Nestor Kavvadas Tübingen

THEOLOGY OF LANGUAGE AND LITURGICAL PRAYER IN ISAAC OF

In his extensive treatises dedicated to the ’s prayer refers in a number of cases to the validity and bearing of the Canon Law prescriptions regulating the liturgical order for the soli- tary. The OĜ ce of the Hours had been sanctioned by the 54th canon of the Pseudo-Nicene canons collection, which enjoyed a remarkable authority among East Syriac ascetics.1 A more precise defi nition of the number and order of the Psalms one had to recite was apparently at the disposal of the spiritual father of each brotherhood, or — in the case of living in almost absolute isolation — of the solitary himself.2 Isaac stresses more than once his obedience to the liturgical order that Canon Law prescribed for the hermits: every monk is obliged to “unfailing observance of the seven OĜ ces, ordered for our chaste mode of life by the holy at the hands of the Fathers who were assembled by the

S. A. Vööbus (ed.), The Canons Ascribed to M¬rĀt¬ of Maipherqa֠ and (1) Related Sources (CSCO Syr., 192) 82: “The service, moreover, shall be accomplished at seven times during the day: one in the morning, and the third, the sixth, and the ninth hour, at (the time of) table, in the evening and in the night in order that (the monks) fulfi ll that which the blessed David said: ‚Seven times in the day do I praise Thee because of Thy judgements, O Righteous!’ ”. (2) Thanks to a notice given to us by Dadisho Qatraya, we know Babai the Great as of the Great Monastery on Mount Izla had prescribed (in his lost treatise “On the Discipline of the Novices”) for his monks’s prayer of the Hours a relatively small number of Psalms (ten P?JdJ), a short hymn (#j62'fi; on the exact meaning of this liturgical terms see J. Mateos, Lelya- Sapra: les oĜ ces chaldéens de la nuit et du matin (OCA 156), Rom 1972, 491 and 500–501) and the Sanctus ($g>.`); just for the nightly prayer of the Hours an additional long hymn was prescribed. In the infl uential Monastery of Rabban Shapur, these same rules were valid — here, even for the festal oĜ ces [see Dadisho Qatraya, Commentaire du livre d’Abba Isaïe — logoi I–XV, ed. R. Dra- guet (CSCO, 326, Syr. 144) (Louvain, 1972) 183–184; cf. F. Jullien, Rabban- Sapur. Un monastère au rayonnement exceptionnel, OCP 72 (2006) 333–348, here: 340sq.].

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access 274 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis

Holy Spirit for the ecumenical synod (of Nicaea).”3 To arbitrarily violate this rule is, Isaac says, to give in to heretical messalianism or to de- monic temptation. Nevertheless, seeing that it was up to each “inde- pendent” solitary monk to defi ne the details of liturgical order, Isaac recommends to his solitary readers not to impose on themselves once and for all a precise rule prescribing numerous Psalms and prostra- tions for every single day, but to reserve instead the “right” of defi n- ing their number anew, according to their inner condition — whereby they should not strive to carry out as many Psalms (and prostrations) as possible, but shape their liturgical prayer so as to achieve an optimal state-of-mind (i.e., to let the Psalmist’s verses exert the most intense in- fl uence on their inner self).4 Even spending hours in contemplating on one single verse of the Psalms should be welcomed as a divine giĞ .5 Isaac calls this the “law of freedom”, in contrast to the “law of slavery,” which he dismisses in the same context. 6 Moreover, Isaac maintains that the praying solitary is fully justifi ed to deviate from the exact wording of traditional liturgical texts, such as the Lord’s Prayer7 and the Psalms8, and freely improvise new formula- tions inspired by the contents of the texts just mentioned. What is more, even breaking up or omiĴ ing the liturgical Psalms readings prescribed by Canon Law is allowed, or even called for, as soon as the praying monk’s mind is being seized by an experience of exstatic rapture, by

(3) .$[CN PKCR# HW L6ii# #jg>.` #i.V PJ- ‡#jgKgi X'f- $O?OJ d;N dK+F- #j?G?&i Q1-0N2SF $f-2`- $61c PJ 2gOBi#- #i0&# =.>$& (B.14.35, Brock [= Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), “The Second Part” — Chapters IV–XLI, ed. S. Brock (Louvain: Peeters, 1995) (CSCO, 554–555, Syr. 224] 67–68). The works of Isaac of Nineveh are cited here as follows: the leĴ ers A,B refer to the First or Second „Part“ of Isaac’s works, the fi rst number to the number of the Dircourse, and the second arabic number to the number of paragraph within each Discourse; as the third Disourse of the “Second Part” contains 4 units with (approximately) hundred Capita Gnostica each, the second ara- bic number refers, in this case, to one of these 4 units, while the third ara- bic number refers to the number of the cited Caput. When the cited passage comes from the Discourses 4–41 of the “Second Part”, that have been edited and translated from Sebastian Brock, I cite his translation. (4) B.21.5 (Brock 103), cf. B.3.2.55 (MS syr.e.7, Bodleian Library, 47v–48v). (5) S. B.3.2.55 (MS syr.e.7, Bodleian Library, 47v–48v). (6) B.14.7–48 (Brock 58–72). (7) S. B.14.36 (Brock 68). (8) S. B.14.41–43 (Brock 69–71).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access Nestor Kavvadas 275 a silent amazement at God’s self-revelation. Isaac defends his opinion against the (quite usual, it seems) accusation of messalianism.9 In this short article we shall aĴ empt to present in its main lines the theological gnoseology of language which underlies Isaac’s — pre- sumably controversial — opinions regarding the limits of the canoni- cal prescriptions’ validity concerning the order of liturgical prayer. Theological Gnoseology and of Language The notion of knowledge is the centre of Isaac of Nineveh’s concept of ascetical life. This fact, which also applies to the majority of East Syriac ascetical authors, goes back — at least as far as processes of provable literary reception are concerned — to his “dependence” on . Consequently, this notion of knowledge is subdivided into several levels, which correspond to specifi c cognitive objects as well as to dif- ferent “states of mind” of the human subject, whereby in Isaac’s “ide- alism” the object of cognition coincides, up to a certain point, with its subject. Nevertheless, the most fundamental gnoseological distinction is the one between knowledge conveyed to humans through the me- diation of signs, on the one hand, and “knowledge” given to humans directly by God without any mediation at all on the other.10 Of course, the former kind of knowledge also comes ultimately from God, even if it is being conveyed through the medium of creatures, namely, either through visible natural beings or through invisible, incorporeal an- gels. The laĴ er form of “knowledge” is defi ned by the strict exclusion of all kinds of mediation; not even angels are capable of conveying it to humans, since they are themselves recipients of it.11 Only God Himself gives this “knowledge” to both angels and humans, equating thus the laĴ er to the former. This fundamental gnoseological distinction cor- responds not only to the ontological distinction, equally central in al- most all Christian systems of thought, between created and uncreated, but also to a soteriological distinction, typical of Isaac’s Theodoran conception of the history of salvation, between “this world” and the “world-to-come”: While knowledge as mediated through signs be- longs to this world, immediate God-given knowledge is proper to the

(9) See B.14.7 (Brock 58), and B.14.47 (Brock 72). (10) B.3.3.55–60 (MS syr.e.7, 69v–72r). (11) S. B.3.3.57 (MS syr.e.7, 70r–71r).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access 276 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis world-to-come.12 As already said, the former kind of knowledge also goes back ultimately to God; for Isaac, the fact that all knowledge be- longing to “this world” is being mediated by creatures means — since no creature could be reasonably excluded from this function — that the entire Creation is a system of mystical signs conveying divine knowledge13, that is, referring to the immediate, absolute knowledge identical with the world-to-come. To sum up: In the present state-of-being, humans are being prepared by divine action through a knowledge of God mediated by visible and invisible Creation for receiving in the world-to-come an immeasur- ably superior form of knowledge, namely, an immediate knowledge of God’s self-revelation. This central role of the sign as a medium of knowledge in Isaac’s theological gnoseology explains why language is a major epistemo- logical issue for him: “[He] created the word’s sensible voice. In the very beginning the rational beings (sc. the angels) learned from Him, the Creator, to engage themselves with it (sc. the word). And the [very] fi rst usage of it was a song of praise, which was oě ered to the Creator by His works, as wriĴ en in Job. Also we humans have received from the Creator, in a sensible way, the usage of the sensibly perceptible language of words. And through succession, from the Fathers to their oě spring, [this usage] has come down to us”.14 Even in this apophthegmatic “genealogy of language” one can discern a connection with gnoseology: Praise, as the very fi rst usage of language, necessarily implies a certain form of knowledge of the Praised-One, and the transfer of language from one generation to the next is, considered as a whole, identical with the process of passing down human knowledge (in the broadest sense of the word) through the ages. Isaac examines further the (classical philosophical) questions con- cerning the gnoseological status of language: What is the exact relation between verbal formulation and its non-verbal “object”? “Every word, inasmuch as it is being said of (i.e., it indicates) [any of] all beings, is being said on three [diě erent] levels: Either as of something that is, or as of some-

(12) B.3.3.49 (MS syr.e.7, 68v–69r). (13) ̅.3.1.2 (MS syr.e.7, 20v). (14) ̅.3.1.8 (MS syr.e.7, 21v):

; cf. ̅.2.1–2 (19r–v).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access Nestor Kavvadas 277 thing above Being, or as of something inferior to Being”.15 Concerning God, both word and thought — as dependent from the logical structures of language — can only have a very restricted application. They “have power only concerning one [single] thing” — perhaps Isaac means that they can only assert God’s existence, which transcends Being. While Isaac’s classifi cation cited here may seem somewhat cryptic at fi rst sight, it can be decoded on the basis of his fundamental gnoseo- logical principles: The fi rst “level” probably refers to the “intelligible Beings”, i.e., to the objects (or contents) of the Evagrian “second natu- ral theory”, while the second level refers to the exalted objects of the “theory” pertaining to the world-to-come (that is, to God’s eschatolog- ical self-revelation) and the third level to the material things as objects of knowledge based on sensible perception.16 In Isaac’s works one can also fi nd somewhat diě erent classifying subdivisions of language as a referential system17; nevertheless, these do not contradict the more general classifi cation just presented, which can thus serve as a basis for tracing down the connection between Isaac’s gnoseology of language and his teaching on prayer. Especially important is his position, oĞ en repeated in his texts, that language and rational thought — namely such thought that can be expressed through language — cannot grasp and express the highest level of knowledge — which should be rather called “non-knowledge”, as Isaac quotes Dionysius the Areopagite, being at the same time the truest possible “knowledge” of God —, see- ing that such knowledge is by defi nition immediate, while language is, also by defi nition, mediation.18

(15) ̅.3.1.3 (MS syr.e.7, 20v):

(16) On this evagrian distinction between levels of „theoria“, see: Evagrius Ponticus, Cap. Gnost. II.2–3, ed. A. Guillaumont in PO, 28 (Paris, 1959) 61; cf. C. Stewart, Imageless Prayer and the Theological Vision of Evagrius Ponticus, JECS 9 (2001) 173–204. (17) Cf. e.g. B.3.2.2 (MS syr.e.7, 34v–35r); B.3.1.98 (34v). (18) Cf. the evagrian principle: “The others (sc. the other sources of knowl- edge) infuse thoughts or notions and theories in the intellect by means of the body. But God does the opposite: He descends on the intellect itself…thus infusing knowl- edge in it, according to His will” (̒ϡ ΐξΑ ΏΓ΍ΔΓϠ Έ΍Τ ΘϛΖ ΦΏΏΓ΍ЏΗΉΝΖ ΘΓІ ΗЏ- ΐ΅ΘΓΖ πΐΔΓ΍ΓІΗ΍Α ΘХ ΑХ ΏΓ·΍ΗΐΓϾΖ, ύ ΑΓφΐ΅Θ΅, Ύ΅Ϡ ΌΉΝΕφΐ΅Θ΅. ͟Έν·Ή ̋ΉϲΖ ΘΓЁΑ΅ΑΘϟΓΑ ΈΕλ, ΅ЁΘХ ΘХ ΑХ πΔ΍Ά΅ϟΑΉ΍…πΑΘ΍ΌΉϠΖ ΅ЁΘХ ·ΑЗΗ΍Α, БΖ ΆΓϾΏΉΘ΅΍) (Evagrius Ponticus, De oratione 33, PG 79, 1180).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access 278 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis

This fundamental gnoseological distinction between immediate and mediated knowledge has, as already said, an exact correspondence in Isaac’s equally fundamental soteriological distinction between this world and the world to come, which is based on the “two-worlds-doc- trine” of . This present world being a divine school, and all creatures being but signs indicating (i.e., mediating) the future world’s true (i.e., immediate) knowledge of God, words indicat- ing creatures are signs of signs, separated by a “double” distance from the last object of all reference. Isaac draws from this concept, where gnoseology is strongly dependent on the deployment of salvation his- tory, the consequence that all words, names and numbers shall become obsolete and vanish in the world-to-come.19 From this clear assertion Isaac draws at least two further conclu- sions that make clear, even at fi rst sight, how “uncomfortable” this as- pect of his teaching could become for the oĜ cial Church: This eschato- logical sublation of all forms of verbally mediated knowledge clearly makes no exception for the Holy Scriptures or for the texts of the litur- gical prayers.20 This becomes all the more signifi cant and potentially provocative as the eschatological state of an immediate knowledge of things divine described above may be temporarily experienced (as God’s giĞ , to be sure, since it exceeds by far all natural human capaci- ties) already in this life. As a maĴ er of fact, it is exactly this experience that constitutes the fi nal goal — and the only source of meaning — of Eremitical Anachoretism. That is, already in this life humans may be temporarily endowed with a form of divine knowledge qualitatively superior to that formulated in the Holy Scripture, the Patristic tradi- tion, Canon law and liturgical prayer!21 Forms of Prayer and the Function of Language Before taking a closer look at the implications of this gnoseology of language for Isaac’s understanding of liturgical prayer, a preliminary account on his general understanding of prayer is needed. For Isaac,

(19) This does not apply only to such “second class” signs (namely signs of signs), but also to all visible or rationally perceptible Creation: only the in- visible creatures, which are only perceptible through the intellect (as opposed to the discursive rationality) and are at the same time in possession of an intel- lect shall contitue to exist in the new world. (20) See e.g. B.3.3.1–10 (MS syr.e.7, 59r–60r). (21) B.3.3.56 (MS syr.e.7, 69v–70r).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access Nestor Kavvadas 279 prayer is, in the broadest sense of the word, a conscious act of directing all thoughts (emotions, wishes a.s.o.) towards God and is thus inter- mingled with every single action of ascetical life22 — and should be practiced, furthermore, in all “ups and downs” of Christian life.23 This broad sense of the word “prayer” is a traditional product of interpre- tation on the Pauline precept to “pray without ceasing”. In a second, more specifi c sense, prayer is one of the three major constitutive ele- ments of Eremitical life, the other two being study of the Holy Scrip- tures and “meditation”24 on God’s providence for His creation. Even in this narrower sense, prayer is nevertheless not identical with “liturgical prayer”, which is regulated by Canon law and consists of the loud reciting of prescribed prayer texts (prominently Psalms). As already said, freely formulated prayer, as well as reciting of prayer texts others than those prescribed by the liturgical canons, like those composed by Isaac himself, is also recommended. However, on the beginner’s level of ascetical life, the “somatical” level, one should pri- marily restrict himself to assiduous reciting of numerous Psalms com- bined with numerous prostrations, all this being a necessary means for bringing bodily passions under control.25 It is not until the second, “psychic” stage of ascetical life has been reached that an insight into the deeper meaning of liturgical prayer becomes possible; according to Isaac, progress in ascetical life consists in breaking the external and accessing the internal.26 To be sure, this distinction between ex- ternal/superfi cial and internal/deeper aspects of all forms of ascetical labour is a specifi c application of the more general distinction between knowledge that is mediated, i.e. accessible to language, and knowl- edge that is immediate and thus inaccessible to language. In the case of a prayer — in its “narrow” sense — the external aspect is apparently not only liturgical prayer, as defi ned by Canon law, and its standard

(22) See A.63 (Bedjan [= Mar Isaacus Ninivita, De perfectione religiosa, ed. P. Bedjan (Paris—Leipzig: Harrassowitz)], 439–440): All ascetical labours on the second, intermediary level, including the reading of the Scriptures, the contemplation on God’s providence as well as the prostrations, “are [included] in the defi nition/framework of prayer and are being thought of as [going] under the name of prayer, and stand within the limits of this name (sc. prayer)” (D>jSJ $N/ #0J2f PJ 2+F1 † h'6jJ #i2F] Lg&1 † L6ijJ #i2F^&); cf. ̅.10.3 (Brock 31). (23) See ̅.3.4.46 (MS syr.e.7, 91v–92r). (24) B.3.2.87 (MS syr.e.7, 57r); cf. B.3.2.84 (56r–v). (25) See B.22 (Brock 106f.). (26) B.22.4 (Brock 106).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access 280 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis prayer texts, but also improvised verbal prayers.27 Taken together with Isaac’s understanding of language as a system of signs indicating fur- ther signs — an understanding which makes language the epitome, so to speak, of this present world’s symbolic structure —, the fact that prayer is always a specifi c usage of language implies that prayer as formulation is the external aspect of something deeper. This deeper, internal aspect begins to show itself, as already said, on the second (“psychic”) level of ascetical life. The Psalms and the other standard prayer texts prescribed by Canon law consist predomi- nantly of various supplications; this applies also to most of the impro- vised prayers.28 The advanced ascetic shall realise, though, that these supplications are not intended to let God know what we need or wish, because the omniscient God knows of our needs beĴ er than we our- selves do. The real goal of supplication is to give us inner consolation and support us when we are spiritually “weakened”, and thus help us overcome our weakness, gain full consciousness of the fact that the re- quests of our supplication — inasmuch as they are requests appropri- ate to true prayer, namely requests pertaining to our salvation — have already been satisfi ed in God’s eternal providential plan, and conse- quently reduce our various requests to the one simple request: “Thy will be done”29. Isaac can describe this same process as a concentration on and a deepening, an immersion in the words (mostly taken from Psalms) of the supplication, a deepening that leads to a theoria of God’s prov- idence for all Creation, including the praying person. This insight leads in turn to the aforementioned identifi cation of the human sub- ject’s will with God’s will, as expressed in the request “Thy will be done”.30

(27) Words are the „external form“ of prayer (B.14.43, Brock 70–71), since they are the „external form“ of thoughts in general (B.14.6, Brock 57); the liturgical order consists of the „external forms“ of God’s worship (B.14.22, Brock 62sq.). (28) See Isaac’s own prayer, e.g. B.1.83–95 (17v–19r); cf. A.22 (Bedjan 167). (29) ̅.3.3.91 (MS syr.e.7, 80r-v). This is what we mean, says Isaac, when we say, that God hears the ’s prayers: God does not adapt, so to speak, His eternal plan to their petitions; they learn, instead, to pray in accordance with God’s almighty will. (30) Cf. Evagrius Ponticus, De oratione 32 (PG 79, 1173): “Do not pray that your own wishes may come true, for they do not always agree with God’s will. But rather pray, like you have been taught, by saying: Thy will be done in me.” (̏χ

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access Nestor Kavvadas 281

The theoria of God’s providence, which emerges out of prayer as its goal and fulfi llment, causes the normal (i.e., consisting of a spe- cifi c — traditional or improvised — text, defi ned in advance) prayer to cease: the light of the theoria breaks forth out of a single verse and prevents the intellect from moving on to the next verses, i.e. from con- tinuing to pray as planned. Nevertheless, the prayer goes on, carried through now by “inner motions”, motions of the intellect contemplat- ing now in silence on God’s providence for the entire Creation and for the praying soul itself. As already said, this is the content of all theoria. Already on the level of prayer in theoria, the monk cannot — and must not — observe the usual order of liturgical prayer, the prayer in theoria being the fulfi llment of all forms of pre-formulated prayer. On this fi rst, “lower” level of theoria, the inner prayer carried through by inner motions of the intellect is still a conscious activity of the human subject, the content of which can be described by means of human speech, even if the prayer itself is not being expressed verbally. On the second level of theoria though, clearly distinct from the fi rst, the activity of the reveals itself to the praying intellect and makes its verbally describable, consciously activated and guided “inner motions” of contemplation on completely stop.31 The eschatological “truth” about God, which is then revealed by the Spirit, makes all cognitive contents of the praying intellect, ei- ther stemming from sense perception or from discursive thought, dis- appear — without being really annihilated — and gives a temporary end to all volitional, conscious self-control of the human soul over its own “inner motions”.32 That is why this state-of-existence cannot be properly called “prayer”, since prayer is a) a conscious activity of the self-controlled (“free”) intellect and b) has specifi c contents that can be described by words, if they are not themselves expressed ver- bally.33

ΔΕΓΗΉϾΛΓΙ ΘΤ ΗΤ ΌΉΏφΐ΅Θ΅ ·ΉΑνΗΌ΅΍а ΓЁΈξ ·ΤΕ ΔΣΑΘΝΖ ΗΙΐΚΝΑΓІΗ΍ ΘХ ΌΉΏφΐ΅Θ΍ ΘΓІ ̋ΉΓІ, ΦΏΏΤ ΐκΏΏΓΑ Ύ΅ΌАΖ πΈ΍ΈΣΛΌ΋Ζ ΔΕΓΗΉϾΛΓΙ, Ών·ΝΑа ̆ΉΑ΋ΌφΘУ Θϲ ΌνΏ΋ΐΣ ΗΓΙ πΑ πΐΓϟ). (31) On the “crossover” from the former level to the laĴ er, prayer func- tions as a mediator between psychic and pneumatic state-of-being (A.22, Bed- jan 163–175). (32) See A. 22 (Bedjan 170). (33) On this interruption of prayer see E. Khalifé-Hachem, La prière pure et la prière spirituelle selon Isaac de Ninive, in: Mémorial Mgr. Khouri-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access 282 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis

In conclusion, one could say that it is this utmost divine self-rev- elation enacted by the Holy Spirit, superior to the creaturely capac- ity of expression represented by human language, which constitutes the theological basis of Isaac’s positions concerning the validity and bearing of canonically prescribed liturgical prayer, and its limits. This “possible” experience of an utmost “knowledge” above language, which interrupts in its coming all verbally structured prayer, relativ- izes all verbally structured forms of prayer — inasmuch as it makes their “meaningfulness” dependent on itself, being itself their fi nal goal and fulfi llment. The possibility of interrupting liturgical prayer already on the “lower” level of a still verbally structured and consciously guided theoria, as well as the “freedom” to improvise personal prayers in- spired by the traditional ones (Psalms a.s.o.) already before reaching this lower level of theoria and, further, the hermit’s “right” to defi ne his own liturgical order according to the “law of freedom” — i.e., all of Isaac’s liberal positions concerning the concrete character of the obedience a monk owes to the canonically prescribed liturgical or- der — derive lastly from this ultimate experience. The laĴ er justifi es them as necessities inherent in the way that leads to itself, namely in the ascetical way of increasingly internalized prayer cracking the nutshell of words.

Sarkis (Louvain, 1969) 157–173, esp. 163 (identifi cation of interrupted prayer with the life of the new world); cf. L. Abramowski, „Der Stupor, der das Gebet unterbricht“ — Evagrius, Cent. Suppl. 30, in Übersetzung, Original (?) und Interpretation, in: M. Tamcke, A. Heinz (eds.), Zu Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirche (…Vorträge des deutschen Syrologen-Sym- posiums vom 2–4 Oktober in Hermannsburg) (Hamburg, 2000) 15–32, esp. 25–28; R. Beulay, L‘enseignement spirituelle de Jean de Dalyatha. Mystique Syro-oriental du VIIIe siècle (Paris, 1990) 217 (on the same teaching in and ).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access Nestor Kavvadas 283

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

An mehreren Stellen seiner SchriĞ en zieht Isaak von Ninive der Verbindlichkeit kirchenrechtlicher liturgischer VorschriĞ en für das Ge- bet des Einsiedlers klare Grenzen, indem er Letzterem weitgehende Frei- heiten bei der Gestaltung des eigenen liturgischen ordo einräumt. Diese Freiheiten reichen bis zur völligen, wenn auch vorläufi gen, Entbindung von der Observanzpfl icht beim Eintreten der „Theoria“ oder der Oě en- barung des Geistes. Hinter dieser nicht unumstriĴ enen These steckt eine explizite gebetstheologische Begründung, die ihrerseits, wie dieser Ar- tikel erweisen will, auf der Grundlage einer tiefergehenden theologischen Gnoseologie der Sprache steht. Diese verbindet in sich die grundsätzliche Verneinung der Möglichkeit der Erlangung der höchsten einem Men- schen miĴ eilbaren GoĴ eserkenntnis (und somit eines der Wahrheit GoĴ es genau entsprechenden Gebets) durch das medium geschöpfl icher Ver- nunĞ , die ihrem Wesen nach sprachlich verfasst ist, mit einer nachdrückli- chen Bejahung der goĴ geschenkten Möglichkeit einer über VernunĞ und Sprache erhabenen Erkenntnis GoĴ es und eines ihr zugeordneten „Ge- bets“, welches jenseits der natürlichen Möglichkeiten des sprechenden Menschen angesiedelt ist

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 07:19:05PM via free access