This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
The paper examines the status of ambiguity in the thought of Plotinus (c. 204/205-270). Even thou... more The paper examines the status of ambiguity in the thought of Plotinus (c. 204/205-270). Even though ambiguity should be regarded as the enemy of the philosopher and as pertaining rather to the rhetorical tradition and not the philosophical one as it was especially established by Plato and Aristotle, one can argue that the particularly Neoplatonist philosophical project permitted an important place to it due to some fundamental inherent aspects that it contained. Most importantly, the ambiguity in the generation of the Intellect from the One is examined in this paper as related to the dialectic between existence and being. In such a perspective, ambiguity is initiated by the fact that being is both one in order to exist and not one in order to be a being. Thus, it can be explained only in dialectic with an ontological reality beyond it, namely an absolute One. This means that, in turn, its generation as Intellect from the latter is necessarily a two-fold movement: Both a distribution...
Les termes logos (raison) et tropos forment un couple qui est tres significatif pour la pensee de... more Les termes logos (raison) et tropos forment un couple qui est tres significatif pour la pensee de Maxime le Confesseur (c. 580-662). Dans notre these, nous examinons les contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur emploie le terme tropos (mode) soit a l’interieur du couple logos-tropos, soit de facon autonome. Nous ne traitons pas le concept de tropos comme un terme invariant integre a une doctrine uniforme, mais plutot comme un moyen ou un «outil» conceptuel qui aide Maxime a resoudre des problemes tres differents dans plusieurs domaines de sa pensee. Nous examinons les differents contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur utilise le couple logos-tropos ou le seul terme tropos, comme, par exemple, la logique, la relation entre l’universalite et la particularite, la theologie trinitaire, la question du mal et la Theodicee, la cosmologie, la theorie du progres spirituel, la theorie de l’achevement ontologique, la christologie et l’eschatologie. Dans chaque cas, nous insistons sur ...
This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
This volume constitutes an attempt at bringing together philosophies of time—or more precisely, p... more This volume constitutes an attempt at bringing together philosophies of time—or more precisely, philosophies on time and, in a concomitant way, history—emerging from Christianity’s and Islam’s intellectual histories. Starting from the Neoplatonic heritage and the voice of classical philosophy, the volume enters the Byzantine and Arabic intellectual worlds up to Ibn Al-Arabi’s times. A conscious choice in this volume is not to engage with, perhaps, the most prominent figures of Christian and Arabic philosophy, i.e., Augustine on the one hand and Avicenna/Ibn Sina on the other, precisely because these have attracted so much attention due to their prominence in their respective traditions—and beyond. In a certain way, Maximus the Confessor and Ibn Al-Arabi—together with Al-Fārābi—emerge as alternative representatives of their two traditions in this volume, offering two axes for this endeavor. The synthesis of those approaches on time and history, their comparison rather than their mere...
Saint Maximus the Confessor’s Trinitarian Theology of Nous, Logos and Spirit as a model of spirituality, 2019
In Patristic and Maximian theology, following the Gospel of John, the Christ is named both Son an... more In Patristic and Maximian theology, following the Gospel of John, the Christ is named both Son and Word (Logos). The term Son obviously implies a net of existential relations. As noted by Gregory of Nazianzus, cited by Maximus, the Father cannot be conceived of without His Son . One initial problem, -posed mainly by modern theologians-, is whether the term Logos is only “economical”, that is, solely referring to the relation between God and the world, or if it is also intra-Trinitarian. In other words, is the Son a Logos- Reason only because He is the Reason of the world, that is, the world’s ultimate meaning due to the Incarnation? Or is He a Logos- Reason also because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Spirit? Maximus who is here following a well-established patristic tradition, seems to consider that the term Logos denotes first and foremost an intra-Trinitarian reality: The Christ is the eternal Word, the Logos of the Father independently of the creation of the world. When we say “independently” we mean from God’s point of view. Because, on the other hand, there are reflections of this eternal relation inside creation. Maximus is persistently trying to establish a correlation between the divine Trinity and the Trinitarian character of the human soul and its spirituality. That is, the fact that the human soul comprises intellect (νοῦς), reason (λόγος) and spirit (πνεῦμα) is considered by Saint Maximus to be an “image”, a reflection of the Divine Trinity in human personhood. In the divine Trinity, the Father is the Intellect (Νοῦς), who is generating the Word (Λόγος) and sending forth the Spirit (Πνεῦμα). Many theologians (modern or even medieval) could point out that there is a grave danger of anthropomorphism here. Is all of this just a poetic image drawn from human experience, a kind of metaphor, one of many “traces” that the Trinity has endowed the world with in order for the latter to be its witness ? Or is this correlation between the human soul and the Divine a nodal point in Maximian thought? In our paper, we would like to point in the second direction. When confronting the biblical question “what is the icon of God in man?” Maximus seems to trace it to the Trinitarian structure of the human soul, which is composed of intellect (nous), reason (logos), and spirit (pneuma), just like its divine archetype, the Trinity . In Maximian thought, the trinity of nous, logos and pneuma seems to be first and foremost a theological reality and only by extension an anthropological, -or even cosmological-, one. In this sense, one could claim that Saint Maximus would not regard psychological Trinitarianism as “anthropomorphism”. In fact, for him it seems to work the other way round: It is the Trinitarian human soul that is considered an image of God.
ABSTRACT OF EIRINI ARTEMI
Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t disti... more ABSTRACT OF EIRINI ARTEMI Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t distinguish eikon and homoiosis. These two terms are indistinguishable in Gn 1:26-27, and he proceeds to employ them without distinction. On the other hand, he insists, as his Alexandrian predecessors, that there is a radical distinction between the Image of God that is God, and the image of God that is man. Cyril explains that the holy Triune God said these words “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” was honored by a kind of preliminary consultation. The image and the likeness of man to God cannot be related to the body, since God is infallible. In this direction, Saint Cyril is also categorical: the image of God in man is not in the form of the body but is expressed in the soul and its spiritual abilities and powers. According to Cyril, compelled by fate or by his nature to choose this rather than that; he has genuine psychological freedom. Cyril’s writings for Pentateuch show that man is framed according to the Divine image, not in his body, for God being the most pure Spirit can have no sensible figure, but in being endued with reason, and capable of virtue. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify the presentation of the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria regarding the greatness of man as a creation “in the image” of God. Since Saint Cyril teaches that man was created “in the image” of the Triune God, the development of the subject was first carried out in a triadological context and then in a Christological one.
«Eschatological teleology: The biblical Aristotelianism of Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)», in: Vavouras, Ilias (ed.), Philosophical interventions on Aristotle, Thessaloniki: Romi, 2016, p. 147-157 (in Greek)., 2016
Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) is employing Aristotelian metaphysics. Maximus is thinking of ... more Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) is employing Aristotelian metaphysics. Maximus is thinking of the end (τέλος) just like Aristotle, as entailing a passage from potentiality (δυνάμει) to actualization (ἐνεργείᾳ). His thought could thus be qualified as “teleological”. Maximus does observe finalities in nature, which are realized through a passage from potentiality to actuality. Just like in Aristotle, this passage is movement in a metaphysical sense, and it is measured by time leading to the “maturation” of being. Maximus also has a particularly Aristotelian sense of retroactive final causation, namely the fact that we can understand a being only from its end. He also uses a notion of “attraction” (ἕλξις) that is causation and motion take place mainly through attraction and not through impulsion as in mechanistic philosophies. Just like Aristotle, Maximus does not exclude impulsion; he rather subordinates it ontologically to attraction. But here starts Maximus’ originality. After having deeply assimilated Aristotelianism, he transforms it radically by putting it in historical and eschatological terms. The field of passage from potentiality to actuality is not Biology or nature but History. And the end which attracts is not natural maturity but the eschaton which presents nevertheless a gap of radical discontinuity in relation to natural evolution. But this means that the passage from potentiality to actuality is not linear but dialectical. Eschatology at the same time confirms teleology and “frustrates” it, (in a psychological idiom), or “crucifies” it (in a theological one). Eschatological teleology is thus an antinomy, which introduces us to Maximus’ dialectical way of thinking.
This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
The paper examines the status of ambiguity in the thought of Plotinus (c. 204/205-270). Even thou... more The paper examines the status of ambiguity in the thought of Plotinus (c. 204/205-270). Even though ambiguity should be regarded as the enemy of the philosopher and as pertaining rather to the rhetorical tradition and not the philosophical one as it was especially established by Plato and Aristotle, one can argue that the particularly Neoplatonist philosophical project permitted an important place to it due to some fundamental inherent aspects that it contained. Most importantly, the ambiguity in the generation of the Intellect from the One is examined in this paper as related to the dialectic between existence and being. In such a perspective, ambiguity is initiated by the fact that being is both one in order to exist and not one in order to be a being. Thus, it can be explained only in dialectic with an ontological reality beyond it, namely an absolute One. This means that, in turn, its generation as Intellect from the latter is necessarily a two-fold movement: Both a distribution...
Les termes logos (raison) et tropos forment un couple qui est tres significatif pour la pensee de... more Les termes logos (raison) et tropos forment un couple qui est tres significatif pour la pensee de Maxime le Confesseur (c. 580-662). Dans notre these, nous examinons les contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur emploie le terme tropos (mode) soit a l’interieur du couple logos-tropos, soit de facon autonome. Nous ne traitons pas le concept de tropos comme un terme invariant integre a une doctrine uniforme, mais plutot comme un moyen ou un «outil» conceptuel qui aide Maxime a resoudre des problemes tres differents dans plusieurs domaines de sa pensee. Nous examinons les differents contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur utilise le couple logos-tropos ou le seul terme tropos, comme, par exemple, la logique, la relation entre l’universalite et la particularite, la theologie trinitaire, la question du mal et la Theodicee, la cosmologie, la theorie du progres spirituel, la theorie de l’achevement ontologique, la christologie et l’eschatologie. Dans chaque cas, nous insistons sur ...
This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not b... more This volume seeks to explore the intersection of theology, philosophy and the public sphere not by referring the social and political to ethics and deontology as is often the case, but rather to ontology itself, to the very nature of beings. The meaning of history and historicity is most pertinent to this enquiry and is approached here both from the perspective of social reality and from the perspective of ontology. Joining together contributions focusing on theory of the public sphere and metaphysics, chapters explore subjects as diverse as the political implications of the Incarnation, the paradox between ontology and history, politically left and right appropriations of Christianity, the fecundity of Maximus the Confessor’s insights for a contemporary political philosophy, modern Orthodox political theology focusing on Christos Yannaras and numerous thematic areas that together form the mosaic of the enquiry in question.
This volume constitutes an attempt at bringing together philosophies of time—or more precisely, p... more This volume constitutes an attempt at bringing together philosophies of time—or more precisely, philosophies on time and, in a concomitant way, history—emerging from Christianity’s and Islam’s intellectual histories. Starting from the Neoplatonic heritage and the voice of classical philosophy, the volume enters the Byzantine and Arabic intellectual worlds up to Ibn Al-Arabi’s times. A conscious choice in this volume is not to engage with, perhaps, the most prominent figures of Christian and Arabic philosophy, i.e., Augustine on the one hand and Avicenna/Ibn Sina on the other, precisely because these have attracted so much attention due to their prominence in their respective traditions—and beyond. In a certain way, Maximus the Confessor and Ibn Al-Arabi—together with Al-Fārābi—emerge as alternative representatives of their two traditions in this volume, offering two axes for this endeavor. The synthesis of those approaches on time and history, their comparison rather than their mere...
Saint Maximus the Confessor’s Trinitarian Theology of Nous, Logos and Spirit as a model of spirituality, 2019
In Patristic and Maximian theology, following the Gospel of John, the Christ is named both Son an... more In Patristic and Maximian theology, following the Gospel of John, the Christ is named both Son and Word (Logos). The term Son obviously implies a net of existential relations. As noted by Gregory of Nazianzus, cited by Maximus, the Father cannot be conceived of without His Son . One initial problem, -posed mainly by modern theologians-, is whether the term Logos is only “economical”, that is, solely referring to the relation between God and the world, or if it is also intra-Trinitarian. In other words, is the Son a Logos- Reason only because He is the Reason of the world, that is, the world’s ultimate meaning due to the Incarnation? Or is He a Logos- Reason also because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Spirit? Maximus who is here following a well-established patristic tradition, seems to consider that the term Logos denotes first and foremost an intra-Trinitarian reality: The Christ is the eternal Word, the Logos of the Father independently of the creation of the world. When we say “independently” we mean from God’s point of view. Because, on the other hand, there are reflections of this eternal relation inside creation. Maximus is persistently trying to establish a correlation between the divine Trinity and the Trinitarian character of the human soul and its spirituality. That is, the fact that the human soul comprises intellect (νοῦς), reason (λόγος) and spirit (πνεῦμα) is considered by Saint Maximus to be an “image”, a reflection of the Divine Trinity in human personhood. In the divine Trinity, the Father is the Intellect (Νοῦς), who is generating the Word (Λόγος) and sending forth the Spirit (Πνεῦμα). Many theologians (modern or even medieval) could point out that there is a grave danger of anthropomorphism here. Is all of this just a poetic image drawn from human experience, a kind of metaphor, one of many “traces” that the Trinity has endowed the world with in order for the latter to be its witness ? Or is this correlation between the human soul and the Divine a nodal point in Maximian thought? In our paper, we would like to point in the second direction. When confronting the biblical question “what is the icon of God in man?” Maximus seems to trace it to the Trinitarian structure of the human soul, which is composed of intellect (nous), reason (logos), and spirit (pneuma), just like its divine archetype, the Trinity . In Maximian thought, the trinity of nous, logos and pneuma seems to be first and foremost a theological reality and only by extension an anthropological, -or even cosmological-, one. In this sense, one could claim that Saint Maximus would not regard psychological Trinitarianism as “anthropomorphism”. In fact, for him it seems to work the other way round: It is the Trinitarian human soul that is considered an image of God.
ABSTRACT OF EIRINI ARTEMI
Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t disti... more ABSTRACT OF EIRINI ARTEMI Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t distinguish eikon and homoiosis. These two terms are indistinguishable in Gn 1:26-27, and he proceeds to employ them without distinction. On the other hand, he insists, as his Alexandrian predecessors, that there is a radical distinction between the Image of God that is God, and the image of God that is man. Cyril explains that the holy Triune God said these words “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” was honored by a kind of preliminary consultation. The image and the likeness of man to God cannot be related to the body, since God is infallible. In this direction, Saint Cyril is also categorical: the image of God in man is not in the form of the body but is expressed in the soul and its spiritual abilities and powers. According to Cyril, compelled by fate or by his nature to choose this rather than that; he has genuine psychological freedom. Cyril’s writings for Pentateuch show that man is framed according to the Divine image, not in his body, for God being the most pure Spirit can have no sensible figure, but in being endued with reason, and capable of virtue. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify the presentation of the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria regarding the greatness of man as a creation “in the image” of God. Since Saint Cyril teaches that man was created “in the image” of the Triune God, the development of the subject was first carried out in a triadological context and then in a Christological one.
«Eschatological teleology: The biblical Aristotelianism of Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)», in: Vavouras, Ilias (ed.), Philosophical interventions on Aristotle, Thessaloniki: Romi, 2016, p. 147-157 (in Greek)., 2016
Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) is employing Aristotelian metaphysics. Maximus is thinking of ... more Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) is employing Aristotelian metaphysics. Maximus is thinking of the end (τέλος) just like Aristotle, as entailing a passage from potentiality (δυνάμει) to actualization (ἐνεργείᾳ). His thought could thus be qualified as “teleological”. Maximus does observe finalities in nature, which are realized through a passage from potentiality to actuality. Just like in Aristotle, this passage is movement in a metaphysical sense, and it is measured by time leading to the “maturation” of being. Maximus also has a particularly Aristotelian sense of retroactive final causation, namely the fact that we can understand a being only from its end. He also uses a notion of “attraction” (ἕλξις) that is causation and motion take place mainly through attraction and not through impulsion as in mechanistic philosophies. Just like Aristotle, Maximus does not exclude impulsion; he rather subordinates it ontologically to attraction. But here starts Maximus’ originality. After having deeply assimilated Aristotelianism, he transforms it radically by putting it in historical and eschatological terms. The field of passage from potentiality to actuality is not Biology or nature but History. And the end which attracts is not natural maturity but the eschaton which presents nevertheless a gap of radical discontinuity in relation to natural evolution. But this means that the passage from potentiality to actuality is not linear but dialectical. Eschatology at the same time confirms teleology and “frustrates” it, (in a psychological idiom), or “crucifies” it (in a theological one). Eschatological teleology is thus an antinomy, which introduces us to Maximus’ dialectical way of thinking.
A book review about the role of the father in Late Antiquity and the changes brought by Christian... more A book review about the role of the father in Late Antiquity and the changes brought by Christianity.
A book review about the problem whether pluralism and politics of truth can be combined in contem... more A book review about the problem whether pluralism and politics of truth can be combined in contemporary political theory and practice.
This book explores the relationship between being and time —between ontology and history— in the ... more This book explores the relationship between being and time —between ontology and history— in the context of both Christian theology and philosophical inquiry. Each chapter tests the limits of this multifaceted thematic vis-à-vis a wide variety of sources: from patristics (Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa) to philosophy (Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger) to modern theology (Berdyaev, Ratzinger, Fagerberg, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Loudovikos); from incarnation to eschatology; and from liturgy and ecclesiology to political theology. Among other topics, time and eternity, protology and eschatology, personhood and relation, and ontology and responsibility within history form core areas of inquiry. Between Being and Time facilitates an auspicious dialogue between philosophy and theology and, within the latter, between Catholic and Orthodox thought. It will be of considerable interest to scholars of Christian theology and philosophy of religion.
Greek translation of
Polis, Ontology, Ecclesial Event:
Engaging with Christos Yannaras’ Thought... more Greek translation of Polis, Ontology, Ecclesial Event: Engaging with Christos Yannaras’ Thought ed. Sotiris Mitralexis Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2018
Ακαδημαϊκή επιμέλεια: Σωτήρης Μητραλέξης
Μετάφραση: Γιάννης Πεδιώτης και οι συγγραφείς
Επίκουροι επιμελητές: π. Ανδρέας Ανδρεόπουλος Pui Him Ip π. Ισίδωρος Κάτσος Διονύσιος Σκλήρης Συγγραφείς: π. Ανδρέας Ανδρεόπουλος Deborah Casewell Jonathan Cole Brandon Gallaher Άγγελος Γουνόπουλος π. Daniel Isai Νικόλαος Κορωναίος Marcello La Matina John Milbank Σωτήρης Μητραλέξης Διονύσιος Σκλήρης Paul Tyson Rowan Williams
Uploads
Papers by Dionysios Skliris
Is all of this just a poetic image drawn from human experience, a kind of metaphor, one of many “traces” that the Trinity has endowed the world with in order for the latter to be its witness ? Or is this correlation between the human soul and the Divine a nodal point in Maximian thought? In our paper, we would like to point in the second direction. When confronting the biblical question “what is the icon of God in man?” Maximus seems to trace it to the Trinitarian structure of the human soul, which is composed of intellect (nous), reason (logos), and spirit (pneuma), just like its divine archetype, the Trinity . In Maximian thought, the trinity of nous, logos and pneuma seems to be first and foremost a theological reality and only by extension an anthropological, -or even cosmological-, one. In this sense, one could claim that Saint Maximus would not regard psychological Trinitarianism as “anthropomorphism”. In fact, for him it seems to work the other way round: It is the Trinitarian human soul that is considered an image of God.
Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t distinguish eikon and homoiosis. These two terms are indistinguishable in Gn 1:26-27, and he proceeds to employ them without distinction. On the other hand, he insists, as his Alexandrian predecessors, that there is a radical distinction between the Image of God that is God, and the image of God that is man. Cyril explains that the holy Triune God said these words “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” was honored by a kind of preliminary consultation. The image and the likeness of man to God cannot be related to the body, since God is infallible. In this direction, Saint Cyril is also categorical: the image of God in man is not in the form of the body but is expressed in the soul and its spiritual abilities and powers. According to Cyril, compelled by fate or by his nature to choose this rather than that; he has genuine psychological freedom. Cyril’s writings for Pentateuch show that man is framed according to the Divine image, not in his body, for God being the most pure Spirit can have no sensible figure, but in being endued with reason, and capable of virtue. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify the presentation of the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria regarding the greatness of man as a creation “in the image” of God. Since Saint Cyril teaches that man was created “in the image” of the Triune God, the development of the subject was first carried out in a triadological context and then in a Christological one.
Is all of this just a poetic image drawn from human experience, a kind of metaphor, one of many “traces” that the Trinity has endowed the world with in order for the latter to be its witness ? Or is this correlation between the human soul and the Divine a nodal point in Maximian thought? In our paper, we would like to point in the second direction. When confronting the biblical question “what is the icon of God in man?” Maximus seems to trace it to the Trinitarian structure of the human soul, which is composed of intellect (nous), reason (logos), and spirit (pneuma), just like its divine archetype, the Trinity . In Maximian thought, the trinity of nous, logos and pneuma seems to be first and foremost a theological reality and only by extension an anthropological, -or even cosmological-, one. In this sense, one could claim that Saint Maximus would not regard psychological Trinitarianism as “anthropomorphism”. In fact, for him it seems to work the other way round: It is the Trinitarian human soul that is considered an image of God.
Following the neo-Alexandrian trend, Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t distinguish eikon and homoiosis. These two terms are indistinguishable in Gn 1:26-27, and he proceeds to employ them without distinction. On the other hand, he insists, as his Alexandrian predecessors, that there is a radical distinction between the Image of God that is God, and the image of God that is man. Cyril explains that the holy Triune God said these words “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” was honored by a kind of preliminary consultation. The image and the likeness of man to God cannot be related to the body, since God is infallible. In this direction, Saint Cyril is also categorical: the image of God in man is not in the form of the body but is expressed in the soul and its spiritual abilities and powers. According to Cyril, compelled by fate or by his nature to choose this rather than that; he has genuine psychological freedom. Cyril’s writings for Pentateuch show that man is framed according to the Divine image, not in his body, for God being the most pure Spirit can have no sensible figure, but in being endued with reason, and capable of virtue. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify the presentation of the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria regarding the greatness of man as a creation “in the image” of God. Since Saint Cyril teaches that man was created “in the image” of the Triune God, the development of the subject was first carried out in a triadological context and then in a Christological one.
Polis, Ontology, Ecclesial Event:
Engaging with Christos Yannaras’ Thought
ed. Sotiris Mitralexis
Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2018
Ακαδημαϊκή επιμέλεια: Σωτήρης Μητραλέξης
Μετάφραση: Γιάννης Πεδιώτης και οι συγγραφείς
Επίκουροι επιμελητές:
π. Ανδρέας Ανδρεόπουλος
Pui Him Ip
π. Ισίδωρος Κάτσος
Διονύσιος Σκλήρης
Συγγραφείς:
π. Ανδρέας Ανδρεόπουλος
Deborah Casewell
Jonathan Cole
Brandon Gallaher
Άγγελος Γουνόπουλος
π. Daniel Isai
Νικόλαος Κορωναίος
Marcello La Matina
John Milbank
Σωτήρης Μητραλέξης
Διονύσιος Σκλήρης
Paul Tyson
Rowan Williams