Review in Vigiliae Christianae: Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (original) (raw)
A Patristic Synthesis of the Word Enfleshed: The Christology of Maximus the Confessor
Religions, 2025
St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662) stands out among the Church Fathers as one of the last Christological martyrs. Maximus possessed one of the greatest minds of the Church’s first millennium. The greatest strength of Maximus’s Christology is that he presents a synthesis of all Christological contributions known to him while developing his own Christology of union in distinction. In order to flesh out his system of Christology, this essay works primarily with select works of Maximus’s, namely, the Small Theological and Polemical Works (Opuscula), the Ambigua, the Questions to Thalassius, and the Mystagogy. It will demonstrate that Maximus’s Christology bears the following four predominant signatures: it is patristic, Incarnational, composite, and cosmic. All four features are interrelated, particularly in Maximus’s theory of the λόγοι (logology), and all four hold significant sway over the whole of his doctrine. The essay concludes with a brief consideration of how the Ressourcement movement has benefitted Maximian studies.
Maximus the Confessor's Ambiguum 7 has long been considered the anchor of a substantial refutation of Origenist cosmology and teleology, with Maximus still seeking to rehabilitate the ascetical "gospel" of Origen. Yet in commenting on Gregory Nazianzen's Oration 14 in Ambiguum 7, Maximus acknowledges that Gregory is dealing less with the scheme of human origins per se than with the miseries attending life in the body, which opens up the whole question of how embodied, passible human existence is the frontier of human salvation and deification. I argue that for Maximus human desire in all its cosmological and psychosomatic complexity-both as a register of creaturely passibility and affectivity, and as integral to the definition of human volition and freedom-is central to the subtle dialectic of activity and passivity in the creaturely transitus to deification. The morally malleable character of desire and the passions, and their ambiguous but ultimately purposive status within the economy of human transformation, decisively manifest the divine resourcefulness in fulfilling the mystery of deification-especially in view of Christ's use of human passibility in inaugurating the new eschatological "mode" (tropos) of human nature. In his engagement of Gregory of Nyssa, in particular, Maximus develops a sophisticated dialectics and therapeutics of desire that integrates important perspectives of the Confessor's anthropology, christology, eschatology, and asceticism.
Union and Distinction in the Thought of St. Maximus the Confessor. By MELCHISEDEC TÖRÖNEN
The Journal of Theological Studies , 2008
REVIEWS examination of the eucharist piece by piece, enabling the scholar to examine the similarities and differences between different sources. Considerable attention is given to Roman and eastern influences: the widespread borrowing across the Mediterranean and beyond is ample testimony to Christian travel and curiosity. Smyth is less convincing when he tries to establish the ancient roots of this liturgical family. As he shows, some of the material may indeed pre-date Nicene Christianity, even in the eucharistie prayers, which are, in virtually all the manuscripts, structured around the comparatively late Sanctus and institution narrative. However, links to remarks in Cyprian are tinged with optimism, to say nothing about the claims of continuity with Justin or even the Didache. But Smyth has ably demonstrated the rich seam of evidence for the liturgy of Gaul and Spain, of considerable importance in itself and also for understanding the Roman rite which somehow is taken for granted as the standard western rite but in other ways could be seen as a hybrid between eastern and Gallican traditions.
Church, Book, and Bishop: Conflict and Authority in Early Latin Christianity
The American Historical Review, 1997
These three essays are a version of lectures delivered at Cambridge. The occasion was organized at Clare Hall by Dr. Janet Huskinson with unfailing thoughtfulness. It was rendered gracious by the hospitality and by the participation throughout of the president, Sir Anthony Low. The panel of discussants chaired by Keith Hopkins -Peter Garnsey, Robin Lane-Fox, Christopher Kelly, and Rosamod McKitterick -have not only left me with food for thought for many years to come: they provided us all with a model, for our times, of commentary and disagreement that were as lively as they were courteous. The presence in the audience of so many friends and colleagues -Henry Chadwick, Ian Wood, Robert Markus, William Frend, Andrew Palmer, to mention only a few -guaranteed that the discussion ranged vigorously throughout the entire late Roman and early medieval period. Altogether, I present these essays with a touch of sadness: they are, simply, the lees of the wine -what survives in print of an unusually vivid and humane occasion. A shorter version of the first lecture had been delivered, in the previous year, as a Raleigh lecture of the British Academy. 1 The themes of that lecture, and of the two subsequent lectures, emerged in large part as a result of my work for sections of volumes 13 and 14 of the Cambridge Ancient History. I owe much to my ergodiôktés in this venture, Averil Cameron, who, along with her editorial colleagues, has done nothing less than put, at long last, three whole centuries of the later Roman period in their rightful place, at the culmination of the history of the ancient world. I was 1
The Relationship between Dionysius Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor: Revisiting the Problem
Studia Patristica XCVI, 2017
John Meyendorff has noticed an implicit 'Christological corrective' made by Maximus the Confessor with regard to the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. Andrew Louth, in a paper presented at the Oxford Patristics Conference in 1991, 'St. Denys the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor: a Question of Influence', has rightly pointed out that these remarks of Meyendorff 'have not been worked out at lenght in a substantial way.' The purpose of this article is to fill this gap., by comparing certain passages in the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" and the "Mystagogy". The conclusion drawn is that Maximus' eschatological understanding of the liturgy is to be seen as an implicit corrective to Dionysius' strictly hierarchical notion of the Church, the church building and the liturgical rites, which implies an opposition or separation between the 'Sacred' and the 'Profane'.
The Priesthood in Maximus the Confessor
Studia Patristica 75, 2017
Based on some of Maximus’ writings this article describes how the Confessor understood the ministerial priesthood of the New Testament: its differences with the pagan and the old testament priesthood; its being based on the mistery of Christ through the imprinting of God’s seal into the soul of the priest; its task of gathering together the God’s people, attracting this people to its own virtue. These teachings of the Byzantine monk are considered from the perspective of the relationship between Christian sacramental rites and spiritual struggle and progress, in order to underline how both dimensions converge.
Theologische Review, 2023
Luke Steven's recent monograph Imitation, Knowledge, and the Task of Christology in Maximus the Confessor is a revised doctoral diss. supervised by Sarah Coakley at the Uni of Cambridge. The author develops a certain 'likeness epistemology', arguing that for Maximus the Confessor the knowledge of God is the result of the achieved likeness of God. S. promises to offer a new route in approaching Maximus' Christology, which is focused on Maximus' notion of imitation and restricted to the rhetorical tools, which Maximus employs in his letters. In the first chap., S. demonstrates that the knowing-by-likeness methodology is not Maximus' invention, but it is deeply rooted in previous pagan Greek, and also Christian tradition. S. skilfully presents how authors such as, Clement and Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian fathers successfully combined ancient like-by-like optical theory, mediated through Aristotle, with enigmatic or allegorical exegesis. In the second chap., the author argues that Maximus adopted this method from Gregory Nazianzen, to whom he dedicated most of his Difficulties. However, according to S., Maximus went a step further than Gregory developing his 'likeness epistemology' in three main directions, namely 'knowing by love', 'knowing by virtue' and 'unknowing by likeness'. Thus, a human being knows God through love and virtue, because God is the love and virtue per se, but also by human desire for God that captures something of the divine transcended reality. The third chap. is dedicated to the theme of deification as process of attaining the likeness with God. practice of Christology in his letters. The fourth chap. is focused on the topic of praise and persuasion as rhetorical devices employed by Maximus in his letters. S. analyses two letters of Maximus, the 2 nd letter on love to John the Cubicularius and the 2nd letter to Thomas.
Pagan energies in Maximus the Confessor: the influence of Proclus on the ad Thomam 5
Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 2012
AXIMUS THE CONFESSOR (580-662) employed Proclus' (412-485) theory of energy in order to gain the upper hand in the monoergist debate. 1 The discussion arose from a controversial passage in Dionysius the Areopagite's fourth letter, which was explained by Maximus the Confessor in his Ambigua ad Thomam 5. 2 Maximus, while repeating verbatim the entire text of Dionysius, can be seen to employ ideas taken from Proclus' neoplatonic theory of energy, in order to explain θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, divine-and-human activity, the phrase employed by Dionysius to define the nature of Christ. Larchet has pointed out similarities on some points
The work of Maximus the Confessor (580-662) presents the philosophical worldview of the Greek-speaking Christian tradition in its most fully developed form. It is comprehensive both in the extent to which it draws upon earlier authors-including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, Nemesius of Emesa, Evagrius of Pontus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Dionysius, among others-and in its far-ranging scope. Pride of place among the influences on Maximus must undoubtedly go to Pseudo-Dionysius. Like the Areopagite, Maximus regards 'good' as the preeminent divine name, and he welcomes the Platonic and Neoplatonic description of the Good as "beyond being" as appropriate to the Christian God. He is also like Pseudo-Dionysius in his vision of the cosmos as fundamentally theophanic, a manifestation of intelligible or spiritual reality in sensible form. However, Maximus is more explicit than Pseudo-Dionysius about the role of the divine will in creation, and he gives a more prominent role to the Incarnation as the central act by which the divine is made manifest. Accordingly, whereas Pseudo-Dionysius can be (and often has been) read as implicitly denying that God is a personal being, for Maximus the personal character of God is never in question.
Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher
6. Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher, S. Mitralexis, G. Steiris, M. Podbielski, S. Lalla (eds). Cascade Books / Wipf and Stock: Eugene OR 2017, p.342. ISBN: 978-1-4982-9558-1., 2017
The study of Maximus the Confessor's thought has ourished in recent years: international conferences, publications and articles, new critical editions and translations mark a torrent of interest in the work and innuence of perhaps the most sublime of the Byzantine Church Fathers. It has been repeatedly stated that the Confessor's thought is of eminently philosophical interest. However, no dedicated collective scholarly engagement with Maximus the Confessor as a philosopher has taken place—and this volume attempts to start such a discussion. Apart from Maximus' relevance and importance for philosophy in general, a second question arises: should towering gures of Byzantine philosophy like Maximus the Confessor be included in an overview of the European history of philosophy, or rather excluded from it—as is the case today with most histories of European philosophy? Maximus' philosophy challenges our understanding of what European philosophy is. In this volume, we begin to address these issues and examine numerous aspects of Maximus' philosophy—thereby also stressing the interdisciplinary character of Maximian studies. " is groundbreaking volume correctly identiies an odious convention in the division of disciplines: while major thinkers such as Augustine or Aquinas self-evidently make their way into being part of philosophy's legacy, equally major thinkers that are categorized as 'religious' are exiled to the hermetically sealed domain of theology, even if their contribution to classical philosophical problems is unique, pertinent, and most fecund. e book at hand delivers on its promise of reclaiming Maximus the Confessor for philosophy and of recognizing his oeuvre as a critical contribution to its history; as such, it is one of those endeavors that contribute to nothing less than a paradigm change. " GRIGORY BENEVICH, e Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities " is rich and diverse set of essays goes far in demonstrating not only the depth and nuance of Maximus the Confessor's philosophical theology in its own context but its relevance to a wide array of contemporary theological concerns. ey indicate very well why the study of Maximus has experienced a profound renaissance in the past several years, as this is a thinker whose stature matches the far more studied gures of Augus-tine and Aquinas. From metaphysics to theological anthropology, from apophaticism to ethics, this collection is a ne contribution to the expanding research on Maximus and will further generate interest in the Confessor among historical theologians, philosophers, and scholars from a wide variety of disciplines.