Christianity and Judaism in A ntiquity Charles Kannengiesser,Series Fzitor Volum e 7
E xegesis and SpiritualPedagogy in M axim us the C onfessor A n Investigation ofthe
QuaestionesH Thalassium by PaulM .Blow ers
University ofN otre D am e Press N otre D am e,Indiana
Copyrighl( * 1991by
TolheM emory of IM 'm EverestW alker
UrtiversityofNotreDamePress
(1898-1988)
NotzeDame,Indiana46556 . . . goi ng mundand surveyingus,asitwere,withtlleskillofanhusbandmam and nottaking notice merely ofwhatisobviousto evcryoneand sum rficial butdkgging into usmore decply,and probing whatismostinwafd in tks, ho pulusto thequestitm,andprom sedthings to us. and lisfene,d to ourreplies. Forwheneverhedctected anything in usnotwholly unprotitable and useless and ineffectualshewould startclimrlngtbesoil,andtumingitup antlwatering it. Hewould seteveryming in motion,and apply the wholeofhisskilland attcntion to usso asto cultivateus.
AIIrigha reserved Manufacture,diattt eUnitcd StaesofAmorica
Gregoryn aumatttrgus
PanegyriconOrt ken
LibraryorcongressCataloging.in-publlcation Data Blowtrs,PaulM .,1955Exegesisand spiritualpedagogy inM axim ustlleConfessor:aninvesti-
gation oftheQthqestionesad Thalassium /PaulM .Blowers. p.cm.- (ChristianityandJudaism inAnliquity;v.7) Includesbibliom phicalreference,sandindexes. ISBN 0-268-* 927-9
1.Maximus.Confessor,Sainq0 .580-662.Quacstionesad n ala ium . 1.Title. 11.Series. 8R65.M 39676846 1991 220.6-+ 20
90-50973 CIP
Contents
CIIAPTER 1. TIIE QUAESHONES AD THALASSIUM: GENIIE AND CONTEXT IN Tlv BYZANTINE IeIIINA é;el%ltz I:IEIAAG()GI(:k12L.'llt2$;E)ITCI()N ..................-.............. :!il
'IheAporiaiTraditionofPatl isticExegcticalt4ouestionsand Resw nses''and theLiterary Genre oftheZIJ r/lfpltzxçy' ï) z?n ..................29 .
TheQuaeslio-Responaio,SclipturalAporiai,andSpiriplnl Pedagogy in theByznntineMonasticTraditionbeforeM aximus......... 36 A lYe :6/7t7/?/lthegmGffp /741trur/1 .................................................. S$*1 ' lnllt:lellltl:tstic /è:2èlkiltltr()f11ktsilf)f(21tt:s1:rek+ :............-..-.........-.... êr6/ ' 1-11(,(7t7IItllft)zlt:J ()f J()ll11(2;u;siItfl..,........................................- zl() n eSpiripml-lu trinnlW rie gsofPseudo-o caripss lyffurlctl'fhI4eY it,étlltlIïke zlklltil(h1;lpriltll..................................... zl:4 A Retum to tlleM gm atism ofthe Deserr. n eQuaestiones etresponsionesoftiiePalestiniansBarsanuphiusandJohn ..........41
ContenB
V111
TheQtmestionesetresponsionesofAnastasiusSinaïm ...............49 TheQuaestio-Responsioin imus'EarlierMonasticWritings.......52 n eQuaestiones(IdThalassium intheTraditionofMonastic lRe gogical(2v estionestrlrtll/;tlttsiozlt,:.......................................1;(i lkftlll:tstic lrtl/atpiilltlltryt(f knltttlitssiu??T.........,.......................... 15:7 SclipturalAw rfà and' SpkitualPedagogy i11lefftlkiltl11s'lt(rsI$()flst:s ttlTrllitlassius .................................... ts1 Rocapitulation: ScripturalAporiai,MonasticUseofScripture,
1.f1(ltllfl(2ûltleztio/1el tl:f27/141lassi:t?l.-....-.........................--.-.....-....-tî6) Pjotes
C
R 2. DTABASIS' . THE TIIEOLOGICAL ANlà HERM ENEITIRCAL W ORK OF M AXIM US'
EM GESISOF SC
E IN THE QUAESTIONES
TheTenninolop'calandThem aticSignitk ance
()f/)iétp/tz&i:ifltllfl(2r estionest,C/le/ldplttssitt?tt................................6)t1 TheObjectiveandMacrocosmicDimensionsoflzDialm is: Access to theLogos-christO ough Creation and Scripttlre .............100
n eLogoiofScriptureandM aximus'Notion (lfAccom Ildtytllttil)flirltlltr:t:/ïnlv lassim ........................1()t$ /hk17iillïtlsis from lwùhttt:rttlé;Iliritirdé;cdptre ..........................11;! TheCluistologicalSkoposofCreationand Scripture: R lrlltrlkflrstt:r)r()ftlltrIllcr nate I-tyt;tls-t:lllrist........,..........................11*/ elYe *I1brc4hlwztlh,s1tn(1tll(:e llzrekhlfltlJtrllJïtichfls ............................. 11:? 'IheM ystery oftheIncarnationandtheEschatological é;(rtll)tl()f :;crilltllrltlë;)rrrïllt)ls ....................,........................., 1:!:!
n eSubjœtiveandMicnxosmicDimonsionsoftheDiabasis' . vlYo I11ttrilrJktil)rp()f ttl(:billirittlall-ifth.-.......................................... 131
ff/Wêts- eet opta êtroztlzflin theAd Thalassium .............133
Contents
Naturallswtr6)andScriptural(ypl/te Contemplation.......137 RK apituhtion' .Communionwith the IncarmateLogos-christ Its tll(:(Jo2 ()ftllfrél1)iritlltkl17i6'l pillï: ..................................... 1zî1;
Acknow ledgm ents
n is study is the fruitof many yearsofinterestand research in the thoughtand writings of M aximus tlte Confessor. In substance itis the mvision ofadœ toluldissertation submitted to theDepnrlmentofTheologyof the University ofNotre Dame in thesummerof 1988. A sw cialword of thanks mustgo to CluarlcsKmmengiesser,HuiskingProfessorofTheology, forhiskind sum rvision andencoumgement andto anotheresteemed teacher. RobertL.W ilken,now ofthe University ofVirginia,who helped medefine my interestsin patristic studies. Ialso wantto expressmy deep apprcciation toHarryAttridgeforhisadviceon afew aporiaiinM aximustheConfessor's Greek text.to JeanLaporteforhisassistancewith anumberofbibliom phical resources,and tinally to George BertholdofSt.Anselm College,a sv ialist in M aximian studies,who kindly agreed to serve asa visiting readerofthe originaldissertation. I mn also greatly indebted to Jeannette M orgemoth Sheerin ofthe Univcrsity ofNotreDamePressforhercriticalexm rtise and thoughtfulinterestin cditing my manuscript. Certainly my gratitude goesoutto my wife Polly,and to my childre. n laeslio and Colin,forexercising m uch pationce during thelong term ofm y research,writing,and rewriting. And to my parentsback inIndianam lis,my thanksformany adailyprayerfortheirson. EmmanuelSchoolofReligion JohnsonCity,Tennessee
PaulM .Blowers June,1991
A bbreviations M AC W K L BZ
Azazlerfllollnnaî n'm AncientCbristianW riters Bibliole, kdergriechischcnLiteratur ByzantinisheZziflcllrf r .f
colts).
columnts)
CCSG CS
Corpuschriqtinnorum,seriesgraeca CkstercianStudies Corpusscriptorum ecclesiasticortun latinorum ClassicsofW estern Spirituality Dicdonnai retfespiritualité
CSEL CW S
DS Ep. ET frag. GCS
GCSO GNO Heb.
H S(N.S.)
f' fe :byzandm Jyfrit#el English A nslation ffagment Diegriechischenchristlichen Schriftstellgr dere, ate. ndreiJai vhunderle Gcs-odgenesW erke Gregoriinysseniom la Hclxew Irénikon
[email protected]/l et#t)#2JlStudies@ ew Series)
LPGL
4 PatrisdcGreekfzàkzm te.d,G.W.H.Lmnml
X A 0CP N
Orientaliachrkstianaamnlecta Orientaliac/lrfm'zzv N rl kxffcl Patrologiagraeca Patrologialatina Paeologiaorientalis PatristischeTexteundStudien
PL
IG'S R AC R AM RB M PhTh
ReallexikonfarAntikel zndChristentum Revlled'ascétiqueeldemystique Rcyvflebiblique Aevlledeszcl aceylœ ltlztlr/lçlfe:
ett/lëf Alogkue:
Abbreviations
xiv
SA SC schol. Stpav 11e 1 IXH
Studiaanxlmiana SoumrscO x K holium StudiapaG stica ' Ihe logie Théologiehistoriqœ eanslation TexlelmdUntersœ hungen Vigiliaec/lriçficnle
trans.
VîRCIV
W oru ofM aXH USthe Confe r
Amb. Ce .car. CW#.theol.
Antbiguorum D&rçAmbigua)
f7 tyœ decaritate(Ce ler:onC' M rë) Capita theologicaettlec/Y plicc
E#.
(Chapterszw Knowledge) fpflflzlle145
Opusc.f/l e//.
M ystagogia Opuscula theologicaetw lee ctz
M yst. elpolem .
Qu.etdub. Q.T' /w1.
Quaestionesettfo itz QuaestionestulFM lzB' âï?v?l
Introdud ion n eCurrentState(ë'M axim ian Studies
Maximus tlle Confessor11% bezm called by patristic scholars p%tand presentatheologicalgeniasoftlleearlyF.as- Church,agrandsynthesizerof Greekm tristicthought,and yetoneofthemostdifticttlttheologianstoreadin his originaltexts,notto m ention one of the m ostdifficultto translate. Criticalreseamh onthe careerand writingsofM aximuswilldoubtlessprotit
richly from the coming publication ofallhismajor writings in critical oditions.l n e reesulc itishoped,willbea readieraccessto his literary corpusandadeem ningofourunderstanding oftlzermem intsofhisscholarly
ouqmt. To date,lherehasbeena seriousdeficitin theanalysisofM aximus' works individually. Polycarp Sherwood,who single-handedly introduced
includovolumenumbe intheseries.followedbycolumnts)and sectionts).
M aximustoEnglish-speaking readers,signaled thisproblem overlhirty years ago.when.in theforeward to hisclassicstudy oftheAm bigua ad loannem . hclamented the lack ofknowledgeofthe Confossor'sindividualwritingsin theirown contextand scope. Scholars 'thave written of hisdoctrine,and written well,buttnking hem a text there a texton which Lo build their
A1lroferencesto materialin tho GCS,GCSO.CSEL,CCSG.GNO.0 .and
Stnlcture '' 2
SC coliectionsincludevolumenumbe.rinlhesezies.followedbypagets)andp whereappropriate.lines.Foreaseofreferencewithourmajorprimarysoume. tbeQuaestionesadThalassium.lhavesimplilied thecitations.A1lciutions
Shel' wtx)dcertainly movodpositively toward fllling thisgap tbroughhis closecriticalw ork on tlleearlierAmbigua,asdid HansUrsvon Balthasarin his annotations to M aximus' M ystagogia.Chapters on Charity,and Chapterson Knowledge.3 Buttherehasbecn littleconcentration since then tm illum inating the partkularities of M axim us' works as individual productions. A look atsecondary studies published in thelasttwo decades confinnsth1 patern. Briefarticleson the sources.doctrine.and spirituality ofM axim usalxlund.4 Even theoutstanding seriesofdissertations, directedby M .-J. le G uillou, which build on the foundational work of pionx ring Specialists on M aximus tlw Confessor like Shcrwood, von Balthastm
Noteon CitationofPrimary Seurces A1lreferences to primary sources eitlzerin th* PG orPL collections
from thecriticaleditionofQuaestiones1-55inCCSG.no.7(ed.Laga-steel) includo simply CCSG followed by pagets)alxllines. A1lcitationsfrom Quaestiones56-65in tlleearliereditionofCombefisinPG,vol.90,simply includePG followedbycolumnls)andsectionts).Iregrettlzatthesecondvolumeofthe Laga-sloelcrilicaltcxlwasnolyetavailahloforusoin lhisstudy.
Al1translations ofprimary sources (and ofnon-English secondary sources.wherequoted)aremyownunlessolhe- isenoted.Mytranslationsof pmssagesfrom M axim us are not,I would add.intended to oversimplify his (G asionally prolixGreek.Ihavoopted roraconservativercnderingthatisfair to hisheavy useoftechrl icalphilosophical,theological,andascetictenns.
lnlroducliozl
'Ihe Coltextard Putview oftle AdTlul- sium
Dalmais,sandThunberg/a11fœusondœtrinalthemr,s(IIM comprehendthe
ovealzlalarrosktormre.exile,anddeatb(c.638-* 2).12 Ourprirlcipalconcem
full gamutof M aximus' corpus.7 Vitlorio Croce's very usefulstudy of M aximus' lhoological mothod likewise treats the Confessor's works comprehensively.8 Yetthere have be' en œ cmsionalindicationsofa greaterinterestin the contextual,literazy,Myliséc.and methM ologicalcharacteristicsofM aximus' writings. n e 1980 intcrnationalSymm sium on Maximus in Fribourg. Switzerland,included a seriesofpresentations notonly on tlle manuscript lraditionsbutalso onphilological,literary,and methodologicalconccrns. g Shel'wood attesled somotime ago lho need foracloseMudyparticulady
here isthe two middlemonastic m ritxls.whicllfonn lhe bx kpound efthe
oftheQuaestionrsad F/=ltu'lfl4??l,along tholinesofhisown work ontl :e
imm nding siege ofConstantix ple from the eastby thePersiansand from tlhe north by Avars and Slavsl4 would force M aximus in 626 from a second monastic residence atSt.George's in neqrby Cyzicus. Aftera period of intermittenttraveleastto Cree and m rhapsCyprtls.lshesettled atCe age, probably between 628and 630.16 North Africa attlletime wasyinfacqa haven ofrefugeemonksfrom the east,who were looking for safe bavcn in the numerous monasteries that proliferated there duling llle sixth and seventh centuries.l? Astheeminent ByzantinistCharlesDiehlhasnoted,Africa waqoneofthefew flomishingand tranquilpartsoftlleempireduring the Persiancampaigns.lB M aximustœ k upresidence in tllcmonasteryofEukratas,underthe tutelege ofhisspirihml fatherSophronius. In ono ofhis opuscula,M aximus sm cifically mcntions
earlierAmbigua.zo n isneed has been eechoed more recently by Jaroslav
Pelikan.ll r f' heabsenceofamajorcriticalstudyoftbisworkisparticularly unfortunate since itissecond in size only to M aximus'Ambigua and by far tllemostextensive ofhisso-called spiritualwritings.No doubtilslength,its weighty style,lhedensity ofie exegeticalexm siuonssand thediversity ofits thrologicaland asceticmemeshavecombined to discourageconcentrateed study oftheAd T/IJIJJJiUZrI.Chnmcterizingthework açapremierpieceofmonastic spiritualpedagogy,Ihope heerc to m ake a beginning toward understanding more fully its litemry style and intentionality,aqwellasitsappropriation of earliersourctsand exegeticallraditions,and itstheologicaland m dagogical scolx . ButY foresetting outthe main directionsofthisinquiry,1etusflrst
attempttolœ atetheQuaestionesadF/lc/tuWl z?nwilinMaximus'careerasa monastic scholarand within tho brck aderparametersofByzantine monastic çtlltureintheseventh centttry.
TheContextandPurview oftheQuaestîonnsadFe laçlfll??l Tho life ofM aximus the Confeessor can roughly bo dividod into four significantperiods: hisearly yearsand scrvicein the imperialcourtof the
emperorHeraclius(580-c.614),theformativemonastic m riod leading to his relocationin Carthage (c.614-c.628),an intermediate monastic perjotlof intenseliteral'yKtivity inCarthage(c.628-c.638). ,and hislatertheological caroer,dominatcd by hisinvolvementin the monolelite controversyand his
Maximus'MonasdcFtlr- fft?n M aximus'biographer leavesus no clearmotive for tho Confessor*s retiremont from imperial service to the monastery of Philippicus near
Cbrysom lis(ontheM iaticshoreoftheBosphorus,opx sileConstantinople) save the lure ofthe Iife ofquietude (J Garcfa Cololnbis.''ta biblia en Lq ospiritu-
alio d dolmonacato primitivo,''Yermo 2(1964): 113-129. On theearly monastic tradition ofruminado on scripture.seeBurton-christie,Scri pture
fl?ldtheQuestforfft/ljllell,189-193. 91.Coll.14.10(CSFA 13.411,11-23). 92.SeePhilip Rousseeau Lâscetics,Authority.44# the Church in t/le 4geofleronteJV Cassiantoxford:OxfordUniversityPrerxs,19781,191), who110% aISO thegreater> hzg autllorityofscriptuR thatt111 implied: *çlt couldnolongerlx takonforgrantedthatmasterswouldreproducein theirown M haviourthe (lisciplino and insightthattheBibleconuined-translating ik so to sm ak,from word to action.in a form atonce impelling and readily availableto disciples. ' lxemasterwould now interpretScripttlreasatcxtto le disc t111111and quito separableelementbetweenteacherandpupil. Hc teecam e*ono who singswilh greatleearnîng thesongsofG od' oxercising ttl)e patronageofthe inzrpreter';and Scriptureitselfbecamea work ofreference. againstwhich to check theopinionsofm onr Contrastthisw ith tlleauthority
93.InhisSymeon vtm Mesopotamien,HermannDörries(working on tllebasisofearlierresearchbyL.Villocoull)argueed thattheauthorofthe
Indeed,m rriesghowed(ibid.,425-441)comm llingtextualparallelsbetween tllohomilicsofPsmsfacariusandM essalian literature. SR also Dörries'moro recent study.Die Theologie (H M akarioslsymeon, Abhandlungen der
AkademiederWùsonslhqfteninGöttingen(philosophisch-historischoKlassel, series3,no.103(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck untlRuprecht,1978), PseudoW carius'M essalianbackground wasthrown into doubk however.byW erner
Jaegerin hisTwo Rediscovered Wrtlrk. çof AncientChristian faflerlfl4re: GregoryofNyssa44:Macarius(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1954),eosm ciallypart1I, chs.1.4.JaegtrsoughttoprovothedependcnceofM acarius*Greatlœlterand
SpiritualHomileson theasceticworksofGregory ofNyssa (notably De instituto christianoj,thereby establishing his orthodox identity. As for parallelswith Messalianism ,JaegermssertsthatStitseemsmuchmoro likely thatW cariusinterpretedtlloseofllisbeliefsthatscholarslkqvecomm redwith whatlittle we know ofthe M esm lian sectin a morc spidtualsenso,and did nottake them from this heretic group butfrom som e com mon m onastic IzaditionH(.p.255).Furthersuppm forJaeger'sdissociationofPs.-Macarius from M cssalian radlcalism comesfrom Florovsky,TheAyzfzalj?leAsceticand SpiritualFcfAerl. ,151ff:and John Meyendorff,Christin Eastern Christian
ro llgllltcreqwootl.N.Y.: St.Vladimk'sSeminaryPress,1975).123-126. ,
idem ,tçM exsu linnixm orAnti-M easm lianism : A Fresh Look atthe4M acnn'nn'
Problem.''inKyriakon: Festschre JohannesQuasten,ed.PatrickGranfield andJosofJungmanntMfinster: Aschendorff.1970),585-590.Onthemore rœentslteofthequestion ofPs.-M acarius'identity.se, eVincentDespre,zand
Marielte Canévet,DS 10,s.v.Slbfacaire''(8.Pseudo-M acaire,MacaireSymeon),cots.2043,andespeciallycols.23-27. 94.Tw()Rediscovered Ie rkâ.227-230. 95.Cf.ReinhartStaats,GregorvonNyssa undtffe Messalianer,PTS 8
(Berlin:W alter(k Gruyter,19Cm . 96.Jaegor,Tw5Rediscovered Wrtvla,211.
97.Makarioslsymeon: Aedea undBriefe: DieSammlung/'desFtTffcanusGre cxç694 (B),2 vols..ed.HeinzBerlholdyGCS (Bm1in: AkademieW dag,1973). 98.Die50 gE' b. &flfc/lea Homdien desM akarios.ed.Hcrnunn Dörries,et
a1..FI' S4(Berlin:W alterdeGruyter,1964).
82
'rheGenreoftlw dd Thalassium
Nots
99.Sec.e..g.,Logos2.2(e,d.Berthold(vol.1J,3):nW hatisSalanand whendid lte sin so thathelxcmneSatan?'' In hisresponse(pp.3-5),Ps.-
103.Spir.*m .40.3(ed.m nies.276). 14M.Ibid.(27&2W).
W cariusdeline. sSak'm asa rationaland inner-worldly spiritwho uttersevil,
105.Jaegor,I' wo Rediscovered Gorks,212.
anevilwhichoxistsnotasessencebutaswillorchoicctpm cf/Mm . W .Hc demonseates,bya Gmore mysticaland deepcr''Qtt mmKMrepov I. W in tilespiritual knowledgeofcontemplation,and the transferSerdpaowjfrom
realities.z
TheTerm inologicalandThematlc Slgnifkance
4'DlabaslsintheQuaestlonestzdThalassîum Theterm 8Ld# cw anditscognateverb&c/Jlm &,recurfroquentlyin thtQuaesdonestzdThalassium- Theyareanimportantpartofthecollective vœ abularyofspiritttalprogressand ascenlthatMaximusbyandlarge inheriks h' om tbe IAe, sofPhilo.origensGregory ofNyssa.andPseudo-Dionysius.To
besurev&tapatvefv-8idpao. b-are often forMaximug,aswellasforhis yreöecessorsj3 em ployed quite fiuidly or even intorchangeably with
d-patvetv-dvdpaasjJzezw/'trtp. trtle-pe-' rd/ctzlm.and otherrelated terms, to describe,in general,the ascentor spiritualtransitusoftlle soultoward
perfeclion/ Forexample,inoneofhisothermonasticworks,theChapters onKnowledge,heplayswitllanumlxx ofcomm undsofpatvavtodescribe tbedifferentintorrelatedasm ca oft11:spirittu' tlascent:
So long asth:soulmakes thepassage (vpfeïvqé/ze-r##ct7zI8 from strenglh ttlstrengthandtlfrom glorytoglory''(2Cor.3:18), progressl/r#ox' owflfrom virtt leto greatervirtuesandmakesthe ascent(#l, d/trct. $ from knowledge tohigherknowledgeitdoes notceaseY ingasojoumer,asitjsstated.ç<MyKulhaslongbeen a sojourner* (Ps.119:6). For greatis the dismnce and the multitudeofstem ofknowledgetobemssed(&@ tz*7:m )untilit ''com e,s t o theplace ofyourwondroustae rnacle,up to the house
ofGodyin a voice of exultation and thanksgiving,and of those
keeping festival''(Ps.41:5),everadding a voicc to voices,a spiritualone to spizitualones,asitprogressesin divine contem-
plationswith rejoicing overlllespizitualcontemplations.thatis. w1t11joyandpmmrthankKgiving.'I' he' sefestivalsarecelebrate. dby a11tllosewho havereceive theSpiritofgfacewhocry outintheir
hearts,'W bba,Fathcrn (Gal.4:6).5
,7
the ldterof Holy W ritIo its spiriq so in the samo way fllo one who is settled in the place ofprayer should liflhis mind from human matters and the attontion of tho soul to more divine
realities.n iswillenablthim to follow theonewhohastw ssed through theheavens,Jesusthe SonofGtxI''(Heb.4:14).who is everywhereand who inhisincam ation pasr',stluougha11thingson
ouraccounf lfwo follow him,wealso passtllrouglalllings wilh him and comobesidehim ifweknow him notin thelimited
conditionofhisderent(qtlyxurdpw wjintlzeincarnationbutin themajesticsplqndorofhisnaturalinfinitude.6 Thisplayin comm unds(dvq-,&ts,yeva-,dzrtwl-m f- zlz,Wtrctglisa fairly common stylislic fealuro in M axim us' writings, including the
Quaestiones ad Thalaniumnl and clearly sorvcs here to highlightltle dynamism and themultiple dimensionsofmovementthatheenvisionsin tlle soul'sspiritualprogreess. Yetcloserinsm ction ofhis useofsuch terms in the A# Tltalassium
revealsacerlnin urgetowardamoreconcentratedterminology.Zttz/lfaz:'&dm crt. cal' econsistently usedintheQlmesdonest ztfThalassium todescribe the interrelatod asw ctsoflhe spiritualtransitusfrom sensible to intelligible truth. M axim tls ofçourse reveals no directreaezson for this term inological
preferenco,butIwould conjectum thathe concontrateson 8tqpallze' fv&#p ct. $.becausetheycanconveyforhim bothasenseoftranscendence- in keepingw1t11theneedtottpassoverl ortotiascendYyond,''sensibleobjects and tllt passions which they can sgarks--and yd also a crucialsense of
conlinuity,namely,tllenecessityoflkst'Yassing through''orGpenetrating'' sensibleobjectsen routetotheintelligibleorspiritual* t. 11thatinheres,by grace,inthorm sensible lings. lsaving nlwx mdy in hisintroduction exîolieedThalassiusfflrK hieving this
98
DiabasisintheQuaestionestztfThalaniwn
TenninologicalaIIIITe maticSigniflcance
spiritualdiabasis,g M aximus sets up as an example the one *çwho has
recipv ity Y tween thesensibleand intenigibloreallnsx cordingto acornmon
m netratedtothespiritualprinciples(lJw I)andmode. s(' r# woçjinheringin (corm realor scnsible)tbings''çrok d# a*roîr ?rlzev/zlntollm 8&apàr âlyol. v'Terclr/xsvolclvlo n espiritually maturein tl )eChurcharethose who.by virtueand knowledge,have m nemated tlleAJyO:oftimeand nature
andçscl' ossedover(&# cerev)tothemagnitkenceofetemalandintelligible realities.''ll InQuestion 55 Maximuss intennsofthevokvpassing over (& J##s$ nature and fime and being restortd to impassibility (dpd*Ic).12whichmeansalsolhatlemindcannotbeim bysenseor bythem ssionsinrealizing thisdiabasis.TrueChzistinn'tgnosticsH are Ihoso
Hwho pass beyond the perturbation of the passions'' (vçv p'tz#zl ihle dttr#deremlil3 moreover.says Maximus,tlle N werofsensibility,lcft unchecked,can actually bring to a stop th: passage (& ##Jm s$ ofthe operation ofourrationalfunctioning in relation to inlelligibleobjects.l4 Thusthe truespiritualSabbam isthe completesedation oftlle passions.the cessation of the mind's movementtoward created things.and the perfect
passago(&##Jm. W toGod.15 lnzgrating the naturaland scripttlrala )ofa11created nam .18 'Ihetonsionlxtwcon the sensibleand inzlligibledimensionsofcreation L% intllecontextofM aximus' systm,oneoftlr '* economicallyHbar ;e,dand intrinsicm laritiesin thenatural
worldth- tle llllmnnsubject,quarnicrœosm.issummonedtomediateinthe vitapracdca and vitacontew lativa-bg
There isalready a naturalcoinherenceorcom nemation tvt' pzae lpw t.W M tweeh tlle sehsible amlintolligible dimonsioltsofçredauoa,andtl:ea sion thusmstablishod is a creative tension,resolved only by the Logos himsdf
accoldingtoalçmysticalprinciple''$m Kk ldyoss.zo Beforethemindcan achieveia fullasccntldpd/trt7' l. W from createdreality to God,itmustflrst cognitively penetrate,or cross lhrough.tlm meedium of xnsible things- a lieraldiabasish' Sensibloapm arancesand theletterofscripture, in a11 lheir diversity,are tho roquisite first step toward intelligible 1u1 .22 As
Maximushimselfwrites,'' Itisimm rysibleforlhemind (ppp$$ tocrossover A apqvat)to intelligiblerealities('rHtmrlrdl,towhich itisnatllmllyakin, .
witlmutcontemphtinginterm ' sensiblethings.''even though.ofcourse.
'êitisalsoabsolutelyimpossible forcontemplation (*f,y)Jc)totakeplaces withoulKnse tcl(z' */trts$,whichisnaturallyakintosensibleIhingsyY ing joinedwithlheintellect''o As a human vocation,R active mediation of lhe sonsible and tho inteiligible creationsyand an ongoing prœ assofassimilation lo G(x1,such a spiritualdialmsisnotonly involvesthe intellectbutintegratesthe whole of
humannntl>ra.n elxxlymustbyitsvirlueascendtoandmin' orthesoulx while sense tœ ,by itssyntheticpowerto apprehend tlle xnsible symY lsof theIJm oftl zings,?' s mustrix lo thesefviceofreason and them14.26 Yet while,asSherw' txxlobxrvesofthe diabasiswithin human nature,''tbe real
motion isfrom the lower(faculties)to tlze higherlz? Maximus can also smak,a:he(Iœ son two œcasionsinlheQuaestionestzd Thalassium.ofa converse or rociprœ aldiabasis- +e crossing overor desctntofreason
(M yos$ lotlloleveloftheIowersoulortl:e tle'shinordertofulfillpractical virtue.o Consistcntly M nxhnusstriveslo reflecttle hieramhyandhnrmony, buta1r, 0 llr dynamism andconunuity,inherentinthecreatedorderand inholy scriptllre. n is m ofound senso of sym m etry inform s hkq analysis of tho spirituallifeasawholeand oftheexegesisofscripttu' ein parlkular.
1(X)
DftzôaW:intheQuaestionest;d Thalttssium
n e remaindor of 1is chapter will demons% te how this spiritual diabasis is an integrating leitmotif of M aximus* entire hermeneutics. Scripture and tht interpretation of scripture are partofa larger picture, embmcing.on the one hand,M aximus* 6'macrocosmic''and thoroughly christœ entric tmderstanding ofthe syme licstructure ofthe world and of scripturoand.on tlzeotherhand.his'çmicrœ osmica''andnolesscluisœ entric, vision of the s'pirituallife in itsascetic,contemplative.and mystagogical aspects. In hisexegesisM aximuspresupm sosthatininzrpreting scriptum one isactually participating in a much largermystery ofrevelation and fhat thtdiabasis from sensible to intelligible reality incolm ratesnotonly scripture butalsocreation,humannature.and indeed the morallifeofthesoulas well,sincea11oftllex prom rly tendloward oneand theAqmeLogos-christzg In tlle nextchapler,then.Ishallhave the opportunity to show more preckVly how lhedlabasisprincipleinfluencesM aximus'understanding th001 of'ç anagogical''interprezation alld oftho task ofscripturalexegesisie lf. I shallinvestigate the extentto which itism ssible to dmw from M aximus' theme ofspiritualdiabasis a working theoxy ofanagogicalexegesis in the
Ql mesdonestldThalassium.
n eObjectiveandMacrocosmicDimensionsoftheDûtbasls, Accessto theLogos-christthrouglzCreation and Scripture Themultifx eted natureofthespidtualdiabasisandlhecorresw ndence between thedifferentfacetsareconciselysetforthbyM axim usin higresponse
lo Question32.Commentingonwhatitmeansforoneto'egrom afterand discoverGGP (Acts17:27).hewrites:
ObjectiveandMacrocosmicDimœ sions (êm6dve&q)increation,and botwoen the inlollem (&' oe )and sense (alcêqœs. jinhimself.andintum uniteshisowninlellect indisx luably with thespiritofscripturo and theinnerpfinciple of creation. Having done tllis,lle etdiscoversGod.'' Forhe recognizes,a:ksnecessary and m ssible,tlmtGY isin themind, and in the ianerprinciplesand in the spirit;yetl1e isfully removed from everything misleadingaevtrything thatdrags the mind dows into countlessepinions,inothe.rwords,the ldter.tho apltarance, and hisown xrk% ....Ifsomeoneminglesandconfusestheletterofthe law,the outw' ard ap ofvisiblo tllings,al:d llisown senx
witlloneanother.heç'isblind and shortesighted''(2Pet 1:9)and suffersfrom ignoranceofthetrueCaux ofcfeat edY ings.30 Theparallelism thusestablislled bdwoen creation, scripture,and human nature,and tlle correlation Y tween me intelligible and sensible contentin
each,isafamiliaroneinMaximus'theeology/lbutofparlkularinterestheR isthe''necessary''integrauon implied with rosm ctto thethroeasm ctsofthe diabasisfrom the sensible to the intelligible reality: from letterto spiritin scripture,from surface appearance to innerlogos in creation, from sense te intellectin human naîua . Thet'irsttwo aspectqevince theinnersymbolic structtlreofcreation and scripture.the interrelated economiesofrevelation,
whilethc third,human nature,incolw ratesipsofacto thehumansubject's innerspiriluallife.Ineeachcase,itisthespiritualorintelligibleclement- the gôyo. ç ofcreution.the nveûya ofscripture,the voûç in human beingswhich mustprevailtoward the fulfillmentof salvadon and deilication. As M axim usexpresR sitin theM yslagogia.
Hewho GgropesaftcrGtxr'promrly hasdiscretion (&drpIGI. W. Therefore he w ho com es upon the law 's sym bols intellectually
Lyvûm tKûkj.and who contemplatesthephenomenalnature of createdY ingsscientifically(lm c w ovtrtkj.discriminateswitllin scripture,creation,and him self. He distinguishes.thatis,
Y tweenleletter(ypdgyajandtllespirit(ra'fW(0 inscripturw bdwœntheinnerprinciplo(âJ' m. W and theoutwardapm aranœ
101
'
n usifanyofthesetllre. c men--tho world,holy Scripture, and tlle onewho isourselves- wishesfo havoa life and conditionthalis ploae gand K ceptable to GY 1etMm do whatislxstandnoblest ofall. M d 1e, thim asbestIw can take careroftl w x wlwhicN is immoral.divine.and in prœ essofdeification through llevirtues,
and lethim disdain theflesh which issubjectto comlptionand deathandabletosoiltllesoul'sdignitybyitscarelessne%lz
102
DiabaisintheQuaestionestztfThalassim
ObjectivoandMac= osmicDimensions
103
Applied to M aximus'interpretation of scripture.tbis will mean,as GeorgeBerthold hasnoted thatt'llecauseoftheclox connectionoftllelogoi of natum ,Scripturo,> 4 morallife,whœ ver falls away from fullness of biblicalunderstanding and adheresto the letkralone willsufferin theother tw oareasaswell.'O3
crosse ovor Qievttpöwqvjfrom the flesh to lhe spirit.Naving already put off their carnallifo.The Spirit brought about a tfansfnrmntionofthcirsensibleenergiesandstripm.dawaytle veils ofpassions from tlleirintelleectualfaculty. lhving bœ n cleanse,d by the Spiritin theirpsychic and bodily senses,thcy wcre taught
tllespiritualprinciples(mmw anrol2JyoI)ofthemysteriesth111
Creation.l' crl/llre,fw fJ&,SymboliczîlrxrlxreoftheDiabae The integration oftheflrsttwo dimcnsionsofthediabasis,creation and scripturo,and thoir mutualaccess to the Logos-christ merit their own invtstigation. lnspired by the philosophical-lho logicalconstructsofOrigen
andPKudo-Dionysius,Maximusenvisionscreationandscriptureasobjective
hatlbeen exhibited to thcm.n oy weremystically LaughtII!M tlze wholly blessedsplenderthatto medradiantly fmm theLord'sface, mq though oxçelling a11 lheireyes'energy.is a symbolofhis
divinity,which % nscendsintellect(lz0e ),sense (JCtr#??(qç' )s essencetofx7fcl,anda owledge(ylG n. W .Theyworeguidedhom tllefactthathehadneitherform norbeauty(cf.Isa.53:2),andfrom .
economiesofdivinerevdation thals% d in am rfectanalogousrelauon to lhe Logos-Revealer.M Von Balthasarhasobserved. nevertheless,how M aximug
theknowledge oftheLogosbegotten in the flesh. to tho factdIM
gœsYyondcortainofhispretlocessorsinsettingtheeçnaturallaw''(croation) and tlleT'w' riltenlaw'''(scripture)onanutterlyequalparvis-à-visllleLogos.
notion thathewasin tllebeginning.and waswithGoi and isGGI
n e written law Ls thus no longeran intermediate deg ee lxtweeen natural revelation and the revclation ofChrisq rather,nature and history are equal m lesthatcomplementoneanothcreschatologically. Christ.embodying the: third,spirituallawafulfills1.t11of tho firsttwo Iaws,uniting them while ultimatdytranrending t11em.35
praiseshim who is utterly incomprehonsiblo lo everyone, to tlm t glory which.sinco itN longsto ttteOnly-lkgotten ofttle Fatbor.
A Locus Classicus: Am biguum 10. Perhaps nowhere in a11 of M aximus'writi ngsisthisinterrelauonY tweencreationmIIIscriptureand tllcir mutual,even interchangeablo,relation to the Logosmoreclearly illust rated 111m1in a passage from Ambiguum 10,a sortofopusculum on spiritual diabasis.Clearly inspire,d by Origen'sinterpremtion ofthe I m nsfiguration scene in M atthew 17. 36 M aximus develops his own neûlpttt. a text so fundamentally imm rtantto his understanding ofttlo symM lic structure of
spiritualdiabasisinthoQuaestionesad T/l altzxuïl z??lthatItranslatethebulk ofithea .There on the m ountain.says M aximus,Naving witnessed the
transfigutv. d Christwilh MosesandElijah flnnkinghim one'achside.Peltm James,andpolm
heismorebeautifulth% thesonsofmen(cf.Ps.44:3).andtotl)e (John 1:1).Tlleywere1e(lupinteliectuallyLykwrrtrxh,through thetheologicalnegation (&â' rz' /. s-eeogoyçrlk dvo/dtval . W tllat
isfullofgraceand t1M01(cf.John 1:14$ Hiswhitene.dgarmenta texelrasymbolofthewordstr#/t/zcrtzlofholysc111)t111. e,37since atthatmomenttltey trcame luminous,clear.and distinctto tlle disciples,and were comprehonded apartfrom every dark riddle
ttllnlr /zt8 and symlmlicshadow tcx4x.disclosingthoLogoswho existsand ishidden in them.atwhich pointthedisciplesattained to theplain andcorrectknowledgeofG(xI,andwerefroed from any
inclination çvpocnrdeetajtowardtheworldandtheflcsh.Or,tlle garmena were a symbolofcreation iœ lf rid ofthefoulreputeof tllatwhich isdeceitfuland Y und only to sense, a repute w hich meanwhileseemslo bereflectred inthatcree on.n roughtht wise varidyofdifferents- iestlmtfillitout. creation proportionately rcveals,in the mannerofa garmenq the dignity ofwhatconveys tlle powerofthe Logos.ilsCreator. ForwhatIam saying will suitb0111scriptlzre and creation to theLogos.sincehe hasrightly
104
DiabasisintlleQuaestionesJ# Thalassium tmen concealed in obscurity in 1x)t1:foroursake,so thatwe will notdare toapproach incomm ehensible thingsunworthily: neither thewordofholy Kliptum,insofarasheisitsLogos,norcreation.
insofarashe isitsCrme r,Author,and Artilicer. Forthisreason, Iasserttlhqtwhœ verwisjlestoadvancestmightfolwardblamelessly te GGInecessarilyrcquiresN)lllscripture and creatitm; he nee'ds 1x)u1 the knowledge of scripture in the Spirit.and the natural contemplation,tlupugh the Spirit.of created G ings. So too whoever desires to become the consumm ate lover of perfect wisdom tsable to demonstrate,so itseems,thatthetwo laws,the natlmal1aw and thewritten1aw areofequalhonœ and reciprocally each lhe same things.and t11atncithcronehagmoïeorlcss value tlu'm theother. A ConkmplationoftheNaturaland thoW ritten Lqw. andofthe Interce geableConcurrencelxo eenThem: Iam thinking here,on the one hand,oftie naltlrallaw,which is ordained asuniformly aspossible according to reason.and which, in the mannerofabiblecontainsthroughitsinterrelated wonderss
thebnrmoniousweboftheuniverse(' r;êvapydvtovT' OPwalrrô. be #*16wtz. 2 /.38 ThisGbible''has asitstçlelterseandsssyllables**tl ze things thafaro primary,immediate,and particularto us,and tho
bodiesthatbecome thick through the conjunction ofnumerous qualities;its*'words''arethemoreunivcrsaloftllesethings.which are distantand lhinner. ' l'h:Logos,who readsth1sbook.having wisely writtûn on tllese things and ineffably inscrite himselfin them.completesthetxxàk.providing usthoidea only thatGGIis. notwhatheis;he leadsustltrough piousaccumulation ofdiverse aplx arances unto a single represenfation of tllo m 1t11 proporlionately offering himselfforusto behold tllrough visible things asCrealor. On theotllerhand.Ialso have in mind thewrillen law. whichisordained forourins% ction.n rougllthethingsitwisdy dictates,the written law isconstituted.like anotllerRcosmos,e of hcaven and earlh,and the tllingsin between- thatis,ofelical.
ObjctivqaadMacv osmicDimeasions natural.and theologicalphilogophy. Itdisplays the tmspeakablo N werto makeknown itsDiclator,and demonslratesthatthe two lawsare interchangeably tlle same in relation to each othec the
written 1aw ism tentially (Karà r?),8ûvaytvjidenticalwith the nam m llaw . whi lethenaturallaw ishabitually (m rd nkvd'1k&' )
identicalwith lhewritten law. Itshowsthatt l!etwolawsdisclox andconcealtl!e samcLogos: disclosing him llj rough theutterance
(ré 1e e1) and appearance (' rJ .6a6vogêvàtj,and hiding him through thelought(# vobcetjand tkoughwhatisconcealed (' 4 â' pyr-ro/zN fpl.Forjustas,whenwecalltheworllsofholy scripture the garm entsoftheLogos, and interpretitsidmqsashis flesh,we concealhim with the former and reve, alhim with tllo latter,sol(x)when wecallthevisiblesm ciesand extermqlformsof
created things garments,and interpretthe principles (zdyot) according to wllichlheywerecreated asflesh,welikewiseconceal l:im wi1 thefonnerD IIrevealhim with lhelatter. ForlheLogos, who is Creator of tho universe and Lawgiver and by naturs
invisiblesin ap> ngconcmqlshimself.and inhidingmanifest, s himsdf;and ignotcorttidkig in tbe wise tltatl xeisthin by nature.
Itisuptousto reveal,throughnegation(& 'dvo4dœeûwj,what is hidden,lo go beyond all the power of outward forms and enigmasto providea likenessofwhatistnmsand Y tteryettobo
elevated (#p. J#t##R l#ct)ineffably from the letterand from phenomena lo theLogoshimself,by tl:e powerofthe Spirit. C)r, on the othorhand.itis up to us to conceal.through affirmation
(&tlWowuwj,whatisapparent- Otherwisewe,liketheGreeks, willlxcome murderersofrew m and worship thec'reation rather
tban the Crealor(cf.Rom.1:25)and nothave faith thathe is higher tIIaIIvisible things and more magnificentth% sensibk
objects:or,otherwiseslike theJews,secing only asfarmstho letler.wewillmagnify thebodyalone,and,deifying thebollyand
fmdinggloryinshame(cf.Phil.3:19),claim tllesameinheritance as lhose who slew God,because we did notdisccm the Logos. whc- having come to usin hisincarnatebodyand becomelike us,
105
1(%
Diabtu' isintheQuo stionrstzd Thalassium foroursake- also becamo thick in syllables and letters.fortlle
sake of human sensibility (cCH r?(a. $$,which inclined our intellectualfaculty (' r3voe# vjwholly toward itself. Forthe divineAm sue says.Gn eletterkills.butthespiritgiveslife'*(2 Cor.3:6).3: Iwould callattention to twodecisiveprinciplosfrotn thistextt1 4- will ligtlre heavily in my discussion.First,again,tsthe fundamcntalrcciprocity,
andinapzxH interchangeabilhy.e' stablishedbetweencroation(naturallaw)and scripturc(writtenlaw)in virtue oftheirundcrlying symbolicstructureand tlteircommon K cessto theintelligiblemysteryoftheincanmteLogos. This mutuality is reinforce, d here by M n imus'application of the garmcntssymY lism equallyto creationand scripturè,and hismciprocaltransferencgof metaphors:creation ase'bible'*andscriptum as'4cosmos''. Second is the symbolic epistemology that.in classic Origenian terms, M aximusrœ tsintheincarnatiomqlmystery ik%lf,offx thereby hisparadoxes ofthe Logos'concealing himselfby appearing,and disclosing himselfby
lliding--paircdalsow'itlloursubjectivedisclosurcofhilnçç am phati cally''atld our concealmentof him N ffirmatively.'' The Logos becomes utlzick,''
incarnating ()rinKribing himselfin thesensiblewordsfpkyqva)orletturs çypdyyqrajofscripture,and the appearancesLsavvaqla&jofcrealion, withoutviolating the '4thinnessy''orsubtlety.ofhis indfablo divinity. Yet
tllespirittp. #trl t$ ofscript- and theprinciples(/dyoflofcreation still yidd agenuine.ifmeanwhilerelative,knowledgeoftheLogos-christinhis economic self-manifestation asLawgivcrand Creator. n ese scripturaland naturalsymbols therefore convey,in terms quite reminiscentofPscudo-
Dionysius/otlledoublemovementoftheprocessionandrettlrnoftheLogos, and,resm ctively,tl :e affjrmative (kataphalic)and negalive (apophatic) prodicationsofthe humanmind--fe oyxwtW and Wu oyta.
TheLogoiof Scripture and Mtzxïvllo.'Notion ofztcctlplzrltitftz/jt?n in the Ad Thalassium. n e syme lic smlcture ofthe mutualaccessofcreation and scripture to the Logos is undergirded by M aximus' theory of the unilkation ofdi fferentiated nôyotinthedivineLogos,athcory thatby itsclf hasbeen exnmine,d thoroughlyin earlierstudiesandneed notte elaboratedin
ObjectivgandMacrœ osmicDimemsions
107
detail here.41 M aximus'âdyot doctrinc ties together his cosmic and salvation-historicalpersm clives on the spirimaldiabasisand providestlle foundationofhiswholestructtlreofnaturaland scriptl zralsymbogsm. Hes oftheIJyM in severalresw cw. Stronglyinfloenced in this
regardbyœ igen,Eval us,al!dPxudo-Dionysius,asanumlx; rofsm dalists havem intedout,M aximusdevelopsin depth hisdœ trineoftlle naturnlM yol ofcreatures.the intelligibloprinciplesofcreat- lypafticularity lhatproexist in themindoftheLogosand sKbilizethecreated world.4z n oughstableand irreducibleflpm tlm human tive,lhese natural2Jrx arefullydynamic from tlhe divine m rspective and constitute the underlying ''intentions''
(eekqyavtè ofGM forhiscreation.43 n eypreligureGod*sprovidential oxuntk fortbeworldandassure1atthefreedivinecounxl,whichprecedes anyontologicalorsymY lic hgerarchy,willl)eeschatologicallyconsummated by theêçincarnatoMLogoshimself.44 In turn M aximusatso n amore ,i salvation-historicallight,ofthe governing Alyt x ofdivineprevidenceand
judgment.another notion taken over from Evagrius butrocastby the Confessorin distinctly anti-origenistœ1711s.45 At the heart of M aximus'àdyok dtxtrinc one can see the double
orientation,tho differentiationand unilkation.expansion(staqrog4jand
contraction ttrlvroA4),oftbeAtlyolin creation,46whichdirectlyreflectthe condescension and ascension- <m in the classic Pseudo-Dionysian tenns,
'tprocession''lnpdo&wjand''return''Lêwto-rpo4qj--oîtlleCreator-Logos himself. Clearly by contemplating these differentiated M yof,thc sensible world becomes transparentto the intelligible economy ofsalvation,and the mindisledeverdeem rteaknowledgeofGod'satuibulesand,to seme limitcd
degree.,hisdivinily/; Profoundly importantfor our purposes here.however,is Maximus'
subtlecoapplication ofthisdœ trineofnaturalIJA' OICpriaciplresH).andits
coceptualframeworkstothe2J)' txCt wordg''and'fmeanings')ofscripturc/s forthisprovides.in effect,thetheoreticalbasisforMaximus'undcrstandingof theverynatureofscriptureandofthetaskofexegcsis:itsdiversity and unity; ie R)11undorlying orientation to tlleLogos-christ and itsAcommodation to human knowledgelhrough lhoinfusion ofthe truespiritualâlw fofscripture
inthesensibleM gavaandmzllcm fofwriltenandutterablewords.
108
Diabasisintle Quaestitw stztfThalaïsium
In principle.M aximusenvkqions.mqhedx sforthell)' otofcreation,a totalconcentration and convergencoof:11tllediversewordsandmeaningsof scriplurein lheLogos.Scriplureksitselfaveritableworldofdifferentm oples places.times,tcnns- tlze wpdyyara ofscripture-nallofwhich find their way,tkougilspirituqlcontemplationanllinterpretationofthe M ytx contained thercin.to tlleineffablem ys/ry oftheLogos. Inanexmaordinary textfrom
Ambtkuum 37,Maximusdescrihe,sin idealtermshow,lhrough scriptural contemplation Lypa4txh x/ zl pft8,a11theso differentiated AJ' I' IM ofscripture m ightbeviewedfrom theperslxctiveoftlleirltcontrK tionHinto one com prehensive logos.49the universalpurm seormeaning hidden away in the Logos himself:
' lhosewho are truecxm rtsonsuchmysteriesand aredovoe to the
contemplation oftle spiritualmmqnings(vvevyanrolâJzoI) contained therein say thatthe logosofscripturalcontemplauon
(ym /tx' ljeeuvtaj,which isonein general,is,when itexpands ic lf,contemplated in a tenfold (8ernntion ofthe Son. M orem er,the wholeHoly Spiritksby essence in the whole Son,notby becoming incanmte himself,but by cooperating with the Son in his ineffable inrmnution foroursake. W hether.then.one sfe. aksofChrist,or ofthe mystery ofChrist.only the Holy Trinity- Fatller,Son,and Holy Spirit- foroknew it. And no one will bc in doubtthat Cilrisq wlm is one oftlle Holy Tlinity,was foreknown by tbe Trinity. Christknew lhathe wasforoknown notasGY butms man. In otherwords.itwashis incarnation in the economy of
salvation forhumanity's sake thatwas foreknown (cf.1 Pet. 1:20)....Forilwasneceassary in % t. 11forhim who isby nature Creatoroftheossence ofcreated beings totezcomm in himsdf,by pace,the authorofthe deitk ation ofthose whom he created,in
orderfortheGiverofbeing trt'el- l)toapmaralsoasgracious Giverofeternalwell-Ging(r3delD :-lnu).138 Itisexactly thiscomprehensiveJztptrq pto--variously descrite,d by Maximusasetllemysteryoftlleincamation''(r4$yvcrépfov' rr k dlzcl'pp& m/6rr. a1 ,139 çxtlle mystel. y oftthe Logos')embodimento(r3 . nk dlzx Jzartso' e- pzlm ' #p.opl.l4o*' tllenew mysteryo(r4Kattxbvy6m ikpzovlnqlf3 'ttlte mystery ofhis ineffable plan''(rg rqs'dwopp4rov#olzl#. $*/z?ztrr##tol4.142 xçtho mystery based on faith'' (' rd K'ard ' rl/lznvprtv
128
Diaba isintheQuaestionesJJ Thalassium
n eChristologicalSkoF sofCreationandScripture
Jzr r/plolzll43- thatdominatesMaximus'scripturalsymbolism in the
tlrtzlerls-xm vowpen' os' j,evincing the t11in tlw principles ofcreated beings- tho very truth tllatis constitudvefornntnmlcontemplaliom Moreoversby ttarku rding lheessence ofcreated M ings,themind isenlightonGlbythedivine and impmgnable M onad- the very enlightenmentthatisconsti-
l32
fall. Maximusderrilvs1istrageedyindetailinQuestion6l1M andinhis introducéon to tlleAd :1' /14,1t::. W1-1.155 n o diabasis toward tlle intelligible t111t11ofcreationand scripturein turnpresupm sesforM aximustlleinlegration and reorientation ofhumanily'swholemolaland spiritualdevclopment. He
indicatestbisin hisinterpretation ofPeter'svisionandoftheinjunction to ç:rise.kill,andmqto(Acts10:13): The shem held by fourcorners(cf.Acts 10:11)signifies the sensibleworld,itKlfhcld togethe, rby fourelement:. So too the
reptiles.wildanimals,andbirdsoftheair(cf.ibid.10:12)represent tlm differcntprinciples(ldzwl)ofcreatures,principlesthatare
133
tuliveforthemysteryoftruelheology (r4# dâpe i). d rXoloyfc. g
z' tsyvoM p6ovj.'56
lW êt. ç' - G-ayl/tz- œ tsuyflinf:eAdn nlassium W hile contemplalion (Wuptajisclearly theplimary medium ofthe A netmtion ofthe inzlligibleprinciplesofcreation orthe spizituqlsenx sof
scripttzre,andIhe specialobjeu ofourinteresthere,itcannotlv separated from thewlzoleprogram ofthespirituallife in lheConfessor'smought. AsJ. Lemaitrc remarks ofM aximus.l'One willbecome a contemplatorofnature
unclean asregardssense,butclean,nutritious.and life-sustaining
justasonelc omcsaspirilalexegeteofscripture:bypraxx bypurity.by
asregardsthemind.Thevoiceheardth1. * times(cf.ibid.10:16)
hermeneuticscarmotbestudiezt properlysm aking,in isolationfrom hislarger
ream ctivelyteachespractical,natural,J?W theologicalphilosophy
(vplx' rtx' ?j&=l4@(rIA-r)ral#trod loytr?j4IA(wp#c).Forhewho 'tarises''notonce,buttwice and a third time.mustfçkill''lhe
pllenomenalcreationandcatitintellectllnlly(
xG$,olxying
Godwholly and sincerely.Firsk lzewho *'riscs''from adisposition impassioned over phenomenal lings Gkills''the movementof
phenomena and by performing virtue ç'eats''virtue (dperqj. Second,hc who 'e rises''from false opinionsaboutcreated beings '4kills''th*exlernalformsofphenomenaand,'<eating''tlleinvisible
plinciples.practkesnaturalcontemplation in the Spirit(4ê'v p'a-l/ztzrtytvrta-?lWol ptqj. Third,llowho êtrises''from theerror ofm lytheism sacrificesthe vei' y ossence ofcreatcd M ingsandby faith 'Yats''the Cause of those beings arld is filled with a
theologicalm wer(Woàoyt@ é' p lnzrus$.n ereforeeverycontemphtivemind(eeuvrtnrô. be- 17. *.havinginhand''theswordofthe Spirit,whichisthewordofGod''(Eph.6:17),and havingwithin it%lfcutoffthe movementofthephenomcnalcreation,eestablishes
the virtuoss by grace.''l57 By now it is quite clear that M aximus' spirilualantlunm logyandhisar ticism. Numerous M nximian scholarshave alrmqdy obsorved the Confessor's indebtodncss q)Evagriusfor histriad ofspiritualdevelopmenkls8 which
embracestho th1. e, 0ph%esofp' pdl' z. m (variously referred to asnpaKvtrtl /Ilot7. o4Jwjl to intelligible rcalitigs, dospite their connatuml relation,without contemplating intermediary sensible lhings, but it is also absolutely imm ssible forcontcmplation to lake place without
scnse(which isnaturallyakintoKnsiblethings)tringjoinedwith the mind. Thusitisfairto say thatiftlle mindencountersand is entangled in lle appearance,sofvisible things,believing thatia com panion,sense,isitsnatum lactivity.the m ind by nature falls
138
DiabasisintlieQuaesdonestzd Thalassium
SubjectiveandMicra smicDimensions
away from nœ tic thingsand unnaturally layshold ofcorporeeal
thingsinthepracdceofnattlmlcontemplationlstnnniIZt # W).a
objects wi1 lyoth hands.so to sm ak. Itdœ sso irrationally,
e w ledgetha1ksconveyedby meansofthesoul sincethesoulis
llocauseithasbeen taken overby sense. ltfathersthe griefofa soultormentedbyrm tedscourgesofccu ience,aM lm lmesqle creatorofsensiblepleasure.and fattensitselfwith notionsofhow to presew e tlte fleesh. On the olher hand,ifthe mind,in its encounlerswith lhe aplraranc:ofvisible things to sense,simultaneously cuts through tllatappearance and beholtls the pure
akindofborlkrland(yeWmos' jbetweenthemind(m fv)andsonse (JCH pcI. $*). For the knowledge of sensible things is not
spiritualprinciples(lJyot)ofcrmatedY ingsf1. % of*eexternal forms(œxnigqrajofthose beings.itacquiresthepleasttreofthe soulby subjecting ilselftononeoftbethingsobservedby Knse.
ttrf/4d# ' tclofmindandsensetooneanother.Itissham dbythe externalfonns(œM ltarqjofsensiblethingsin relationto sense; butin rehtion to themind,ittranslatesfyerapfpdlovœajthe figurestrlrvolloftheseexternalfonnsinto principles@Jyot).
Itpoducesthegriefofsensebydepliving itsdfofeverything that isby natureKnsible.Forwhenreason * e. sprecedenceoverxnse in tlle contemplation of visiblo Gings, thc flesh is naturally deprivcd ofallpleasure,since xnse is no longerfree and loosed from thehmdsofreason to puouesensualpleasures.lso
Thohumansubjectstandsexistendally,asitwere.inthem sitionofAdam in pamdise,forcedtochœsetuweenthe'Ye.eoflifeH(111te11xd11allegoricallyas tlle voûrjand the %'tre, e ofthe knowledge ofgood and evile (rendered
allegoricallyasdcë mvl,Y twe. enwisdom andirrationality.l8l Yetwhiie M aximus often stresses tbis radical mortification of tlm sensiblefacultiosby reaxm aspartoftheprœ essofnaturalcontemplation,l8z healso stillenvisionsa highercollalm tion lrtweenalltlle facultiesslo arld
withintl w samosceœ ,anaturalreunion ofvoûr and (Jc@ cu. $*.tB4 Trtle contemplauonwillenuilnotmerdyGevisionofexternnlobjectsbutaISOa certain solf-conkmplauon in which the mind.by comprehending the lowor faculliesoftllexmlin aspirimalway.lurmonizesand integratesthem.1B5
InQuestion49sMaximusshowsquiteclearlytheidealcollaborationof
senseandintellectinnaturalcontemplation(4.7:1 WW qj.andindicatesas welltlm dynamicsofWuvla itself:
139
completelyremovedh' om one'sntlezicfaculty,norwhollyassigned to the activity ofsense.butisattlle middle,asitwere,of the
juncuon tx X &s$ ofthepathhom tllemind tosense,andsense to tlle miad. In turn.thisknowledgc forms.in itself,tlle union
Hence the knowledge ofvisiblc lhingshaq boen callod a '*river flowing thm ugh them iddleofthe city''with goodreason.since it
isameanQzeratvjw oçjbetween extremes,thatis,W weenmind and Kl1R .'B6
Tho sources and the fullerscom of#vqLKk #eawftz in Maximus'
thoughthavebee. n thoroughly worked ove, rin carlier:tt1(11e,s,187soIneednot delve into an oxtensiveanalysishere. Itisonough to note thatitsprincipal
objective isthe apprehension oftl)eLogos-christ(and thustoo the whole Trinity)asCreatorand Cause,andasInstigatoroftheredcmptiveeconomy concealed wilin thellyotofthe natul'alcreation and ofKripture.lB8 One
could calliq in generalterms,akind of''informe,dintuilionl akataphatic or
aftinnative confessien ofthe magnificence Sev govpylajoftheGodof creationlBgandtheMightyActsSeyakovpy4lzartùoftleGY ofsalvation history.lgo n is contemplation is itself a grace. mlopen-ended kind of
knowledgetha1isconstantly needing to 1x:elevated and spiritualized(thus Maximus'notion of ?jèv pw ll/zcn 4vo &A Xrtl pfcllgl by the Logos himselt whoisconductingthehuman subjecttowardapaticipation in his redemptivegw ' r4mov.391 Ofsm cialinzrestto usatthispointis hisconception ofGscriptural
'% erivorflowingtlmmghthemiddleofthecit/'(2Chron.32:4) signifie,sknowledgclA' l. ètp. mlgatheredfrom conceptsofsensible
conlemplatione (ypa6d *' -pftz)asacorollaryofnatltmlcon/mplation l4vo. nrk :ea?p//).193 Ihave already indicated above the philosophical
lzltl
DiabasisintheQuaestionesJ# Thalassium
foundation of thfs idea in Maximus'application of lligzdApldoctrine to scripture.lg4 ' Ihe notionsofâdyor and nweûga are integrally related in M aximus' tl1ought.195 asisargued exogetically in hislong resw nse in Ad Thalassium 65. Here itisprecisely le ono who becomesanotler*'SauI'' disposilionally.by clinging to the lett:rofle law.who is resm nsible for
murderinglheGGabaonitres''(Gie onitos;cf.2Kings21:1),ornallAmlprinciples(o1K' qrà/lJm #2J)'ot).1Q6 n roughoutthiscxtcnded exposition.
Iv)oftheprinciplesofintelligiblethings,which
kslikethedrinking ofhisblood. God'swisdom longagoprepare,d these principlesmystically in tlze book ofProverbs,lrough the ancientt' iguresoftltebowlformixing wineand ofthe animalsfor
sacrificc(cf.Prov.9:1-2). Buttho Logosdœ snotgrantushis hmes- lhalis,tlle principles ofhis divinity thattranscend our intelligence- sincethey areequally and infinitely (listanced from every created natm' e,none ofwhom hasany faculty capable of relating tothoseprinciples. ltcould a1* lx said tlxattlm fler, h oftheLogosistruc virm e
tdpez' lf),hisblood infallibleknowledge(yvtlctçj.andhisbones
148
DiabasisintheQuaestionestltfThalassium ineffable theology (oeonoylq). In thesame waythatbltxxlis physically changed into flesh,knowledge Lqtransformed tlupugh asceticpractice into virtue. And,Eke thebonesthathold together
flesh and bltxMt theprincipleesofhisdivinity,whidltranscend a1l intelligerre,inhere in created beingsandcreatc,inaway unknown to us.the essence. s ofthose beings and sustain lhose bcings in existence. These principlos,moreover,are constitutive fora11 u owledgeand virtue. Ifsomexme werc to claim thatthe flesh anllblood are the
principles ofjudgmentand providence,atsome pointto be complotelyconsumed and drunk,while thehmesarotlleineffable principlesofdivinity thatmingled in with them,then O tw rvlon would notlx erring.it= msto me. Itcould N ltapsbosaid aswdlthattte fle'sb oftheLogosis theretmm and remorationofhuman nalure to itselfthrough vinuc,
whilèhisblood isthefuturedeitication (Woxns'jthatwillsustain humannatlzrebypaceuntoeternalwell-being (7'Jde1eôe' l#m l. His bones aro the unknown power itx lf that sustains human nature.through theprœ essofdeification,unto thateternalwellM ing. Finally,ifsomeone wero to rcndcran even more desim blo explanation,and say tlmtthe flesh is voluntary mortilk ation tltrough vinue.that the blood is the m rfection through death resultingfrom tribulationsforthe sakeoftruth,and thatthelxmos are the primary and inaccossibleprinciplesofdivinity,he would have aglxxlinterpretation and would in no way deviaœ from tho ProN meaning ofthis2xt.224 M aximus expresses much the same idea,albeitfocusing more speci-
fically on n' pdti. çand eeupta,inQnestion 36. Hereilisasked why the Igraelirsconsumed lemeatoftheirm crificesbutIxlGe outtheblood (cf.
Deut 12:27).Maximus,indicatingagainthattheLogosincamateshimselfin thespiritualmeanîng ofthe commandmene ofsc: 111)turc: .225cxplainsthn'tho
ancientsfailed tograspthellyot(:tb100d:')ofthecommandmentstogethcr
Notes
149
with+eirliterala:1v 1 (ra Aztpr llze- l,theirO esh,''and inturnfellshort of;t= # y1* :. 1*.226 O utChrisqwhoa asahighFie4loffutureY nefitp (Heb. 9:11),offerstheineffablesacrificesgiving himxlfthroughfleesh and bltxxlto thosewho.witha view to perfocuon.arehaving the sensesoftheirsoulY aintd todistinguish betwoen good andevile
(Heb.5:14).227 'Iheonewhoism rfectedintllespirituallifothereforenotonlyeatstheO esh'' ofthovirtuesin tlzcpacUC,aIlifebutdrinksthe xtblood''by contemplatingthe tsyoz of the rriplural commanthnenls,lhereby Golcvaling th: sensible al
activityofwilathedoesto tho levelofintellecttmlknowledge''fwpk rrlp' ra'rà lz01 7lzyvoçnv#IzJ#l##(%&'rkv' r,7BykvopèvuvA' cr'ato' grlv' kv *>WW *.225 In these two pivoultextsfrom Ad Thalassium 35 and 36,M aximus summnn'a shischrise entricvision ofthespiritualdiabasisfrom sensibleto intelligible truth.n e incarnationalmystery ofthe Logos-christ.in itsfull
spiritualm werCetlesh's.-/*blocxp- efbonu-lsbringsahmtacommtmionwilll himselfthatengagesthebelievtr'swholespirituallife: wpaK71 ive merelyadyadbocausehewasonlyprogreesingandllad notyelattainod to tltisbighervision Q uaest.in Gen.4.30.Ixe ed..3053t)0.n ediGinctionlvzweenAbraham andLG isthusa 'Anatt ualdistinctjon M twemn fheperfectman and theprogrossce'(48ia#và ropreketovhml ' ropvm xdrrrolzross. Trinitariansv ulationonthistor sabounded among both Gree. k and Latin paeistic exçgetes. Sre n unbûrg's study.*<Eafly
they usemoreintermediate,down-lo-earth images.Theycallhim theblazing
Christian Interpretations oftho'1xrx Angdsin Gcncsis 18,''Stpatr 1,TU
jirewhichdœsnotcaux dostruction(Fxod.3:2),waterfillinguplifeand,so tosW, akaenteringthestomacltandforminginexhaustiblestreams(John7;38, from Prov.18:4:cf.John4:14). Sometimesthe imagesareoftlzeIowlicst kind,such mqswcet-smelling ointment(Song 1:3)aqd cornerstone (Isa. 28:16;Eplu2:20). Sometimeslle imageryisevenderive, d from animalsso
92 (Berlin: Akademie-vorlag,19e ).560-570,and notably 568-569,on
thatGGIis deescrilxd as la lion orupanther.aleopard ora charging bear
qsa.31:49Hos.5:14;13:79. Add to th1:whalseeemstllelowlieo standmost incongnlousofall,forthe experts in things (livine gave him the fonn ofa
worm lPs.21:7F tlrans.Colm Luibhdd,Pseudo-Dionysius: T/le Complete Works.CW S lMallwall,NJ.: PaulistPress,19871.152,emphasisadded). Maximusalso sm aksatlength oftheeçcornerstone''çQ.FM l.48,CCSG 333,40. 41)and'çwonn''(ibid.64.PG 713A)Rnnlogies. 61.Elsewhere.in Cap. theol.2.10,63,66-70 (PG 90.1129A-B, 1152C-D.ll53A-1156D),in termsstrongly reminiscentefOrigen*scom-
mentyyon lle variousênlvjnakofthe Logosinscripturalwords(cf. esm clally his Comm.in Joann.j.Maximus describes how,spiritually
con/mplaled tho Logosis axemtlstm' d seed ''çtchaff''Gçdew '*qtdoor''etc.
A ingltisincarnationinlheM yotofscripttlre).VonBaltlhqsar(Kosmiscke Liturgie,534-538,547)jmsmadedefinitivccomparisonsofMaximushere witllOrigen'scommentaries,hisnotion ofèwtvœat,andhisulogology. '' 62.In elucidating here how scripttlre ksaccommodated forottrspiritual diabasis'M aximus recall. ça familiartopos in eady Christian exegesis, Ho h itin much thesame way inQu.etdub.39 (111,10) had already dealtwit .
(CCSG 10.32,1-33,34),tontrastingAbraham aslheconsummatevisionaryof
M aximus'interpreu:onand itsimmcdiateChristianbackgfouni
63.Q.T' V l.28 (CCSG 203,4-25)9cf.ibid.44(CCSG 299,7f9. 64.fbid.28 (CVSG 205,51-64).Suchaninterproutionoftheplurality astlleTrinitywasafaidystandard onein m tristicexegesis.
65.lbid.(CCSG 203,26-205.41;205,64-69): p' plsvvok dcrtrp ik. * .lbid.44(CCSG 299,11-27).Maximuswrites(ibid.299,28-301.35): '< Noonewouldconsidertheform ofsm aking in irony(rôe18os'' rz/s-Kav ' e/ptuvtrfavldlb trttps' l to lx.foreign to scripturalusagt.afterhearing th= .
.
Kripture O thasthe pel' son ofGGIsaying to Isfael, *Ifyouwm contrary to
me,Iwillalx)walkconlaly toyou'tLev.26:27-28),knowingfullwellthat
tllis econtrarinessgdiffors in no way from irony;oragain. after(liscovering how GGIplanned llledeception ofAhab.so thatfalsehood wasprophesied to
him astruth.bywhkhhesinnedandjustlyincurredpunishment''(cf.3Kings 22:15-23). 67.lbid.(CCSO 301,35-39$ 68.SR esm cially Ps.-Dionysius,De cael. Yer.2(PG 3.136D-145C), andEp.9 (PG 3.l1(XA-1ll3C)on how scripture uxssymbolic #'dissimilarities''fortt:esakeofdnzyfuyt.OnthoPs.-Dionysianbackgrmmd ofthis hermeneutical theme.see Paul Rorem,Biblical and Liturgical Symbols
wfl/lfa the Pseudom ionysian Synthesis.Studiesand Texts71 (Toronto: PontificalInstituteofMedievalStudies,1984),84-96. 69.Q.Thal.28(CCSG 205,42.45). 70.Cf.Deprïac.4.2.9 (GCSO 5.321.3-15).onthisnotionofpurpose-
theTrinity,withLota, stheonewhohadGnotyetcrossed overL&apdçj
fulox-dv&ùa in scvipture.
reslxctively lo Abral urlv(Gen.1822)and Lol(Gca.19:1)stem. çozigipally
ox-dv&ù a is,ineffed,extended even to thedissimilaritiesandcrasssignsof
visible tlungs.'' n e interpreution oftlle throe and two angels appearing
71.Cf.Decael.hier.2.3.5 (N 3.141B-C.145B),wheretheideaof
from Philo'strindic sm culationson thesepassagesinDeAhrtp/lc??1o 119-132
scriplltm lznninology.
andQuaezt.inGen.4.2. Pllilo'stheory wasthatAbraham had mrceived, throught11*threeeangels.theExistentOne@Jöv).orFather,flankedbyhis primarycrotiveand rulingPowers(œ1' lrA rtu dwzdplt-ln ?jzrotrlrlr?lKal# A trtztA' t),infllcx'a Ce''(slillmlative)ofaTliad(DeAbrahamo 122-
his nnngogicalexm sition of2 Cllron.26:gff. M aximus writes: t4Ihave a difficuky in wondering how itispossibleforUzziah, who washistorically the king orJudall,to have vinedresserson Carmel, which waslœ ated notin lhe
72.SR Q.T&Il.4%(CCSG 339,135-143),whero,bdoroenaringon
l62
DiabasisintlleQuaestionestzd Thalassim
Noes
163
kingdom ofJudahbutin thekingdom ofIsrxl. Indeed,thecapitalcisy ofthe kingdom ofIsraelwasbuiltonCarmel. ltsecms,however.thattle W ord11% mixed whatisuntfueinto lbe historicalnalrative in ortlerlo ar thi ouso ourdu11 nking in qulstofthe m1t11.*:Cf.ibid.65(N 752C-7534. comment ) , wlzere,in his ary on 2 Kings 21:1-14, Maximus notes: tçW here. in the literal
261-262: z*scripture corresm nds to man asa whole reality.butso too its unity isPIP' SG'Ve,IIamid al1dtedifferencestllatlieinnature,andeventlleba r kvelshavo arehtiverightto exisk sinct truth isreveale,d tousprecisely &à
hehad no standingina11tltcbordersoffsrael, wht m itsaysthatM aribaal, t% s on ofJonathan tlle son ofsaul, wasspared byKi ngDavid (2 Kings21:7), and when in 2 Clgonicles itmentions many otherofSaul'sproge
ofOrigen'syttitude toward tlm likralsense inHistoire etesprit:L'intel-
record.dowef' mtltbattheGabaonites(Gibeonites)wipedoulSaulsuchthat Chron.
ny(cf.2
12:2t)? Morx ver,how isitN ssiblotllakwltentlx Gabaonhestook
t11:sgven men from Saul'ssreed,they said,'W e shallwipehim out h . such Zat
halsnostandinginallthobordersofIsrad*(2Chron. 21:S.whenSaulhad de icd ong lrforellalld.ButitsR msttjatwhatisifrationalwasmingledin
th witb th:wording oftho historicalaccounq so thatwe would smarch forthe 12 :11t11of : meaning of die scriptureso (lrapegtyö rq7#r/r: rqs'Jcropftr.r rd
n' apdkoyov,1- ' Z' J' r//. s-tbtalmta,çdlpf. d rr&vyeypc/zW a)/zJpnfx /zep' l. 73.Cf.Q.T&7l.10(CCSG 83,6f1). 74.Ibid.50 (CCSG 379,23-29). 75.Sceibid.58(1X)596*-597A),quotedandanalyzedbelow 76.See.e.g.s ibid.65(PG 753B-C).whereagain,stillcommo .ntingon2
Ki i ngs 21 and the problems of the historicalagcoun!there thathave bcen ae e,d providcntiallyby scripture,M aximusindicateshow onecannotallow tho literalmeaning ofAripturete tecome ab%is forcarnaliîy and 'ç:F m ssion.
leletterkills,butthe spiritgiveslifo'(2 Cor. 3:6).Foritistotally immorsstl ible fortllc corporealand lhe divjne:lementsofthelaw
helee r . ort andthe spirit activoly to cœ xisswith each otlvrattlm sametime sincewhat , c ian destroy lifeisnotinclined tobeinharmony withwhatby naturesupplies t.* Headds(756A): *tn uswhenweinterpretthispasrkage in the litral sense,we donotfindscripttxretcliing the lzuth (dkrlneûovo' aj.M Evagrius similarly notes how when tlle literalsense contributes to attach m ent to sensibleandeqrnnlthings,ilisnottrue: t'Onemustinterpreldivinescripture ntxticallyand spiritually.forsensibleknowledgeK cording to thcIiteralscnse
isnottrue'Lschol.inProv. 251 (SC 340,M 6)). Yetitis notthe historical factsofAxipltlre mssuch thatare attackcd ordenied butprex cupation with wllatsatisfiesronx alone.
77vQ.Thal.50 (CCSG 3:179-40): 4Seopd mfz îL'n' apepxogèvuw n isisequateed with interpremtion '%in the manncroftheJew 78 s''flovqat' sokj.. lbid.(CCSG 381,46-58). (1X;37.9.Amb.10 (PG 91.1160B);d.Ps. Dionysius,De div. novl.4.11 708C-D). .
-
80.Cf.Völker.MaximusConfessoralsMeistertfe. :geistlichenfae& a. $,
'rJlzy/o wd' lw .Justasmanmusîemploy(rdx andclcr@cr tc asnecmssary aids,so ttxhthegosw lmustomploy the Lw and theProphets.'' 81.See.e.g..the strongly am logetictonoofHeiuide Lubac'sîre-qfment
Iigeace& l'Scrïalred'aprèsOrfgêaetparis:Aubier.1950).A -138. 82.Q.n t zl.17(CCSG 111,19-21). 83.Seeibid.52 (CCSG 417.51-62),whereMaximusisfacedwiththe problem ofhow,in2 Chron.32:25-26,the w1, 1% ofGM cameuponHezekiah and the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem .when tlle text only citeg Hezekiah's guilt: x' T he scriptllre further says tltat ellezekiall's heartwas Proud.' Itdœ s notalso go on lo say that the heartof the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judallwasproud. Thus lcould notunderstand why God punished thoseamong th* who wereblamelesstogetherwith bim who was toblame.Fœ itsays,*And Hezekinh'sheartwaqproudiand wfath cameupon him and uponJlvlnhand Jerusalem,'butthetexthasnotsaid aboutthe laœer thatlhey too werc proud. Therefore, since a solution to difficulties is impossible forthom who have given prominence fo the litcmlscnse and
prefen' edthesw cifk word(z' J/p' rJ?z)totheuuemeaning.letusapproachthe spiritual underslanding Lvvevgarix.km rfwdpçuv)ofle scripturesand discoverthe inoxhaustible t1411 Mdden wimin the litemlsense,like a light
shining beforethe loversoftrutll.'* In hisallegoricalin/lprelation (ibid., 417, 63-419,88),inturn.Mnximusgœ sontointezpretç'Judah' 'astheuhabit ofrcm ntancel and ç'Jenlsalem''asthe' )atthe çba 'offaith(cf.Deut.12:27).Inotllerwords.he
himselt by themedium ofsense (alàerlœts.japleasure (forwltichIzebad receivcdthecamcity)inxnsiblethingst' rdalc%rtt' j.''Se'eatsoonthistext
concede,s lo faitlltlw knowledge ofthe principlesthatare Y yond hisown
and anthrom logicaltlteme,Sherwood,HM aximus and Oligenism ,''9-10; SchönY m .4çplaisiretllouleur,''278-279.
makes sltomonts which could.ifisolated,be takcn asmeaning a Gcluono-
155.Cf.Q.Thal.intro.(CCSG 31, 227-39,381),along exm sition of the fallasadeification ofthe corporealand a deviation into theHcomm site
knowledge''(4vûveeros-ypltrlrlofsensiblolings. See noKbly ibid. (37.3310 .wttereMaximl zs(indepertdanceoa Gregot' yofNyssa,De hom.
(?p#:19-20 (1X 44.19K f11)allegorizegthe441c.4oftheknowledgeofgood and evil''ms the phenomenalcroation.which, he explains,givms rise to a composite knowledge N ince creation contains the spiritualprincipleg of visiblo things thatnourish the mind. and since ithasthe naturalability to pleasesenseaswella, sto sttstain the mind.H
156.Q.FMl.27(CCSG 195,65-91).Emphasisadded. 157.DS 2.2,s.v.'tcontemplation--lll.Contemplation cilezlesp K set
autresorientauxchrétiens(11.l.aX Tzwfl4vfnK$,col.1820.
ability.'' Elsewhere too (e.g.,Cap.car.1.86,11G 90.98X ),Maximus
logicap'succession from vg ti. çlok' opta. 164.Q.F&#.3 (CCSG 55.18-20: cf.ibid.52 (CCSG 419,72-73). n e saffle principle obtains atibid.24 (CCSG 157,5-18),where.in an allegory on Acts 12:10 (Peter*spassing by a flrstguard and then a second guqrdY fœ' ecomiagonlheuh' on>23,Maximusindicaleshow,afte. rp%sing Y yond thepassionsandacquiescenctin thosepassionstltrougNn' paKrt4 ytàx o/fl,themind comesto tlze êxiron gate''oftheprœ livity ofsense
toward sensiblelhings;here41.erealized ulunhe ly only tbrough rofloction on them as aspece of me work of Christ,who.in the fullness of his
incamation,isleadingspiritualsubjectsowarddeitication. Butinthe11*1lœ tualdiabasisthatthisentails,th0FarlkularsofKriptixrnlmeaning,evenaf % basert'sensiblee level,arenotin principl:nullificdbythehigherandmore mystagogicalinsights;rather.they continue to undergird the mind in its rosearch in* thomoro sublime mzths.M aximuscarefullydopictsthecontemplationofscripturenotasapure<erwluction''ofthevpdyyara ofscriptureto ilscomprehending mygticallogos,butasagradualand orœ rly'tcontractioneof integralparticularmeaningstoward thatsubtle,centralmystery. AnagogicalExega ismsaUseofScripture
IntheQuaest/nesmfTkalassium Imustnow seek to validate the earlier.preliminary suggeestion that Maximus'mmgogy in theAd Thalassium is% stImderste asatheological and m dagogicaluse ofKripmre,an attemptto articulale new insightsinto
tllcchristœentricylm 4ptovoftheworldandscripturcon thebasisofthc inter-conrrctionsofscripplmlwords,symbols.* 4 Ianguage. It1= lxcome common in modorn biblical-hermeneuticalanalysis to spe'akofatlrologian's''use''ofscripturein leologicalordocln'nnldiscotu'se. n eologians do notpurely and sim ply interpre!scripture, critically or otherwise;conR iously orunconsciously theyaredoing somethingw1t11iq in a m anner lhatisinfonned by theirparticularundcrstanding ofthe nattu' e of K riptureand itsauthorityandexigency.Appw riaungsuch ana11a1y:0,2idea hereneednotlx soen asfoming amodem criucalcategolyonanancientauthor since,ia fact,the idea of the theological utility of scripture w as one acknowledged and embmced--even in a quasi-technicalsense- by patristic exegezsaswell. n ey ttm werefully conscious thatin interpreting scriptlzre they weredoing K melhing witllit.lv iîmodulating thetextto a diversifie,d
AnagogicalExegesisasaUseofScripture
193
audience.prox unding away ofsalvalion,or1*1.57 ' l' lleprosx cq howevm', ofmanipulating the textorengaging in anabusivoe'eixgosis''wasto apvat dcgroe alleviated by the conviction that tho spkitual usdulness, the
'çutilily''Qr tàjor4è profilabililyH'(MW àetq)of:(7111,111re.58wassomething fully intrinsic to the textitself. M aximushimsolfthoroughly eembraced this
cstablisheedprintiple.rootedinOrigenianhenneneutics,oflhefzw le' ttrofthe scriptures.anotioncloselyrelaled totheperceivcdsalvificgoal(cron' k. jof scripture asawho1o.59 In an excellentstudy,themethodology ofwllicllcould provevaluable foranalyzing biblicalexm sition in various historicalepxhs.David Kelsey hasisohtedanumlxrofdivergentmœ etsbywhichmY em leologiansçe use'' scripture to support,shape.and warranttlleologicalargumenksw6o Kelsey notes thatin each model,the theologian ascribesa cerain authority to an aspector aspects of scripture that enables him orher in turn to use that scripture to authorize doctrinalsltemlmts er other sore of theological proposals.6l Kelsty evaluatesthe modelofthoAnglican theologian Lionel Tllornfon under lhe tille Nmage and M ystely.''62 n ismodclprovides a particularlyhelpfulanalogy forthepresentstudyofM aximus'useofscripttu' e because.asKelsey observes,Thornton'swork draws deeply ulxm the early Christian fonn oftypologicalexposition ofscripture in orderto subsantiate whatis,in effem .a
