{"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":"0","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.