i81 .iois 1r xi r x nvz.

x1r ix
theological concepts rather than philological evidence. For the latter is
overwhelming, especially in Cap. 1i.(" The danger here is not to
read Augustines ideas into the text of Palamas but to fail to see
Augustines text behind the ideas of Palamas.
Cap. 1i consists largely of a literal rendering of Augustines summary
in De trin. xv. of De trin. v, in which Augustine provides an
(anti-Eunomian) analysis of expressions like Father, Son and creator,(#
which must not be conceived of as substances but as relations (relative,
0 4 ), as they relate to something ( ad aliquid, ! ) other than
self. To make the point Palamas simply copies a long passage from
Planudess translation. But at the end he changes a signicant detail.
Where Augustine states that divine relations to temporal conditions like
Gods lordship over creation are to be understood strictly as temporal
(0 ! ), i.e. not aecting Gods immutable state in eternity, he adds,
partly in his own words, that this includes Gods lordship over all those
who are in eternity and over the Aeons themselves ; for being Lord is an
uncreated energy of God, distinct from the substance, as it is spoken of in
relation to something else, which he is not .($
What is here the decisive dierence between Augustine and Palamas ?
Augustine had been careful not to give the impression that his teaching
required the concept of an eternal cosmos. He insisted that Gods lordship
could only be conceived of as occurring in time.(% For him, time was
through the concept of intellectus gratiae makes it possible to relate the concepts of God
as the supreme intellect (Augustine) and the supreme goodness (Palamas) respectively and
thus point out that there are indeed aspects in which the two theologies converge. In the
case of Cap. 6 no literal parallels can be found. But see (in the light of nn 68 above)
the following references with a variety of partly overlapping concepts of love. Planudes
preferred 0 ! as reference to Gods love, or to God as love, which renders Augustines,
caritas as opposed to ! , which stands for Latin amicitia, the mutual love between
friends : Aug., De trin. vi. , CCL 1. i; Plan., Aug. Triad. o1; Aug., De trin. v. 1i,
CCL 1. i18io; Plan., Aug. Triad. 61; Aug., De trin. vi. 11, CCL 1. ii; Plan., Aug.
Triad. 1; cf. Flogaus, Der heimliche Blick, i1i n. o; Aug., De trin. xv. i, CCL 1
A. o1; Plan., Aug. Triad. i; Aug., De trin. xv. i, CCL1 A. o11; Plan., Aug. Triad.
i; Aug., De trin. xv. , CCL 1 A. 1; Plan., Aug. Triad. 1; Aug., De trin. 1, CCL
1 A. 11; Plan., Aug. Triad. 61. Note also that in archaic Greek ! denotes family
relation, ! . On the Augustinian terminology see I. Hadot, Amicitia, AL i
(1), i8; D. Dideberg, Amor, ibid. ioo, and Caritas , ibid. o.
(" See Flogaus, Der heimliche Blick, i8o. Capp. 16 outlines Palamass teaching
in general, Capp. 61o mainly refute specic points raised by Gregory Akindynos.
(# Aug., De trin. xv. , CCL 1 A 6; Plan. Aug. Triad. 8; Flogaus, Der heimliche
Blick, i81, esp. n. i1.
($ Greg. Pal., Cap. 1i (1o6 Chrestou V edn; iio Sinkewicz edn); Aug., De trin. xv.
, CCL 1 A. 6; Plan., Aug. Triad. 8; cf. Flogaus, Der heimliche Blick, i81 n. i1.
Only the italicised passages are literally taken from Augustine. On the rest of the passage
see Lo$ ssl, Augustines On the Trinity i.
(% For example in De trin. v. 1, CCL 1. ii; Plan., Aug. Triad. 8.