STUDIA PATRISTICA

VOL. LXVIII

Papers presented at the Sixteenth International Conference

on Patristic Studies held
in Oxford 2011

Edited by
MARKUS VINZENT

Volume 16:
From the Fifth Century Onwards
(Greek Writers)

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2013
 Table of Contents

Anna LANKINA, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Reclaiming the Memory of the Christian Past: Philostorgius’ Mis-
sionary Heroes ..................................................................................... 3

Vasilije VRANIC, Marquette University, USA

The Logos as theios sporos: The Christology of the Expositio rectae
fidei of Theodoret of Cyrrhus ............................................................. 11

Andreas WESTERGREN, Lund, Sweden

A Relic In Spe: Theodoret’s Depiction of a Philosopher Saint.......... 25

George A. BEVAN, Kingston, Canada

Interpolations in the Syriac Translation of Nestorius’ Liber Heraclidis 31

Ken PARRY, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

‘Rejoice for Me, O Desert’: Fresh Light on the Remains of Nestorius
in Egypt ............................................................................................... 41

Josef RIST, Bochum, Germany

Kirchenpolitik und/oder Bestechung: Die Geschenke des Kyrill von
Alexandrien an den kaiserlichen Hof ................................................. 51

Hans VAN LOON, Culemborg, The Netherlands

The Pelagian Debate and Cyril of Alexandria’s Theology ................ 61

Hannah MILNER, Cambridge, UK

Cyril of Alexandria’s Treatment of Sources in his Commentary on
the Twelve Prophets ............................................................................. 85

Matthew R. CRAWFORD, Durham, UK

Assessing the Authenticity of the Greek Fragments on Psalm 22
(LXX) attributed to Cyril of Alexandria ............................................ 95

Dimitrios ZAGANAS, Paris, France

Against Origen and/or Origenists? Cyril of Alexandria’s Rejection
of John the Baptist’s Angelic Nature in his Commentary on John 1:6 101

Richard W. BISHOP, Leuven, Belgium

Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon on the Ascension (CPG 5281) ............ 107
VI Table of Contents

Daniel KEATING, Detroit, MI, USA

Supersessionism in Cyril of Alexandria ............................................. 119

Thomas ARENTZEN, Lund, Sweden

‘Your virginity shines’ – The Attraction of the Virgin in the Annun-
ciation Hymn by Romanos the Melodist ............................................ 125

Thomas CATTOI, Berkeley, USA

An Evagrian üpóstasiv? Leontios of Byzantium and the ‘Com-
posite Subjectivity’ of the Person of Christ ........................................ 133

Leszek MISIARCZYK, Warsaw, Poland

The Relationship between nous, pneuma and logistikon in Evagrius
Ponticus’ Anthropology ....................................................................... 149

J. Gregory GIVEN, Cambridge, USA

Anchoring the Areopagite: An Intertextual Approach to Pseudo-
Dionysius ............................................................................................. 155

Ladislav CHVÁTAL, Olomouc, Czech Republic

The Concept of ‘Grace’ in Dionysius the Areopagite ........................ 173

Graciela L. RITACCO, San Miguel, Argentina

El Bien, el Sol y el Rayo de Luz según Dionisio del Areópago ........ 181

Zachary M. GUILIANO, Cambridge, UK

The Cross in (Pseudo-)Dionysius: Pinnacle and Pit of Revelation .... 201

David NEWHEISER, Chicago, USA

Eschatology and the Areopagite: Interpreting the Dionysian Hierar-
chies in Terms of Time ....................................................................... 215

Ashley PURPURA, New York City, USA

‘Pseudo’ Dionysius the Areopagite’s Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: Keep-
ing the Divine Order and Participating in Divinity ........................... 223

Filip IVANOVIC, Trondheim, Norway

Dionysius the Areopagite on Justice ................................................... 231

Brenda LLEWELLYN IHSSEN, Tacoma, USA

Money in the Meadow: Conversion and Coin in John Moschos’ Pra-
tum spirituale ...................................................................................... 237
 Table of Contents VII

Bogdan G. BUCUR, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, USA

Exegesis and Intertextuality in Anastasius the Sinaite’s Homily On
the Transfiguration .............................................................................. 249

Christopher JOHNSON, Tuscaloosa, USA

Between Madness and Holiness: Symeon of Emesa and the ‘Peda-
gogics of Liminality’ ........................................................................... 261

Archbishop Rowan WILLIAMS, London, UK

Nature, Passion and Desire: Maximus’ Ontology of Excess ............. 267

Manuel MIRA IBORRA, Rome, Italy

Friendship in Maximus the Confessor ................................................ 273

Marius PORTARU, Rome, Italy

Gradual Participation according to St Maximus the Confessor......... 281

Michael BAKKER, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Willing in St Maximos’ Mystagogical Habitat: Bringing Habits in
Line with One’s logos.......................................................................... 295

Andreas ANDREOPOULOS, Winchester, UK

‘All in All’ in the Byzantine Anaphora and the Eschatological Mys-
tagogy of Maximos the Confessor ...................................................... 303

Cyril K. CRAWFORD, OSB, Leuven, Belgium (†)

‘Receptive Potency’ (dektike dynamis) in Ambigua ad Iohannem 20
of St Maximus the Confessor.............................................................. 313

Johannes BÖRJESSON, Cambridge, UK

Maximus the Confessor’s Knowledge of Augustine: An Exploration
of Evidence Derived from the Acta of the Lateran Council of 649 .. 325

Joseph STEINEGER, Chicago, USA

John of Damascus on the Simplicity of God ...................................... 337

Scott ABLES, Oxford, UK

Did John of Damascus Modify His Sources in the Expositio fidei? ... 355

Adrian AGACHI, Winchester, UK

A Critical Analysis of the Theological Conflict between St Symeon
the New Theologian and Stephen of Nicomedia ................................ 363
VIII Table of Contents

Vladimir A. BARANOV, Novosibirsk, Russia

Amphilochia 231 of Patriarch Photius as a Possible Source on the
Christology of the Byzantine Iconoclasts ........................................... 371

Theodoros ALEXOPOULOS, Athens, Greece

The Byzantine Filioque-Supporters in the 13th Century John Bekkos
and Konstantin Melitiniotes and their Relation with Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas.................................................................................. 381

Nicholas BAMFORD, St Albans, UK

Using Gregory Palamas’ Energetic Theology to Address John Ziziou-
las’ Existentialism ............................................................................... 397

John BEKOS, Nicosia, Cyprus

Nicholas Cabasilas’ Political Theology in an Epoch of Economic
Crisis: A Reading of a 14th-Century Political Discourse ................... 405
 Did John of Damascus Modify His Sources
in the Expositio fidei?

Scott ABLES, Oxford, UK

ABSTRACT
In this short communication, I examine four passages in the Expositio fidei in which
John of Damascus may have modified his sources. John’s editor, B. Kotter, invites
comparison in these passages with Gregory of Nazianzus, Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, Leontius of Byzantium and Pseudo-Cyril. These
four passages are significant because in them John repurposes the Christological term
perichoresis, inserting it into his Trinitarian argument. Further, accepting Vassa
Kontouma-Conticello’s analysis that Pseudo-Cyril is not a source of John, these
passages comprise the genesis of Trinitarian perichoresis in the Patristic record. In light
of this significant advancement in Trinitarian terminology, is John true to his claim that
he will say nothing of his own? I focus here on the subset of Kotter’s references noted
above most tightly associated with each occurrence of perichoresis, thus, although con-
clusions must be preliminary sans additional research, this analysis should provide
sufficient basis to claim whether or not John said anything new.

Introduction

To ask whether John modified his sources may seem a trivial question because
he is usually considered an encyclopediast who said nothing original, even
appropriating some authors verbatim.1 However, accepting Vassa Kontouma-
Conticello’s analysis that Pseudo-Cyril is not a source of John, but a late
compilation based on John, means that John did not adopt Trinitarian pericho-
resis from Pseudo-Cyril as previously asserted.2 In fact, John may be respon-
sible for the very genesis of Trinitarian perichoresis itself. In his Expositio
fidei,3 John deploys four passages to introduce Trinitarian perichoresis, quite

1
Richard Cross, ‘Perichoresis, Deification, and Christological Predication in John of Damas-
cus’, Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000), 69-124, 692 provides a recent example: ‘Passages in John’s
Expos. are lifted verbatim from Ps.-Cyril, Maximus, Nemesius, and Leontius of Byzantium…’
2
Vassa S. Conticello, ‘Pseudo-Cyril’s De SS. Trinitate: A Compilation of Joseph the
Philosopher’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 61 (1995), 117-29.
3
Also known as De fide orthodoxa or On the Orthodox Faith or An Exact Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos: Expositio fidei, ed. P. Bonifatius
Kotter, VI vols., vol. II, PTS 12 (Berlin, 1973).

Studia Patristica LXVIII, 355-361.

© Peeters Publishers, 2013.
356 S. ABLES

limited compared to the seventeen occurrences of Christological perichoresis

in the Expositio.4 Although it would be natural to ask why John introduced
Trinitarian perichoresis into his rhetoric, here I seek first to understand how
John handled his sources being a synthesizer of tradition. If John is the first to
use perichoresis of the Trinity, then to what extent is he dependent on the
authorities upon whom he depends? Consequently, I ask two questions: 1) to
what extent is John dependent on the sources Kotter indicates? And, 2) to what
extent if any does John modifying these sources? These questions should shed
some light on John’s handling of his sources, and provide a basis for assessing
whether John said anything new. Further, I hope this analysis will justify a fuller
scope of inquiry to include the references to John’s polemical works as noted
by Kotter.

Method

Rather than focus on the word itself, perichoresis, it seemed appropriate to

provide enough context with a few lines either side of it to better facilitate
analysis of how John is handling his authorities in these passages. This will
facilitate comparison of the texts, concepts, and key words, thereby facilitating
answers to the two questions, and thus ascertaining the extent of any depend-
ency on, and even modification of, the referenced texts. Thus, my analysis is
limited to those four passages of the Expositio fidei, where Trinitarian pericho-
resis occurs: 8.258-67, 14.11-8, 49.1-14, and 91.5, 11-6. More precisely, my
focus here is the key dependencies suggested by Kotter in these four passages.5

4
Lampe indicates ‘interpenetration’ for Trinitarian perichoresis, whether s.v. perixwréw or
perixÉrjsiv. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.W.H. Lampe (Oxford, 1961). Herein I provision-
ally follow Lampe, acknowledging that some scholars find ‘coinherence’ less problematic.
Although out of scope for this paper, my research suggests that ‘coinherence’ is a development
unlikely in John; John’s rhetoric relating to perichoresis remains a focus of my research. Finally,
perichoresis refers to the mutual interpenetration of either the natures of God and man in Christol-
ogy with the primary background for John of Damascus in Maximus the Confessor or the mutual
interpenetration of the Persons of the Godhead in Trinitarian theology as first expressed in the
four occurrences under consideration in this paper.
5
Kotter’s references, as he gives them, for these four passages as I have numbered them follow:
[1] ‘259-267 cf. e.g. Gr.Naz., or.31:36, 141 C-144 A; 39:36, 345 C-348 A; 42:36, 476 …
260s eîv – sunaleifoménwn = Gr.Naz., or. 20:35, 1073 A 1-3;’ and ‘262-265 Dion.Ar., d.n. 640
D-641 B’ (Kotter, II, 29).
[2] ‘14 11-14 (p)… Gr.Naz., ep. 101: 37, 181 C 6s = Max., school.epp.Dion.Ar. 533 C 11s;…
13s = Gr.Naz., or.42: 36, 476 B 6 15s Gr.Naz., or.20: 35, 1073 A 6-8 et alibi’ (Kotter, II, 43).
[3] ‘49 2-42 cf. Leont.B., arg.Sev. 1920-1925’ (Kotter, II, 118).
[4] ‘91 2-148 Cyr., Trin. 1164 A 14-1172 A 6’ (Kotter, II, 212).
 Did John of Damascus Modify His Sources in the Expositio fidei? 357

Analysis

In the first passage [1]: Expositio fidei 8.258-67, Kotter references Oration 20,
31, 39, and 42 of Gregory of Nazianzus as well as Dionysius’ De divinis nomin-
ibus. First, however, we must discuss Kotter’s indication that John takes ver-
batim long passages from Pseudo-Cyril. Besides this alleged dependence on
Pseudo-Cyril, Kotter indicates only two places in these four passages where
John briefly quotes his authority.6 Pseudo-Cyril was thought to be almost the

The following table maps Kotter’s Migne references to the passages I used in currently avail-
able critical texts:

Kotter’s reference Text Used

[1] 259-67 cf. e.g. Discours 27-31: Discours Théologiques, ed.
Gr.Naz., Or. 31:36, 141 C-144 A Paul Gallay, SC 250 (Paris, 1978), Discours 31,
8.20-9.19
[1] 259-67 cf. e.g. Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 38-41, ed.
Gr.Naz., Or. 39:36, 345 C-348 A Claudio Moreschini, SC 358 (Paris, 1990),
Discours 39, 11.5-26
[1] 259-67 cf. e.g. Gr.Naz., Or. 42:36, 476s Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 42-43, ed.
Jean Bernardi, SC 384 (Paris, 1992), Discours
42, 15.1-22
[1] 262-5 Dion.Ar., d.n. 640 D-641 B Corpus Dionysiacum: De Divinis Nominibus,
ed. Beate Regina Suchla, 2 vols. Vol. 1, PTS 33
(Berlin: 1990-1991), II 4.(126).3-II 4.(127).12
(Note, line numbers repeat each page, so page
given in parentheses)
[1] 260s eîv – sunaleifoménwn = Gr.Naz., Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 20-23, ed.
Or. 20:35, 1073 A 1-3; Justin Mossay, SC 270 (Paris, 1980), Discours
20, 7.1-3
[2] 14 11-4 (p)… Gr.Naz., Ep. 101: 37, 181 C Grégoire de Nazianze: Lettres Théologiques,
6s = Max., School. epp. Dion. Ar. 533 C 11s; ed. Paul Gallay, SC 208 (Paris, 1992), Epistle
101, 31.5-6
[2] 13s = Gr.Naz., Or. 42: 36, 476 B 6 Discours 42 (Bernardi, SC 384), 15.18-9
[2] 15s Gr.Naz., Or. 20: 35, 1073 A 6-8 Discours 20 (Mossay, SC 270), 7.6-8
[3] 49 2-42 cf. Leont.B., Arg. Sev. 1920-1925 Brian Daley, Leontius of Byzantium: a Critical
Edition of his Works, with Prolegomena (Diss.,
University of Oxford, 1978), 77-84.
[4] 91 2-148 Cyr., Trin. 1164 A 14-1172 A 6 Not a source of John, per Kontouma-Conticello,
see note 2
6
Kotter’s apparatus uses the equal sign ‘=’ to indicate ‘literal’ or ‘near literal’ dependence.
Expos. (Kotter, II), lvii. The two quotes are at 8.260s and 14.13s (see note 5 above).
358 S. ABLES

very text John used for most of chapters one through eight and ninety-one.7
However, based on the argument of Vassa Kontouma-Conticello this seems
very unlikely. As Andrew Louth acknowledges, ‘there was always something
odd about the view of John’s theological method entailed by the acceptance of
Pseudo-Cyril as John’s source, since it would only be here that John simply
accepts with scarcely a modification someone else’s patristic compilation.’8
Consequently, we must look to John not Pseudo-Cyril for the significance of
the synthesis here.
Thus, it is John who notably ignores the Dionysian ‘wholly in one another’
language in all four of the passages under review here. However, certain words
and phrases from the passage of Dionysius to which Kotter suggests compari-
son in passage [1] appear to resonate with John: ânekfoitßtouv üperidrú-
seiv, ënÉseiv kaì diakríseiv, and ™ ên âllßlaiv, mon® kaì ÿdrusiv
ölik¬v üperjnwménj; however, none of these are lifted wholesale; rather
they are adapted by John to his own purpose. Notably though John uses none
of this vocabulary in passage [1], except the phrase ‘in one another’. John and
Dionysius are both treating the concept of the union of the three divine Persons.
Dionysius uses the analogy of lights in a house and John three suns. In this
regard Dionysius says, ºla ên âllßloiv ºloiv êstí or ‘they are mutually and
entirely in one another’, whereas, John says, t®n ên âllßlaiv perixÉrjsin
∂xousi or ‘they interpenetrate one another’.
In passage [1], Kotter also invites comparison to the orations of Gregory of
Nazianzus. Again, there is no quotation from Oration 31, 39 or 42, but there is
from Oration 20. These passages are dense, inviting lengthy discussion. I only
highlight a couple of cases suggestive of John’s method. In the comparison
invited by Kotter, Dionysius preferred ënÉseiv kaì diakríseiv or ‘union and
difference’, Gregory, diaire⁄tai gàr âdiairétwv … kaì sunáptetai dijÇr-
jménwv or ‘indivisibly divided … and united dividedly’, but John prefers âmé-
ristov gàr ên memerisménoiv or ‘indivisible in things divided’, carefully
reserving to Sabellian and Arian error, sunaíresiv and ‘diaíresiv’ respective-
ly.9 John deploys his vocabulary to carefully delineate and exegete the error at
the poles while carefully expanding the middle ground he seeks to clarify.

7
Expos. (Kotter, II), xxix. Further, note that Kotter’s reference to Pseudo-Cyril’s De trinitate
occurs at the beginning of each chapter and is thus easily missed, for example for chapter 8
Kotter indicates: ‘8 2, 36-8, 297 = Cyr., Trin. 1121 A 2-1145 B 1’, (Expos. [Kotter, II], 18).
8
Andrew Louth, St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology
(Oxford, 2002), 87. V. Conticello, ‘Pseudo-Cyril’s De SS. Trinitate’ (1995). Further, Lampe’s
lexicon also assumes the primacy of Pseudo-Cyril, for example see s.v. perixÉrjsiv: ‘C. Trin.,
interpenetration ënoÕntai gár, … oûx ¿ste sugxe⁄sqai, âll’ ¿ste ∂xesqai âllßlwn· kaì t®n ên
âllßlaiv p. ∂xousi díxa pásjv sunaloif±v kaì sumfúrsewv ‡Cyr. Trin.10 (63.16A; M.77.1144B)
=Jo.D. f.o.I.8(M.94.829A)’, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961). However, based on Vassa
Kontouma-Conticello’s argument such dependence would also be false.
9
Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 39, 11.18-9.
 Did John of Damascus Modify His Sources in the Expositio fidei? 359

Another observation revolves around the quote from Gregory’s Oration 20: eîv
πn a÷tion kaì UïoÕ kaì Pneúmatov ânaferoménwn, oû suntiqeménwn,
oûdè sunaleifoménwn.10 Gregory is suggesting a middle ground between
Sabellian and Arian error in the passage overall, but here John cherry picks
only a small portion of Gregory’s discussion relating to maintaining distinction
in the unity of the Godhead contra Sabellius. It is clear from these observations
that in passage [1] John sparingly cherry picks from his authorities, while pre-
senting their thought in a clear, concise, and coherent manner.
In the second passage [2]: Expositio fidei 14.11-8, Kotter references Grego-
ry’s Epistle 101, as well as orations twenty and fourty-two again. The reference
to Gregory is telling because Gregory does use perichoresis, but he uses it
Christologically, thus it is unclear why Kotter gives this reference here, other
than to highlight the first theological use of perichoresis in the Patristic record,
perhaps in order to contrast it with John’s use. Kotter may thus be drawing
attention to the fact that in Christology it is the natures that interpenetrate but
in the doctrine of God it is the Persons who interpenetrate one another.11 John’s
use of the orations here appear to mirror his use of them above, that is some
key words appear in common but obvious choices are again omitted, for exam-
ple Gregory says, mjdemi¢v êpinoouménjv sunaleif±v Æ ânalúsewv Æ
sugxúsewv, but John ignores ânalúsewv without explanation employing only
the other two, sunaleif±v and sugxúsewv in the phrase, mjdemi¢v ginomé-
njv sunaloif±v Æ sumfúsewv Æ sugxúsewv – ‘not one becoming fused,
mixed together, or confounded’.12
The second quote that Kotter notes appears in this passage [2]. Here Kotter
finds ‘literal’ or ‘near literal’ (see note 6) dependence on Gregory in Oration
42, in the same area as Kotter noted at [1] more broadly. Gregory writes, ÊEn-
wsiv dé, ö Patßr, êz oœ, kaì pròv Ωn ânágetai tà ëz±v· oûx Üv
sunaleífesqai, âll’ Üv ∂xesqai, mßte xrónou dieírgontov, mßte qelß-
matov, mßte dunámewv, but John has âdiástatoi gàr aœtai kaì ânekfoítj-
toi âllßlwn eîsìn âsúgxuton ∂xousai t®n ên âllßlaiv perixÉrjsin,
oûx ¿ste sunaleífesqai Æ sugxe⁄sqai, âll’ ¿ste ∂xesqai âllßlwn.13
I translate these respectively as: Gregory: ‘The Father is the union, from whom
and to whom they go orderly, not as fusing, but as having, nor being separated
by time, will, or power.’ And John: ‘For without separation and inseparable

10
I translate the text from the Expositio as ‘ascribing to one Cause the Son and the Spirit,
neither by merging nor fusion’. A more dynamic alternative from Gregory’s text is ‘both Son and
Spirit are causally related to him alone without being merged or fused into him.’ St. Gregory of
Nazianzus: Select Orations, trans. Martha Vinson, Fathers of the Church 107 (Washington, D.C.,
2003), 111.
11
Kotter does reference Prestige here: G.L. Prestige, ‘“PERIXOREO” and “PERIXORESIS”
in the Fathers’, JTS 29 (1928), 242-52.
12
See the table in note 5 under ‘[2] 15s’.
13
See the table in note 5 under ‘[2] 13s’.
360 S. ABLES

from each other they are unconfused, interpenetrating one another, not so as to
be fused or mixed together, but rather so as to cleave to one another.’ Here John
assumes the unity that Gregory works to safeguard in the monarchy of the
Father, but exegetes ∂xesqai by adding perichoresis to clarify the nature of
‘having’ meant. If this is a quotation of Gregory it is certainly not ‘literal’ or
verbatim and arguably not ‘near literal’ either. Again, John’s purpose drives
the synthesis not that of his authorities.
In the third passage [3]: Expositio fidei 49.1-13, Kotter suggests lines 2-42 of
chapter fourty-seven should be compared to Leontius of Byzantium’s Adversus
argumenta Severi. Kotter’s reference is to four full columns of Leontius’ text.
Leontius and John both discuss the numbering of the natures in Christ, so the
reference seems apropos. Speaking in approximations though, Leontius waxes
some 200 lines, while John tersely in only fourty-two. Some have asserted that
the Damascene is dependent on Leontius for his Christology, but Brian Daley
finds this debatable, considering that John never alludes to Leontius, may
paraphrase him but appears to quote him only once (not in this passage), and
thus may only know him via the Doctrina Patrum in which all passages that
John appears to know are found.14 Here [3], however, Leontius makes one brief
reference to the Trinity, but it does not appear to be related in form or purpose
to John’s presentation here, thus it appears to be only the broad concept of
numbering the natures that suggests the comparison. The invited comparison is
welcome, but there is only a loose association, not dependence here.
In the fourth passage [4]: Expositio fidei 91.11-6, Kotter cites only Pseudo-
Cyril’s De trinitate for lines 2-148. However, as discussed above, Vassa
Kontouma-Conticello has argued that Pseudo-Cyril’s work is a late compilation
by Joseph the Philosopher (d. ca. 1330) that incorporates John and thus cannot
be a source of John. Andrew Louth considers Kontouma-Conticello’s argument
‘absolutely compelling’.15 Thus, this reference by Kotter is quite likely errone-
ous, so in this short passage John appears to speak for himself.
In summary, each of John’s four occurrences of Trinitarian perichoresis
appears to be independent of the external authorities that Kotter references.
Upon inspection none of these references are strong and lengthy quotations,
none borrow technical terms wholesale and none employ perichoresis. It does
not appear from this analysis that John is wholly dependent on his authorities
in these four passages. However, John is clearly conversant with the vocabulary
of his authorities and deploys it judiciously. Nevertheless, his use of pericho-
resis appears to afford one example where he interpreted tradition and subtly
clarified it in his synthesis.

14
B. Daley, Leontius of Byzantium (1998), xcv-cv.
15
A. Louth, St. John Damascene (2002), 87.
 Did John of Damascus Modify His Sources in the Expositio fidei? 361

Conclusion

So, did John say nothing new as he affirmed, handling the tradition he received
as his peers would expect? I am prepared to argue that he did, by modern stand-
ards, say something new. John may indeed be heavily indebted conceptually to
his chosen authorities. Could a synthesis be otherwise? Nevertheless, in these
four passages, comprising the genesis of Trinitarian perichoresis, John seems to
me to provide a synthesis of tradition that, while faithful to that tradition, clari-
fied it beyond his sources with a concise and coherent presentation and even
extended it with the additional concept of perichoresis, a Christological term,
but now, in John’s synthesis, a Trinitarian term.
Finally, having adopted the position that Pseudo-Cyril is a late compilation
of John and not a source, it seems clear that John’s use of perichoresis as a
technical term in his Trinitarian theology bears more scrutiny. Why did John
transport a Christological term into his Trinitarian argument? This question
suggests that John of Damascus studies are ripe for harvest, and thus I believe
a fuller scope of inquiry to include the references to John’s polemical works as
noted by Kotter is warranted.