JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Saint. - Doctor of the Church.
I. LIFE
It is known only in its broad outlines, given the brevity of the most ancient sources and the uncertainties of later biographies, as well as the almost total lack of biographical indications in the works, numerous though they are, of G.
On G. there is the Arabic Life, written by the Antiochene hieromonk Michael in 1085, discovered and published by C. Basa in 1912. From it depends the patriarch John, not better identified, but who seems to belong to the beginning of the 12th century, in his Greek Life, which is repeated in the Damascene editions; this, in turn, is the source of the Encomium of Constantine Acropolites and of two other Greek Lives, one anonymous, the other by the patriarch John Merkuropos, edited by Papadopulos-Kerameus. To these documents was added in 1926 a shorter account of the life of G., to be attributed to the 10th century; from it derive the notices of the most ancient Synaxaria.
From these sources it is learned with certainty that G. was born in Damascus, after the middle of the 7th century had passed, into the noble and wealthy Manşur family, and that he held the office of Prefect of the dīwān in the early times of the Islamic domination, until about 705. G.'s father was Manşur b. Sarğun, a friend of the prince Jazid, at whose court G. spent his early years. But, renouncing honors, probably already at the beginning of the 8th century, he embraced the monastic life in the laura of St. Sabas, near Jerusalem, where he had as companions Cosmas, future bishop of Maiuma, and his own nephew St. Stephen the Younger. At Jerusalem he enjoyed the esteem of the patriarch John (d. 735) and acquired great fame for his eloquence and for his writings, mainly polemical, against the Christological heresies widespread in Syria and Palestine and against the iconoclasts of Byzantium. Other particulars about his studies at Damascus, about the acts of humility and obedience in the Jerusalem laura, etc., are unverifiable, or are to be considered false.
To the latter belongs the episode of the hand cut off by order of the caliph and miraculously restored to him. He died in 749, probably on Dec. 4, the date chosen by the Synaxaria. His relics were first preserved in the laura of St. Sabas. At the time of Andronicus II they were at Constantinople. For centuries all trace of them has been lost. Leo XIII declared him a doctor of the Church in 1890. His feast is celebrated in the Byzantine Church on Dec. 4; in the Latin one on March 27.
II. WORKS
G. handed down numerous dogmatic, polemical, ascetic, exegetical, homiletic and poetic works, collected in the editions made in the West, to be completed with others hitherto unpublished.
Leaving aside the first Latin editions of Giacomo Fabro (Paris 1507), of Clictoveus (ibid. 1512), and the Greek edition of Donato Veronese (Verona 1531), which are limited to the treatise De fide orthodoxa, the oration De iis qui in fide dormierunt and the Historia Barlaam et Ioasaph, the first more complete edition was made by Henricus Gavius (Cologne 1546). There followed the Greek-Latin edition of Matteo Hopper (Basel 1548) and the new Latin translation of Giacomo Billy (Paris 1577), enlarged in 1603 by Fronton le Duc. Finally, the Dominican Michele Lequien (Paris 1712) produced his Greek-Latin edition, reproduced by Migne (PG 94-96). At present the Benedictine fathers of the Abbey of Scheyern in Bavaria are working on a new critical edition.
1. Dogmatic works
G.'s fame rests on the so-called Fons cognitionis, divided into three parts: Dialectica, De haeresibus, De fide orthodoxa (PG 94, 525-2128), although the titles used by G. are: Capita philosophica, De haeresibus, Capita theologica. Not a few critical questions concerning the work remain to be resolved.
The manuscripts present a twofold recension of the work. The Dialectica sometimes has 50 chapters, sometimes 68. The De fide orthodoxa repeats chapter 12, and although it always keeps 100 chapters in the manuscripts, the last ones, 81-100, are often found in the more ancient manuscripts between chapters 18-19. Moreover Elias, Jacobite patriarch, alludes to G.'s chapters around the year 728: and G. himself dedicates the work to the bishop of Maiuma, Cosmas, who was consecrated in 742. One may therefore suppose that the first recension, with the longer Dialectica and the shorter De fide orthodoxa, was composed before the iconoclast controversies; the other, with the short Dialectica and the De fide orthodoxa enlarged by the last chapters, after 742.
To this work are to be added other small dogmatic treatises, namely: Liber de recta sententia, destined for Peter bishop of Damascus, written before 730 (PG 94, 1421-32); Expositio fidei (PG 95, 417-36); Introductio elementaris ad dogmata (PG 95, 100-12). It is not certain that the Libellus orthodoxiae (Orientalia Christiana, 8 [1926], pp. 82-103) belongs to G.
2. Polemical works
Against the Nestorians two treatises are preserved: Contra haeresim nestorianorum (PG 95, 187-224), of doubtful authenticity, and Sermo de fide contra Nestorium, published by F. Diekamp (Theol. Quartalsch., 83 [1901], pp. 555-95), a genuine work of G.
Against the Monophysites he wrote: Tractatus contra Jacobitas (PG 94, 1436-1501), probably addressed to Elias patriarch of Antioch (d. in 728); Tractatus contra acephalos (PG 95, 112-26); and the letter to the archimandrite Giornades De hymno Trisagio (PG 95, 21-62).
Against the Monothelites he composed: De duabus in Christo voluntatibus (PG 95, 128-85). The manuscripts, for example the Vat. gr. 1075, give another unpublished treatise Contra monophysitas et monotelitas.
Against the Manichaeans, that is the Paulicians, there are: S. Ioannis Damasceni dialogus contra manichaeos (PG 94, 1505-84) and Disputatio Ioannis orthodoxi cum manichaeis (PG 96, 1320-33), attributed by Mai to G. without any grounds whatsoever.
But the controversy that made G. best known was that against the iconoclasts, which he vanquished in his three Orationes de sanctis imaginibus (PG 94, 1232-1429), whose manuscript tradition offers not a few questions.
In reality there are only two, the third being nothing other than a literal transcription of the first and the second (cols. 1317-24, 1329-33 are taken from the second; cols. 1324-29 from the first).
Other writings on the images are not by G., namely: Oratio contra Constantinum Cabalinum (PG 95, 309-44), later than the iconoclast Synod of 753; Dialogus stilienticus de sanctis imaginibus (PG 96, 1347-66), drawn up in 771; and the Epistula ad Theophilum (PG 95, 345-85), who became emperor almost a century after G.'s death.
3. Ascetic works
In this group the principal one is that entitled by Lequien Sacra parallela (PG 95, 1309-1588; 96, 9-442), although the ancient manuscripts call it only Sacra, and others more recent only Parallela, a collection of testimonies from Holy Scripture and the Fathers on the moral virtues. He also wrote: De octo spiritibus nequitiae (PG 95, 79-84); De virtutibus et vitiis (PG 95, 85-98); De sacris ieiuniis (PG 95, 63-78).
4. Exegesis
In this field there is preserved only a commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul (PG 95, 441-1034).
5. Homilies
The manuscripts give not a few homilies of G. (Gordillo collected 39 of them), of which only 13 have been published in PG 96, 545-814. Among them the I and II in Annuntiationem, the II in Nativitatem B. M. V., as well as that De Cruce et Parasceve, are of doubtful authenticity. The most celebrated are the three homilies In dormitionem, delivered at the basilica of the Sepulchre of the Madonna, around 740.
Another seven De mundi opificio and De Noe edited by K. Dyobouniotis (Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Φάσις, 13 [1914], pp. 53-69, 119-49) are among the spurious works of St. John Chrysostom (PG 56, 429-500), and probably belong to Severian of Gabala.
6. Poetic compositions
G. is to be numbered among the great Byzantine melodists. Lequien reproduced numerous hymns and prayers (PG 96, 817-56, 1363-68). Migne accepted another six hymns (PG 96, 1372-1408), attributed to G. by Mai, held at present to be the work of John Mauropous.
7. Other works
The homily De iis qui in fide dormierunt (PG 95, 247-78), contained in an infinite number of manuscripts and read until now in the Byzantine liturgy, is held to be doubtful on grounds of style; but perhaps this reason is not enough to counter the weight of the manuscript tradition, unanimous in placing it under the name of G.
On the other hand, the Historia Barlaam et Ioasaph (PG 96, 859-1240) is totally to be excluded, translated into Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Latin, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Irish, Polish, Hebrew, etc. The first to make of it a work of G. was Trithemius. At present it is held that this legend, related to the story of Buddha, was written first in Georgian, then in Greek by St. Euthymius the Iberian in the 10th century.
III. DOCTRINE
G. is often called the "St. Thomas of the East," although he departs from the Aquinate, both because of the greater narrowness of his doctrinal synthesis and because of the originality of his ideas, since, as he expressly declares (PG 94, 525 A), his purpose is to gather the teachings of the Fathers and of the ancient writers.
Thus the Sacra parallela, with their 6000 citations, are taken from earlier florilegia, principally from the Pandects of Antiochus, monk of St. Sabas. The Dialectica depends on Ammonius and on Leontius of Byzantium. The latter, St. Maximus the Confessor, the pseudo-Cyril and the Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi recur transcribed literally in the christological treatises. And in the other treatises there are found continuous passages from the Fathers, principally from the three Cappadocians, from St. Epiphanius, from Nemesius of Emesa and from the pseudo-Dionysius.
From this, and from the absence of the Latin Fathers, comes the fact that G. employs formulas that do not correspond to one another, and create difficulties principally for Westerners. A classic example is his manner of speaking about the Procession of the Holy Spirit: at times he attributes it also to the Son (PG 94, 848 D, 849 A, B, 1512 B), at times he denies that it can be said that the Spirit is from the Son (PG 94, 832 B; 95, 60 C-D; 96, 605 B), which provides the censures of the Scholastics and the interminable Byzantine disputes inaugurated in the 13th century between John Beccus and George of Cyprus. The same may be said about the nature of the fire of Hell, which one does not know whether G. regards as real or metaphorical (PG 94, 1228 A,
1541 C-D, 1573 C). Following also his source, St. Epiphanius, G. is content for the Old Testament with the Hebrew canon (PG 94, 1176-80), but then cites the so-called "deuterocanonical" books as inspired books.
These and a few other reservations do not take away the firmness of G.'s doctrine on the Most Holy Trinity, the work of creation, the economy of the Redemption, the Eucharist and other parts of Catholic dogma. Especially to be noted is his teaching on Mariology and on the cult of the sacred images.
Among the privileges of the Madonna he develops principally her divine Maternity, beautifully summarized in the De fide orthodoxa (PG 94, 985 B, cf. 1008 C, 1028 B, 1160 C), and the corporal Assumption, which he demonstrates with Tradition and with the analogy of faith in the three homilies on this subject (PG 96, 700-61). With equal piety and solidity of doctrine he treats of the perpetual Virginity, of the absence of every stain of sin and of the other Marian prerogatives, although the terms referring to the Corredemption and to the Immaculate Conception are not so precise. Regarding the latter, a phrase of G. taken from John of Nazianzus (PG 94, 985 B; 96, 704 A; cf. PG 36, 325 B, 633 D) on the purification of the Madonna for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of the Annunciation, is interpreted by dissident Byzantines in favor of their false opinion on the liberation of the Most Holy Virgin from original sin, only at the moment of the Incarnation.
G.'s doctrine on the cult of the sacred images was exalted in session VI of the Second Council of Nicaea (a. 787). The Council was not able to produce any testimony taken from his writings, ignored by the Byzantines; but in reality it is G. who best declares the legitimacy and the nature of the cult of images in his three orations (PG 94, 1232-1429). In them he destroys the position of the iconoclasts, who relied on the authority of the Emperor (PG 94, 1233 A, 1281 A-B), on the precepts of the ancient Law (PG 94, 1237 B, 1244 D, 1248 A) and on false writings of St. Epiphanius (PG 94, 1257 B-C, 1304 C); naturally the appeal to the Council is missing, these orations having been composed before the iconoclast Synod of Hieria in 753. Then, having clarified the state of the question, namely that it is a matter of relative cult, of simple dulia toward the images, taken not materially but with their sacred meaning (PG 94, 1240 C, 1288 A, 1239 D), he adduces in his favor the testimony of Tradition (PG 94, 1303 A) and of the Liturgy (PG 94, 1245 B), corroborated with theological reason (PG 94, 1252 D, 1239 C) and with the fruit that derives to the Christian people from the cult of images (PG 94, 1249 D, 1269 A, 1300 D).
IV. INFLUENCE
As regards the influence of G., in the year 1085 Michael of Antioch wrote in the prologue of the Arabic Life: "Everywhere, the writings of St. John Damascene are held in great esteem." But they did not immediately obtain the diffusion and fame to which Michael alludes. For some time G. remained known within the narrow circle of Palestine; toward the end of the 9th century his fame crossed the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire, and toward the middle of the 12th century it made its entry into the West.
The monks of St. Sabas made use of the works of G., as is shown by the writings of Theodore Abū Qurrah, who never cites him, but employs the Orationes de sacris imaginibus, the treatises against the Jacobites and the De fide orthodoxa. The prolongation of the struggle against the images, and the bad reputation of the Manṣūr family (G.'s grandfather opened the gates of Damascus to the Hagarenes) caused the Byzantines to continue to ignore him.
Photius, for example, does not even mention him in his Bibliotheca, nor does he make any direct reference to him in any of his books. The first Byzantine citations of G. are found in the time of Alexius Comnenus in the Panoplia dogmatica of Euthymius Zigabenus, who transcribes almost 30 chapters of the De fide orthodoxa. In the 10th century John, exarch of Bulgaria, translated the De fide orthodoxa into the Slavonic language. There follow the Georgian version, probably the work of John of Petritzos in the 12th century, and the Armenian version, made by the monk Simeon of the Georgian monastery of Pṛdadashanq. Toward the middle of the 12th century the first Latin versions appear: that of Burgundio of Pisa, another completed in the Hungarian monastery of St. Mary of Pásztó, and a third, the work of Robert Grosseteste, archbishop of Lincoln, which in reality is a reworking of Burgundio's version. Thanks to the latter G. takes his place in the Summa of Peter Lombard and imposes himself on the consideration of the great scholastics of the Middle Ages. The influence of G. on Latin theology is assessed in different ways; according to Harnack he "was one of the foundations of medieval theology"; others do not venture to say as much, but admit that G. furnished our scholastics with many points of doctrine on the angels, on man and on Christology.
Bibliography18 works
Maurizio Gordillo