HeyJ XLII (2001), pp.

112

WHEREOF WE SPEAK: GREGORY OF NYSSA, JEAN-LUC MARION AND THE CURRENT APOPHATIC RAGE
MARTIN LAIRD

Villanova University, Pennsylvania, USA

Recent discussions of the possible relevance of the Christian apophatic tradition to postmodern theological concerns have become something of a commonplace. We are all apophatic theologians, says Denys Turner with restrained cheek.1 Many of these discussions have drawn inspiration from the work of Jacques Derrida, who himself, while genuinely intrigued by Christian apophaticism, has not been without critical reserve. Provocative, even profitable, as many of these discussions have been, however,2 the parameters of the debate have served ironically to obscure a deeper and crucial dimension of Christian apophasis. The oversight is not insignificant; what has been overlooked is precisely that dimension of Christian apophaticism which overcomes the deconstructionist critique of the same. The problem can be stated as follows. Deconstructionism has queried whether indeed Christian apophaticism does not, after all its negations, fall back into kataphatic affirmation and into the dreaded ontotheology. Is there not, as Derrida has put it, a trace of hyperessentiality?3 Is not the modality of apophasis despite its negative or interrogative value, that of the statement?4 Is not Christian apophaticism ultimately trying to make some affirmation? Responses to Derrida by those who would defend Christian apophaticism from ontotheology have been neither fainthearted nor imperceptive.5 However, the debate, whether critical or appreciative, has focused almost exclusively on the kataphasisapophasis dialectic.6 It is precisely this narrow focus which has prevented the postmodern gaze from seeing a variegated apophaticism that evinces its own proper discourse, a discourse that is neither kataphatic nor slips into ontotheology. The purpose of this article, then, is to broaden the horizon of discussion by exposing a discourse proper to apophasis that indeed is not kataphasis but logophasis, a neologism which I shall explain in due course. To reveal this logophatic dimension of Christian apophasis I shall look at two
The Editor/Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK and Boston, USA.

2 MARTIN LAIRD apophatic theologians, one patristic, the other postmodern, both of whose apophaticism is well acknowledged, namely, the fourth-century Cappadocian, Gregory of Nyssa and the French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion. The advantage of bringing into concert these two thinkers will be seen in the fact that both evince a thoroughgoing apophaticism that reveals a transformation opening onto a discourse neither kataphatic nor apophatic, a discourse that does not maintain a residue of hyperessentialism or transmute its negations into an affirmation.
I. A GARDEN OF WORDS: LOGOPHATIC APOPHATICISM IN GREGORY OF NYSSA

Whether for his tenacious confrontation with Eunomius in the watershed Against Eunomius or for the celebrated luminous darkness, which became his apophatic signature in the Life of Moses and the Homilies on the Song of Songs, Gregory of Nyssas seminal contribution to the development of the Christian apophatic tradition has long been acknowledged.7 The following assertion from the Life of Moses shows the bishop of Nyssa at his most apophatic: any concept that attempts to attain or define the divine becomes an idol of God and does not make him known.8 Not only are concepts incapable of grasping the divine essence, they pose a certain stumbling block for one who would assault the mountain of divine knowledge. For Gregory, the First Commandment itself prohibits the formation of any conceptual representation of God, and anyone who would encounter God must leave behind all manner of comprehension before entering the sanctuary of divine presence. Whether it is the bride in the darkness of unknowing, or Pauls experience of the indwelling Christ, or indeed the Beloved Disciple having laid his head on the Lords breast, Gregorian apophatic experience is characterized by this shedding of concept, image and speech. However, this is not all there is to Christian apophaticism, at least as embodied by Gregory of Nyssa, and this is precisely what has been left out of not a few postmodern attempts to weld this tradition to its concerns. While Gregorian apophaticism is relentlessly consistent in its refusal to allow concepts and speech to grasp the divine essence, the apophatic silence of divine union is neither mute nor inert. Because for Gregory apophatic union is union with God the Word (at least in the Homilies on the Song of Songs), there is a characteristic dimension of apophasis which might well be termed logophasis.9 By this neologism I intend the following: as a result of apophatic union, in which concepts, words and images have been abandoned, characteristics of the Word are taken on; the Word indwells the deeds and discourse of the one in apophatic union. Hence a new discourse emerges: the Word says itself (hence the term logophasis) through deeds and discourse. I have coined and employed

WHEREOF WE SPEAK

the use of this term lest one think, as the deconstructionist critique suspects, that the discourse following upon apophatic experience slips back into kataphasis, substituting a thinly disguised affirmation. We can best see this paradoxical logophasis in the apophatic experience of the bride, Paul and the Beloved Disciple. For all of the brides apophatic gestures of aphairesis10 her shedding of concepts, and abandonment of all manner of comprehension she is paradoxically ever the fountain of potent teaching for the maiden companions gathered round her; although she has abandoned discourse in search of apophatic union with the Bridegroom, a garden of words blossoms from her mouth. Homily Six on the Song of Songs provides one of the more representative of these apophatic encounters.11 Embraced by the divine night, the bride begins to ascend through various levels of knowledge. Forsaking sense perception, she ascends to the angelic rank and learns by the silence of the angels that the Beloved cannot be comprehended. She realized that her desired love is known only in unknowing.12 Therefore, the bride exclaims, I passed by every creature and every intelligible thing in creation, and after forsaking every manner of comprehension, I found my Beloved by faith. No longer will I let him go once found by the grasp of faith.13 The text is rife with the apophatic motifs: ascent in darkness, aphairetic gestures that abandon levels of conceptual knowledge, the coincidence of knowing and unknowing, all culminating in union beyond concepts by means of a faculty reserved for that very purpose.14 However, union beyond thought and speech, beyond all manner of comprehension, is not the only concern of this apophatic text; for the text very quickly moves into what I have termed logophasis. After this profoundly apophatic experience of union, the silent chamber of the brides heart begins to speak: after this the bride speaks in a loving manner to the daughters of Jerusalem.15 It is important to observe, however, the nature of this speech; it is not characterized by a kataphatic enunciation of divine attributes. In fact, Gregory does not tell us precisely what the bride says; rather he draws attention to the effect of this discourse on her maiden companions. The brides discourse causes the daughters of Jerusalem to rise up so that the will of the Bridegroom might be accomplished in them as well.16 The brides discourse evokes from her maiden companions the same response that the Bridegroom evoked from her: ascending desire. This, then, is the logophatic dimension of apophatic experience: by virtue of the brides apophatic union with the Word, her discourse takes on the power and efficacy of the Word itself. From the brides perspective, apophasis is ascent into the darkness of unknowing, beyond language and concepts that would attempt to grasp God, but from the companions perspective looking at the brides apophatic experience,

4 MARTIN LAIRD they experience logophasis, the manifestation of the Word in her deeds and discourse. Apophasis, then, involves a double movement, (1) the ascent to union with the Word beyond all thought and word, and (2) the descent of the Word into the world of deeds and discourse. Not captured by her words, but manifesting itself through them, the Words beauty stirs the daughters of Jerusalem and causes them to arise. The logophatic dimension of Gregorys apophaticism appears with varying clarity throughout the Homilies on the Song of Songs . In a simple yet moving image of union in Homily One, the bride places her mouth on the mouth of the Bridegroom, which wells up like a fountain with words of everlasting life.17 As a result of this union, the brides mouth is filled with words of eternal life, and so, in union with the fountain of the Word, the bride herself is transformed into a fountain of words, wishing all to be saved and desiring every person to share this kiss.18 The same motif reappears in Homily Nine as we see the bride filled once again with discourse as a result of contact with the Word. Her breasts are described as fountains of good teachings, and, as the Bridegroom turns to behold the bride, he says of her: your heart has become a honeycomb full of every kind of instruction. From your hearts treasure come your words. They are honeyed drops that the Word might be blended with milk and honey.19 As the brides speech, honeyed with presence, drips from the honeycomb of her mouth, Gregory is keen to emphasize that her words are not merely words, but power.20 This power in the brides discourse is the fructifying efficacy of the Word itself, and by virtue of her union with the Word, Gregory says a garden blossoms from her mouth.21 However, this power is not for the benefit of the bride but for those who hear her speak; for they receive seeds into their hearts, and these words of faith become a garden planted in their hearts.22 Their hearts, like hers, have become gardens of virtue. As the bride was transformed by virtue of her union with the Bridegroom-Word, so those who listen to the brides discourse are transformed; for it is the same Word they encounter. It is important to point out, however, that her discourse is not a kataphatic attempt to grasp God with language; it is not language in search of God (kataphatic), but language that is full of God (logophatic). So keen is Gregory to prevent us from thinking that the bride has returned to kataphatic discourse, transmuting her negations into affirmations, that he does not even let us know precisely what she says. Gregory emphasizes instead what the daughters of Jerusalem encounter in the brides discourse: the ineffable, inscrutable, incomprehensible Word itself. The logophatic dimension of apophatic experience is not limited to that of the bride; the apophatic experiences of Paul and the Beloved Disciple likewise reveal this dimension of logophasis. Paul, made radiant from darkness,23 is in many respects an apophatic figure for Gregory. In Homily Three on the Song of Songs, he sees Paul

WHEREOF WE SPEAK

initiated into the ineffable, where he hears what cannot be pronounced (cf. 2 Cor 12:4).24 While the divine nature cannot be spoken by Paul, the divine nature can itself speak through Paul. Having become a dwelling place of Christ through union by faith, Paul showed forth Christ living in him and gave proof of Christ speaking in him.25 Because it is the Word who speaks through Paul, Paul has a transforming effect on those around him. Thus Titus, Silvanus and Timothy are transformed when they inhale Pauls scent, which contains the indwelling Christ.26 In Homily Fourteen on the Song of Songs, Pauls discourse bears the transforming character of the ineffable Word who indwells him. Hence, when Thekla hears Pauls discourse, these flowing drops of myrrh, she herself is transformed into a divine dwelling place: After this teaching the Word alone lived in her.27 Paul, united with the Word who cannot be grasped by discourse, is transformed and becomes a vehicle of the transforming, ineffable Word. From the perspective of Paul, it is an apophatic encounter, but from the perspective of Thekla listening to Paul, the encounter is logophatic. Again Gregory does not reveal what Paul actually did or said; instead emphasis is placed on the transforming efficacy of the deeds and discourse: the Word itself. The Beloved Disciple is another apophatic figure who exhibits the same logophatic dimension that we see in the bride and in Paul. In the Life of Moses it is none other then John who announces Gregorys apophatic carte dentre by entering the luminous darkness and claiming that no conceptual grasp of the divine essence can be attained.28 In Homily One on the Song of Songs, the Beloved Disciple assumes a different but likewise apophatic posture. Reclining on the Lords breast, John places his heart like a sponge on the breast of the Lord. As he rests there silently he is filled with an ineffable transmission of the mysteries hidden deeply within the heart of the Lord.29 However, instead of resting there on the Lords breast, the Beloved Disciple takes the breast of the Word upon which he has lain and offers us the good things he has received and by this deed proclaims the Word who exists from age to age.30 In the Life of Moses Gregory states emphatically that any concept of God becomes an idol and does not proclaim God.31 Johns proclamation does not contradict this. Rather, by virtue of his being drawn into the depths of the ineffable Word, he is drawn into the Words incarnational dynamism of expressive transformation. Johns proclamation is not grounded in conceptual idolatry but, as in the case of the bride and of Paul, in the Word, who unclenches the tight grasp of concepts and speaks in the deeds and discourse of the Beloved Disciple. In contrast to kataphatic discourse which affirms something about God, logophatic discourse affirms nothing; nor does it attempt to reach God by means of speech. We recognize logophatic discourse by its location within an apophatic context and by its effects on those attendant. Logophatic discourse evokes in them the same response that the Word

MARTIN LAIRD

evokes in the bride and Paul: ascent to union, divine indwelling. Discourse abandoned in apophasis is discourse indwelled, redeemed, and deified in logophasis.
II. FROM THEOLOGY TO THEOLOGY: LOGOPHATIC APOPHATICISM IN JEAN-LUC MARION

With the publication of Dieu sans ltre, Jean-Luc Marion consolidates his position as one of the most significant Christian apophaticists of postmodernity.32 While Marion certainly does not evince the grand, apophatic gestures of anabasis and aphairesis that Gregory does, the motifs are there, however restrained; and even so, if not the words, indeed the res. Moreover, as in Gregory of Nyssa, we see Marions apophaticism open onto that dimension of apophaticism that we are calling logophasis. A chapter which has not enjoyed the critical reception and exploration it deserves, Of the Eucharistic Site of Theology reveals the apophatic blossoming of the rather more critically excavated chapters that precede.33 While indeed Marions apophaticism has led to the treasure of silence, a dignified silence free from idolatry, this silence is neither mute nor inert. Citing Denys the Areopagite, Marion suggests that we are led paradoxically to become messengers announcing the divine silence.34 From here he goes on to say something about the nature of theology and the theologian: Theology can reach its authentically theological status only if it does not cease to break with all theology.35 Somehow within the treasures of silence there is still a role for discourse. But what of this discourse? Is Marion not doing exactly what Turner warned of by saying that in the end there is speech and not silence.36 Is Marion, in other words, suggesting a return to kataphatic discourse? Is he transmuting apophatic denials into kataphatic assertions? On the contrary, like Gregory of Nyssa, Marion is suggesting something far more subtle and paradoxical, and this is precisely what postmodernitys affair with the apophatic tradition has not recognized and what indeed establishes Jean-Luc Marion and Gregory of Nyssa as theologians in concert: for Marion too a new discourse emerges from the depths (or heights) of apophatic silence. This new discourse, however, is not a return to kataphatic language searching for God, but a transformation of discourse into language that is full of God; what we called in Gregory of Nyssa logophasis. Moreover, this transformation of discourse in Marion takes place for the same reason it does in Gregory of Nyssa; abandonment of language, image and concept (the aphairetic gesture) leads to an encounter, indeed union, with the Word, as a result of which, Marions theologian, in abandoning discourse, is paradoxically said by the Word: theology becomes theology. While Marions theology is not sealed in waxen biblical figures such as the bride, Paul or the Beloved Disciple,37 if one were to take Marions

WHEREOF WE SPEAK

theologian as one such figure,38 we would find something rather similar to the logophatic characters we find in Gregory of Nyssa. Marion says of the theologian:
It is not a question, for the theologian, of reaching that which his discourse speaks of God, but of abandoning his discourse and every linguistic initiative to the Word, in order to let himself be said by the Word, as the word lets himself be said by the Father him, and in him, us also. In short, our language will be able to speak of God only to the degree that God, in his Word, will speak our language and teach us in the end to speak it as he speaks it divinely, which means to say in all abandon.39

In the attempt to reach God, Marions theologian, like Gregorys bride, abandons discourse. This aphairetic gesture is more than simple refrain from speech. For in the apophatic tradition, as we have seen in the case of Gregorys bride, the aphairetic abandonment of images, concepts, and words propels the apophatic ascent into deeper silence. And in what Marion calls a docile abandon the theologian lets himself be said to the point that God speaks in our speech, just as in the words of the Word sounded the unspeakable Word of his Father.40 In these particular texts Marion does not specify why the theologians apophatic abandonment of discourse transforms the theologian into the logophatic discourse of the Word. Elsewhere, however, he is rather clear that this transformation is due to an encounter with the Word, and in one important text this encounter is described as union.41 Other texts designate the encounter less boldly and merely hover over the notion of union. In a curious parallel to the patristic exegetical strategy of moving from signum to res, Marion says that if the teacher is to become a theologian, he or she must aim in the text at the referent.42 This aiming at the referent Marion later calls going through the text to receive the lesson of charity. 43 This movement would seem not to be a discursive movement, however, for Marion says it is extrascientific.44 It is here that Marion makes a rather subtle alignment between the theologians abandoning his discourse and every linguistic initiative to the Word45 and this nondiscursive movement of aiming at the referent or going through the text. In Gregory of Nyssa it is precisely the dynamic of aphairesis, of engaged and vigilant abandonment of thoughts, images and language, that propels one into the silence of the Word and indeed to union with the Word. Likewise for Marion, or so it would seem: here is the qualification, extrascientific but essential, that makes the theologian: the referent is not taught, since it is encountered by mystical union. And yet, one must speak of him Only the saintly person knows whereof he speaks in theology, .46 It should be emphasized that when Marion says one must speak of him, he does not intend that as a result of this union one can somehow make God an object of discourse; for just earlier he has said that if theology speaks of God, this of is understood as much as

MARTIN LAIRD

the origin of the discourse as its objective (I do not say object ).47 For Marion, then, this access to the referent,48 this transgressing the text by the text, as far as the Word49 is tantamount to the aphairetic process of abandonment of discourse that leads to apophatic union. However, for both Marion and Gregory of Nyssa, this provokes a new discourse. And yet we must speak of him. Moreover, for both Marion and Gregory this new discourse is not a departure from the apophatic but the graced fruition of apophatic union with the Word. This new, logophatic discourse, the theology, that results from union with the Word is not a return to the distinguished blasphemy,50 that presumes to have God as its object; rather the theologian lets himself be said by the Word.51 In logophatic discourse it is the Word who speaks. How does Marion describe this new discourse? It is certainly not a return to a discourse that would attempt to enclose God in a concept.52 Rather, as a result of the union of which Marion speaks, this transgression of the text by the text as far as the Word, in which discourse concerning God is abandoned, the Word becomes incarnate in human words. [The Word] proffers himself in them, not because he says them; he proffers himself in them because he exposes himself in them by incarnating himself. Thus speaking our words, the Word redoubles his incarnation .53 Marion suggests neither that we become subjects of divine ventriloquism nor that our discourse about God having been abandoned is taken up again by the Word. For the Word, in whom is abolished the gap between the sign and the referent, does not speak words inspired by God concerning God .54 Rather, as in the case of Paul, who is the locus of divine indwelling in Gregorys Homily Three on the Song, the Word says himself the Word. Word, because he is said and proffered through and through He says himself, and nothing else, for nothing else remains to be said outside of this saying of the said .55 Passing from signum to res, from text to referent, from the words to the Word, abandoning every linguistic initiative,56 the theologian becomes theologian as the Word becomes incarnate in human words without being enclosed by them. Unspeakable to us, the Word says itself in human discourse. Labile inhabitant of our babble, it inhabits our babble nevertheless as referent.57 The Word has become the site for theology, where the theologian imitates the Theologian superior to himself,58 securing for himself this place were the Word in person silently speaks.59
III. CONCLUSION

At a recent conference on religion and postmodernism,60 Marion challenged Derridas claim that Christian apophaticism left a residue of

WHEREOF WE SPEAK

hyperessentiality, that the apophatic transmutes into affirmation its negativity.61 Marion claimed that Derrida did not see that both apophasis and kataphasis in the end yield to a third way.62 This third way, as Marion terms it, does not hide an affirmation beneath a negation, because it means to overcome their duel, just as it means to overcome that between the two truth values wherein metaphysics plays itself out [N]egation itself submits its very own operation, and above all its duel with affirmation, to the final transgression.63 What is this final transgression, this third way? Marion calls it de-nomination, a non-predicative discourse that is no longer a matter of saying something about something Its a matter of being exposed.64 Marions third way, that is neither kataphatic nor apophatic, I have termed logophatic. The term logophatic has the advantage of gesturing more directly towards that to which one is exposed, i.e., the Word; as the apophatic gives way to the vast landscape of its own further reaches, one is exposed to, indeed united with, the Word. How does logophasis as seen in Gregory and Marion hold up to the deconstructionist critique? We have seen that logophatic discourse occurs within an already well-established apophatic context, flagged by apophatic terminology and strategies. There is no suggestion by the texts themselves that the paradoxical discourse of logophasis is surreptitiously smuggling in and re-establishing an affirmation.65 Examining the logophatic discourse of Gregorys bride, Paul and the Beloved Disciple, and Marions theologian, we saw that their logophatic discourse was never a question of positing God as an object and then predicating something of this object. Logophatic discourse is not trying to reach God with speech; nor does it attempt to seek God. This characterizes the kataphatic discourse that would indeed sustain the deconstructionist suspicion of being a negation transmuted again into an affirmation. However, logophasis is no such predicative discourse. For Gregory and Marion, when kataphatic discourse concerning God is abandoned in apophatic union, the Word indwells human deeds and discourse; the Word manifests itself in them. The clenched fists of predicative, attributive discourse have relaxed, and in these open palms of discourse, the Word speaks itself, labile inhabitant of our babble.66 Language is no longer grasping but revealing. The purpose of this article has been to uncover a form of discourse in two outstanding representatives of Christian apophaticism as a way of responding to an important concern raised by deconstructionism. An exclusive focus on the kataphatic apophatic dialectic, which characterizes the deconstructionist critique of Christian apophaticism, has obscured from view the deeper transformation of discourse within the apophatic context. Having uncovered logophatic discourse, even the deconstructionist unclenches conceptual fists before the great speaking absence between the images.67

10

MARTIN LAIRD

Notes 1 D. Turner, The Darkness of God and the Light of Christ: Negative Theology and Eucharistic Presence, Modern Theology 15 (1999): pp. 14358 at p. 143. 2 Some recent ones include I. Almond, Negative Theology, Derrida and the Critique of Presence: A Poststructuralist Reading of Meister Eckhart, Heythrop Journal 40 (1999), pp. 15065; J. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Derrida: Religion without Religion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997); H. Coward and T. Foshay (eds.), Derrida and Negative Theology (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992); K. Hart, Tresspass of the Sign, Deconstruction, Theology and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); W. Otten, In the Shadow of the Divine: Negative Theology and Negative Anthropology in Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius and Eriugena, Heythrop Journal 40 (1999), pp. 43855; N. Pokorn, The Cloud of Unknowing in Dialogue with Postmodernism, in L. Gearon (ed.), English Literature, Theology and the Curriculum (New York: Cassell, 1999, pp. 12435; H. Ruf (ed.), Religion, Ontotheology, and Deconstruction (New York: Paragon House, 1989); T. Sanders, Remarking the Silence: Prayer after the Death of God, Horizons 25 (1998), pp. 20316; R. Scharmann (ed.), Negation and Theology (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1992). 3 J. Derrida, How to Avoid Speaking: Denials, trans. K. Frieden in H. Coward and T. Foshay (eds.), Derrida and Negative Theology, p. 77. 4 J. Derrida, Post-Scriptum: Aporias, Ways and Voices, trans. J. Leavey in ibid., p. 83. 5 See, for example, D. Turner, The Art of Unknowing: Negative Theology in Late Medieval Mysticism, Modern Theology 14 (1998), pp. 47388; J.-L. Marion, In the Name: How to Avoid Speaking of Negative Theology in J. Caputo and M. Scanlon (eds.), God, the Gift and Postmodernism, The Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion, M. Westphal, gen. ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), pp. 2053, esp. pp. 203. 6 In so far as the deconstructionist critique has all but ignored the important dimension of aphairesis, it is questionable to what extent deconstructionism has understood the multilevelled dynamics of denial. Speaking specifically of Denys the Areopagite, J. Williams has recently argued that this oversight is largely due to misleading translations which fail to differentiate between the distinct types of negation ; see J. Williams, The Apophatic Theology of Dionysius the PseudoAreopagite I, Downside Review 117 (1999), pp. 15772 at p. 157; see also J. Jones, Sculpting God: The Logic of Dionysian Negative Theology, Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996), pp. 35571. 7 Among an abundant literature see, for example the classic article by H. Puech, La Tnbre mystique chez le Pseudo-Denys lAropagite et dans la tradition patristique, tudes Carmlitaines 23 (1938), pp. 3853, reprinted in En qute de la gnose, 2 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 11941; as well as J. LeMatre, Prhistoire du concepte de gnophos, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualit, s. v. Contemplation, cols. 186872; J. Danilou, Platonisme et thologie mystique (Paris: Aubier, 1944, 2nd ed., 1953), pp. 19099; A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 8097; D. Carabine, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition; Plato to Eriugena (Louvain: Peeters, 1995), pp. 23458. 8 De vita Moysis, II, 165, Sources Chrtiennes (= SC) 1bis, ed. J. Danilou (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1987), p. 212; interestingly this very text serves as one of the opening quotations in Marions LIdole et la distance (Paris: Editions Grasset et Fasquelle, 1977), p. 7. 9 An expanded version of this section was presented to the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, 1621 August 1999. 10 Throughout I am using the terms aphairesis and aphairetic in a sense broader than the cerebral sounding abstraction, encompassing the senses of abandonment or letting go of images and concepts in the course of apophatic ascent. 11 Gregory comments in this Homily on Sg 3, 14: On my bed at night I sought him whom my soul loves. I sought him and did not find him; I called out to him, and he did not hear me The apophatic terminology of the lemma (night, not hearing, not finding, rising) suggests to Gregory the apophatic direction that his exegesis takes. 12 Commentarius in Canticum canticorum (= In Cant.) VI, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. VI (= GNO VI), ed. H. Langerbeck (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), p. 183, 23. 13 Ibid., p. 183, 59. 14 While there is nothing particularly novel about the designation of a faculty of union, that Gregory would name this apophatic faculty of union faith is rather idiosyncratic on Gregorys part; see M. Laird, By Faith Alone: A Technical Term in Gregory of Nyssa, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000), pp. 6179.

WHEREOF WE SPEAK

11

15 In Cant. VI, GNO VI, p. 183, 1011. 16 Ibid., p. 184, 1315. 17 In Cant. I, GNO VI, p. 32. Gregory is commenting on Song 1, 2: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. 18 In Cant. I, GNO VI, p. 33, 24. 19 In Cant. IX, GNO VI, p. 270, 711. 20 Ibid., p. 280, 3. 21 Ibid., p. 281, 2. 22 Ibid., p. 282, 47. 23 In Cant. II, GNO VI, p. 48, 15. 24 The alpha privatives of , and underscore the apophatic thrust of the context. This stringing together of alpha privatives is a characteristic apophatic strategy for Gregory; see F. Vinel, Homlies sur lEcclsiaste, SC 416 (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1996), p. 388, n. 2. 25 In Cant. III, GNO VI, p. 88, 46. 26 Ibid., pp. 91, 1792, 4. 27 In Cant. XIV, GNO VI, p. 405, 79. 28 De vita Moysis, II, 163 (SC, p. 212). 29 In Cant. I, GNO VI, p. 41, 710. The language of ineffability ( ) and hiddenness ( ) underscore the apophatic sense of the text. 30 Ibid., p. 41, 1013. 31 De vita Moysis II, 165 (SC, p. 212). 32 J.-L. Marion, Dieu sans ltre: Hors-texte (Paris: Librairie Arthme Fayard, 1982). Recent appraisals, include J.-D. Robert, Autour de Dieu sans ltre de Jean-Luc Marion, Laval thologique et philosophique 39 (1983), pp. 34147; idem, Dieu sans ltre: A propos dun livre rcent, Nouvelle Revue Thologique 105 (1983), 40610; K. Ziarek, The Language of Praise: Levinas and Marion, Religion and Literature 22 (1990), pp. 93107, esp. pp. 98102; D. Moss, Costly Giving: On Jean-Luc Marions Theology of the Gift, New Blackfriars 74 (1993), pp. 39399; K. Schmitz, The God of Love, The Thomist 57 (1993), pp. 495508; D. Powers, R. Duffy, K. Irwin, Sacramental Theology: A Review of Literature, Theological Studies 55 (1994), pp. 68893; T. Sanders, The Otherness of God and the Bodies of Others, Journal of Religion 76 (1996), pp. 57287; A. Godzieba, Ontotheology to Excess: Imagining God without Being, Theological Studies 56 (1995), pp. 320, esp. pp. 811; J. OLeary, Religious Pluralism and Christian Truth (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996), pp. 18591. 33 All references are to the English-language edition: God without Being, trans. T. Carlson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 13958. 34 De divinis nominibus, IV, 2, PG 3, 696b; cited in Marion, God without Being, p. 107. 35 Marion, ibid., p. 139. 36 D. Turner, The Darkness of God and the Light of Christ: Negative Theology and Eucharistic Presence, pp. 14344: I can guarantee nowadays that whenever I read a paper on some account of the apophatic, among the first participants in the following discussion will be someone who wonders how I will take account of the positive revelation of God in Jesus Christ. For surely, it is said in the end is the Word as it was in the beginning, therefore in the end there is speech, not silence. 37 Obviously this is not to say that Marions recourse to scripture is incidental; God without Being is replete with scriptural citations and inspiration. 38 While the figure of the bishop as the theologian par excellence (God without Being, p. 152) might seem more appropriate, I will stay with the term theologian because it fits better with the word-play between theology and theology. On the relationship between the bishop and theologian, see God without Being, pp. 15358. 39 God without Being, p. 144. 40 Ibid., p. 143. This text, among others, reveals how the logophatic dimension of apophaticism is subtly Trinitarian; see the concerns raised by F. van Beeck, A Very Explicit Te Deum: A Spiritual Exercise, To Help Overcome Trinitarian Timidity, Horizons 25 (1998), pp. 27691. 41 God without Being, p. 155. 42 Ibid., pp. 15455. 43 Ibid., p. 155. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., p. 144. 46 Ibid., p. 155.

12

MARTIN LAIRD

47 Ibid., p. 139. 48 Ibid., p. 146. 49 Ibid., p. 148. 50 Ibid., p. 139. 51 Ibid., p. 144. 52 Ibid., p. 106. 53 Ibid., p. 141. 54 Ibid., p. 140. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., p. 144. 57 Ibid., p. 142. 58 Ibid., p. 148; see also p. 151. 59 Ibid., p. 151. The Eucharist is for Marion the place par excellence for this. 60 Religion and Postmodernism, Villanova University, September 2527, 1997. See the proceedings of this conference in J. Caputo and M. Scanlon (eds.), God, the Gift and Postmodernism, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999). 61 Marion, In the Name: How to Avoid Speaking of Negative Theology in J. Caputo and M. Scanlon (eds.), God, the Gift and Postmodernism, p. 25. 62 Ibid., p. 24 and p. 33. For another approach to negations self-negation, see the two-levelled apophasis indicated by D. Turners reading of Denys the Areopagite in The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 1949. 63 Marion, In the Name, p. 26. 64 Ibid., p. 32. 65 Ibid., p. 25. 66 Marion, God without Being, p. 142. 67 Rowan Williams, Open to Judgement: Sermons and Addresses (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1994), p. 101.

Copyright of Heythrop Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.