37

while the form remained, but the divinity showed its rays»˙ And Dionysius the Great will completely shut their mouths, clearly calling it a theophany and a vision of God, and also Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, saying, «the divinity shown on the mountain to the disciples was light», and with many others also Symeon, who adorned with eloquence the lives of almost all the saints, writing that the theologian uniquely beloved by Christ saw on the mountain «the very divinity of the Word laid bare». If, in harmony with the truth and the prophets of the truth, they call that light which was seen a divine light and the light of God, they will of necessity confess that the most perfect vision of God is light. For this reason Moses also saw him thus, and almost every one of all the prophets, and especially those to whom he appeared in a waking state and not in a dream. Nevertheless, let all their sacred visions be symbolic and of such a kind as those who contradict us would wish; but the vision revealed to the apostles on (p. 206) Tabor was not such a symbolic light, that comes into being and passes away; for it has the dignity of the future second Coming of Christ, and this very thing, shining around, will be eternally with the worthy throughout the unending age, as the divine Dionysius said, for which reason also Basil the Great has called this a prelude of that, and the Lord in the gospels calls this the kingdom of God.

Why then do they accuse those who say that the saints ineffably see God as light, if the vision of him is as light both now and in the age to come? Is it because they say this is not sensible, but intelligible, as Solomon also calls the Holy Spirit? And yet they are the ones who slanderously claim such people see a sensible light during prayer, and who accuse all those who say that any of the divine gifts are sensible. How then, forgetting themselves, do they think that those who say the divine light is not sensible are worthy of being accused? Do you see their instability and how they are easily trapped? For they are, as it seems, clever at speaking evil, but not at perceiving anything good. But nevertheless, let the precise interpreters of the ancient and common manifestation of light say this: if an irrational animal had happened to be present then on the mountain, would it have perceived that radiance that outshone the sun? I think not; for it is not written that the flocks perceived the glory of the Lord that shone around the shepherds at the birth of Christ. How then is it a sensible light which is not seen by the eyes of irrational animals that see sensible things, when it is present and shining upon their open eyes? And if it was seen by human sensible eyes, then they saw it in that respect in which they differ from the sight of irrational animals. What is this then? What else but the mind seeing through human eyes? If not by the sensitive power, for then perhaps the irrational animals would also have seen, but by the intellectual power that perceives through the senses (p. 208), or rather, not even by this, for then every eye would have seen it shine brighter than the sun, especially those nearby. If then they did not see that light properly even by this power, then this light is not properly sensible either. And yet nothing sensible is eternal; but the light of the divinity, which is in many places also called the glory of God, is both pre-eternal and unending. Therefore, it is not sensible.

But if it is not sensible, even if the apostles were deemed worthy to receive it with the eye, it was by some other power, and not by the sensitive one; for which reason also all the theologians call the brightness of Jesus’ face ineffable and unapproachable and timeless, as being something ineffable, but not properly sensible, just as also the light, which is the place of the saints after their departure from here according to the lots in heaven, where the light is, of which this brightness was a prelude and has been given here to the saints as a pledge. For even if all these things are called by the name of light and seem to the senses

37

μένοντος ἐπί τοῦ σχήματος, τῆς δέ θεότητος παραδειξάσης τάς ἀκτῖνας αὐτῆς»˙ ἐμφράξει δέ αὐτῶν τελέως τά στόματα ∆ιονύσιος ὁ μέγας, θεοφάνειαν αὐτό καί θεοπτίαν σαφῶς ἀποκαλῶν, πρός δέ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος, «φῶς» λέγων «ἡ παραδειχθεῖσα θεότης ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους τοῖς μαθηταῖς», σύν πολλοῖς δέ ἑτέροις καί Συμεών, ὁ τάς πολιτείας πάντως σχεδόν ἁγίων καλλιπείᾳ κοσμήσας, γράφων τόν διαφερόντως ἠγαπημένον τῷ Χριστῷ θεολόγον «αὐτήν τήν τοῦ λόγου θεότητα παραγυμνωθεῖσαν» ἐπ᾿ ὄρους «ἰδεῖν». Εἰ δέ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καί τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας ὑποφήταις συνῳδά θεῖον καί Θεοῦ φῶς προσαγορεύουσι τό ὀφθέν ἐκεῖνο φῶς, συνομολογήσουσιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὡς φῶς εἶναι τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ τελεωτάτην θέαν. ∆ιό καί Μωϋσῆς οὕτως ἑώρακεν αὐτόν καί μικροῦ τῶν προφητῶν ἁπάντων ἕκαστος, καί μάλιστα οἷς ὕπαρ ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ὄναρ ὤφθη. Συμβολικά δ᾿ ὅμως ἅπαντ᾿ ἔστω τά ἱερά θεάματα ἐκείνων καί τοιαῦτα οἷά περ βούλοιντ᾿ ἄν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἡμῖν˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἡ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἐν (σελ. 206) Θαβώρ ἀποκαλυφθεῖσα ὄψις τοιοῦτο συμβολικόν ὑπῆρχε φῶς, ὡς γίνεσθαι καί ἀπογίνεσθαι˙ τῆς γάρ μελλούσης δευτέρας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Παρουσίας ἔχει τό ἀξίωμα καί τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό περιαυγάζον διηνεκῶς ἔσται τούς ἀξίους κατά τόν ἄληκτον αἰῶνα, ὡς ὁ θεσπέσιος ἔφη ∆ιονύσιος, διό καί προοίμιον ἐκείνης ταύτην ὁ μέγας εἴρηκε Βασίλειος, ὁ δέ Κύριος βασιλείαν ταύτην ἐν εὐαγγελίοις ὀνομάζει τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Τί τοίνυν ἐγκαλοῦσι τοῖς λέγουσιν ὅτι ὡς φῶς ἀπορρήτως ὁρῶσι τόν Θεόν οἱ ἅγιοι, εἰ ὡς φῶς ἡ θέα αὐτοῦ καί νῦν κἄν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι; Ἆρ᾿ ὅτι μή αἰσθητόν τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ἀλλά νοερόν, ὡς καί Σολομών τό ἅγιον ὀνομάζει Πνεῦμα; Καί μήν αὐτοί εἰσιν οἱ συκοφαντοῦντες λέγειν τούς τοιούτους αἰσθητόν φῶς κατά τήν προσευχήν θεᾶσθαι καί κατηγοροῦντες πάντων τῶν αἰσθητῶν τι τῶν θείων λεγόντων χαρισμάτων. Πῶς οὖν, ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλαθόμενοι, τούς μή αἰσθητόν τό φῶς τό θεῖον λέγοντας κατηγορεῖσθαι οἴονται ἀξίους; Ὁρᾷς τό ἀβέβαιον καί εὐπερίστατον αὐτῶν; ∆εινοί γάρ εἰσιν ὡς ἔοικε κακῶς λέγειν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καλόν τι συνορᾶν. Οὐ μήν ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ εἰπόντων οἱ τῆς παλαιᾶς καί κοινῆς φωτοφανείας ἀκριβεῖς ἐξηγηταί, εἰ ζῶον ἄλογον ἐτύγχανε τότε παρόν ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους, ἆρ᾿ ἄν ἤσθετο τοῦ τόν ἥλιον ὑπερλάμψαντος ἐκείνου φέγγους; Οὐκ ἔγωγε οἶμαι˙ καί γάρ οὐδέ τῆς περιλαμψάσης δόξης Κυρίου τούς ποιμένας ἐπί τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεννήσει αἰσθέσθαι γέγραπται τά ποίμνια. Πῶς τοίνυν αἰσθητόν φῶς ὅ τοῖς τά αἰσθητά ὁρῶσι τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων οὐχ ὁρᾶται ὄμμασι, παροῦσι καί ἀνεῳγμένους ἐπιλάμπον; Εἰ δέ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις αἰσθητοῖς ὄμμασιν ὡράθη, κατά τοῦτ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἑωράκασιν αὐτό, καθ᾿ ὅ τῶν ἀλόγων ὄψεων διενηνόχασι. Τί δή τοῦτό ἐστι; Τί γε ἄλλο ἤ τό δι᾿ ἀνθρωπίνων ὄψεων τον νοῦν ὁρᾶν; Εἰ δέ μή τῇ αἰσθητικῇ δυνάμει, τάχα γάρ ἄν καί τά ἄλογα ἑώρων, ἀλλά τῇ διά τῆς αἰσθήσεως (σελ. 208) ἀντιλαμβανομένῃ νοητικῇ δυνάμει, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ ταύτῃ, πᾶς γάρ ἄν εἶδεν ὀφθαλμός, μάλιστα οἱ πλησιόχωροι, λάμψαν ὑπέρ ἥλιον. Εἰ τοίνυν μηδέ ταύτῃ κυρίως τό φῶς ἐκεῖνο εἶδον, οὐκ ἄρ᾿ οὐδέ τό φῶς τοῦτο κυρίως αἰσθητόν. Καί μήν οὐδέν αἰσθητόν ἀΐδιον˙ τό δέ τῆς θεότητος φῶς, ὅ καί δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ καλεῖται πολλαχοῦ, προαιώνιόν τε καί ἀτελεύτητόν ἐστιν. Οὐκ ἄρα αἰσθητόν.

Εἰ δέ μή αἰσθητόν, εἰ καί ὀφθαλμός λαβεῖν αὐτό οἱ ἀπόστολοι κατηξιώθησαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρᾳ τινί δυνάμει, καί οὐχί τῇ αἰσθητικῇ˙ διό καί τήν λαμπρότητα τοῦ προσώπου Ἰησοῦ ἄρρητον καί ἀπρόσιτον καί ἄχρονον οἱ θεολόγοι πάντες λέγουσιν, ὡς ἀπόρρητόν τι οὖσαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αἰσθητήν κυρίως, ὥσπερ καί τό φῶς, ὁ καί τῶν ἁγίων ἐστί τόπος μετά τήν ἐνθένδε ἐκδημίαν κατά τάς ἐν οὐρανῷ λήξεις, ὅπου τό φῶς, οὗ καί προοίμιον αὕτη ἡ λαμπρότης ἦν καί ἐν ἀρραβῶνος μέρει τοῖς ἁγίοις δέδοται ἐνταῦθα. Εἰ γάρ καί φωτωνυμικῶς καλεῖται ταῦτα πάντα καί δοκεῖ αἰσθήσει