Trouble understanding a specific passage in Gregory Palamas

Greetings! I’m here to call upon the collective wisdom of this forum regarding a particularly tricky (at least for me) passage in one of Gregory Palamas’ Antirrhetikoi against Gregory Akindynos. I’ll drop the entire passage below, along with my attempted translation.

Ἐπεὶ καὶ δι᾽ ἀπορίαν ἀνδρῶν, μηδενὸς ὡς ἔοικε πειθομένου τῶν εὖ φρονούντων, γυναικὸς ὑπέδυς προστασίαν ὁ μοναχός, μηδ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἀδίκῳ μαμωνᾷ πιστῆς εἶναι προθυμουμένης, μηδ᾽ αἱρουμένης ποιεῖν ἑαυτῇ φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τούτου τῆς ἀδικίας τοὺς ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ προσδεξομένους αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνταῦθα φίλην γεγενημένην, ἐν ταῖς αἰωνίοις αὐτῶν σκηναῖς, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου φωνήν· ἀλλὰ τοὺς καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ γῆς τοῦ θεοῦ σκηνῆς ἐξωσθέντας βαρλααμίτας κρίσεσιν ἱεραῖς καὶ φρικωδεστάταις ἀποκηρύξεσιν, ὡς καὶ ἡ Βασιλίνα ποτὲ τοὺς τὰ Ἀρείου φρονοῦντας, καὶ ἡ Πατρικία τοὺς τὰ Σεβήρου, καθάπερ ὁ μακάριος ἱστόρησε Μάξιμος. Ταύτης οὖν μηχανῇ τε καὶ σπουδῇ πάσῃ συναιρομένης, καὶ κακῶς ἀνοιγούσης τὴν χεῖρα, καὶ χεῖρον σκορπιζούσης ἂ μηδὲ συνῆκται καλῶς, καὶ τὰς φρένας ἐντεῦθεν ἐπιστρεφούσης τῶν ἐπὶ λήμματα κεχηνότων, ὡς μὴ μᾶλλον ἐκεῖνα σκότους ἐκφορεῖσθαι καὶ μυχῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἐτηρεῖτο πρῴην, ἢ φέρειν ἐπὶ σκότος ὄντως καὶ μυχούς δυσσεβείας ἐφ’ οὓς ταῦτα νῦν φέρεται· ταύτης τοίνυν οὕτω συναιρομένης, οὐκ ἄδηλον ὑφ᾽ ὅτου κεκινημένης, καὶ δαψιλῆ σοι ποριζούσης δαπάνην, οὐ πρὸς τοὺς θεολόγους μόνον καὶ τοὺς αὐτοῖς ὁμολόγους ἀκήρυκτον ἀνερρίπισας πόλεμον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ θεῖα πάντα πολέμια δεῖξαι πρὸς ἑαυτὰ διὰ σπουδῆς ἔθου, θεολογίαν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ ταύτην τοῦ θεοῦ θεωρίαν, προσαράξας ἀλλήλαις, καὶ τοὺς θεολόγους τοῖς ἐξ αἰῶνος θεόπταις τὸ σαυτοῦ μέρος ἐπαναστήσας, αὐτούς τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκπολεμώσας, καὶ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐγείρας, καὶ κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἐπιστρατεύσας τὰς ἐκείνων φωνάς, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους περιφανῶς διαδείκνυται.

And since, on account of the lack of men, as it seems that none are persuaded of those who understand things well, the monk submitted to the protection of a woman, who is neither willing to be faithful in the unrighteous Mammon, nor has she chosen to make herself a friend from that Mammon of unrighteousness, and when she dies, some individuals shall receive her into their eternal dwellings, on account of her having become friends with them at that time, according to the Lord’s word, those Barlaamites, who were driven off God’s dwelling on earth with holy judgements and the most awe inspiring excommunications, as Basilina did with those who held the opinions of Arius, and Patrikia to those who followed Severus, just as the blessed Maximos recorded. Thus, she, with much contrivance and zeal, made her contribution, wickedly opening her hand and, what is worse, squandering that which was not even well collected, and consequently, she won over the minds of those agape at the prospect of gain, so that they do not emerge from the darkness of their recesses, which she has recently subjected them to, but rather to carry them into true darkness and the recesses of impiety to which she now brings them. Hence, in this way she makes her contribution, and it is not unclear that she came to be stirred by one certain man, as she procures copious provisions for you, who has stirred up unheralded conflict, not only against theologians and against their confessors, but you also, through your zeal, made out to show that all holy things are at war with themselves, with you having dashed theology and the higher art of the contemplation of God against one another, and you attacked the theologians, in so far as your part allowed, with those who have seen God for a lifetime, you have both made them fight amongst one another and stirred each of them against themselves, you have marched their voices against one another, just as you have conspicuously shown from the beginning until the end.

My current thinking is that “those receiving” her are the Barlaamites of the following clause, rather than Mammon, with the implication being that her heresy was too great even for Mammon. However, I’m not sure if this is entirely correct. I think the issue is that the grammatical structure seems rather unclear, or maybe I’m completely misunderstanding it!

Any help will be very much appreciated.

This sort of thing is anathema to me. And why do theologians have to be so very nasty to one another? But I’m trying to understand the syntax along with the sense, starting from ταύτης τοίνυν οὕτω συναιρομένης (6 lines up from end). There it looks to me as if οὐκ ἄδηλον ὑφ᾽ ὅτου κεκινημένης (?“moved it’s clear who by”, elliptical) is effectively parenthetical, leaving the two present-tense genitive absolutes in parallel with one another (ταύτης τοίνυν οὕτω συναιρομένης … καὶ δαψιλῆ σοι ποριζούσης δαπάνην)—but you translate it differently.
Then we have a pair of main clauses, οὐ πρὸς τοὺς θεολόγους μόνον καὶ τοὺς αὐτοῖς ὁμολόγους ἀκήρυκτον ἀνερρίπισας πόλεμον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ θεῖα πάντα πολέμια δεῖξαι πρὸς ἑαυτὰ διὰ σπουδῆς ἔθου—but again you don’t translate them as such.
And appended to these a set of participial phrases (first a pair, then a trio), plus a final jab (ὡς … διαδείκνυται).

Now, your bolded passage. προθυμουμένης and αἱρουμένης are both present tense, and μηδε … μηδε doesn’t quite mean “neither … nor.” But more substantially: I take it that τοὺς ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ προσδεξομένους αὐτὴν (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνταῦθα φίλην γεγενημένην) is the direct object of ποιεῖν, while ἑαυτῇ φίλους is its predicate: she doesn’t choose to make those who will receive her when she passes (…) friends for herself (i.e. she doesn’t choose to make friends of those who will receive her …) but the expelled Barlaamites instead.

I don’t know if that helps at all. It is all a bit tricky.

[Posted independently of Michael, whose post I will read in a moment.]

Note: ὑπέδυς is 2nd person

μηδ᾽ αἱρουμένης ποιεῖν ἑαυτῇ φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τούτου τῆς ἀδικίας
nor choosing to make for herself friends using this mammon of unrighteousness

τοὺς ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ προσδεξομένους αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνταῦθα φίλην γεγενημένην ἐν ταῖς αἰωνίοις αὐτῶν σκηναῖς
who when she dies, will receive her, having become their friend, from the places here into their eternal abodes,

ἀλλὰ τοὺς … ἐξωσθέντας βαρλααμίτας …
but instead [made] the Barlaamites [friends] …

That’s how I understand it, anyway. I didn’t read the rest.

Many thanks Michael. It will never cease to amaze me how thoroughly horrible certain canonised individuals are in their writings… One would, perhaps naively, like to think that politeness would be a prerequisite for sainthood. Your comments are very much appreciated, my translation now reads far better.

And thank you both for pointing me in the right direction re: the highlighted passage, It had me truly stumped.