International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Neacșu Ovidiu-Mihai
Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Justinian the Patriarch”, Bucharest, Romania; 
[e-mail]
Τὸ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς (Rom 8:6) – A Neptic Perspective
The issue related to the Pauline expression ’’Τὸ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς” has received sufficient 
attention in the academic biblical theology, for this reason, in this study, I have analysed the said 
expression with deep theological meanings within the neptic tradition. I have approached the 
text from a neptic anthropological perspective in parallel to the biblical-exegetical perspective. I 
have looked deeper in the historical context of the expression and have delimited the expression 
conceptually, by relation to other synonym or antonym expressions that may bring useful 
hermeneutical solutions. The study has focused on the methodological differences of interpretation 
of the Pauline text. Considering the neptic tradition as a very complex and unitary experimental 
literature corpus, I have highlighted the experiential support of the approaching differences as well 
as the consequences of a literal interpretation. I have mentioned some abstracts from Philokalia in 
order to outline the view of the Neptic Fathers. Based on the neptic experience, the study proposes 
an anthropological interpretation of the expression which implies a specific reading of the Pauline 
text. Finally, I have drawn some conclusions based on the anthropological interpretation of the 
Pauline text, mainly underlining the gap between the scholar exegetical approach of the biblical text 
and the neptic empirical experience hereof.
Marius Portaru
Patristic Institute Augustinianum, Rome, Italy; 
[e-mail]
Divine Paradigms and Divine Activities in Gregory Palamas
In a previous study, entitled A Reconsideration of the Relationship between Logoi and Divine 
Activities in Maximus the Confessor (forthcoming), I tried to argue that Maximus’ ontology contains 
a clear-cut distinction between divine logoi and divine activities and a rather implicit conception of 
their relationship. Previous confusions with regard to their distinction and relationship in Maximus 
were due to a reading influenced by some Palamite theologians, such as Vl. Lossky and J. Meyendorff. 
For instance, Meyendorff writes sketchily in his 1959 seminal book on Palamas that ‘Ces énergies 
incréées et éternelles sont pour lui [= for Palamas] des pensées de Dieu [= logoi]’.

---

459
In the present study, I argue instead that Gregory Palamas has acknowledged clearly enough 
the distinction between divine logoi or paradigms and divine activities in the first systematic 
formulation of his theology in the third Triad. My next step is to see whether he abandons or 
develops this distinction during his long polemics with Gregory Akindynos (1341-1347). Finally, I 
analyse to what extent Palamas’ conception is dependent on Maximus’, and what has been gain and 
lost theologically.