**SUMMARY:**
I. Life
II. Works
III. Doctrine
IV. Influence.---
### I. LIFE
Only the broad outlines of his life are known, due to the brevity of the earliest sources, the uncertainties of later biographies, and the almost complete absence of biographical indications in the numerous works of John himself.
The principal source on John is the *Arabic Life*, written by the Antiochene hieromonk Michael in 1085, discovered and published by C. Basa in 1912. From this derives the *Life* by the patriarch John (not otherwise identified), which appears to belong to the early 12th century, in its Greek version, which in turn is repeated in the Damascene editions. This *Life* is the source of the *Eucomium* by Constantine Acropolites and of two other Greek *Lives*, one anonymous and the other by Patriarch John Mercuropulos, edited by Papadopulo-Kerameus. To these documents was added in 1926 a shorter account of John’s life, attributed to the 10th century, from which derive the notices in the earliest *Synaxaria*.
From these sources it is certain that John was born in Damascus, after the middle of the 7th century, into the noble and wealthy Mansūr family, and that he held the office of Prefect of the *dīwān* in the early years of Islamic rule, until about 705. His father was Mansūr ibn Sargūn, a friend of the prince Yazīd, in whose court John spent his early years. Renouncing honors, probably at the beginning of the 8th century, he embraced the monastic life in the laura of St. Sabas near Jerusalem, where his companions included Cosmas, future bishop of Maiuma, and his own nephew, St. Stephen the Younger. In Jerusalem he enjoyed the esteem of Patriarch John (d. 735) and acquired great renown for his eloquence and his writings, chiefly polemical, against the Christological errors spreading in Syria and Palestine and against the iconoclasts of Byzantium. Other details concerning his studies in Damascus, his acts of humility and obedience in the Jerusalem laura, etc., are unverifiable or must be considered false.
Among 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 December 4, a date chosen by the *Synaxaria*. His relics were first preserved in the laura of St. Sabas. In the time of Andronicus II they were in Constantinople. For centuries their traces have been lost. Leo XIII declared him a Doctor of the Church in 1890. His feast is celebrated in the Byzantine Church on December 4; in the Latin Church on March 27.
---
### II. WORKS
John left numerous dogmatic, polemical, ascetical, exegetical, homiletic, and poetic works, collected in editions made in the West, to be supplemented by others still unpublished.
Leaving aside the early Latin editions by Jacques Lefèvre (Paris 1507), by Clenardus (ibid. 1512), and the Greek edition by Donatus Veronensis (Verona 1531), which are limited to the treatise *De fide orthodoxa*, the oration *De iis qui in fide dormierunt*, and the *Historia Barlaam et Joasaph*, the first more complete edition was made by Henricus Gauvis (Cologne 1546). This was followed by the Greek-Latin edition of Matthias Hovius (Basel 1548) and the new Latin translation by Jacques Billy (Paris 1577), enlarged in 1603 by Fronton du Duc. Finally, the Dominican Michel Lequien (Paris 1712) produced his Greek-Latin edition, reproduced by Migne (PG 94-96). At present, the Benedictine Fathers of Scheyern Abbey in Bavaria are working on a new critical edition.
1. **Dogmatic Works.** — John’s fame rests on the so-called *Fons cognitionis*, divided into three parts: *Dialectica*, *De haeresibus*, *De fide orthodoxa* (PG 94, 525-1228), although the titles used by John himself are: *Capitula philosophica*, *De haeresibus*, *Capitula theologica*. The work presents not a few critical questions still to be resolved.
The manuscripts present two recensions of the work. The *Dialectica* sometimes has 50 chapters, sometimes 68. The *De fide orthodoxa* repeats chapter 12, and although it always has 100 chapters in the manuscripts, the last, chapters 81-100, are often found in the older manuscripts between chapters 18-19. Moreover, Elias, Jacobite patriarch, refers to John’s chapters around the year 728; and John himself dedicates the work to Bishop Cosmas of Maiuma, who was consecrated in 742. It may therefore be supposed that the first recension, with the longer *Dialectica* and the shorter *De fide orthodoxa*, was composed before the iconoclastic controversies; the other, with the shorter *Dialectica* and the *De fide orthodoxa* enlarged by the final chapters, after 742.
To this work must be added other treatises from the manuscript tradition: *Liber de recta sententia*, addressed to Bishop Peter of Damascus, written before 730 (PG 94, 1421-32); *Expositio fidei* (PG 95, 417-36); *Introductio elementaris ad dogmata* (PG 95, 100-12). The *Libellus orthodoxiae* (Orientalia Christiana, 8 [1926], pp. 82-103) is not certainly by John.
2. **Polemic Works.** — Against the Nestorians two treatises survive: *Contra haeresim nestorianorum* (PG 95, 187-224), of doubtful authenticity, and *Sermo de fide contra Neronium*, published by F. Diekamp (*Theol. Quartalschr.*, 83 [1901], pp. 555-95), a genuine work of John.
Against the Monophysites he wrote: *Tractatus contra Jacobitas* (PG 94, 1436-1501), probably addressed to Elias, ancient patriarch (d. 728); *Tractatus contra apocryphos* (PG 95, 112-26); and the letter to the archimandrite Giornades, *De hymno Stagio* (PG 95, 21-62).
Against the Monothelites he composed: *De duabus in Christo voluntatibus* (PG 95, 128-85). The manuscripts, e.g., Vat. gr. 1075, give another unpublished treatise, *Contra monophysitas et monothelitas*.
Against the Manichees, or Paulicians, there are: *S. Ioannis Damasceni dialogus contra manichaeos* (PG 94, 1505-84) and *Disputatio Ioannis orthodoxi cum manichaeo* (PG 96, 1320-33), attributed to John by Mai without any supporting arguments.
But the controversy that made John best known was that against the iconoclasts, which he refuted in his three *Orationes de sanctis imaginibus* (PG 94, 1232-1429), whose manuscript tradition presents not a few problems.
In reality there are only two such orations, the third being nothing other than a literal transcription of the first and second (cols. 1317-24, 1329-33 are taken from the second; cols. 1324-29 from the first).
Other writings on images are not by John, namely: *Oratio contra Constantinum Cabalinum* (PG 95, 309-44), written after the iconoclast synod of 753; *Dialogus stilisticus de sanctis imaginibus* (PG 96, 1347-66), composed in 771; and the *Epistula ad Theophilum* (PG 95, 345-85), who became emperor nearly a century after John’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 simply *Sacra*, and more recent ones *Parallela*, a collection of testimonies from Holy Scripture and the Fathers on 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 only a commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul survives (PG 95, 441-1034).
5. **Homilies.** — The manuscripts give not a few homilies by John (Gordillo collected 39), of which only 13 have been published in PG 96, 545-814. Among these, the first and second *In Annuntiationem*, the second *In Nativitatem B. M. V.*, and 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 Virgin about 740.
Seven others, *De mundi officio* and *De Noe*, edited by K. Dyobouniotis (*'Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος*, 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.** — John is to be numbered among the great Byzantine hymnographers. Lequien reproduces numerous hymns and prayers (PG 96, 817-56, 1363-68). Migne included six other hymns (PG 96, 1372-1408), attributed to John by Mai, now considered the work of John Mauropous.
1891. Other works
The homily *De iis qui in fide dormierunt* (PG 95, 247–78), contained in an infinite number of manuscripts and read thus far in the Byzantine liturgy, is considered doubtful on stylistic grounds; yet perhaps this reason is not sufficient to outweigh the weight of the manuscript tradition, which unanimously attributes it to G.On the other hand, the *Historia Barlaam et Ioasaph* (PG 96, 859–1240), translated into Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Latin, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Irish, Polish, Hebrew, etc., must be entirely excluded. It was first attributed to G. by Trithemius. At present, this legend, related to the story of Buddha, is believed to have been written first in Georgian and then rendered into Greek by St. Euthymius the Iberian in the 10th century.
III. Doctrine
G. is often called the “St. Thomas Aquinas of the East,” although he diverges from the Angelic Doctor both in the narrower scope of his doctrinal synthesis and in the originality of his ideas, for, as he expressly declares (PG 94, 525 A), his purpose is to gather the teachings of the Fathers and ancient writers.Thus the *Sacra parallela*, with their 6,000 citations, are drawn from earlier florilegia, chiefly from the *Panarion* of Antiochus, monk of St. Sabas. The *Dialectica* depends on Ammonius and Leontius of Byzantium. The latter, St. Maximus the Confessor, the pseudo-Cyril, and the *Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi* are quoted verbatim in his Christological treatises. In his other works, continuous passages from the Fathers appear, especially from the three Cappadocians, St. Epiphanius, Nemesius of Emesa, and the pseudo-Dionysius.
From this, and from the absence of Latin Fathers, arises the fact that G. employs formulas that do not correspond and cause difficulties particularly 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 other times he denies that it can be said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (PG 94, 832 B; 95, 60 C–D; 96, 605 B), a stance that provoked the censures of the Scholastics and the interminable Byzantine disputes inaugurated in the 13th century between John Beccus and George Cyprius. The same may be said regarding the nature of the fire of Hell, which is uncertain whether G. considers it literal or metaphorical (PG 94, 1228 A, 1541 C–D, 1573 C).
Following his source, St. Epiphanius, G. accepts for the Old Testament the Hebrew canon (PG 94, 1176–80), yet he cites the so-called deuterocanonical books as inspired.
These and other minor reservations do not diminish the solidity of G.’s doctrine on the Most Holy Trinity, the work of creation, the economy of Redemption, the Eucharist, and other parts of the Catholic dogma. Especially noteworthy is his teaching on Mariology and the veneration of sacred images.
Among the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, he emphasizes above all her divine Maternity, beautifully summarized in the *De fide orthodoxa* (PG 94, 985 B; cf. 1008 C, 1028 B, 1160 C), and her bodily Assumption, which he demonstrates through Tradition and the analogy of faith in the three homilies on this subject (PG 96, 700–6). With equal piety and doctrinal solidity, he treats of her perpetual Virginity, the absence of all stain of sin, and other prerogatives of Mary, though the terminology regarding her Coronation and Immaculate Conception is not entirely precise. Regarding the latter, a passage of G. taken from St. Gregory Nazianzen (PG 94, 985 B; 96, 704 A; cf. PG 36, 325 B, 633 D) on the purification of the Blessed Virgin through the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of the Annunciation is interpreted by dissenting Byzantines in favor of their erroneous opinion concerning her liberation from original sin only at the moment of the Incarnation.
The doctrine of G. on the veneration of sacred images was upheld at the sixth session of the Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787). The Council was unable to produce any testimony drawn from his writings, which were unknown to the Byzantines; yet in reality it is G. who best declares the legitimacy and nature of the veneration of images in his three orations (PG 94, 1232–1429). In these, he dismantles the position of the iconoclasts, who relied on the authority of the Emperor (PG 94, 1233 A, 1238 I, A–B), on the precepts of the Old Law (PG 94, 1237 B, 1244 D, 1248 A), and on spurious writings of St. Epiphanius (PG 94, 1257 B–C, 1304 C); naturally, there is no appeal to the Council, since these orations were composed before the iconoclast synod of Hiereia in 753. After clarifying the state of the question—that is, that this is a matter of relative veneration, of simple *dulia* toward images, received not materially but in their sacred significance (PG 94, 1240 C, 1288 A, 1239 D)—he adduces in its favor the testimony of Tradition (PG 94, 1303 A) and of the Liturgy (PG 94, 1245 B), corroborates it with theological reasoning (PG 94, 1252 D, 1239 C), and with the fruit that the veneration of images brings to the Christian people (PG 94, 1249 D, 1269 A, 1300 D).
IV. Influence
As regards the influence of G., in A.D. 1085 Michael of Antioch, in the draft of the *Arabic Life*, wrote: “Everywhere, the writings of St. G. are held in great esteem.” Yet they did not immediately achieve the diffusion and renown to which Michael alludes. For some time G. remained known only within the narrow circle of Palestine; toward the end of the 9th century his fame crossed the borders of the Byzantine Empire, and by the mid-12th century he had entered the West.The monks of St. Sabas made use of G.’s works, as is shown by the writings of Theodore Abu Kurah, who never cites him but employs the *Orationes de sanctis imaginibus*, the treatises against the Jacobites, and the *De fide orthodoxa*. The prolonged struggle against images and the ill repute of the Mansur family (G.’s grandfather opened the gates of Damascus to the Agarenes) meant that the Byzantines continued to ignore him.
Fatius, 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. appear 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 Slavonic. This was followed by the Georgian version, probably by John of Petritzos in the 12th century, and the Armenian version, made by the monk Simeon of the Georgian monastery of Pgndzahanq. Toward the mid-12th century, the first Latin versions appeared: that of the Pisan Burgundio, another completed in the Hungarian monastery of St. Mary of Paszow, and a third by Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, which is in fact a reworking of Burgundio’s translation. Thanks to Burgundio, G. took his place in the *Summa* of Peter Lombard and gained the attention of the great medieval Scholastics. The influence of G. in Latin theology has been variously assessed; 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 angels, man, and Christology.