; Triads, 1.1, p. 25.
Ibid., p. 118, n. 5.
Ibid, 2.2.16, p. 61.
Ibid, 2.2.16, p. 60.
Kallistos Ware, God HIdden and Revealed, pp. 127–128.
Ibid, op. cit., 128.
Key point I took away was this:
This stands in stark contrast to the apophatic theology of the Greek Fathers, for whom it was not simply a negation of cataphatic statements about God but rather an existential reality whereby the initiate ascends beyond discursive reason and communicable language to unmediated, mystical experience of God. In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Saint Paul recalls just such an experience when “he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Given these two different visions of the knowledge of God – one based in negation and the other in positive, although incommunicable, experience of God expressed in negation...
That explanation of how apophatic theology is viewed differently one either side, and how it eventually led to down-stream disagreements, is hugely helpful in understanding some of the underpinnings to the hesychast controversy.
Fascinating. I now have better impression of Barlaam. It is a fundamental question entering God via uncreated vs understanding via created energy that we will not actually know until the time to come. I feel the problem with these schisms is that they turn people away from God. Intellectual fights and excommunication, I feel, destroy us small folks faith in the healing power of the church.