On Line Library of the Church of Greece

Panayiotis Christou

Double Knowledge According to Gregory Palamas

Από: Π. Κ. Χρήστου, Θεολογικά Μελετήματα, τ. 3 (Νηπτικά και Ησυχαστικά), Θεσσαλονίκη 1977.

During his sojourn in Byzantium Barlaam of Calabria, a distinguished theologian and philosopher of the 14^th century, took an active part in the discussions corcerning 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 opposed the Hesychasts. Since in both cases he employed gnostic criteria, equating philosophy with theology, he provoked strong oposition 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 philisophy 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 reappaers 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 endavour 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. Philisophy 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 iconographical cicle 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 ths argument Barlaam should not be considered as a rationalistic philosopher; on the contrary, by futher 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 Dionysios 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 constrast 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 condamned 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 predeliction 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, 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 whatever 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 dismebered by philosophical schools as that unfortunate Pentheus was dismembered by Bacchae. Although several schools maintain that they posses the whole truth, in reality they posess 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 doubleness 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 influance 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 indentified with or accounted equal to the divine wisdom, [xviii]it becomes obvions 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 critized. [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 firmy uses the term «double knowledge», διπλή γνώσις or διπλόη .