The letter’s title, as transmitted in the manuscripts, informs us that Palamas wrote this letter in Thessaloniki and sent it from there to his fellow Akindynos who must have been in Constantinople at that time.
All information in brackets in the English summary of the two letter versions are additions serving a better understanding of the contents but do not appear in the Greek text.
Contents of Version A (paragraphs according to Monac. graec. 223)
(A. Address)
1) Palamas opens his letter with a brief compliment to Akindynos regarding his commitment to truth.
(B. Barlaam’s accusations against Palamas)
(a. Ditheism/polytheism)
2) Taking up Barlaam’s accusations of ditheism against him, Palamas compares himself to (Saint) Basil the Great who had been accused of tritheism by his opponents (in the fourth century). Such accusations, he argues, are the best proof for the piety of the accused and the impiety of the accuser. 3) If Barlaam calls Palamas a polytheist when he, Palamas, claims that the one God is many things in the energies, Barlaam obviously believes in some powerless or even non-existent god since no energy means no existence. Barlaam actually denies the existence of God in his innermost beliefs.
(b. Uncreated energies)
4) God has energies, but created energies, Barlaam states. In his opinion, each energy of God is created, except the essence itself creating everything. For Palamas, this is an impiety because it means that either God has no natural or essential energies, which is an impiety in itself, or that, if he has natural and essential but created energies, his essence must be created, too. Palamas illustrates this conclusion with a saying by Maximus the Confessor.
(C. Palamas’ theological objections)
(a. Subordinate and superior divinity)
5) In his second letter to Gaius, (Pseudo-)Dionysius (the Areopagite) showed clearly that the deifying gift of the spirit is called divinity and that God is above this divinity, as Palamas continues. There is therefore, according to the divinely wise theologians, a subordinate divinity which is a gift of the superior (divinity). The deifying gift of God is his energy. The energies of the divine are uncreated, even if most of their effects are created. Therefore, the deifying grace of the all-holy spirit is an uncreated divinity according to the divinely wise theologians.
(b. Grace is uncreated)
6) For this reason, Basil the Great said: “God abundantly poured out the Holy Ghost over us through Jesus Christ.” He poured out the deifying grace, of course, and not the essence of the spirit, as John Chrysostom already declared, Palamas clarifies. And this grace is uncreated, 7) as also is the effect of this kind of God’s energy. In the same way, Paul and Melchisedek became beings without beginning and without end by grace, 8) thus becoming uncreated by grace. Palamas exemplifies this thought with a quote by Basil the Great.
(c. Uncreated by nature or by grace)
9) Palamas wonders how anyone could agree that there is only one uncreated thing, except if specified ‘uncreated by nature’, since there are also beings and gods uncreated by grace which itself is uncreated. He recommends Akindynos to let Barlaam predicate that this grace is natural imitation. 10) At the same time, he asks Akindynos to safeguard the beautiful legacy of the Fathers which states that this grace is uncreated.
11) The question is whether grace is uncreated by grace or by nature. But nature does not belong to grace – grace belongs to nature, 12) as well as energy belongs to nature. 13) If somebody claimed that only God is uncreated by nature, he similarly includes all his natural energies. If someone were to ask how grace is uncreated, the answer would be: as energy of God’s nature. Barlaam, this blockhead, insisting upon the misbelief that the divine energies are created, does not want to admit that God is uncreated by nature since this would mean that the energies of God’s nature were uncreated as well. 14) Hence Barlaam dropped the addition ‘by nature’ and proclaims (only) one uncreated divinity.
Contents of Version B (paragraphs according to Meyendorff’s edition)
(I. Doctrinal Part)
(A. Barlaam’s accusations against Palamas)
(a. Ditheism/polytheism)
(1) Taking up Barlaam’s accusations of ditheism against him, Palamas compares himself to (Saint) Basil the Great who had been accused of tritheism by his opponents (in the fourth century). Such accusations, he argues, are the best proof for the piety of the accused and the impiety of the accuser. Other examples were (Saint) Gregory (of Nazianzus), called the Theologian, accused of ditheism, and (Saint) Maximus the Confessor accused of ditheism and polytheism. Palamas also faces such accusations accordingly. (2) But they also unmask their accusers’ false doctrines. This is happening with those who unlawfully divided the one deity into created and uncreated, saying that everything uncreated is undifferentiated from the divine essence and every energy is created. Whereas Palamas said that God is uncreated in energy and, as the almighty God, is many things in the energies but one in essence. He explains this with a saying by Maximus the Confessor that God remains beyond recognition in essence, but is recognizable in his energies or, in John Chrysostom’s words, in everything around essence.
(b. Uncreated energies)
(3) If Barlaam calls Palamas a ditheist when he, Palamas, expresses his beliefs with due regard to the Church Fathers, Barlaam obviously believes in some powerless god since he cannot call God effective. For to be effective causes energy and to be existent requires existence, as Maximus affirmed. However, Barlaam cannot call God uncreated either, because uncreated nature is characterized by uncreated energy according to Maximus. How should we know of an uncreated nature that is incomprehensible per se if we could not perceive the things around it, to which also belong its power and energy, according to Athanasios the Great? No energy means no existence.
(4) Barlaam actually denies the existence of God in his innermost beliefs. God has energies, but created energies, Barlaam declares, since each energy of God is created, except the essence itself creating everything. For Palamas this is a godless and complete impiety because it means that either God has no natural and essential energies, which is an impiety in itself, or, if he does in fact possess natural and essential but created energies, his essence must be created, too. This would mean that also divine providence, contemplative power and God’s splendour on Mount Tabor would be creations, if only the divine nature and essence are uncreated.
(B. Palamas’ theological objections)
(a. Divine nature and divine essence)
(5) Providence is God’s relation to what he cares for, contemplative power is relation to what is seen, and splendour is relation to what appears divinely splendid. But divine nature is not relation, it is separate from everything and exalted above all. Palamas explains why contemplative power, divine providence and God’s splendour, which all allow participation, as various quotes from Church Fathers and the Bible prove, are nevertheless created in Barlaam’s eyes. He states that for Barlaam, only divine essence – which Palamas equates with divine nature – is uncreated light and beyond participation. Consequently, in Barlaam’s thinking, even the most divine light would be created since it can be named whereas divine nature is beyond any name.
(b. Subordinate and superior divinity I)
(6) To Palamas’ annoyance, Barlaam continues to proclaim that the most divine light and every energy are created. He accuses Barlaam of taking sayings from Church Fathers, used by Palamas as objections to Barlaam’s views, and of constructing the subordinate and superior divinity against him, Palamas, by these means. Barlaam tries to warn and protect others of this ditheism, but does not understand that there would not be even one divinity if the divine light and every energy were created, therefore if nature’s energy is created, nature itself is also created.
(c. The one and simple God)
(7) Uncreated and created cannot merge into one divinity, Palamas continues. However, in uncreated essence, natural power, splendour, and energy, the divinity is one, is a unity, identity, and simplicity, even if there is cause and caused, something allowing participation and something not allowing participation, superior and subordinate. (8) The Father is greater than the Son through causality, and the Spirit is inferior to the Son in rank, but they are all identical in nature and one divinity. Neither are essence, will, power, and energy undifferentiated from each other – they are the one divinity –, nor do they interfere with God’s unity. (9) Palamas quotes Athanasius for whom they are “around essence”, “wholeness and abundance of divinity”. Those who declare God’s essence to be the only uncreated divinity abolish the divinity. Likewise do those who declare essence, power, will and uncreated energy to be undifferentiated. And those who declare only essence to be uncreated, but power, will and energy to be created, split the one divinity into two parts. Instead, Palamas concludes, true believers should accept the absolute transcendence of the divine essence, as well as the uncreated divine energies which differentiate from essence but do not disturb God’s unity.
(10) In Palamas’ opinion, this absolute transcendence of the uncreated essence towards the uncreated energy was best explained by (Pseudo-)Dionysius (the Areopagite). Palamas provides two quotes from Dionysius’ Divine Names, which he also cites in the following chapters.
(d. Uncreated energies and essence)
(11) Providence is uncreated as well. It is a divinity and is not apart from the one God. (12) Providence is clearly a part of God’s essence. Therefore, providence is nothing other than God’s energy, which however differs from God’s essence. (13) Providence is also participation, as confirmed by Dionysius. Are participations created because the impartial creator is superior to them? How can something be created which does not exist through participation and which is superior to everything participating? With these rhetorical questions, Palamas implies that participations cannot possibly be created.
(14) Nonetheless, Dionysius proves through all his work that none of these divine and uncreated energies are essence and that God is different from and superior to the divine energies. In his second letter to Gaius, Dionysius answers Gaius’ question, how the one who is above all is also able to be above the origin of what is divine and good.
(e. Subordinate and superior divinity II)
(15) There is therefore, according to the divinely wise theologians, a subordinate divinity, as Dionysius also mentioned there (scil. in the Divine Names), the deification, which is a gift of God’s superior essence. Palamas therefore regards Barlaam’s accusations of ditheism and his claim that this divine gift is created as vain and slanderous. The deifying gift of God is his energy, which Dionysius and all the other theologians often call divinity. God’s power and energies are uncreated. Therefore, God’s deifying grace is an uncreated divinity according to the divinely wise theologians.
(f. Grace is uncreated)
(16) Palamas cites several Church Fathers in order to demonstrate that the deifying grace, the deification itself, is uncreated, among others Basil the Great, stating: “God abundantly poured out the Holy Ghost over us through Jesus Christ.” He poured out the deifying grace, of course, and not the essence of the Spirit, as John Chrysostom already established, Palamas clarifies. And this grace is uncreated, as is also obviously its effect. In the same way Paul and Melchisedek became beings without beginning and without end by grace, becoming uncreated by grace. (17) Palamas exemplifies this thought with quotes by Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Grace itself is not uncreated by grace, but truly uncreated. He recommends Akindynos to let Barlaam predicate that this grace is natural imitation. Palamas reinforces this conclusion with a quote by Maximus, and asks Akindynos to safeguard the beautiful legacy of the Fathers which states that the divine grace is uncreated. If somebody claimed that only God is uncreated by nature, he similarly includes all his natural energies.
(18) Barlaam, this blockhead, insists upon the misbelief that the divine energies are created and cunningly proclaims divine nature to be the only uncreated divinity, in order to persuade those who are not familiar with holy scriptures, by declaring the divine energies to be uncreated and, most of all, by evilly ripping apart the deifying grace of the all-holy spirit from that superessential nature.
(II. Narrative Part)
(A. Palamas’ explicit warning to Barlaam)
Palamas recounts that Barlaam’s cunning did not remain secret to him. He cited him to show up in front of a group (of clerics?) where Barlaam did not dare to protest at all. Palamas forgives Barlaam for now slandering him.
(19) After his departure to the Holy Mountain where he composed the (Hagioretic) Tomos which was signed by the most important clerics, Palamas wanted to set off for Constantinople. But before that, having pity with Barlaam, he suggested to him simply to stop declaring the (hesychast) monks heretics and thus to settle the dispute agreeably. Barlaam agreed and even promised Palamas – in the presence of the Great Governor, who had joined Palamas deliberately for this meeting – to modify his writings against the monks and have them approved by Palamas. But Barlaam did not keep his word and wrote what is now available to Palamas and Akindynos. Barlaam now openly attacks Palamas.
(B. Palamas’ imminent arrival in Constantinople)
(20) Palamas asks Akindynos to stop Barlaam from escaping should he know that Palamas is about to arrive (in Constantinople) together with the emperor (Andronikos III). Palamas also utters his amazement about how Barlaam deceived Akindynos and contrived the charge of ditheism, explaining that from the very start Barlaam kept saying that if anyone claimed to have seen God in a light, there must be two gods and divinities, one visible and one invisible, one subordinate and one superior.
(C. Palamas’ implicit warning to Barlaam)
(21) Palamas would be happy to see errors of his ways if someone is able to prove that he, Palamas, is introducing something new which is inconsistent with the traditions. He is even willing to bear wrong accusations, but in such a case will not refrain from resisting the opponent in defense of the saints, for Barlaam’s accusations are actually against them. Everybody should therefore beware of Barlaam’s attacks.