Johannes Zachhuber John of Damascus in the Summa Halensis The UseofGreek Patristic Thought in the Treatment of the Incarnation Abstract: This chapter examines the quotations from John of Damascus’ De fide or- thodoxa contained in the Summa Halensis,specificallyinits section on the assump- tion of human nature in the Incarnation. Starting from contextual observations,the paper moves, in afirst step, to an analysis of citations from the Damascene in Peter Lombard’s Sentences. The authoritative role of the latter writing meantthat its often idiosyncratic use of the Damascene was passed on to later scholastics,such as the authorsofthe Summa. Adetailedconsideration of tenquotations from the Damas- cene in the Summa,which makes up the second part of the paper,reveals acomplex pattern of reception. Passages from De fide orthodoxa wereoftentaken out of con- text,truncated, or both, in order to serveasbuilding blocks in the Summa’sown, di- alectical presentation of atheological topic. In conclusion, the paper cautions against the conventional assumption equatingthe number of references to an au- thority in the Summa with theirconceptual influence. The reader of the Summa Halensis is not onlyconfronted with the extraordinary quantity of its literary achievement.Equallyintimidatingisthe number of references made in this work of the earlyFranciscan school to avast number of authorities: pagan, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian authors from antiquity up until their own time are cited, often with precise or seemingly precise references to the passages from which these citations have been taken. Among this huge number of intertextual references, quotations from the 8th-century Greek-Arabic theologian John of Damas- cus make up anot inconsiderable part.Accordingtothe comprehensive index of ci- tations which the Quaracchi editors of the Summa have prepared, there is atotal of 591 references to the work of the Damascene.¹ Almost all of them are taken from one book, his ῎Εκδοσις ἀκριβὴςτῆςὀρθοδόξου πίστεως.² This summary of Greek Patristic theologyhad been translated into Latin underthe title De fide orthodoxa by Burgun- dio of Pisa in the mid 12th century.³ Itsimpact on Western scholasticism was nearly Doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de HalesOrdinis minorum Summa theologica: Indices in tom. I-IV (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1979), 148 – 50. John of Damascus, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos,vol. 2, Expositio Fidei,ed. Bonifatius Kotter (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1973). Saint John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa:Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus,ed. Eligius M. Buy- taert (StBonaventure, NY:FranciscanInstitute, 1955). In what follows,Iuse this title to refer to both the Greek and the Latin versions of John’streatise. OpenAccess. ©2020 Lydia Schumacher,published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685022-008 92 Johannes Zachhuber immediate not least because Peter Lombardmade heavy use of this work in his four books of Sentences,awork of unrivalled influenceinsubsequent centuries. It is immediatelyevident that both the Lombardand 13th-centurywriters,such as the author of the Summa Halensis,considered John agreat authority.His work is cited alongside the most respected Patristic and medieval authorities, such as Augus- tine or Anselm of Canterbury even though these two thinkers and Augustine especial- ly,admittedly, outrank the Greek theologian. Yethow influential was the Damascene on doctrinal and conceptual developments during this period?This question is much more difficult to answer than might first appear from the massive numberofquota- tions from his work that wereincorporated into the writingsofhis medievalreaders. Part of the reason for this lies in the particularcitation technique employed by early scholastic authors in which it is often far from evident what the function of apartic- ular authoritative quotation is within agiven argument. One waytoaddress this difficulty is to paycloser attention to individual referen- ces within their context.What is quoted? Are quotations faithful to their original con- text (and indeed their original text,asfar as we can make it out)? How are the quoted texts used in their new textual environment?Mychapter will contributetothis study which, as far as Ican see, has not so far been extensively undertaken, certainlynot for the quotations in the Summa Halensis. Forpractical reasons,Icould onlyanalyse asmall selection of citations. It is thus inevitable that more general conclusions can onlybedrawn with caution. YetIhope thatthe tendencies emerging from my re- search maynonetheless be enlightening. As the basisfor my investigation, Ihavechosen the section in Part 3ofthe Summa which deals with the Incarnation. More specifically, Ihavefocussedon those passages in which the Franciscan author dealswith the notoriouslydifficult problem of Christ’sassumption of human nature and the character of the ensuing divine-human union. There are obvious reasons for this selection. These problems wereatthe heart of Eastern doctrinal debate and development between the 5th and the 8th centuries.⁴ John of Damascus’ magnum opus offers an excellent summary of the systematic outcome of these debates, at least on the Chalcedonian side. In the Latin West,Christology emergedasamajor doctrinal problem duringthe 12th centu- ry.⁵ The amount of sophisticated Christological literature that existed in Latin up until that point which could be utilised in the ensuing discussions waslimited.⁶ Nat- Andrew Louth, ‘Christology in the East from the Council of Chalcedon to John of Damascus,’ in The OxfordHandbookofChristology,ed. Francesca Murphy(Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2015), 139–53. LaugeOlaf Nielsen, Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century:AStudy of Gilbert of Porreta’s Thinking and the TheologicalExpositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130– 1180 (Leiden: Brill, 1982),193 – 361. The Christological controversy of the first millennium was essentiallyanEastern affair in which some Latin theologians participated. Most of the latter,however,were thinkers with deep rootsin the Greek intellectual tradition, such as Boethius or Facundus of Hermiane. John of Damascusinthe SummaHalensis 93 urally, Latin Patristic authorities, such as Augustine or Leothe Great,could be relied on to emphasise the fundamentals of orthodoxChristology,but Western authors were to discover what their Greek counterparts had painfullyfound out half amillennium before, namely, that agreement on the full divinity and humanity of the saviour, to- gether with acommitment to his personal unity,onlyservedtodefine the terms on which aChristological conflict could be foughtbut did little to settle it. It is therefore prima facie unsurprising thatearlymedieval Western thinkers soughtout the support of Greek fathersand especiallythat of Damascus’ systematic presentation of the laterChalcedonian settlement.Atthe same time, anyattempt to determine the potential influenceofthe Damascene on the Summa Halensis must start from the acknowledgement that such an attempt at appropriation faced consid- erable hermeneutical difficulties.What Imean is thatthe questions to which John of Damascus’ clarifications sought to provide answers were in some ways rather differ- ent from the questions that shaped earlymedieval debates about Christology in the Latin West.Let me therefore begin by sketching more generally—and inevitablywith abroad brush—the background to the Christological synthesisthe medieval Latin thinkers wereencountering in John of Damascus. Iwill then proceed to offer some observations on the integration of extracts from John’sgreat work in the most influ- ential theological treatise of the period, that is, Peter Lombard’s Sentences, before moving on to consider the quotations found in my selections from the Summa Halen- sis. The Background: Greek Patristic Christologyatthe End of the PatristicEra The formula adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451always appearedtoWestern Christians as the perfect,Solomonic judgment in an obviouslysubtle and complex doctrinal conflict.⁷ By asserting the dualityofperfect divinity and perfect humanity, the consubstantiality of Christ with humankind insofar as he was human, and the unity of his personal individuality,the Councilseemed to have hit on doctrinal truth in away that appeared intuitively obvious to manyormost.That this solution was credited to the benign, yetpowerful influenceofthe Roman pontiff arguably added to the synod’sreputation for exercisingsuperior wisdom in adjudicatingthe doctrinal conflict at hand.⁸ Cf. the formula of ‘four gospels and four councils’ popularised by Gregory the Great (Epistola 1.24: PL 77:478 A). The enthusiasticacclamation of Leo’s Tome at the Council reached its climax in the words, ‘Peter has spoken this through Leo’ (Πέτρος διὰ Λέοντος ταῦτα ἐξεφώνησεν): Acta Conciliorum Oecumeni- corum,ed. EduardSchwartz, vol. 2/1/2(Berlin/Leipzig:deGruyter, 1933), 81,23–31. 94 Johannes Zachhuber It was quite otherwise in the East wherethe formula adopted by the Councilin- tuitively appeared implausible, even absurd, and certainlywrongtoalarge number of believers as well as to the most educated theological thinkers.⁹ It is always worth rememberingthe rather extraordinary fact that this state-sponsored synod did not have anyfirst-rate theological support in the East for more than half acentury. This changed from the ageofJustinian, and the 6th century alreadytestifies