I’ve been going down a bit of a rabbit hole in Palamas research recently (and hope to have a more substantive related post in the near future), and it got me thinking about the debate about how best to translate the ‘energeiai’ half of what has traditionally been called the essence-energies distinction.
Participating in an ‘energy’ seems to be a passive affair, like sitting on a beach getting tanned by the sun. Participating in an ‘activity’ is well, active. One has to be doing the works of God to participating in the being of God.
I can see that, although the idea of "participating" itself seems active to me. Plus, St. Gregory says being itself is an energy, so there is a sense in which we participate in the divine energies merely be existing.
So a triangle you draw participates trianglularity. Triangularity inheres onto the draw figure.
The key is potential. Triangularity has an active potentiality to inhere. The piece of paper you can draw on has the passive potentiality to participate.
1. Another possibility is to translate ενέργεια as “actuality” is some places.
2. Aristotle distinguishes ενέργεια (actuality) from δυνάμεις (potentiality)in the Metaphysics, and Proclus noticeably uses the same distinction between act and potential in his Elements of Theology. Does that distinction make its way into Patristic texts? No one seems to talk about this.
3. The distinction between ουσία and ενέργεια is found in Proclus’ Elements of Theology. William of Moerbeke rendered ενέργεια as ‘operatio’. That might not be a bad choice for English, too. To translate ενέργεια as ‘operation’.
Question: Dr. Gallwitz came out with a book in 2009 about Divine Simplicity and how that might be (broadly) understood differently between the Western and Eastern Church. The EE Distinction, or possibly the EA Distinction if the new word choice gains popularity, is usually seen as denying the Identity Thesis version of Divine Simplicity. However, due apparently to a review of his work, Gallwitz either rescinded or modified his views of what the Cappadocians were talking about concerning the subject.
Do you have any comments on what the EE Distinction means for the concept of Divine Simplicity? As far as I know, the Eastern Church does not hold the Identity Thesis view
I'm sorry to say that divine simplicity is not a topic I've studied in much depth yet. My own impression is similar to yours, that both "sides" believe in divine simplicity, but cash out the notion in different ways. Radde-Galwitz's book is on the list of things to read this year, so I am interested to find out if he has changed his mind since publishing it and, if so, on what.
Andy, changed his mind on divine simplicity and the Cappadocians since writing his book. He later published an article explaining his new position. I think I have it saved somewhere on my computer if you're interested.
Participating in an ‘energy’ seems to be a passive affair, like sitting on a beach getting tanned by the sun. Participating in an ‘activity’ is well, active. One has to be doing the works of God to participating in the being of God.
I can see that, although the idea of "participating" itself seems active to me. Plus, St. Gregory says being itself is an energy, so there is a sense in which we participate in the divine energies merely be existing.
Participation is passive, inherence is active.
So a triangle you draw participates trianglularity. Triangularity inheres onto the draw figure.
The key is potential. Triangularity has an active potentiality to inhere. The piece of paper you can draw on has the passive potentiality to participate.
Excellent essay.
Some thoughts.
1. Another possibility is to translate ενέργεια as “actuality” is some places.
2. Aristotle distinguishes ενέργεια (actuality) from δυνάμεις (potentiality)in the Metaphysics, and Proclus noticeably uses the same distinction between act and potential in his Elements of Theology. Does that distinction make its way into Patristic texts? No one seems to talk about this.
3. The distinction between ουσία and ενέργεια is found in Proclus’ Elements of Theology. William of Moerbeke rendered ενέργεια as ‘operatio’. That might not be a bad choice for English, too. To translate ενέργεια as ‘operation’.
How can I get a copy of Anderson’s translation?
Hey Gary! It's published in the Analogia journal: https://analogiajournal.com/volume/volume-4-st-gregory-palamas-part-2/ (Feel free to message me if you can't get access)
Question: Dr. Gallwitz came out with a book in 2009 about Divine Simplicity and how that might be (broadly) understood differently between the Western and Eastern Church. The EE Distinction, or possibly the EA Distinction if the new word choice gains popularity, is usually seen as denying the Identity Thesis version of Divine Simplicity. However, due apparently to a review of his work, Gallwitz either rescinded or modified his views of what the Cappadocians were talking about concerning the subject.
Do you have any comments on what the EE Distinction means for the concept of Divine Simplicity? As far as I know, the Eastern Church does not hold the Identity Thesis view
I'm sorry to say that divine simplicity is not a topic I've studied in much depth yet. My own impression is similar to yours, that both "sides" believe in divine simplicity, but cash out the notion in different ways. Radde-Galwitz's book is on the list of things to read this year, so I am interested to find out if he has changed his mind since publishing it and, if so, on what.
Andy, changed his mind on divine simplicity and the Cappadocians since writing his book. He later published an article explaining his new position. I think I have it saved somewhere on my computer if you're interested.