Hermeneutical premises in the work “Answers to Thalasius” by St. Maximus the Confessor. Contributions to Orthodox Biblical Hermeneutics

Contents Moral prerequisites, or motivation for biblical exegesis Humility, or understanding of one's own limitations, as a prerequisite for exegesis Deliverance from passions as a prerequisite for exegesis The work of the Spirit of God as a prerequisite for interpretation Spiritual experience is a prerequisite for biblical exegesis Prayer as a prerequisite for biblical hermeneutics Love and obedience as the motivation for biblical interpretations Glorifying God as the ultimate goal of biblical exegesis Conclusions The study of the works of such a biblical scholar as our holy father Maximus the Confessor, who is not usually classified as an exegete of the Holy Scriptures, involves, among other things, the elimination of the “injustice” that has been allowed for many centuries in relation to the assessment of his works from the point of view of exegesis and biblical hermeneutics. Saint Maximus the Confessor offers us a fairly developed hermeneutic plan, different from the biblical hermeneutics found today, even in Orthodox textbooks on hermeneutics, but consistent with the traditions of patristic spirituality and theology, especially the traditions reflected in the Philokalia. The direction of the Alexandrian biblical school did not disappear, as studies on the history of biblical exegesis would have us believe, but it survived or was continued in one form or another by writers or the Church Fathers. One of them was, undoubtedly, Saint Maximus the Confessor. His method of exegesis differs obviously from the historical method used by the Antiochene school. St. Maximus is the author of the only exegetical work, “Responses to Thalasius,” to which we will limit our study. So, our choice settled on the work of St. Maximus “On various difficult passages of the Holy Scriptures”, better known as “Answers to Thalasius”. We are convinced that the work “Answers to Thalasius” contains enough material to identify the features of St.’s hermeneutics. Maxima. The reader of the Replies to Thalasius will notice that the exegesis of St. Maximus is very different from exegesis in general, as we know it, from the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom, for example, and from traditional exegesis, which remains faithful to the latter. From this point of view, St. Maxim offers the reader direct or indirect information, which, with appropriate systematization, could lead us to a full-fledged theological hermeneutics. Based on the need to study the biblical hermeneutics of St. Maxim, in this report we will set ourselves the task of analyzing the moral premises of biblical exegesis as they are presented in the work “Answers to Thalasius”. Before starting the analysis, I would like to express my conviction that St. Maximus is a characteristic representative of Orthodox theology, and thus of Orthodox biblical hermeneutics. Moral Presuppositions, or the Motivation of Biblical Exegesis These premises determine the internal structure of the exegete before he begins to interpret the biblical text, and determine the motivation for exegesis. In other words, these are the motives that prompt the exegete to begin analyzing biblical texts and explaining their meaning. Before proceeding directly to the answers, St. Maxim feels the need to make an introduction, which is a short but real treatise on biblical hermeneutics. The most important factor for St. The maxim is motivation, i.e. precisely what prompts him to ultimately accept the request of the monks of Thalasius and answer their questions. Seeing that Thalasius does not respond to his urgent request to allow him not to interpret the places marked by the monks, St. Maxim finally decides, “against his will,” to begin what, in his words, “exceeds his strength.” The only motive that prompts him to do something against his will that exceeds his strength is the fear that, because of his refusal, “the love between brothers will suffer in some way.” Humility, or understanding of one's own limitations, as a prerequisite for exegesis Honesty and a conscientious approach to scientific research obliges us to mention the clearly expressed humility of St. Maxima. Stronger than this state of true humility is only love, fear, lest because of his refusal the love between him and the brotherhood of Thalasius might suffer in some way, because of a refusal that Thalasius and others like him could regard as disobedience: “I’m afraid that the love that unites us might suffer in some way, and that my refusal might seem to you a sign of disobedience, and therefore I dare, against my will, to do what exceeds my strength." St. Maximus takes upon himself the risk of being known as impudent and becoming a laughing stock for everyone because of his desire not to in any way damage the spirit of love among the brethren: “I considered it best to be accused of impudence and to be ridiculed by those who wish it, so that love would not be shaken or weakened.” The awareness of the limitations of human understanding regarding the depth of the meaning of Scripture, on the one hand, and the ardent desire not to leave unanswered the request of those who asked him so many questions, even if revealing only part of the meaning, on the other hand, is what motivates St. Maxim to begin the most difficult task of interpretation. At the same time, St. Maxim notes from the very beginning that he will speak to the best of his ability and cannot promise to reveal the full meaning of all Scripture. St. Maximus displays humility not only before those who will read his work, but also before God himself. And this is because the brothers' request leaves him alone with the Scriptures, with the Word of God, with God himself. Therefore St. Maxim endlessly prays to God to forgive him for his boldness in touching upon the interpretation of difficult passages of Holy Scripture and at the same time to help himself with His grace to understand and interpret them as appropriate: “And forgive me, Christ, that I dare, at the command of Your most worthy servants, to do what exceeds my strength. Enlighten my darkened mind to understand the chosen passages, so that Your glory may increase, as You give sight to the blind and eloquence to the tongue-tied.” St. Maxim realizes the impossibility of understanding the words of Scripture without help from above; only God grants correct understanding, while erroneous understanding is allowed by God to humble the pride that comes from knowledge. St. Maximus tirelessly repeats that the exegete should not consider it his merit to comprehend the meaning of Scripture, for this is a matter of God’s grace; therefore, one should not express dissatisfaction or fall into sadness in case of misunderstanding, because for everyone there is the Providence of God, caring for the benefit of the one who tries to understand and cannot, and at the same time realizes his weakness. Deliverance from passions as a prerequisite for exegesis According to the basic hermeneutical premise, “the power to seek and study the things of God” was imparted by the Creator at the very bestowing of life on his creation. But the Fall darkened the minds and hearts of people and deprived them of these powers. Finding what is lost requires the action of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Let us dwell on the renunciation of passions, or, rather, consider the exit from the state of passions as a prerequisite for the beginning of understanding the Divine and, therefore, understanding and interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Getting out of a state of passion, or getting rid of it, involves two stages. First of all, this is “a reasonable renunciation of the attachment of the soul to the body,” accompanied by “a complete renunciation of the mind from feelings through the spirit,” and then “the transformation of the body into the most honest mother of virtues” and the transformation of “the feelings into an inexhaustible source of divine knowledge.” According to St., they can truly interpret the content of the biblical text. Maxim, only those who “for the sake of great purity of mind, accepted a gift from God to the extent that they could accept.” St. Maximus also allows for different levels of understanding, corresponding to the degrees of renunciation of passions and purification of the mind. He speaks of a state of “minority of mind.” If the exegete has not tried or been unable to get rid of passions, then he will touch the words of Scripture, inevitably driven by some passion. One of the most common passions is the desire for knowledge as an end in itself, i.e. curiosity or desire to excel others in knowledge of Scripture. “Those who seek the things of God without partiality will surely find what they seek. But the one who searches with passion will not find anything, for he seeks unrighteously. For it is said: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask not for good, but to use it for your lusts” (James 4:3).” The measure of deliverance from passions, which must be achieved by those who want to approach the understanding of the Divine and, consequently, the words of Scripture, according to St. Maxim, very high. We are talking not only about getting rid of passions as such, but also about complete separation from “sensual images”, complete liberation from the “evidence” of the sensory material world, the world of visible and tangible forms. Getting rid of passions frees the spirit of a person for those closest to him, i.e. for the Spirit of God. The work of the Spirit of God as a prerequisite for interpretation If the Holy Scripture was given in the Spirit, then this happened and was possible because the Spirit of God was first sent down to the world at Pentecost, which made it possible to understand the Scripture. St. Maximus constantly refers to the conditioning of exegesis by the presence and participation of the Spirit of God. According to St. Maxim, it is absolutely impossible to understand the spiritual without enlightenment by the Spirit. “The power to seek and study the works of God was imparted by the Creator when he gave life to his creation. But the essence of the Divine is revealed through the grace of the Holy Spirit. However, immediately after the Fall, the evil one deprived people of these powers. “And there is not one who understands and seeks God” (Ps. 13:2; 52:3), since everyone involved in the human race limited the power of mind and reasoning in the presentation of tangible things and did not have no idea of ​​what transcends the sensory world. Rightly, the grace of the Holy Spirit restored the strength of those who did not deliberately fall into error with all their hearts, but renounced the material world. Thus, having again received purity through grace, they first sought and examined, and then sought with diligence and examined with special care the Divine mysteries through the same grace of the Lord. Therefore, it is not permissible to say that in the knowledge of sacred mysteries grace alone acts, without the participation of forces that receive knowledge through reason. For suppose that the holy prophets did not understand the revelations communicated to them by the Holy Spirit. But then how could the word of Scripture turn out to be true: “The heart of a wise man makes his tongue wise and increases knowledge in his mouth” (Proverbs 16:23). On the other hand, they could not obtain true knowledge of things, trying to comprehend them only by the power of their mind, without the grace of the Holy Spirit. For in this case it would be unnecessary for the Spirit to remain in the saints, not enlightening them to the knowledge of the truth. And how then would the word come true that says: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming from You, the Father of lights” (James 1:17) or “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the benefit. To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Yet one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases.” (1 Cor. 12:7-11). Continuing, St. Maximus clarifies a little lower: “Consequently, the grace of the Holy Spirit does not give wisdom to the saints without the participation of the mind, which receives it, nor knowledge without the mind, capable of perceiving it, nor faith without convincing the mind and reason of what will be, but for the time being hidden, nor the gift of healing without love for people, no other gift, if there is no ability to accept it. But even the above cannot be obtained by a person only through his own efforts, without the power of God, which gives these gifts.” After a number of examples from the Old Testament history of St. Maximus concludes: “From this it is clearly clear that all the saints, on the one hand, received revelation from the Holy Spirit, and on the other hand, asked to enlighten their minds to comprehend the meaning of the revelation. In the same way, the grace of the Spirit does not in any way abolish the power of reason, but rather elevates it to the understanding of the Divine.” When St. Maxim speaks of the need for spiritual experience as a prerequisite for biblical exegesis; he means that experience of the Spirit of God, which the holy fathers of the Church speak about and which is one of the ultimate goals of their asceticism. Their efforts to cleanse themselves of passions are aimed at preparing a place for the Holy Spirit, who will open the doors of experience through life and participation in the affairs of God and through this will make it possible to understand the acts of God and everything else through the prism of the Divine. Spiritual Experience is a Prerequisite for Biblical Exegesis Under the spiritual experience of St. Maxim understands contemplation, or the vision of God, and contemplation, or the vision of the essence of things. We find again at St. Maxim clearly expressed the idea of ​​​​the encounter between the “testimony of Scripture” and spiritual experience, between Holy Scripture and spirituality. We are talking about what another Church Father, Hesychius Sinai, spoke about when he proposed the basic principle of hermeneutics: “The word that I have spoken on the basis of experience agrees with the testimony of Scripture.” In the understanding of the Holy Fathers of the Church, spiritual experience becomes the main hermeneutic guideline, which, on the one hand, confirms the correctness of the meanings that the exegete sees in the biblical text, and on the other hand, provides the opportunity for those who accept exegesis to understand it, precisely in order to be able to know the truth by turning to their own experience. It is clear that the first person who needs this experience is the exegete. Otherwise, he will not be able to comprehend the deep meaning of Scripture, no matter how hard he tries, precisely because he has no idea or concept about it. Saint Maximus often says that difficult passages of Scripture can be understood only by those who have succeeded in contemplating God. St. Maximus speaks of a “double knowledge” of the Divine: one is relative and consists only of reasoning about meanings. The other is actually true and consists only of experienced experience without reasoning about meanings and provides a complete feeling of the Known through grace. The lack of experience of the Divine, which makes it impossible to understand it, prompted, according to St. Maximus, the Church Fathers did not reveal much of the meaning of the biblical text, which was accessible to them only through experience. Anyone who wants to comprehend the Divine word of Scripture will need to make a lot of effort and at the same time experience the experience of communication and meeting with God. Prayer as a Prerequisite for Biblical Hermeneutics The consciousness of the inability to penetrate into the deep and ambiguous meaning of the Divine word of Scripture establishes prayer as one of the essential prerequisites for interpretation. With a deep conviction of the limitations of one’s own strength to know and comprehend the Divine word of Scripture, St. Maxim the Confessor constantly turns to God in prayer and asks others to pray for him, so that he may be granted Divine grace, the gift of understanding the meaning of Scripture. Prayer is for St. Maximus the Confessor is an essential condition for correct interpretation. St. Maximus begins his answer to the 48th question with prayer. This is a very beautiful prayer with unusually rich content regarding the characteristic features of St. hermeneutics. Maxima. “Come, O Glorious Word of God, and introduce us, to the best of our ability, to the understanding of Your words, remove the veil from our eyes, show us, O Christ, the beauty of spiritual meaning. Take us by the right hand (stand at the right hand?), grant strength to the mind and guide us on the path of Your commandments. And lead us to the place of Your most beautiful tent inside the house of God in the voice of joy and the noise of the celebrants, so that we, having confessed our sins and being in the joy of contemplation, become worthy to come to the ineffable place of Your feast and eat spiritual food together with the saints, singing with incessant voices the knowledge of the ineffable. And forgive me, Christ, that I dare, at the command of Your most worthy servants, to do what exceeds my strength. Enlighten my darkened mind to understand the chosen passages, so that Your glory may increase, as You give sight to the blind and eloquence to the tongue-tied.” Prayer transforms the act of exegesis into an act of communication with God, strengthening the relationship between the exegete and God. Love and Obedience as Motivation for Biblical Interpretation The only thing for St. Maxima stands above humility, there is love, fear, lest by his refusal to answer questions he would damage the love between him and those who asked him questions. Here the concepts of love and obedience are introduced into the discussion, which have no place in the field of scientific biblical hermeneutics, but which are two fundamental biblical concepts. “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” (John 15:10). It should also be noted that St. Maxim is more likely to put himself in danger in order to avoid anything that could harm others. It is precisely because “love does not seek its own” that love is decisive in the act of interpretation. This manifests itself in obedience. To enter upon the interpretation of Scripture not for the sake of one's own will, but for the sake of obedience, is a very clear premise of exegesis. But when obedience is conditioned by love, it reaches fullness. Glorifying God as the Ultimate Goal of Biblical Exegesis St. Maximus the Confessor draws attention to the fact that the researcher of the biblical text must pursue a clearly defined goal and not succumb to the temptation to do this only out of love for asceticism itself. Because in such a situation, instead of reaching the comprehension of the truth, i.e. achieve the goal, he will reach vanity and high conceit. “He who seeks knowledge out of love for asceticism as such will certainly fall into vanity, like the one who thought that he had already accepted the crown without sweating from labor, not knowing that asceticism is for the sake of the crown, and not the crown for the sake of asceticism.” Every method, continues St. Maxim turns out to be untenable when, instead of achieving the absolute with his help, they believe that he himself is the absolute. Here St. Maxim raises a very important problem, relevant for any area of ​​research work, and not just for asceticism. In this context, he proposes a universal principle: “for virtue is for the sake of truth, and not truth for the sake of virtue.” This principle can be understood only on the condition that for us the only truth lies in the knowledge of God, as is reflected in the Gospel and in the works of St. Maxima. For St. Maximus the Confessor, the ultimate goal of works on the interpretation of biblical texts is the glorification of God. The work of St. Maximus the Confessor shows us humility, obedience, spiritual experience, prayer, love as the main conditions for explaining the Sacred text. Refusing at first to accept the challenge of the brethren to begin interpreting Scripture, St. Maxim refers not to a lack of scholarship, but to his internal state, which he considers unsuitable for such activities. Of course, St. Maximus does not lack the information or analytical abilities that we today consider necessary and sufficient for biblical exegesis. His attention is focused on the inner state, which he believes places him in a position incompatible with being an exegete of the mysteries of Scripture. Saint Maximus offers an approach to biblical exegesis that is within the tradition of the Philokalia Fathers. If the act of exegesis again proceeds from the principles of asceticism, then in this way the unnatural gap between theory and life, between theology and spirituality will be overcome with the prospect of their integration, so dear to St. Maxima. Based on spirituality, biblical exegesis, instead of secular and secularizing scientific exegesis, will become theological exegesis in the full sense of the word, even if it will be less attractive from the point of view of modern scientific approach. It will become incomparably more vibrant and effective from the point of view of its effective implementation in life. priest Dimitry Yurevich (MDA) The Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture and Its Relevance in Contemporary Biblical Studies The purpose of the report is to indicate the problems of modern biblical research in Russia, directly related to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and to outline ways to solve them through the formulation of the patristic understanding of inspiration. Two acute problems of modern biblical studies in Russia are directly related to the question of inspiration. The first is a reasoned and comprehensive Orthodox response to the scientific hypothesis that reigned supreme for more than a century in German and then throughout Western biblical studies from the second half of the 19th century. It is known as the documentary theory of the origin of the Pentateuch or the theory of Graf and Wellhausen; in the 20th century many modifications were proposed. The second problem is the question of the place and significance of studying the patristic exegesis of Scripture along with the already standard philological and historical analysis of the biblical text, so richly developed by the Western school of biblical studies and now actively used by domestic researchers. Quite reasonably rejected by Russian pre-revolutionary scientists, the Graf-Wellhausen theory unexpectedly received support among Russian emigrants. On her side came the scientist, better known as the historian of the Church, A.V. Kartashev. In his assembly speech of February 13, 1944, delivered at the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, he unequivocally called for full and unconditional acceptance of all the conclusions of that part of biblical criticism that is based on the Graf-Wellhausen theory. A careful reading of A.V. Kartashev’s speech allows us to understand the reasons for such a call. Being a brilliant historian and actively using the critical method in relation to historical documents of human origin, he did not overcome the temptation to transfer this method, fruitful in the humanities, to the Holy Scriptures, which have a completely different origin. In the speech of A.V. Kartashev there are almost no arguments in favor of the Graf-Wellhausen theory. More precisely, there are only two main and most important ones. The first is an attempt to prove the late dating of the Pentateuch, a thesis that is extremely important for the documentary hypothesis, the consideration of which is beyond the scope of the report. The second is the desire to formulate in a new way the concept of the inspiration of the Sacred Text for more free work with it 1 . Kartashev A.V. Old Testament biblical criticism. Paris, 1947. P. 66.