{"id":4281,"date":"2024-12-12T12:58:02","date_gmt":"2024-12-12T10:58:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/?p=4281"},"modified":"2025-02-13T11:21:32","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T09:21:32","slug":"aspects-of-the-theory-of-the-divine-union-and-distinction-according-to-george-pachymeres","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/aspects-of-the-theory-of-the-divine-union-and-distinction-according-to-george-pachymeres\/","title":{"rendered":"\u038c\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u00ab\u1f11\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u00bb \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u00ab\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u00bb \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0393\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf \u03a0\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
Lydia Petridou<\/summary>\n

PhD, Academic Staff of the Hellenic Open University (Patra, Greece).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

petridou.lydia@ac.eap.gr | ORCID: 0000-0002-0055-5685<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Number DOI: http:\/\/doi.org\/10.33209\/2519-4348-2707-9627-2020-8-85<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VB. – \u2116 8, 2020. – P. 271-295.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prominent theological question of the union and distinction between the divine essence, the divine Persons and the divine energies, as well as other divine self-founding conditions, has caused the interest of the Byzantine Christian thinkers, who attempted through specialized theoretical approaches to analyze, form synthetic judgments and express interpretive extensions in clear methodological and conceptual frames. In this study, I attempt to present some aspects of the way in which George Pachymeres (c.1242-1310) structures this theory in his Paraphrasis of De divinis nominibus of Dionysius the Areopagite. Specifically, I investigate in what way the Byzantine thinker associates the concepts of \u201cunion\u201d and \u201cdistinction\u201d with the divine essence and the divine Persons, that is to say, with the self-founding way in which the divine reality exists, and how the two concepts are explained with respect to the demiurgic divine providences and processions, that is to say, the divine self-founding conditions. The most important conclusion drawn is that Pachymeres presents the divine way of existing in total, both per se and as ad extra demiurgic economy, but without causing any confusion or contradiction. In this context, I discuss both the names that describe the Trinity as a whole and those which relate to every divine hypostasis in particular and distinctively from the rest, with circumincession being the foundation of any approach performed. The monistic model arisen is extremely dynamocratic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key words: <\/strong>George Pachymeres, union, distinction, divine essence, divine Persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Corsini, E. (1962). Il trattato \u201cDe divinis nominibus\u201d dello Pseudo-Dionigi e i commenti neoplatonici  al Parmenide<\/em>. Torino: Publicazioni della Facolt\u00e0 di Lettere e Filosofia.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Garda, Th. A., Honea, S. M., Stinger, P. M., Unholtz, G. (Ed.). (1989). \u03a5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. \u0391\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5<\/em>. Athens: Academy of Athens.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Gersh, S. (1978). From Iamblichus to Eriugena: <\/em>An investigation of the prehistory and evolution of the pseudo-Dionysian tradition.<\/em> Leiden: E. J. Brill. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Hoch, R. F., O\u2019Neil, E. N. (Ed.). The Chreia and ancient Rhetoric: Classroom Exercises<\/em>. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Lossky, Vl. (1973). \u0397<\/em> <\/em>\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae<\/em> <\/em>\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1<\/em> <\/em>\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2<\/em> <\/em>\u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2<\/em> <\/em>\u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2<\/em> [The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church]. <\/em>(\u03a3\u03c4. \u039a. \u03a0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7, Trans.). Thessaloniki. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Petridou, L. (2019). Aspects of the theory on \u2018ideas\u2019, \u2018eide\u2019 and \u2018logoi\u2019 of beings in George Pachymeres. Perichoresis<\/em>, 17\/4,<\/em> 23-40.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Roques, R. (1954). L\u2019univers dionysien<\/em>, Structure hi\u00e9rarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. <\/em>Paris: Montaigne.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Saffrey, H. D., Westerink, L. G. (1987). Proclus. Th\u00e9ologie Platonicienne<\/em>, v. V. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Scazzoso, P. (1975). La teologia antinomica dello pseudo-Dionigi. Aevum, 49, <\/em>6, 1-35.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Sch\u00fcrmann, R. (1982). L\u2019h\u00e9nologie comme d\u00e9passement de la m\u00e9taphysique. Les etudes philosophiques,<\/em> 3<\/em>, 331-350.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Semmelroth, O. (1952). Die \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae des Ps. Dionysius Areopagita. Scholastik<\/em>,<\/em> 27<\/em>, 1-11. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Terezis, Ch., Petridou, L. (2017). The question on the divine distinction and the divine energies in Gregory Palamas. Philotheos: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology<\/em>, 17<\/em>, 72-83. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Terezis, Ch., Petridou, L. (2017). The theory on \u2018unions \u2013 distinctions\u2019 as a paradigm of Gr. Palamas\u2019 methodology. \u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397<\/em>: Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 11\/1<\/em>, 117-132. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Terezis, Ch., Petridou, L. (2018). Aspects of the theory on unions and distinctions in Gregory Palamas: The relation between the divine essence and the divine energies. Church studies<\/em>, 15<\/em>, 313-327. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. Terezis, Ch., Petridou, L. (2019). Divine essence, divine persons and divine energies in Gregorius Palamas: A methodological approach. Analogia: The Pemptousia Journal for Theological Studies, 6\/4<\/em>, 67-82.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. Terezis, Ch., Tzouramani, Ev. (2000). The theory on unions \u2013 distinctions according to Ps-Dionysius, G. Pachymeres and Albert the Great. Archiv f\u00fcr mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur, VI,<\/em> 43-54<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. Trouillard, J. (1965). Proclos<\/em>, El\u00e9ments de Th\u00e9ologie<\/em>. Paris. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. Trouillard, J. (1972). L\u2019Un et l\u2019\u00e2me selon Proclos<\/em>. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. \u0396\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u0398. (1997). \u0397<\/em> <\/em>\u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1<\/em> <\/em>\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5<\/em> <\/em>\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5<\/em> <\/em>\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9<\/em> <\/em>\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5<\/em> <\/em>\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5<\/em> <\/em>\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac<\/em> <\/em>\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/em> <\/em>\u0386\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/em> <\/em>\u0399\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd<\/em> <\/em>\u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd<\/em> [The salvation of human being and the world according to St. John Chrysostom]<\/em>. Thessaloniki: \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u038a\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, N. (2003). \u0394\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 [<\/em>Dogmatic<\/em> <\/em>and<\/em> <\/em>Symbolic<\/em> <\/em>Theology<\/em>]<\/em>, v. \u0392\u0384. Thessaloniki: \u03a0. \u03a0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  21. \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b6\u03b7\u03c2, \u03a7\u03c1. (1990). \u0395\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u038e\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf \u039c\u03b5\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7. \u0395\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7,<\/em> 7<\/em>, 151-164.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  22. \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b6\u03b7\u03c2, \u03a7\u03c1. (1993). \u0397<\/em> <\/em>\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae<\/em> <\/em>\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1<\/em> <\/em>\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2<\/em> <\/em>\u039f\u03c1\u03b8\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7\u03c2<\/em> <\/em>\u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2<\/em> [The Theological Gneoseology of Orthodox Christianity]<\/em>. Athens: \u0393\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  23. \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b6\u03b7\u03c2, \u03a7\u03c1. (2010). \u038c\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u00ab\u0388\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00bb \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u00ab\u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00bb \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039f\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae \u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 [Aspects of the terms \u201cUnion\u201d and \u201cDistinction\u201d as an antipantheistic proposal. \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u00ab\u03a3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u039f\u03c1\u03b8\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u00bb<\/em>, v. \u0391\u0384. Patras: Hellenic Open University, 261-283.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n
    View\/download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Number DOI: http:\/\/doi.org\/10.33209\/2519-4348-2707-9627-2020-8-85 VB. – \u2116 8, 2020. – P. 271-295. Summary The prominent theological question of the union and distinction between the divine essence, the divine Persons and the divine energies, as well as other divine self-founding conditions, has caused the interest of the Byzantine Christian thinkers, who attempted through specialized theoretical approaches to analyze, form synthetic judgments and express interpretive extensions in clear methodological and conceptual frames. In this study, I attempt to present some aspects of the way in which George Pachymeres (c.1242-1310) structures this theory in his Paraphrasis of De divinis nominibus of Dionysius the Areopagite. Specifically, I investigate in what way the Byzantine thinker associates the concepts of \u201cunion\u201d and \u201cdistinction\u201d with the divine essence and the divine Persons, that is to say, with the self-founding way in which the divine reality exists, and how the two concepts are explained with respect to the demiurgic divine providences and processions, that is to say, the divine self-founding conditions. The most important conclusion drawn is that Pachymeres presents the divine way of existing in total, both per se and as ad extra demiurgic economy, but without causing any confusion or contradiction. In this context, I discuss both the names that describe the Trinity as a whole and those which relate to every divine hypostasis in particular and distinctively from the rest, with circumincession being the foundation of any approach performed. The monistic model arisen is extremely dynamocratic. Key words: George Pachymeres, union, distinction, divine essence, divine Persons. References:<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[87],"tags":[228],"class_list":["post-4281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category--8-2020","tag-lydia-petridou","post-no-thumbnail"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4281"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5614,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions\/5614"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vb.vpba.edu.ua\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}