An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41

IF 0.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo Pub Date : 2021-06-30 DOI:10.2298/fid2102194m
Sotiris Mitralexis
{"title":"An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41","authors":"Sotiris Mitralexis","doi":"10.2298/fid2102194m","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maximus the Confessor?s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather atypical\n observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person. There\n is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was\n intended by God and is ?by nature? (as found in Genesis and asserted by most\n Church Fathers) or a product of the Fall. Namely, Christ is described three\n times as ?shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and\n female?, ?driving out of nature the difference and division of male and\n female? and ?removing the difference between male and female?. Different\n readings of those passages engender important implications that can be drawn\n out from the Confessor?s thought, both eschatological implications and\n otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, Doru\n Costache and Karolina Kochanczyk-Boninska, among others, but is by no means\n settled, as they draw quite different conclusions. The noteworthy and\n far-reaching implications of Maximus? theological stance and problems are\n not the object of this paper. In a 2017 paper I attempted to demonstrate\n what Maximus exactly says in these peculiar and oft-commented passages\n through a close reading, in order to avoid a two-edged Maximian\n misunderstanding: to either draw overly radical implications from those\n passages, projecting decidedly non-Maximian visions on the historical\n Maximus, or none at all, as if those passages represented standard Patristic\n positions. Here, I am revisiting this argument, given that the interest in\n what the Confessor has to say on the subject seems to be increasing.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2102194m","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Maximus the Confessor?s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather atypical observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person. There is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is ?by nature? (as found in Genesis and asserted by most Church Fathers) or a product of the Fall. Namely, Christ is described three times as ?shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and female?, ?driving out of nature the difference and division of male and female? and ?removing the difference between male and female?. Different readings of those passages engender important implications that can be drawn out from the Confessor?s thought, both eschatological implications and otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, Doru Costache and Karolina Kochanczyk-Boninska, among others, but is by no means settled, as they draw quite different conclusions. The noteworthy and far-reaching implications of Maximus? theological stance and problems are not the object of this paper. In a 2017 paper I attempted to demonstrate what Maximus exactly says in these peculiar and oft-commented passages through a close reading, in order to avoid a two-edged Maximian misunderstanding: to either draw overly radical implications from those passages, projecting decidedly non-Maximian visions on the historical Maximus, or none at all, as if those passages represented standard Patristic positions. Here, I am revisiting this argument, given that the interest in what the Confessor has to say on the subject seems to be increasing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
试图澄清在歧义篇第41篇中忏悔者马克西姆斯关于性别差异(命运)的评论
忏悔者马克西姆斯?第41号歧义包含了一些关于人类性别区分的非典型观察。性别的区分究竟是上帝的旨意,还是自然的旨意,这一点有些模棱两可。(在《创世纪》中发现并被大多数教父所承认)或堕落的产物。也就是说,基督被描述了三次,从自然中摇出了男性和女性的特征?从自然界中消除了男女的差别和划分。消除男性和女性之间的差异。对这些段落的不同解读可以从忏悔者中引出重要的含义?无论是末世论的含义还是其他方面。Cameron Partridge、Doru Costache和Karolina kochanzyk - boninska等人都研究过这个问题,但这并没有定论,因为他们得出了截然不同的结论。马克西姆斯值得注意和深远的影响?神学立场和问题不是本文的研究对象。在2017年的一篇论文中,我试图通过仔细阅读来证明马克西姆斯在这些特殊的、经常被评论的段落中到底说了什么,以避免马克西姆斯的双刃剑误解:要么从这些段落中得出过于激进的含义,在历史上的马克西姆斯上投射出绝对非马克西姆斯的愿景,要么根本没有,好像这些段落代表了标准的犹太教立场。鉴于人们对忏悔者在这个问题上所说的话越来越感兴趣,我在这里重新审视这个论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Women’s education, knowledge and competence in Ancient Greece The role of education in Aristotle’s Politics The roman stoics on the emancipatory potential of the philosophical paideia The writing of existence in the latest work of Alberto Moreiras Recognition as a counter hegemonic strategy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1