Tikhon Alexander Pino

This paper seeks to clear the way for new historical-theological research into the corpus of St Gregory Palamas and his followers in late Byzantium. While recognizing the immense impact and the extraordinary contribution of pioneering scholars such as Fr John Meyendorff, this paper examines the methodological and hermeneutic questions that dominated Neo-Palamite scholarship in the twentieth century. Attempting to move beyond dated paradigms and narrow interpretive categories, the paper seeks to make room for the wealth of new sources that have been made available in the decades since Meyendorff’s groundbreaking work. Calling attention to the wider school of Palamite theologians writing between 1339 and 1445, this paper specifically analyses the question of theological development and the problem of change in Byzantine theology. It also examines the question of Nicholas Kavasilas and his relationship to the Palamite cause in an effort to illustrate the complexities surrounding the broader Palamite movement. Precisely because Neo-Palamite scholars have been so influential in propagating the field of Palamite studies, their contributions must be extended and built upon with renewed, objective research into the complex world of Palamite theology.

Introduction1

Palamite theology is not easily reduced to simple categories. Boasting an extensive corpus, and a network of authors writing over the course of an entire century, the theology of St Gregory Palamas and his followers has presented a challenge to researchers and scholars, who have only recently begun to apply the tools of critical inquiry to the field. The twentieth century thus saw the rise of heuristic categories and hermeneutical models for understanding and describing the Palamite controversy. In addition to finding parallels with medieval Western theology, scholars applied to the theology of St Gregory Palamas the problematics of modern theological discourse. Yet the desire to extrapolate larger interpretative structures from the original theological disagreements has resulted in a distorted and often anachronistic portrait of the debates.