Double Knowledge according to St Gregory Palamas by Dr. Π. Κ. Χρήστου (P. Christou)

Από: Π. Κ. Χρήστου, Θεολογικά Μελετήματα, τ. 3 (Νηπτικά και

Ησυχαστικά), Θεσσαλονίκη 1977

Icon of St Gregory Palamas in his church in Thessaloniki, Greece

Contents:
1. Philosophy and Theology
2. The Two Ways of Knowing God
3. Theology and Vision of God
4. The Teaching of Gregory Palamas on Man


During his sojourn in Byzantium Barlaam of Calabria, a distinguished
theologian and philosopher of the 14th century, took an active part in
the discussions concerning two great problems, namely those of the
procession of the Holy Spirit and of the monastic hesychia. As regards
the former he opposed the Roman Catholic view and as regards the
latter he opposed the Hesychasts. Since in both cases he employed 
gnostic criteria, equating philosophy with theology, he provoked 
strong opposition from Gregory Palamas. Palamas’ argumentation in
this controversy included a series of dual distinctions, among which 
theory of double knowledge holds a notable place. In this theory we
may note three aspects: the distinction between philosophy and 
theology; the distinction within theology of two ways of knowing God;
and finally the distinction between theology and the vision of God or
theoptia.


1. Philosophy and Theology
The first distinction is a result of the conflict between Christianity
and Greek philosophy, of which the beginnings go back to apostolic
times. This conflict reappears from time to time and during the years
of the Renaissance dominated the entire intellectual field. The further
humanistic studies advanced, the greater was the importance given to
the human factor for the knowledge divine; consequently philosophy
was appreciated the more.


Barlaam, one of the pioneers of the Renaissance, reached the point of
identifying the objects, the method and the achievements of
philosophy and theology, supporting his endeavor with arguments to
the effect that every human good is a gift of God and therefore all are
of high quality [i]. Just as, he used to say, there are not two kinds of
health, the one provided by God and the other secured by physicians;
in the same way, there are not two kinds of knowledge-the human
and the divine- but only one. Philosophy and theology, as gifts of God,
are of equal worth.


On this analogy, the Greek philosophers were raised to the same
level as Moses and the prophets; and this tendency was later
extended to the point of introducing such persons as Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle and other sages to the iconographic circle of Greek
Orthodox Churches. Barlaam maintained that, "Both the sayings of
the divine men with the wisdom that is within them and profane
philosophy, aim at a unique object and therefore have a common
purpose, the finding of truth; for truth existing in all these is but one.
This truth was given to the apostles at the beginning by God; by
ourselves, however, it is found through diligence and purity.
Philosophical studies naturally contribute to the truth given to the
apostles by God and assist greatly in reaching out to the first
immaterial principles" [ii].  In maintaining this argument Barlaam
should not be considered as a rationalistic philosopher; on the
contrary, by further elaboration of this thoughts he reaches
conclusions that approach agnosticism. Indeed, he points out the
complete inability of man in his natural state to understand the
divine and, like Plato and Dionysius the Areopagite, seeks for
purification and escape from the material body in other to achieve
the vision of God in a condition of ecstasy.


In complete contrast to these, Palamas draws a sharp distinction
between philosophy and theology. Certainly this division is not a
unique phenomenon during those times. The Averroists* of the West
were accused and condemned in 1277 because among other teachings
they maintained that things may be true according to philosophy and
erroneous according to catholic faith, as if there were two
contradictory truths [iii]. It is a matter of controversy nowadays
what position was reached by the Averroists, and especially by Siger
of Brabant, in the distinction they made between the two wisdoms
and truths. But it is obvious that they at last had a definite
predilection for such a distinction which appears again in Ockham’s
philosophy [iv].


It is extremely unlikely that Palamas had any knowledge of the views
of these western theologians. His presuppositions and purposes were
entirely different from theirs. When he was obliged to undertake
work on this subject, he had recourse to Greek theology before his
time and found satisfactory support for his position.
St. Paul, addressing himself primarily to the intellectuals of Athens
and Corinth; the sages, the scribes and the debaters of the age marked
the chasm between the two philosophies, the wisdom of the
world which as foolishness was abolished and that wisdom of God
which is eternal and brings salvation [v]. Similarly, St. James described
worldly wisdom as sensual and Satanic, and that coming from above
he calls full of virtue and pure [vi]. The attitude of these two apostles,
dictated by missionary needs of the time, did not allow a distinction
between two kinds of knowledge, because it entirely rejected the
value of worldly wisdom. Naturally this manner of dealing with the
matter had serious consequences for the evolution of theological
thought up to the end of the second century and also influenced it in
some degree in later times. For about a century no attention
whatsoever was paid to the foolish wisdom of the world.


Some of the apologists, who came from a different background and
acted under different circumstances, adopted a different attitude.
Our attention is especially called to the position which Clement of
Alexandria took towards the problem. He perceived that the initial
truth was one, but later dismembered by philosophical schools as that
unfortunate Pentheus was dismembered by Bacchus. Although
several schools maintain that they posses the whole truth, in reality
they possess only a part of it. From this last observation it already
appears that philosophy is not entirely valueless, but that the
difference between it and theology is fundamental because
philosophy has to do with names, i. e. the outward cover, while
theology has to do with things, i. e. with essentials, "Thus, since there
are two kinds of truth, he says, -one of names and the other of things,
-some people prefer the names, viz. Those that are engaged in the
beauty of speech, i. e. the Greek philosophers, while the things are
investigated by us, the barbarians" [vii]. Nevertheless knowledge
constitutes a chain in which the elementary lessons serve philosophy
as their mistress, while philosophy itself serves theology as its
mistress [viii]. Borrowing from Philo [ix], he employs as
representative types Agar the slave and Sarah her mistress, both of
whom in turn gave Abraham lovable children but of unequal worth [x].
To Sarah burning with jealousy Abraham says, "although I
embrace the worldly paideia both as younger and as your handmaid
on one hand, on the other hand I honour and respect your science as
a perfect lady" [xi]. It is obvious that, according to Clement, whereas
the philosophical systems possess a part of the truth, theology
possesses the whole of it. Diadochos of Photiκe, examining this
dismemberment from a different point of view, attributes it to the fall
of man and considers it as a division between truth and error. By his
fall man, "was divided in the duplicity of knowledge" [xii].


Basil the Great links the two kinds of knowledge with the conditions
of life which they serve. Worldly wisdom provides understanding of
the present transitory life and facilitates a successful passage through
it. Divine wisdom provides the weapons for the attainment of the
blessed life of the future [xiii]. Not being contradictory to each other,
they form, as it were, a tree in which the one provides the leaves and
the other the fruits [xiv].


Coming back to Gregory Palamas, we observe that he does not
disagree with Barlaam’s contention that everything that is good is a
gift of God and every gift of His is perfect, but he also remarks that
every gift is not necessarily completely perfect [xv]. So long as the
gifts of God are divided into natural and spiritual, philosophy is a
natural gift [xvi], and as such under the influence of evil it has gone
astray and changed and in some cases turned to foolishness [xvii]. Of
course, under certain conditions philosophy adds to the knowledge of
beings. But, since this knowledge cannot be identified with or
accounted equal to the divine wisdom [xviii], it becomes obvious that
neither is ignorance always something bad, nor knowledge always
good [xix]. For the same reason devotion to philosophy should not be
hindered, though its abuse should be strongly criticized [xx].


The objects of the two disciplines are clearly distinguished.
Philosophy aims on the one hand at the exploration of the nature and
movement of beings, and on the other hand at the definition of
principles of social life. If it moves within these boundaries, it is, "a
dissertation of truth"; if it looks for something beyond them, it
becomes an absurd, useless and dangerous occupation; because it
belongs to theology, or philosophy according to Christ, to aim at the
invisible and the eternal [xxi]. Now, since the objects of the two
disciplines are distinct, the conclusions of both may be true.


This examination shows that according to Palamas’ teaching, worldly
knowledge and theological knowledge are clearly distinguished and
proceed on parallel paths. The destination of each determines its
value. The one intended for this transient life is a useful handmaid,
but is not indispensable for salvation; the other intended for the
eternal life is more precious and is absolutely indispensable for
spiritual perfection and salvation [xxii]. This is the only distinction
for which Palamas firmly uses the term 'double knowledge',



This essay is available in full from scribd.com. You may have to
register to be able to download or print this article in its totality. 


*Note- Averroism is the term applied to either of two philosophical
trends among scholastics in the late 13th century: (a) the Arab 
philosopher Averroës or Ibn Rushd's interpretations of Aristotle and 
his reconciliation of Aristotelianism with Islamic faith; and (b) the
application of these ideas in the Latin Christian and Jewish 
intellectual traditions, such as Siger of Brabant, Boetius of Dacia,
and Maimonides. The term was originally coined by Ernst Renan.
Source, for this note only.