Questions and confusion

Essay by Rev. Maximus the Confessor's "Questions and Perplexities" (c. 626 or up to 633-634; 195 questions) contains a series of interpretations of various difficult passages from the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Holy Fathers. The author uses a mixed method of interpretation (anagogical, literal). In addition to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, questions include: - asceticism and spiritual life (how to fight passions, what true humility is, how to achieve dispassion); - dogmatic questions (the relationship of the human will to the Divine, the nature of sin, the doctrine of Providence); - philosophical and ethical problems (free will, the meaning of tests, the relationship between faith and reason). The work influenced the development of Orthodox asceticism, especially among monastics, and became part of the reading circle of many ascetics. *The title of the essay in Latin is Quaestiones et dubia. I. Why read this book? II. About some features of “Questions and Perplexities” II.a. Time, place and the problem of Origenism III. About the critical edition of José Declercq IV. About this publication and Russian translation At first glance, this question may seem artificial. In fact, isn’t it obvious that any new translation of the works of the Father of the Church, the great theologian and philosopher, St. Maximus the Confessor, deserves the reader's attention without any advertising or explanation. Isn’t it already clear that reading the Holy Fathers, if, of course, you try to understand what they teach and learn lessons for life from it, is useful and saving? But, firstly, not all possible readers of this book are equally ecclesiastical to look at things this way, and, secondly, even the most well-intentioned ones are probably not so clear why they should read an author who lived thirteen centuries ago and used St. The writings are sometimes very strange, from the point of view of the modern reader even bizarre, ideas of the one who wrote, for example: “They say about the bull that he has a triangular heart, pentagonal kidneys, that he also has three stomachs and eyes, light-like during the day and fire-like at night; a third of the day and a third of the night he breathes, exhaling, and looks to the east; his right nostril smells with pleasure the calf, and its blood is lethal to all domestic animals except the dog 1 . You would have to be very pious not to be surprised, not to laugh or not to shrug your shoulders when reading this passage, if not to put this book aside as bearing the clear imprint of “pre-scientific” thinking and a completely different civilization and culture, which may have historical, “museum” interest, but is hardly relevant and convincing for modern people. Let’s leave aside for now the bull with its “pentagonal kidneys” and “triangular heart” - we are unlikely to be able to take such a bull by the horns right away - and let’s try to approach this work of St. Maxima on the other hand. We live in a so-called secular, post-Christian society, where there are many “gods” - both the new gods of the consumer society and the old gods of nations, states, cultures, religions, where there are many preachers and churches. How to understand who preaches the true God, when the Bible is interpreted by many different teachers and preachers, each in his own way. How not to get lost in this discord and not give up, despairing of finding the truth? However, one should not exaggerate the degree of difference between our time and, say, when St. Petersburg lived. Maxim, believing that when almost everyone was a believer, it was easier to believe in God. The question is not to believe - almost everyone believes in one thing or another even now - but to not be deceived in one’s faith. And with this, during St. For Maxim, things were no easier than in ours. And in his time the same Bible was interpreted differently, and one can assume that it is unlikely that St. Maximus would have made a new attempt to interpret many passages of Holy Scripture if he had been completely satisfied with the interpretations that were then most widespread. And the questions discussed by St. Maxim, reading the Bible, at least some of them may well be perceived as relevant by a modern reader. Let's take just one example. Who will not be embarrassed when reading in Scripture the story of how the prophet Elisha, when the children laughed at him, saying: “Go, go, you bald one,” cursed them, and she-bears came out of the forest and tore to pieces forty-two children 2 . Can a modern person believe in such a God, whose prophets work such “miracles”? In this case, does not Scripture itself turn out to be a stumbling block to faith in the “God of the Bible”? Or, on the other hand, is there no danger that a person, if he believes in such a God, whose prophets kill children because of mere ridicule of them, will believe in a cruel and “fair” God, and will himself be cruel, touchy and “fair”? It is easy to see that these questions really concern modern Bible readers. For example, on the Internet forum of the St. Philaret Institute, one of the visitors asks: “Please explain why the prophet Elisha treats children so cruelly, curses them, after which the children are eaten by a bear?” The answer, which is given on the forum, belongs to the philologist and Byzantinist, academician S. S. Averintsev. Let us give an excerpt from this answer, in which Averintsev first recalls the heresy of the Marcionites, who denied the grace of the Old Testament and believed that the God of the Old Testament is not at all the same as the God of Jesus Christ, that is, the New Testament - an evil demiurge, and not the God of love. S. S. Averintsev offers his own way of overcoming the Marcionite threat of contrasting the Old Testament with the New: “we [Christians] had to defeat the Marcionite temptation in the 2nd century, and we must defeat it again and again... If there had not been, even in the Old Testament itself, the gradual revelation of God’s Revelation, then why would there be time? Why would there be a story? Why did God create time, if not so that in time, in the sequence of time, that which was not revealed immediately would be revealed. Of course, the Old Testament prophets were not yet Christian righteous people, and it is equally true that even the later prophets knew something that the earlier ones could not know... If the great prophet Elisha had already known what was said in the Sermon on the Mount, then the Sermon on the Mount would not have been needed. And there would be no need for historical continuity. This is a very Christian concept: “the fulfillment of times”” 3. Let us leave S.S. Averintsev’s answer for now and note that St. Maxim, although he lived in the 7th century, that is, long before the advent of humanism in any form, also, apparently, when faced with passages in the Old Testament, the literal understanding of which would imply the idea of ​​God and His saints as unjustifiably cruel, he tried to avoid such an understanding. And here it is interesting to compare the strategy of interpreting the Bible that St. Petersburg used. Maxim, with the strategy that S.S. Averintsev used. Answering a question about Elisha and the children torn to pieces by bears, St. Maxim, to begin with, tries to soften the whole situation if we interpret the words of the Bible literally: “Some say that the children were not Israelis, but foreigners, and that they were children not in age, but in mind. They heard that the prophet was doing many signs, but they did not believe and mocked him; but there were some who did not agree with their crazy opinion, and therefore, so that they would not suffer harm and blasphemy would not ascend to God, God punished the scoffers” (qu. dub. 165). It is clear that the mockery of a crowd of already adult pagan foreigners ridiculing the elderly prophet of God Elisha, as well as God's punishment for blasphemy against miracles (that is, the Holy Spirit), so that this blasphemy does not spread and destroy souls, no longer looks as terrible cruelty as the killing of small children with the help of bears. For comparison, say, Chrysostom believes that those torn to pieces by she-bears were children, although not very small, over 10 years old, and cites this case as an example of the fact that a person already from this age gives an account for his sins. 4 In another place, Chrysostom writes about the punishment of God that befell the children as completely fair. 5 In any case, Rev. Maxim does not even stop at the interpretation that “softens” the image of the harsh God and Elisha and moves on to the interpretation “according to contemplation” (κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν). We will consider what this approach consists of below, but for now we note that the transition to a different level of interpretation is associated with St. Maxim not with the motives of, so to speak, “scriptural divinity,” 6 that is, the justification of the Holy Scripture, the image of God that is formed during its literal reading. Something like “scriptural divinity” is the answer of S. S. Averintsev, which, as we see, significantly diverges from the answer, for example, of Chrysostom, who did not at all believe that Elisha in his righteousness was below the Christian level, and did not who explained the killing of children by the incompleteness of God's revelation in the time of Elisha, Maxim also does not resort to such explanations as S.S. Averintsev. For him, as for many holy fathers, it was completely impossible to assert that the life of the Old Testament prophets revered as saints was lower than that of Christians. Gregory the Theologian, for example, compared the virtue of St. Athanasius the Great precisely with the virtue of the Old Testament saints, the one thanks to which they tore apart the veil of matter and flesh and ascended to God. It was about her that he wrote: “Such wisdom among the new and the ancients has not been achieved by many...Who do I mean by those who have achieved it? Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Jesus, the Judges, Samuel, David, Solomon until a certain time, Elijah, Elisha, the prophets... John [the Baptist]" 7 . St. Maxim (though not in Qu.dub. 8, but in the Difficulties to John 9) will go so far that he will choose one of the Old Testament saints - Melchizedek - as a model of a completely deified man 10. As one who knew the holy God, St. Maximus describes in the Difficulties to John the prophet Elisha 11. So, to blame the punishment of 42 children by she-bears on Elisha’s ignorance of the commandments of love (that is, the Sermon on the Mount), as S.S. Averintsev does, for St. Maxim was impossible. However, he did not follow the path of Chrysostom, who, accepting that those who ridiculed the prophet were children, accepted their terrible death as God’s just punishment. It can be seen that in the first interpretation, where St. Maxim refers to the opinion that these were not children, but adults; he tries to soften the version that, say, Chrysostom adhered to and which was probably the most widespread in his time. But it is also obvious that he does not stop at such a “softened” interpretation, not completely identifying with its authorship, although he allows for such an understanding (this can be seen from the words and intonation: “Some say that the children were not Israelis, but foreigners...”). Own interpretation of St. The maxim (in which he no longer refers to “some”) begins when he interprets the meaning of Scripture “according to intuition,” moving away from understanding the story of Elisha as an event that happened to the holy prophet at some point in history. The episode of Sacred History, as we will see, is for St. The maxim is an image of a spiritual event that can happen to every person, and as such this story is much more interesting and, most importantly, more relevant for us. In such a perspective, it is not the biblical story about the once-living prophet, not the idea of ​​God (more or less severe) that arises from this story that is the subject of description and “justification” (as S. S. Averintsev does), but we ourselves become the center, our soul’s search for truth and the dangers that await us along this path. This is a completely different perspective, which can only be seen by delving into the very interpretation of St. Maxim “according to contemplation”: “when every mind, like Elisha, bald 12, that is, pure from thoughts about the material, ascends to knowledge, then thoughts about the sensual, about matter and about form mock him very [viciously] - after all, the number forty means the sensual 13, and matter and form, added to it, make up [with it] the number forty-two 14. So, such thoughts ridicule the mind in order to instill in it indecision [in relation to] virtues, [and then] he [performs] prayer and kills them with the help of two bears, that is, pleasure and lust - after all, these passions, if reversed and used for a good purpose, will kill the mocking thoughts” (qu.dub. 165). In this interpretation, there are no real “children”, no “bears”, no fair or unfair punishment of “children”, or even the prophet Elisha himself, there is only us – each of us – and a certain situation that can arise with someone who has entered the path of knowledge (gnosis), and is trying for the sake of this knowledge to clear his mind from passionate thoughts about matter and flesh. It is our soul and its path to knowledge of the truth that is obviously most important for us, even the question of whether God justly or not punished the children because of Elisha, and whether, in fact, they were children or adults, is more important than the so-called question of theodicy (that is, the “justification” of the biblical God). In fact, why should we “justify” God and Holy Scripture if this does not bring us closer to knowledge (gnosis), if this does not give anything to our own soul, does not bring it closer not to external intellectual, but to experimental knowledge of the truth. Based precisely on this scale of values, where the state of our own soul, its movement towards God and the dangers that threaten it along this path, are at the forefront, St. Maxim reads the Holy Scriptures, including the one discussed in qu.dub. 165 the story of Elisha, the children and the bears. In the interpretation of St. Maxim is talking about the state when thoughts about the sensual mock the one who has directed his mind towards gnosis, laughing at the fact that he has abandoned pleasures and desires, and thus his life has become the dull life of a “bald old man” who knows neither strong desires nor their satisfaction. The Gnostic (whose image Elisha acts as), as St. writes. Maxim, destroys these thoughts; with the help of prayer, he prevents these ridicule from having the effect that he again begins to seek pleasure in the sensual and renounces the acquisition of virtues, but, not only this, pleasure and desire, directed towards a good goal, that is, towards the true Good, will be completely destroyed, according to St. Maxim, an attack of thoughts about the supposedly pitiful and joyless life he leads. This example is enough to see how suitable the approach is. The maxim to the Holy Scriptures (and to the writings of the Holy Fathers, which we will discuss below) differs from the most familiar and widespread, both in his and in our time. This does not mean, of course, that all other interpretations of Holy Scripture are “incorrect” (although, of course, there are some), that the interpretation of the story of Elisha, say Chrysostom, should be discarded (for certain, primarily pastoral and pedagogical purposes in certain circumstances, it is obviously useful), but it is precisely the approach to the Holy Scripture of St. Maxim builds that spiritual perspective that, despite all the changes in cultures, civilizations, and religious movements, remains “one for the need,” a perspective where nothing is more important than “approaching the knowledge of the One to the One” 15, as St. Maxim, probably playing on the famous phrase from the Enneads of Plotinus 16, spoke about what was accomplished by the patriarch Abraham, who overcame the dichotomy of matter and form, rose above the world of phenomena and learned the secret of God's unity. In this sense, the exegesis of St. Maxim is a monastic and gnostic exegesis (in the proper sense of both words), that is, one in which in the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the fathers - in all the diversity of sayings, stories, characters and themes - he strives to reflect the problematic of salvation (that is, unity by knowledge in love with God) of an individual person (monad), a person who, at the same time, as uniting with the One who embraces the whole world, contains within himself - according to the communion of the incarnate in it are the Words of God - not only all these sayings of Scripture, all its heroes, but also all living and inanimate nature, all ideas, all people and angels in general, that is, the whole world. In this perspective on the exegesis of St. Maxim will not be scared away by the bull with his “pentagonal kidneys” and “triangular heart.” The point is not about the bull, of course, that is, not about how correct the “zoological” information of the saint is. Maximus, but in the reason for which he is mentioned by the holy father, answering the question about the meaning of the sacrifices prescribed by God in the Old Testament - sheep, bull, goat, turtledove and dove 17. The one sacrifice of Christ ended all Old Testament sacrifices, but what then is the meaning of these Old Testament regulations for Christians? Are they losing their power? If yes, then it turns out that the word of God, God’s commandments, once given, now have no meaning or power. But God is eternal, and His word is immutable and irrevocable, otherwise, if His word, conveyed to us in the Old Testament, is cancelable, then where is the guarantee that His New Testament promises will not be canceled? This means that the commandments of the Old Testament, given in the Revelation of God, must retain their force and have an immutable meaning. St. Maxim, in his exegesis, reveals this meaning, which does not depend on whether animals are now sacrificed or not. This meaning, as it is not difficult to guess from all of the above, is monastic-gnostic, that is, it is deployed not in the direction of “objective,” scientific knowledge of the nature of these animals (what they are in themselves), but in the direction of what is seen in them, of course, with a “sharpened eye,” which can be spiritually useful for us. St. Maxim does not hide his “pragmatic” intentions: “one must also find the inherent nature of each animal and adapt the appropriate contemplation of each of them” (qu. dub. 17). Based on this, he writes, explaining what it means to sacrifice a bull that has a “triangular heart” and “pentagonal kidneys”; this means oneself - not in a physical, but in a spiritual sense - to have such a heart and kidneys: “To have a triangular heart means to have a sound judgment in the heart about the Trinity, because just as the heart by nature transmits life to the body, so the [correct] reverence for God unites the members of the soul. To have five-sided buds means to turn the desired part of the soul not to the passionate, but through the five senses to consider the creature in one lust and love for the Creator” (qu. dub. 17). Actually, the Venerable himself. Maxim, in his contemplation of the “bull”, showed what it means to “consider the creature in one lust and love for the Creator” (and not for steak, agriculture or zoology), ascending from material objects to the spiritual meanings that feed our soul through them, serving during such an erection (in Greek - ἀναγωγή 18) our education and salvation. So, just as when interpreting the story of Elisha, the children and the bears, St. Maxim moved away from the objectifying reading of the text, placing all the heroes of this story into one human soul - with its parts, strength, life and aspiration towards God (or falling away from Him), so now into one person standing separately before God, he placed all these sacrificial animals of the Old Testament. In the horizon of the knowledge of God, the object of contemplation “overturns” into the subject, that is, into a person, is reflected in him, without losing, however, its specificity (this is how the bull appeared before us in all reality - the heart, the kidneys, the sense of smell of his nostrils, the calf standing next to him...), which - to the smallest detail - is filled with spiritual meaning, directing the person contemplating this "bull" to the Creator as a bull, as well as the person himself. And all this is in the context of the exegesis of Holy Scripture, that is, in this case, the commandments about sacrificial animals 19, which acquire their new, more precisely, true meaning, contained in the word (logos) of God, freed from literal-historical understanding and addressed to us. Bulls are no longer sacrificed, the story of the killing of children through she-bears now causes bewilderment, if not protest, but there still remains the man himself and what is happening to him in the world and the Church, how he should look at creation and Holy Scripture, so that they do not obscure God from him, but open Him, instill His words in the heart. This is what stands at the center of the exegesis of St. Maxim and for the sake of studying and understanding what this book, first of all, should be read. The content of the Questions and Perplexities, however, is far from being reduced to the kind of exegesis that we spoke about above, although it is the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers in relation to the state of the soul and the path to God of each person that seems most important and relevant for the general reader. At the same time, for those interested in the history of the Church, the history of dogmatic thought and the history of the exegesis of Holy Scripture, Questions and Perplexities represent a most valuable monument of patristic literature, belonging not only to one of the greatest holy fathers, but also to an era in the history of the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire, which was in many ways a turning point and still not sufficiently studied. Finally, for all the many admirers of St. Maxim's Questions and Perplexities are of particular interest as a work in which many ideas were first formulated and many questions were posed, which he later developed in such famous works as Difficulties to John, Difficulties to Thomas and Questions and Answers to Thalassius. Most of these are end-to-end for prp. The maxims of topics and ideas are covered by us in the comments, but here I would like to briefly dwell on a number of problems related to the context of the creation of Questions and perplexities, their general nature and features. In a recently published book containing the first attempt at a Russian translation of Qu. dub. 20, in the preface to it, P.K. Dobrotsvetov gives two dates for this work: 626 according to Polycarp Sherwood 21 and “no later than 624”, according to S. L. Epifanovich 22. P.K. Dobrotsvetov did not note, however, that the dating of Epifanovich was criticized by X. Declerk, the author of the critical edition of Questions and Perplexities 23. At the same time, it should be noted that the very hypothesis of S. L. Epifanovich that Questions and Perplexities were written before the Difficulties of John 24, but somewhat later than the Chapters of Ascetics and Chapters on Love 25 and his argumentation in favor of this opinion 26 looks quite convincing. True, D. Prassas is the author of the first dissertation research on Qu. dub. 27, having counted the frequency of use of the words γνῶσις (knowledge) and ἀγάπη (love), and from this concluded that St. Maximus in Questions and Perplexities pays more attention to knowledge (gnosis) than to love, and in the Chapters on Love the emphasis is on love, expressing a cautious suggestion that perhaps Qu. dub. were written before the Chapters on Love, in which St. Maxim shifted the emphasis from knowledge to love 28. However, the assumption that St. Maximus had a “turn”, as a result of which he shifted the emphasis to love, does not stand up to criticism, since in the obviously later Questions and Answers to Thalassius (c. 630–633), if we use the same calculation method, there is no predominance of “love” over “knowledge” (rather the opposite). The very opposition of “love” and “gnosis” in relation to the writings of St. Maxim is, in our opinion, far-fetched. This is also evident from his understanding of love in the Chapters on Love, which is given through gnosis: “love is a good disposition of the soul, according to which it does not prefer anything that exists to the knowledge (γνώσεως) of God” 29. So the order in writing works that S. L. Epifanovich proposes seems more likely, although it is also possible that some part of Qu. dub. St. Maxim wrote before or simultaneously with the Chapters about love, and some later. As for the place where Questions and Perplexities were written, nothing can be said for sure about it. Until recently, it was believed that in 624–626, that is, approximately when the Chapters on Love and Questions and Perplexities were written, St. Maxim labored in the monastery of St. George in Cyzicus (this opinion is shared, for example, by J.-C. Larcher). Moreover, Larcher's version 30 is based on the traditional life of St. Maximus, his Constantinople origin from a family of noble parents, service with Emperor Heraclius and subsequent departure to a monastery (c. 613-614) near Constantinople (where he stayed until 624), and later - transfer to the monastery of St. George in Cyzicus. Larcher's argument in favor of the traditional version of the Constantinople origin of St. Maxima 31 was, however, recently subjected to radical criticism by Kristjan Boudignon 32 . The latter, relying mainly on the correspondence of St. Maxima (but also on the Syriac Psogos, published by Sebastian Broca 33), argues in favor of his Palestinian origin and formation in Alexandria (where he moved before the capture of Palestine by the Persians in 614). Boudignon goes so far as to deny in this article even the presence of the St., which was recognized by almost all scientists. Maximus in the monastery of St. George in Cyzicus. Boudignon's version has not yet received wide recognition, although at the same time about the Palestinian (and not Constantinople) origin of St. Maxim is currently spoken by many authoritative experts on prp. Maxim and patrollers. This question is of particular importance in the light of the problem of “Maximus and Origenism,” since most of the Difficulties to John, the most important work of St. John, is devoted to the polemic with Origenism. Maxima, meanwhile, the Syrian Psogos, as is known, accuses Maximus himself of being associated with the Origenists from a young age. According to Psogos, after the death of his parents (a Samaritan father and a former Persian slave mother), Moschius (name Maximus before tonsure), while still a young boy, was sent to be raised in the monastery of the Old Lavra 34, where he was received by Abbot Pantelei, who was an Origenist 35. It is on the basis of this version, as well as a number of later sources emanating from the Monophysite environment, that some scientists, say, most recently Antoine Lévy 36, express the opinion that St. Maximus, already in his youth, could become acquainted with Origenistic literature and teaching, and subsequently 37 was repelled by Origenism, which was most clearly manifested in the Difficulties to John. However, Levi admits that, even if Rev. Maxim was not in his youth under the direct influence of the Palestinian Origenists, then, due to his Palestinian origin, which Levi believes on the basis of Psogos, he could be familiar with the teachings of the Origenists who lived in Palestine, and this made polemics with Origenism as such relevant for him. Levi's Palestinian origin also explains "his deep knowledge of the tradition of Alexandrian-Palestinian commentary on Aristotle" at the very time when intellectual life in Constantinople, as Levi argues, citing Lemerle, was in decline. From domestic patrolologists, the version about the Palestinian origin of St. Maxim shares, for example, A. I. Sidorov 39. There is no doubt about the “known fact of Palestinian origin” of St. Maxim and V.M. Lurie 40, who, however, also notes that to trust statements about the connection of St. Maxima with the Palestinian Origenists is “hardly possible,” and accepts all evidence from Syrian sources only to confirm the existence of the Origenist tradition at that time. What does all this have to do with the issue of Questions and Perplexities? What, on the other hand, can we say based on reading this earlier than the Difficulties to John, an essay on the topic “St. Maxim and Origenism"? Even the most superficial analysis of Qu. dub. reveals that Rev. Maximus, in his exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, in his interpretation of the names of biblical characters, in some fundamental ideas about the three moments of the ascetic life (work, natural contemplation and theology), in the doctrine of the three powers of the soul (reasonable, violent and willing), which he always uses in the interpretation of Scripture and the fathers, is deeply rooted in that tradition of exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, which is associated with the names of Origen, Didymus the Blind, Evagrius of Pontus, as well as Eusebius of Caesarea, that is, in the tradition not just “Alexandrian”, but precisely “Origenistic” 41. In Qu. dub. we find many direct or slightly revised quotes from these authors and allusions to their words and thoughts, we draw attention to some of them in the comments. It is even more significant that the very methodology of interpretation of Holy Scripture by St. Maxim - his “anagogical” interpretations, the ascent from the letter to the spirit of Scripture, the ascetic-gnostic attitude in the approach to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, of course, go back precisely to this exegetical tradition. It is enough to give just one example. Thus, Abba Evagrius writes in his Speculative: “Regarding the allegorical and literal passages [of Holy Scripture], research should be carried out in order to know whether they belong to the [area of ​​spiritual] work, natural [contemplation] or theology. If they relate to [spiritual] work, then one should examine whether they are talking about the violent beginning [of the soul] and its creations, about the desirable beginning and its consequences, or about the mind and its movements” 42. But here is one of the interpretations, not even of Holy Scripture, but of a passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa, who is St. Maximus interprets using the anagogical method of interpreting Scripture, especially carefully developed in the Origenistic tradition: “[Question]: What are the men, wives and snakes for whose sake the Lord, according to Gregory of Nyssa 43, spent three days in hell? [Answer:] There are three powers of the soul: the rational [beginning], the violent and the desirable. Men [in the words of St. Gregory] are understood as a reasonable [beginning], wives - desirable, and snakes - furious. In the coming century, these three forces will be restored through knowledge 44. For their sake, the Lord accepted life-giving suffering and descended into hell” (qu. dub. 57). However, this same example allows us to see how St. Maximus, using the anagogical method of interpreting Holy Scripture (applying it, perhaps the first of the interpreters, even to the writings of the fathers), a method developed in detail by the “Origenists” 45, turns it against one of the moments of the teaching of the Origenists themselves (in this case, against the Origenistic interpretation of a passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa). We are talking about the doctrine of universal salvation (apokatastasis), which allegedly extends to demons. It is precisely how demons can be understood as “snakes” from the interpreted passage of St. Gregory of Nyssa, with this understanding of which it turns out that Christ descended into hell for the sake of saving not only husbands and wives, but also demons 46. Most likely, St. is against such an interpretation of the passage from the Bishop of Nyssa. Maxim in qu. dub. 57, and here we already see the spiritual attitude that we later discover in the Difficulties to John - to “repel” such holy fathers as St. from appropriating them by the Origenists. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Gregory the Theologian. Controversy with the Origenistic doctrine of universal salvation - apocatastasis, occupies an important place in Qu. dub. (qu-es: 19; 57; 99 are directly or indirectly dedicated to her). All this is well known 47, as well as the fact that St. Maxim in this polemic not only repeats the condemnation of the doctrine of universal salvation from the times of Emperor Justinian and the V Ecumenical Council, but also (trying to remove St. Gregory of Nyssa from accusations of Origenism) develops a very subtle doctrine of three types of apocatastasis: 1) in the sense of participation in divine goods-virtues (traditional doctrine of deification); 2) in the sense of the general resurrection, and finally, 3) in the sense of restoring all the powers of the soul corrupted by sin to the state in which they were created, so that it would be revealed that God is not the creator of evil 48 . Thus, the traditional depiction of sinners in medieval art, tortured with hooks and roasted on the eternal fire of Gehenna, diverges from the idea that we find in St. Maximus (at least in his passages in Qu. dub.) 49. God is not the Creator of evil, and this will be revealed in the final restoration from depression and corruption by the sins and passions of the soul of each person (which, however, is not identical for St. Maximus to deification and participation in divine blessings). It can also be noted here that in general in Qu. dub., when he touches on the problem of divine justice and the punishment of sinners, St. Maxim, although he rejects the “optimistic” Origenistic version of universal salvation, but at the same time tries to maximally identify the aspect of divine love, which for him is inseparable from justice, and not opposed to it 50, while “Divine justice is defined as suffering for those who sin” (qu. dub. I, 11), that is, in the sense of Christian, sacrificial love. St. Maxim constantly emphasizes that the one who is ready to die for the salvation of his neighbors is likened to God (see qu. -es: I, 4; I, 11). Finally, in qu. dub. III, 1. he explains that man, by becoming like God, acquires “dispassion, meekness, generosity and other traits of God’s kindness, which are all components of God’s energy [directed towards creation].” Thus, deification in St. Maxima manifests itself in a very specific energy directed at another, which could be called love, or kindness, and God for him is primarily the bearer and source of this “kindness.” From all these examples it is clear that in Qu. dub., no less than in the Chapters on Love, St. Maxim remains faithful in his teaching to the gospel spirit, from which gnosis is inseparable for him. This spirit, however, should not be understood in the sense of indulging human weaknesses and passions. So, along with the teaching about the restoration of the strength of the soul in the eschaton, St. Maxim also writes about the “eternal responsibility” that will be incurred by the one who “rushes” towards non-existent goals, falling away from his logos, that is, the will of God for his salvation and finds himself outside the Body of Christ 51. Such a warning, however, is also a manifestation of love for neighbors, a desire for salvation for everyone. It was precisely this love that was probably lacking in those who irresponsibly spoke of universal salvation. Returning to the question of where Qu is written. dub. in connection with the topic “Maximus and Origenism”, we can say that, although we are definitively sure of the Palestinian origin of St. Maxim, his contact with the Origenists, or his philosophical education in Alexandria is still impossible, we have enough evidence of his “intellectual biography” that allows us to say that St. Maxim was very well read in authors belonging to the “Origenistic” tradition (along with his excellent knowledge of the holy fathers 52), this tradition meant a lot to him, he often drew his ideas and methods from it, including methods of interpreting Holy Scripture, but he also used these methods to criticize some of the dogmas of the Origenists. Moreover, in this criticism itself, he did not simply reject the heretical teaching (in this case about apocatastasis), but tried to advance in understanding the mysteries of God, taking into account the questions that the same Origenists posed. This approach to heresy appears in him already during the period of writing Qu. dub., then he uses and deepens it in the Difficulties to John and his other writings. As for the attitude of St. Maximus to the Alexandrian-Palestinian school of exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, then the analysis of Qu. dub. gives another argument in favor of his belonging to this particular tradition. We are talking about the interpretation he often uses in explaining the Holy Scriptures of the meaning and meaning of 53 proper names, which, like the interpretation of the meaning of numbers (arithmology), is very characteristic of this tradition, starting with Philo of Alexandria. On this aspect of the exegesis of St. Maxim has been noticed more than once 54. Moreover, on the basis of the Questions and Answers to Thalassius, the famous Belgian Hebraist Anton Schoors analyzed the basis of certain, seemingly completely arbitrary etymologies of biblical names given by St. Maxim 55. It turned out, at least in relation to some names, that the seemingly completely arbitrary “etymologies” have certain foundations. Using the advice of biblical scholar T. A. Shchukin, we carried out a similar (however, very preliminary) analysis based on the etymologies of names from Qu. dub. (the reader will find this information in the comments). From this analysis it is clear that it is almost always possible to establish one or another basis for the etymologization of St. Maximus, he borrowed many of the “etymologies” (from Philo, Origen, Didymus the Blind and others), and many of them appear from him, apparently for the first time, and, sometimes, these “etymologies”, based on consonances with certain Hebrew words or real origins from them, indicate a very subtle knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic. Of course, it would be rash to conclude from this that the Venerable himself. Maxim knew these languages ​​well (and this confirms his “Samaritan origin”). We have no evidence of his knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, which one would expect from a person who speaks Hebrew (he always interprets the Septuagint). Most likely Rev. Maxim took advantage of consultations with experts in these languages ​​(which is interesting in itself) 56 . Be that as it may, such an interest in the meaning of Hebrew proper names, as well as etymologization itself as a method of biblical exegesis, the combination of the etymologization of names with their anagogical interpretation, as well as allegorical arithmology 57 are a striking feature of the Alexandrian-Palestinian tradition of exegesis since the times of Philo, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Having defined in general terms the relation of St. Maxim to this tradition of exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, I would like to touch on another question, no less interesting, but not discussed so widely - about the relationship (as we find it in Qu. dub.) of St. Maximus to the Antiochene school of exegesis and especially to the interpretation of Holy Scripture by its most prominent and influential representative - St. John Chrysostom. Before considering the question of the relationship of St. Maximus to the Exegesis of St. John Chrysostom, I would like to briefly outline the historical perspective within which this problem can be posed most acutely. The fact is that for several centuries (apparently at least until the 11th century) after the 7th century, in which St. Maxim, his writings (not those related to polemics with monothelitism, but such as Questions and Perplexities or Difficulties to John, that is, “contemplative”) remained in little demand 58. The method itself, used by St. Maxim in the interpretation of Holy Scripture seemed to be alien and seemed artificial. This can be seen at least from the review of the patrons. Photius on the exegetical works of St. Maxim (however, it should be emphasized, not on Questions and Perplexities, but on Questions and Answers to Thalassius): “he soon tires his readers by the fact that he comes up with solutions to questions (according to Scripture) that are far from the literal meaning and known history, or rather, from the questions themselves. However, if anyone enjoys turning his mind around in allegories and contemplations, he will not find anywhere more varied than here” 59 . Although, as M.D. Muretov, Patr., who paid attention to this review, notes. Photius writes a little further that in his interpretations of St. Maxim put a lot of effort, skill, piety and love for Christ, but, in general, the review of the great Photius speaks of a certain shift in the approach to the interpretation of Scripture that occurred in the period between him and St. Maxim, despite the fact that in the meaning of St. Photius and other fathers of the 8th-9th centuries. no one doubts it. The essence of this shift was recently formulated by Nicholas Constas, 60 who noted that, if in the Alexandrian school the obscure passages of Scripture were the occasion for allegorical interpretation, then St. Photius insists that such passages should be clarified not through allegorical interpretation, but with the help of dictionaries and grammar. Where for Origen the Holy Scripture provides an opportunity for anagogical interpretation, Patr. Photius almost exclusively resorts to the literal-historical; he has lost “interest in the presence of the mystical body of the Word; allegorical mysticism has been replaced by disciplined philology, and the text - especially where it surprises and provokes the reader - is systematically demystified and demythologized" 61 . In general, Constas believes that during the period of the struggle for icon veneration, perhaps not without the influence of the rejection of allegorism in icon painting (proclaimed back in the 82nd canon of the Fifth-Sixth Council in 692), the method of allegorical, anagogical and even typological interpretation of Scripture is almost entirely inferior to the historical and literal, that is, the principles of the Antiochian school of exegesis, despite the defeat Antiochians in the great Christological disputes of the 6th century again become dominant 62. St. Maxim, thus, turns out to be perhaps the last great representative of that tradition, which (if we talk about Byzantium) ends with him 63. Tendencies towards displacement and oblivion of this tradition obviously took place already during the life of St. Maxim 64, and this is precisely what can explain the fact that he, in principle, carried out such a large-scale (if we bear in mind not only Qu. dub., but also the Difficulties to John, and Questions and Answers to Thalassius, not to mention small works) project of interpreting Holy Scripture and the writings of some Church Fathers in a spiritual, anagogical sense. What is the specificity of Qu in this regard? dub. in comparison with other exegetical works of St. Maxima? First of all, in this relatively early work of his we find a variety of interpretations, not only anagogical, contemplative, and even not only typological (which are also found in his other works), but also literal-historical. Very often Rev. Maxim gives both interpretations; at the same time, as we have seen in the example of the interpretation of the story about the prophet Elisha, the children and the bears, and in the literal interpretations of the Scriptures by St. Maxim gives far from trivial interpretations, diverging from the more common ones; we will give some such examples later. Moreover, sometimes St. Maxim in Qu. dub. gives only a literal interpretation 65 , explaining the meaning of a word 66 or historical circumstances 67 , although such interpretations often have their own spiritual background 68 . In the context of such a completely harmonious coexistence of literal-historical, typological and spiritual-anagogical interpretations in Qu. dub. it is all the more interesting to ask the question about the attitude of St. Maximus to the Antiochene exegetical tradition and school of theology. Actually, of all the people from this school, he mentions only Chrysostom in his exegetical works, and even then only once. However, this mention is very respectful. Interpreting the apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, Rev. Maxim in qu. dub. 119 writes: “From the point of view of historical interpretation, this passage was explained very insightfully by Chrysostom.” So, in acquaintance with St. There is no doubt about Maximus with the works of Chrysostom (which cannot be certain about other Antiochians, say, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 69 or Theodore of Mopsuestia). It seems all the more significant that in a number of his interpretations (including in the literal understanding of Scripture) St. Maxim, without calling Chrysostom by name, explicitly or implicitly starts from his interpretations, or where Chrysostom gives only a literal interpretation, he offers his own anagogical one. In the first part of the preface, we already had the opportunity to verify the different approaches of the Venerable. Maxim and St. John Chrysostom to the interpretation of the story about the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 2, 23–24). But this is far from the only example. Let's say, interpreting the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-12) in qu. dub. 43 prp. Maxim gives a significantly different interpretation of it than Chrysostom 70, in whom the oil of the wise virgins is understood as alms, and the whole parable is interpreted in the sense of contrasting virgins who do not have good deeds, especially deeds of mercy, with virgins who do have them (this interpretation is also reflected in the Synaxar, read on Holy Tuesday in Holy Week). In contrast to this, Rev. Maximus, in his interpretation, interprets the holy virgins as those who “seem to be practicing active virtue, but do not have the oil of knowledge” (qu. dub. 47), that is, he uses this parable to emphasize, following Evagrius 71, the importance in Christian life of spiritual gnosis, which he understands, of course, not as abstract intellectual knowledge, but as experienced knowledge of God. It is interesting to note that in the Russian church tradition the most famous interpretation of this parable belongs to St. Seraphim of Sarov in his conversation with Motovilov, where it is emphasized that oil should be understood not as good deeds, as many believe, but as the grace of the Holy Spirit 72. At the same time, it is obvious that understanding the parable of St. Seraphim is a kind of polemic with the interpretation of the Synaxarion (and therefore Chrysostom). The interpretation of St. Maxima turns out to be closer to the tendency that we find later in St. Seraphim, - do not reduce the meaning of the parable to a call to practical action, but emphasize the need for experienced knowledge of God. It is all the more interesting that, as D. Prassas notes 73, already in Origen there is an interpretation of the lamps of virgins as the light of knowledge, and the oil in these lamps as zeal for the knowledge of [God] (ἡ ἐν ἐπιγνώσεις σπουδή). Prassas, however, did not pay attention to the fact that in fact Origen interprets oil not simply as “zeal for the knowledge of God,” but also as “doing the commandments” (ἡ ἐν ἐπιγνώσεις σπουδὴ, καὶ ἐντολῶν ἐργασία ) 74 . Thus, most likely, the interpretation of St. The maxim at this point goes back directly or indirectly to Origen. Another example where we find a discrepancy between prp. Maxim and Chrysostom - interpretation of Gen. 6.3 in qu. dub. 181. Here we are dealing with a difference in the interpretation of St. Maxim from the interpretation of Chrysostom regarding the 120 years, which God warned about before he carried out the threat of the flood (their days will be one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3)). Despite the fact that both holy fathers refer these words of God specifically to the threat of a flood, and not to the age of a person, St. Maxim, in his interpretation, as strange as it may seem to some, turns out to be more of a “literalist” than Chrysostom. Thus, he writes: “Twenty years passed before Noah was commanded to build the ark, but he built the ark for a hundred years, 75 so that, by staying next to him, [people] would come to correction. Then God brought a flood and destroyed everyone. Thus, the Scripture truly says that this generation will live one hundred and twenty years since God threatened them” (qu. dub. 181). Chrysostom explains the story of God’s threat to people before the construction of the ark began differently: “When the threat and prediction of God was made, Noah was five hundred years old, and when the flood came, he was six hundred years old. This means that a hundred years have passed in between; but they did not take advantage of these hundred years, although the very construction of the ark by Noah taught them so much. But perhaps someone would like to know why the Lord, having said: “Their days will be a hundred and twenty years,” and, promising to endure for so many years, brought the flood before these years expired. And this serves as the greatest proof of His love for mankind. He saw that people sin incorrigibly every day, and not only do not take advantage of His ineffable long-suffering for their own good, but also multiply their wounds; Therefore, he shortened the term so that they would not become worthy of even greater punishment. And what, you may ask, would be an even greater punishment than this? There is, beloved, a greater, and more terrible, and endless punishment - a punishment in the next century. Some, having suffered punishment here, although they will not escape the torment there, will nevertheless suffer a lighter punishment, reducing the greatness of the torment there by the suffering here.” 76 General in the interpretation of St. Maxim and Chrysostom 77 that Noah should have served as an example to other people, but they did not heed this example. However, Rev. Maxim, obviously, did not accept Chrysostom’s interpretation that God said that He would wait for the correction of people for one hundred and twenty years, and then took and canceled His promise. Thus, the interpretation of St. The maxim turns out, oddly enough, to be more “literal” (more precisely, striving to defend the exact meaning of the word of God and God’s faithfulness to His word) than the interpretation of Chrysostom, this brightest representative of the Antiochene school of exegesis, famous for its adherence to the “letter”. Perhaps in his answer Rev. Maxim wanted to emphasize that God, before punishing sinners, first gives them the opportunity to correct themselves (which corresponds to the first 20 years after the threat), then gives them an example of the righteous (another hundred years after the threat), and only then punishes. Another example of a possible “polemic” with the interpretation of Chrysostom is found in qu. dub. 188. Answering the question: “What spirit is meant in the conversation of the Lord with Nicodemus, where the Lord says: The Spirit breathes where it wants, and you hear its voice (John 3:8), Rev. Maxim writes: “Some believe that the Lord speaks of a breath of air (ἀερίου πνεύματος), but it seems to me that He rather speaks of the Holy Spirit” (qu. dub. 188). Most likely, by “some” here we should understand precisely Chrysostom, in whom we find the following interpretation: “It is about the wind that He says: “You hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes.” But if he says: “the spirit breathes where it wants,” then this does not express that the wind has any arbitrariness, but only indicates its natural movement, unhindered and strong movement. Scripture usually says the same about inanimate objects, for example: “the creation was not subjected to vanity voluntarily” (Rom. 8:20). So, the words “breathes where it wants” mean that the wind cannot be stopped, that it spreads everywhere, that no one can prevent it from rushing here and there, but that it dissipates with great force, and no one can stop its desires” 78. However, then Chrysostom moves from the wind to the Holy Spirit, interpreting the words of Christ as a comparison: “If, he says, you cannot explain either the outcome or the direction of the wind, which you nevertheless feel with both hearing and touch, then why are you trying to understand the action of the Spirit of God - you who do not understand the action of the wind, although you hear its sounds? Thus, the words “breathes where he wants” are said to denote the power of the Comforter and mean this: if no one can restrain the wind, but it rushes wherever it wants, then even more so neither the laws of nature, nor the conditions of bodily birth, nor anything else like that can delay the actions of the Spirit. And that the words “you hear his voice” are said specifically about the wind is clear from the fact that Christ, talking with an unbeliever and one who does not know the work of the Spirit, would not say: “you hear his voice.” Therefore, just as we do not see the wind, although it makes noise, so spiritual birth is invisible to bodily eyes" 79 . So, in Chrysostom, the words of Christ are understood not in a literal sense as being applied to the Holy Spirit, but only in terms of comparison, that is, figuratively. At St. Maxim, on the contrary, they are understood in relation to the Holy Spirit, Who alone, not figuratively, but in the proper sense of the word, “breathes where He wants”: “After all, He breathes sovereignly where He wants, and He wants - in those who are able to perceive Him and are pure in mind. Inhaling God's gifts, they do not know from where and for what reason any gift was sent to them [, they do not know] to what outcome the sending down of a gift [to them] leads, but they only hear the voice, that is, the implementation of the gift, which becomes apparent due to the purity of life and in some way emits a voice” (qu. dub. 188). Obviously, for Chrysostom, such an understanding was prevented by the fact that the Gospel speaks as if about the sensory perception of the spirit (“you hear his voice”), which would seem to be inapplicable to the Holy Spirit. But for St. This was not an obstacle for Maxim, of course, not because he thought about the Holy Spirit in sensual concepts, but, as can be seen from the text of his answer, because he interpreted hearing the “voice” of the Spirit in the sense of a manifestation of His action intelligible to the mental sense, that is, spiritually phenomenologically. Thus, Rev. Maximus again more accurately follows the own meaning of God's words than Chrysostom (cf. qu. dub. 181). At the same time, such a “literal” understanding of Scripture appears in St. Maxim is at the same time highly spiritual. That is, in his exegesis we are dealing with the transformation of the letter of Scripture, and not with its neglect or some kind of destruction for the sake of soaring the mind in ethereal and abstract speculations 81 . It is in this context that one should understand that place in the exegesis of St. Maxim of the Transfiguration, where he says that “the whiteness of the clothes [of the transfigured Christ] is seen by those who cleanse the letter of Holy Scripture from the whiteness [flesh] that envelops it and with spiritual contemplation look at the radiant beauty of intelligent [things]” (qu. dub. 191). Drawing on a number of examples (which could be multiplied further) the differences between the exegesis of St. Maxim and St. John Chrysostom’s goal is not to pit two great holy fathers against each other for the sake of another “patrological sensation.” Unlike scientific consciousness, church consciousness does not allow such opposition. However, it would be cowardly to turn a blind eye to a certain kind of “tension” and the problem we face here. Moreover, bearing in mind that St. Maxim, as can be seen from the above passage from qu. dub. 119, treated Chrysostom with respect, it can be assumed that for the saint himself. Maximus, the difference in the methods of his exegesis and approach to the Holy Scriptures with the methods of Chrysostom and teachers like him, presented a certain spiritual problem. The resolution of this problem should not, as is obvious specifically for the church consciousness, lie in the plane of simple opposition and rejection of one in favor of the other, but it was necessary to find a place for the approach to the Holy Scriptures, which dominates in Chrysostom, in the perspective on exegesis that St. John himself set himself. Maxim. It is precisely this solution to the problem that we find in the later work of St. Maxima - Chapters on the theology and economy of the incarnation of the Son of God, where, in particular, we read: “He who, with the help of clear examples and sayings corresponding to the ability of the hearers, presents [them] with the moral teaching of the Word, makes this Word flesh. And he who, with the help of sublime speculation, expounds mysterious theology, makes the Word the Spirit” (cap. theol. 2, 38) 82. It is very likely that, speaking of teaching moral instruction in accordance with the abilities of those listening, St. Maxim had in mind, first of all, such a great shepherd and teacher as St. John Chrysostom. It is obvious that moral and edifying exegesis has an important educational value, essential when the Church addresses the world. Nevertheless, it is also obvious that when such moral exegesis is superseded, exegesis in which, as St. Maxim, the Word only becomes the Spirit; church exegesis is deprived of its true foundation and source with all the ensuing consequences 83. For, after all, the Word becomes flesh, Who is originally and everlastingly God, and the latter is revealed precisely in that monastic-Gnostic exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, the great and one of the last in the first millennium of the Christian era, the representative of which was St. Maximus, who developed the basic principles of this exegesis already in Questions and Perplexities. Understanding St. The maxim of the place of moral and edifying exegesis should also be kept in mind because the exegetical works of St. Maxima, primarily Questions and Perplexities and Questions to Thalassius, as some researchers believe, were written with a pedagogical purpose (characteristic in this regard is the famous essay by Paul Blowers, dedicated to Questions and Answers to Thalassius: Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy 84. We do not undertake to say for sure that Qu. dub. were written not for a pedagogical, but for some other purpose 85, however, if we can talk about “pedagogy” here, then it is completely different and in a different sense than in relation to the exegetical sermons of St. John Chrysostom. It should be noted that, when speaking about the moral edifying exegesis of Chrysostom’s Holy Scripture, we do not mean the usual presentation of moral requirements and norms based on Holy Scripture, but something much more complex. A simple presentation of the moral law can be found, for example, in the exegesis of the blessed. Theodorit. Thus, answering the question: “Why does [Scripture] command to kill a gore ox (Exodus 21:28),” Theodoret replies: “The dumb teaches those gifted with reason what evil murder is” 86. Here we are dealing with a simple moral: murder is evil 87 . For comparison, Rev. Maxim gives an interpretation to the same question not in a moral, but in a spiritual-ascetic sense, that is, intended not for “all people” (for morality is a form of universality, and this is its weakness), but for a person who is in a specific spiritual situation of “feat”, seeking God and encountering certain obstacles and temptations on this path: “A carnivorous ox is one who has zeal not according to reason, supposedly for God, and its used to attack others. This passion should be killed so that, having struck many, it does not kill them, and also does not prepare danger for its owner, that is, the soul” (qu. dub. 24). The meaning of this interpretation, obviously, is that on the ascetic path a person can fall into a state when it seems to him that he is zealous for God, say, defending Orthodox teaching or some kind of ascetic life, or some spiritual principles (even the most correct ones), but if at the same time aggression arises in him against others, then such jealousy is not true zeal for God, and this passion must be killed. So the commandment of the Old Testament in the mouth of St. The maxim is interpreted in relation to ascetic life, 88 which in this specific sense can be considered an example of “spiritual pedagogy.” In the case of the exegesis of St. John Chrysostom, however, we are not dealing with ordinary moralizing at all, as in the given example from Theodoret, but with pedagogical moral instruction, coming from a deep knowledge of the human psyche and projecting it onto Scripture. It is worth giving an example of this kind of exegesis and comparing it with the exegesis of St. Maxim, in order to understand that he offers something different not simply and not only in relation to ordinary moral preaching, but in relation to the highest form of this sermon, which, undoubtedly, is the exegesis of Chrysostom. So, interpreting the words of Ap. Paul: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink: for by doing this you will heap burning coals on his head” (Rom. 12:20), St. John wonders why St. Paul here seems to deviate from the commandment of love and instead teaches, as it may seem, sophisticated hatred of enemies. To this question, Chrysostom gives the following answer: “Paul, ... wanting ... to win over someone who does not even want to see his enemy, to become his benefactor, added “burning coals,” so that he, prompted by the hope of punishment, would decide to do good to the one who offended him. Just as a fisherman, having covered his fishing rod on all sides with bait, throws it to the fish so that, resorting to ordinary food, they can be more easily caught and held, so Paul, wanting to incline the offended person to do good to the offender, does not offer the empty fishing rod of wisdom, but, covering it with hot coals, as if some kind of bait, with the hope of punishment, inclines the insulted person to do good to the offender; and when he has already bowed down, he holds him back and does not allow him to leave, since the very nature of the matter binds him to the enemy, and, as it were, says to him: if you do not want to feed the offender out of piety, then feed him at least in the hope of punishment. He knows that if he begins such a good deed, he will begin the path to reconciliation. After all, no one can have as an enemy the one whom he feeds and gives water to, even if at first he did this in the hope of punishment. Time, in its passage, weakens the power of anger” 89. This interpretation of Chrysostom, as is not difficult to see, comes from a certain understanding of the human psyche (soul), human weaknesses and human nature, and most importantly from the fact that the ap. Paul in his words proceeded precisely from this - in this case, he was also a teacher of morality and measured his words with the concepts and weaknesses of the audience, using even the sinful, in general, desire to take revenge on the enemy, in order to ultimately lead both the offended and the offender to reconciliation. Interpretation of St. Maxim, in contrast to Chrysostom’s pedagogy, is absolutely devoid of any psychologism; it unfolds, as we will see, in the ascetic-anthropological (and not moral) sphere, where there are no longer any offended or offenders, but there is only man in his relation to God. It is interesting that Rev. At the same time, Maxim chooses to interpret these words not the message of St. Paul, and the place where they are found in Scripture for the first time, namely in the Book of Proverbs 90. This is how his question sounds: “What does the mysterious saying from Proverbs mean: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Surely, by doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head (Prov. 25:21–22 LXX)?” (qu. dub. I, 27). Already the fact that St. Maxim takes these words from the Book of Proverbs, which obviously gives him reason to interpret them not in the applied moral sense of advice on how to treat the enemy when you are overcome by hatred, but in the spiritual sense, “parable” 91, in the very perspective in which, by and large, we no longer have external “enemies” who could be hated in such a way as to assume that the word of God (whether in the Book of Proverbs, even in the epistle of St. Paul) would proceed from the permissibility of such hatred and would play on it. To this one can object: of course, because hatred really exists, and it is useful for us to know how to behave and what to proceed from in this situation, when we are overcome by hatred of the enemy. And ap. Paul, according to Chrysostom, here gives advice: if you are overcome by hatred, do good to the enemy, even if you hope, if you cannot do otherwise, that by doing so you will bring punishment on him (obviously, this means God’s punishment). However, not to mention the fact that modern man is unlikely to fall for this “hook”, that is, he is unlikely to be inspired to do good to the enemy, hoping that God’s punishment will befall him, but even if we allow this, then such a sane ap. Paul Chrysostom's advice may not work the way Chrysostom describes it, that is, hoping for God's punishment, which will bring upon the enemy our good attitude towards him, we may not at all extinguish the hatred in ourselves, but, on the contrary, in such a cunning way, strengthen and inflame this hatred in ourselves. This possibility cannot be ruled out in principle 92 . In contrast to this, Rev. Maxim, in his interpretation of “coals on the head of the enemy,” immediately excludes the slightest possibility of hatred of the human enemy and the play of the word of God on it. According to his interpretation: “The enemy of our soul is our body, which always fights with us, raising a rebellion of passions” (qu. dub. I, 27). Let us note that there is no talk of hatred or resentment here at all (just as there is none in the Holy Scriptures). At the same time, Rev. Maxim considers a completely real person, and not some saint who has already achieved deification, who is not aware of any passions. In Prov. 25, 21–22 says that the enemy needs to be fed, so the next step is St. Maxim explains in what sense hunger should be understood here; we are, of course, talking about spiritual hunger: “If the wisdom of the flesh 93, tormented by conscience, is hungry, that is, reaching out to salvation, or thirsts for Divine knowledge 94, then we must feed it through abstinence and labor and water it with the study of Divine sayings” (qu. dub. I, 27). It would seem that we are dealing with ordinary, even banal, monastic advice - to fast, work and study the Holy Scriptures, however, this advice is clothed in the form of a spiritual paradox: spiritual hunger is satisfied, to begin with, by abstinence. But even more interesting is how St. Maxim uses the expression ap here. Paul "the wisdom of the flesh" (Rom. 8:6). It is usually used pejoratively and is contrasted with the wisdom (or thinking) of the spirit (φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος – Rom. 8:6). However, Rev. Maxim uses this expression here. Paul in a neutral sense, since he goes on to say that this “wisdom” can strive for salvation and thirst for Divine knowledge. We are obviously talking about our mental-physical being, in which we have an internal need to live in accordance with the logos of our nature, that is, God’s plan for it, a need that did not disappear with the Fall, and is felt by us thanks to the torment of conscience 95. This need, as can be seen from what was said by St. Maxim, is satisfied through asceticism (saving us from passions), work (affirming us in virtue), and teaching (enlightening us with the knowledge of God). Finally, Rev. Maxim also comes to an interpretation of the “burning coals” collected on the enemy’s head: “Thus on his head [on the head of the wisdom of the flesh. - G.B.], that is, burning coals are collected in the mind - Divine and spiritual thoughts” (qu. dub. I, 27). So, instead of hoping for God’s punishment for our enemy, which should stimulate us to do good deeds towards him, as he writes about this, interpreting St. Paul, Chrysostom, St. Maximus we encounter a completely different perspective on the same words of Holy Scripture; in this perspective there is no place at all for hatred or the use of sin to achieve good goals. In such a perspective, opposite to moral exegesis, there is a significant difference between the “anagogical” spiritual pedagogy of St. Maxim from the psychological and moral pedagogy of St. John Chrysostom. However, someone may wonder, what should we do with a situation when we are dealing with a real enemy, that is, with another person, because ap. Paul is talking about exactly this, and in life we ​​encounter it very often. St. Maxim is avoiding this problem, but he doesn’t answer what to really do here. But that’s the point, as it seems to us, that it is precisely this “departure”, the transfer of all problems into our spiritual life, the refusal to solve it on a purely moral plane - and this is, by and large, the answer of the Venerable. Maxim, as well as the entire monastic-ascetic tradition. It is necessary, first of all, to build ourselves, to learn how to properly deal with the “internal enemy” of our soul, our body, 96 to bring the burning coals of Divine and spiritual thoughts onto his head, and this is what provides the real basis for correct actions in relation to our neighbors, none of whom are actually an enemy for us. Having expressed general considerations about the nature of the exegesis of St. Maxima in Qu. dub. and some features of this work, prior to the publication of its Russian translation, it is necessary to say about the critical edition from which it was made, the very appearance of which in 1982 was a great achievement in patrolology. In describing this work, we use brief information about it, which he provides in his dissertation on Qu. dub., D. Prassas 97 . This information is interesting in itself, but at the same time the fate of the manuscripts containing certain selections from the original text of Qu. dub., as we will see from the description below, reflects the problems of the inclusion of the legacy of St. Maximus in the context of the Byzantine exegetical tradition. This is important both for studying the history of exegesis in Byzantium, and for understanding the characteristics of the legacy of the saint himself. Maxim, which turned out to be a stumbling block for his perception. In this sense, studying the history of manuscripts is a good help for the patrolologist and historian. But before moving on to the edition of X. Declerk, a few words must be said about the history of the publication and study of Qu. dub. 98. In 1675, the collected works of St. Maxima, prepared by the Dominican F. Combefis. Immediately after the famous Questions and Answers to Thalassius, he placed 79 question-answers, which were called Quaestiones et dubia by the publisher. In 1865 it was this edition that was reproduced in PG (PG 90, 785–856). New discoveries regarding Qu. dub. were made by the Russian patrolologist S. L. Epifanovich, who in 1917 published an addition to the 1675 edition 99. Based on a manuscript from the late 16th century. (Dresd. A 187), he was able to fill in the gaps in the text published by Combefis in qü -es: 68, 69 and 70, he also found the completion of qu. dub. 79, finally, he supplemented the list of question answers with two more, to which he gave numbers 8o and 81. Almost half a century passed before C. Gianelli discovered a 10th century codex in the Vatican Library. Vat. gr. 1703, unfortunately, was damaged in a number of places, in particular at the very beginning. This codex contained 195 question-answers, characterized by the anagogical orientation of exegesis. Identification of the author was a problem, since the title and author's name, along with the very beginning of the manuscript, were missing. Upon closer examination, Gianelli discovered that 44 (actually 47) of the question answers contained in Vat. gr. 1703, are also contained in a work published by Combefis under the title Quaestiones et dubia. At the IX International Congress on Byzantine Studies, held in Thessaloniki from March 12 to 19, 1953, he announced his assumption that Vat gr. 1703 is a more complete text of the Qu. dub. St. Maximus the Confessor than the text published by Combefis. It was on the basis of this code that X. Declercq prepared his publication. He compiled a critical edition of Qu. dub., 100 which, after excluding secondary “reviews,” ended up consisting of four basic ones 101 . Each of these reviews contains at least one issue that is not present in the others 102 . There is one single question that all reviews contain: this is qu. dub. 86 in the first review, qu. dub. I, 22 – in the second, qu. dub. II, 4 – in the third, and qu. dub. III, 17 – in the fourth 103. Manuscript Vat. gr. 1703 represents the most important and oldest source 104, since it contains the largest number of question answers. This manuscript most closely matches the original work of St. Maxima. However, it was the second review, Sample I, that received the most circulation 105 . Samples I, II, and III contain relatively fewer questions than Vat. gr. 1703. Declerc offered his own explanation for this. The author of Sample I has collected those questions that can be considered to contain more literal interpretations of passages from the Bible and the Fathers. The answers to these questions do not contain anagogical interpretations. Declercq suggests that this was done intentionally 106. The compiler of Sample I also appears to have avoided issues related to the Evagrian doctrine of the three stages of spiritual perfection (practical philosophy, natural contemplation, and theological philosophy). Sample I is limited to texts that emphasize the importance of acquiring virtues 107 . Its compiler was also interested in nomina sacra 108 and questions of physiology 109 . Selection II focuses on the interpretation of passages from Psalm 110 and ends with a call to asceticism 111. Sampler III also omitted questions containing allegorical interpretations 112 . The reason that Selections I, II, and III are so short in relation to the total volume is that they omit most of the anagogical interpretations of biblical and patristic texts 113 . Some question-answers are also contained outside the main branches of the direct tradition. Individual question answers were preserved in other texts more isolated, either one at a time or in groups of two to five questions 114. Two groups of such question-answers are those called "wandering" and those that come from smaller assemblies. One reason for this is the popular and didactic nature of these questions. For example, qu. dub. I, 1, containing a list of vices and virtues, attracted considerable attention; noticeable interest was caused by the explanation of the parts of the monastic vestment in qu. dub. I, 68, as well as qu. dub. I, 26, dedicated to receiving forgiveness of sins. "Roaming" questions and questions from small collections proved to be an important contribution to the compilation of the critical edition 115. It is unknown whether the total number of question answers from the four reviews is equal to the number in the original, and Declercq suggests that much of the original text may still be unknown 116 . Main review – Vat. gr. 1703, and the other three are designated as Sample I, Sample II and Sample III by Declercq himself 117 . However, Declercq suggests that qu. dub. III, 1 and III, 2 (II, 23 from the translation we publish) should have been located at the beginning of the original edition 118. These two questions do not show up in Vat. gr. 1703, however, the main manuscript for Sample II, Vind. phil. gr. 149, retains the same sequence of questions as Vat. gr. 1703. Declerc assumes that Vind. phil. gr. 149 is a copy of Vat. gr. 1703, made before the Vat. gr. 1703 was damaged and several sheets of 119 were lost. Finally, of the four reviews, three (Vat. gr. 1703, Selections I and III) are of southern Italian origin, while Selection II comes from the “east.” Among the many similarities between Sample II and the catenae on the Psalter (the oldest of which come from Palestine) are the properties of the material of the plates, the style of writing and the color of the ink 120 . From this Declercq concludes that the compiler of Sample II comes from the east 121 . It is impossible to restore the original order of questions. The compilers of the various manuscripts that make up the four reviews may have had their own reasons for rewriting the text and therefore may have had some special goals that affected the order of the questions. In some manuscripts they are ordered by size, in others by thematic content, and in others by groups related to biblical or patristic passages. Declerc's numbering does not in any way indicate the numbering in the original text. It is impossible to draw any conclusion regarding the place of this or that question-answer in the context of the whole essay. Vat. gr. 1703 consists of 195 different questions and answers, and is the largest manuscript. Most of the questions and answers are contained in Vat. gr. 1703 with the exception of 36 of the 83 contained in Sample I, 7 of the 27 contained in Sample II, and 1 of the 26 contained in Sample III. However, there is some difficulty in determining the exact number of questions in Sample I. The oldest evidence for Sample I is believed to be Vat. gr. 2020 (dates back to 994). As for the study of the indirect tradition of transmission of Qu. dub., then some questions are contained in the exegetical catenae, spiritual florilegia and some special extracts from the fathers. Questions found in these texts were used by Declerc to reconstruct fragments not contained in the direct tradition. Maximus is rarely quoted in catenae, however, it must be borne in mind that many catenae had already been compiled by the 7th century. However, another possible reason for the absence of fragments of Maximus in the catenae is the anagogical nature of his interpretations. The compiler of such chains of interpretations from the fathers may not have included fragments from Maximus, since they did not correspond to the purpose that this compiler wanted to achieve - to communicate information about Christian work. It may be noted, however, that Maximus is often quoted in the catenae of the Psalter. Most often, Maxim is quoted in spiritual florilegia, providing the reader with material for contemplation. His writings are also found among the florilegia, offering practical instructions for the Christian life and addressed to laymen and aspiring monks. Often questions and answers are contained in the florilegia, dealing with the various forms of dispassion (apatheia), the cardinal virtues, the divine and human action of Christ, and the virtues of body and soul. Some of the materials found in the florilegia have false attributions 122 in them. Declercq admits that his research into identifying Maxim fragments is not exhaustive. He did not survey what he calls the “whole forest” of scholia on the Words of St. Gregory of Nazianzus 123, but expresses the hope that he has discovered the most valuable fragments. Questions and perplexities in the form in which they were published in Declerk's critical edition and are offered in Russian translation in this edition consist of 239 question-answers 124. Since, as mentioned above, the order of the questions in the critical edition does not necessarily correspond to the original, it is impossible to reconstruct any well-thought-out principle on the basis of this order. Maxim a single composition of this work. As for the main topics of certain question answers, we refused to offer the reader orientation in Qu. dub. more or less artificial descriptions and classifications of issues by topic, by whether they comment on passages from the Old or New Testament, or from the Holy Fathers, or by the nature of the exegetical methods to which St. Maxim 125. Instead, as a major aid to orientation in Qu. dub. We provide this publication with relevant indexes, including a subject-thematic index of the main theological, anthropological, ascetic, philosophical and exegetical concepts that are used in this work. Finally, a few words need to be said about the history of the present translation of Qu. dub., as well as about the reasons that prompted us, after the release of the just translation by P.K. Dobrotsvetov 126, to offer the reader a new translation of Questions and Perplexities. Working on the text Qu. dub. went through several stages. At the first stage, for a long time, reading and analysis of individual questions and answers took place at a seminar on prp. Maximus the Confessor, organized under the auspices of the Byzantine Philosophy series, in which two volumes dedicated to St. Maxim is 127. The seminar was attended by: G. N. Nachinkin, G. I. Benevich, V. I. Zemskova and O. A. Kovaleva. The seminar participants also enjoyed the support of A. M. Shufrin, to whom they turned from time to time for advice and consultation. The seminar was not intended to necessarily publish a translation of Qu. dub., however, the results of the discussion of the work of St. We recorded Maxim in one form or another. Then, on the initiative of D. A. Pospelov, the idea arose to publish a Russian translation of Qu. dub. For this work, we invited philologist and Byzantinist D. A. Chernoglazoe, who translated approximately two-thirds of all question answers. D. A. Chernoglazoe did not use the seminar materials, but translated from a “clean slate”. But in the process of editing its translation, we used materials from the seminar, all participants of which thus made direct or indirect contributions to the resulting text. About a third of the translations of the question answers, which D. A. Chernoglazoe did not translate, were taken from the seminar materials and, in turn, checked by him. Several questions and answers were translated by A. M. Shufrin. As a result, the translation turned out to be the result of the work of many people. How successful such collective work is is for the reader to judge. Just before we completed our work on Qu. dub. a translation of this work was published, prepared by P.K. Dobrotsvetov. Having familiarized ourselves with this publication, we considered that the publication of our translation still remains justified, not only because any new reading of such a complex and important author as St. Maxim, any attempt to understand him is not without meaning, but, unfortunately, also because P.K. Dobrotsvetov’s translation is replete with errors and inaccuracies, and his comments are random and often incorrect. We stated our opinion about this publication in a review 128. The first edition of this review appeared on the Internet on the portal Bogoslov.Ru 129, unfortunately, not on our initiative, under a fictitious name and received the support of a number of patrolologists. This became an additional incentive for us in preparing this translation, in the notes to which we noted a number of errors in the translation and comments of P.K. Dobrotsvetov, although a consistent comparison of the two translations was not part of our tasks. Unlike the French translation by E. Ponsois, 130 ours is annotated, in which we partly used the comments of D. Prassas, who wrote the first dissertation on Qu. dub. and carried out the first English translation of 131. The commentary by D. Prassas, although some important parallels were discovered in it and some valuable observations were made, is still only the first approach to understanding the work of St. Maxima. In our commentary we sought to continue this work, although we are well aware of its imperfections, as well as the fact that in the future researchers of this text, St. Many more discoveries await Maxim 132. In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who directly or indirectly helped the appearance of this publication. First of all, the participants of the seminar on St. Maxim in the series “Byzantine Philosophy”: V. I. Zemskova, O. A. Kovaleva, G. N. Nachinkin, as well as Fr. Maxime (Constas), Jean-Claude Larcher, Antoine Levy, Christian Boudignon, Luc Disinger, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, Dirk Krausmuller, Despina Prassas, Anton Schors, 3. A. Barzakh, F. G. Benevich, D. S. Biryukov, A. Yu. Volchkevich, V. M. Lurie, D.V. Panchenko, E. Z. Panchenko, D.A. Pospelov, A.Yu. Savachenko, A.I. Sidorov, T.A. Shchukin and everyone who took part in the discussion of individual problems Qu. dub. , which we raised on the Internet, in LiveJournal. I would like to express special gratitude to A. M. Shufrin, whose participation in the discussion of the most difficult issues that arose while working on this book, as well as friendly support, can hardly be overestimated. qu. dub. 17. Here and below, quotations from the translation of Questions and Perplexities (Quaestiones et dubia) (abbr.: Qu. dub.), except for specially stated cases, are given according to this edition. http://sfi.tsj.ru/forum.asp?id1350&actview&page4 See Joan. Chrys. Adver. oppugn, vit. monastic.: PG 47, 378. 35–45. “The children who were playing near Bethlehem, when they only said to Elisha: “Go, you bald one” (2 Kings 2:23-24), angered God so much that at these words the bears attacked their crowd (there were forty-two of them), and they were all torn to pieces by these beasts: neither their age, nor their numbers, nor the fact that they said this in jest (sic!) - nothing saved youths; and very fair. If those who undertake such feats are ridiculed by both children and adults, then who of the weakest will dare to take on feats pursued by ridicule and mockery? Who among the people will be jealous of virtue, seeing it in such ridicule? (Joan. Chrys. de. virg. 22:1–12, Russian translation, cited from the edition: John Chrysostom 1898–1914, vol. 1, book 1, pp. 313–314). Thus, Chrysostom believes that the punishment of God that befell the children through the prayer of the prophet was completely fair and served to ensure that in the future no one dared to offend virtuous people, so that those who wanted to take the path of virtue, but were not firm enough in their decision, would not be afraid of being ridiculed by anyone. A word formed according to the same type as “theodicy” - the justification of God. Greg. Naz. or. 21, 3: PG 35, 1085A, Russian. lane cit. according to the edition: Gregory the Theologian 1994, vol. 1, p. 306. This is how we will sometimes abbreviate Questions and Perplexities. When designating individual question answers: qu. dub. Further for this essay we used the abbreviation: amb. from lat. Ambigua. See amb. Yu: PG 91, 1137–1141С. Wed. discussion of the issue of the deification of the Old Testament saints by St. Maxim and St. Gregory Palamas in: Lurie 2006, p. 377. See amb. 10: PG 91, 1025С. Obviously, according to the four elements from which everything material consists (cf. qu. dub. 1, 30). That is, 40 (sensible) † 2 (matter and form) 42. In the Enneads: “the flight of the one to the one” (φυγὴ μόνου πρὸς μόνον) (Plot. Enn. 6. 9. 11. 51, ed. Henry, Schwyzer). See qu. dub. 17. On sacrificial animals, see Lev. 1, 10; Lion. 3, 12; Lion. 1, 14. In the text of the translation, we rendered this word as a term already included in the Russian patristic language: “anagoga”, or “anagogical interpretation”. Using a more specialized theological language, which in its terminology goes back to the philosophy of the Stoics, Philo and Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Evagrius of Pontus and many other thinkers, up to the Areopagite, we are dealing in this book with the fact that St. himself. Maximus called contemplation of the logoi of God - the meanings of Holy Scripture and the logoi of creation, which constitutes the essence of his exegesis (see, for example, Blowers 1992). The teaching of St. The maxim on logoi, only outlined in Questions and Perplexities and further developed by him in detail in later works, primarily in the Difficulties to John, has been repeatedly covered by many researchers. We will not repeat here what is well known, both to specialists and to a wide circle of lovers and admirers of St. Maximus, to again trace the ways in which the doctrine of logoi came to the saint, how he modified it, what was original in his exegesis of Holy Scripture, and what he borrowed from Origen, Didymus the Blind, Evagrius the Pontic or the Cappadocian Fathers (partially parallels to St. Maxima and these authors were discussed by us in the comments). Many works have already been written on all these topics, and we refer readers interested in the history of exegesis and patristic thought in general to these studies. Of the most significant works on the exegesis of St. Maxims written in recent decades include the works of Berthold (1987, Berthold 1993) and Blowers (Blowers 1988; Blowers 1991; Blowers 1993a; Blowers 1993b; Blowers 1995). Unfortunately, we did not have access to the monograph Kattan 2003, dedicated to the peculiarities of the biblical hermeneutics of St. Maxima. It is also worth noting the extremely important work of Steele (Steel 1992, p. 2420, paragraph 4), which, although devoted to the analysis of a separate Difficulty from the Difficulties on John (amb. 21), but touches on a wide range of issues related to the approach of St. Maxim to Holy Scripture. Among domestic studies, the greatest contribution to the study of the exegesis of St. Maxim made comments on the translation of the Questions and Answers to Thalassius by S.L. Epifanovich and A.I. Sidorov (see Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II and subsequent publications by A.I. Sidorov of individual questions and answers). See Maxim Confessor 2008 and our review: Benevich 2009. See Sherwood 1952, p. 32. P.K. Dobrotsvetov erroneously writes (see Maxim the Confessor 2008, p. 6) that Epifanovich dated Questions and Perplexities to 620–622, however, in a note that quotes Epifanovich’s own words from the draft notes on Maxim the Confessor, it is clearly stated that the writing of this work should be dated back to no later than 624 (see ibid., note 2 and Epifanovich 1917; p. VII). See Declerck 1982, p. XV. S. L. Epifanovich based on the reference in qu. dub. 162 (64th PG) on those who were in Palestine and saw how the roofs of houses were arranged there, concluded that Qu. dub. St. Maxim wrote “before his visit to Palestine” (Epifanovich 1917, p. VII). Somehow, one would think, he connected this with the dating of “ca. 624,” although, as Declercq rightly notes, the reference to the corresponding place in qu. dub. 162 does not provide serious reasons for this. What a “visit to Palestine” by St. What Maxim Epifanovich meant remains a mystery. Which are more or less definitely dated to 628–630. (See Sherwood 1952, p. 31). See this opinion in Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 22–23. See ibid., p. 23–27. The argument is based primarily on the presence of a shift in interests among the prp. Maxim from the purely ascetic, characteristic of the Chapters of ascetics and Chapters on love, to the philosophical, which fully made itself felt in the Difficulties to John, but already in Questions and perplexities is manifested, for example, in the quotation of Nemesius and St. Gregory of Nyssa. To these arguments we can add the first development of that doctrine about the logoi of rational creatures and their movement in accordance with these logoi, or falling away from them (see qu. dub. 173), which will form the basis of amb. 7, in refutation of the Origenistic Enada; this teaching is not yet in the Chapters on Love. An English translation of Qu has been announced for 2009. dub. D. Prassas. Unfortunately, the latest version of its translation and commentary, which will be contained in this book, was not available to us. See Prassas 2003, p. 319. carit. 1.1.; rus. lane A.I. Sidorova, cit. according to the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. With. 97. See Larchet 1996, p. 12–13. See Boudignon 2004, p. 11–43. For the Russian translation by A.V. Muravyov, see the ed.: Dispute with Pyrrhus 2004, p. 322–331. That is, St. Lavra Khariton. See rus. lane Syrian Psogos (4) in ed.: Dispute with Pyrrhus 2004, p. 324. See Levy 2006, p. 487–490. Some scholars, for example, Garrigues, believe that after Palestine, St. Maxim ended up in Constantinople, where his formation took place in a different environment. The reason for leaving Palestine and moving to Constantinople, as Garrigues believes, could have been the Persian capture of Palestine and Jerusalem in 614 (see Garrigues 1976, pp. 35–36). See Lévy 2006, p. 490, no. i. Levi notes there that at this time in Alexandria, in particular, Stephen of Alexandria taught (who, following John Philoponus, continued commenting on Aristotle’s treatise On the Soul), with whom the future Abba St. was familiar. Maximus St. Sophrony. However, Levi notes that during the reign of Heraclius, philosophical education in Constantinople could have been resumed, and that, according to some information, the same Stefan was invited to the capital; which means St. Maxim, in principle, could have become acquainted with him and his works there (if he was familiar with them at all, which, as far as we know, was not possible to prove reliably). See his preface in the publication: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. I, p. 38–42, in which he follows Garriga on this point. The quotation marks indicate that we take here the word “Origenistic” not in its full sense, which includes the well-known dogmatic errors of the Origenists, but in some narrower and more conventional sense. Rus. lane A.I. Sidorova cit. according to the edition: Evagrius 1994, p. 114. See Greg. Nyss. in Christi resurrect, or. I PG 46, 612Ä “For even at the first creation of the world, the Divine power was not weak, so as to complete all things in an instant; but, despite this, during the creation of existing things, it determined the existence of temporary intervals. And just as there, on the first day, part of creation was completed, and on the second - another, and then, in order, in the same way, everything that exists was completed, so that God on certain days arranged the entire creation well - so here, according to the unspoken thought of His wisdom, evil is expelled from existing things in three days - from husbands, from wives and from the race of snakes, in which the nature of evil first received existence" (Russian translation, quoted from ed.: Gregory of Nyssa 1872. Part 8, p. 37). τῆἐπιγνώσει. Wed. in qu. dub. 19: “Thus, through clear knowledge (τῇ ἐπιγνώσει), and not through the participation of [Divine] blessings, the soul receives its strength and is restored to its original state)” and commentary on this place. In fact, as we know, this method goes back to Philo of Alexandria and the Alexandrian school of interpretation of Scripture, which developed it before the Christian era. Among Christian authors, Clement of Alexandria adopted it from Philo, so, strictly speaking, this method is not the property of the “Origenists” exclusively, who (primarily Origen himself, as well as Didymus the Blind and Evagrius), however, used it especially widely and systematically. Another teacher, Rev. Maximus was in this approach, having himself taken a lot from Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa. It must be said that St. Gregory of Nyssa, as is known, there are actually passages that are easy to understand in the sense of extending the saving mission of Christ to the devil. For example, the Great Catechetical Word says that Christ, by what he did on earth, freed man from vice and “healed even the inventor of evil” (Greg. Nyss. or. catech. mag. 26: 84). See in more detail our translation of the passage devoted to this issue in the study of Polycarp Sherwood (Maximus the Confessor 2007a, pp. 476–495; conclusions based on the analysis of the relevant passages in Qu. dub., see especially note 262 on p. 495, or in this edition in the note to qu. dub. 19). See qu. dub. 19 and comments. For more details on the doctrine of the punishment of sinners by fire, see qu. dub. 99 and approx. to qu. dub. 19, where we clarify the opinion regarding the understanding of Gehenna fire in St. Maxim, expressed by J.-C. Larcher. Briefly speaking, according to the opinion of St. Maxim expressed in qu. dub. 99, what is usually understood as torment in fiery Gehenna is torment caused by Divine energies, but they are not eternal, since the latter “burn” only human forces perverted to the point of dissimilarity (and even to the opposite) of them, which, as stated, referring to St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maxim, - in the end, everyone will be restored to their original state. Eternal torment St. Maxim connects not with this Gehenna, but with the memory of the missed opportunity to realize the powers of our nature through the good deeds that adorn this nature; this memory will be awakened by the inaccessibility of divine pleasure, rewarded in eternity by God for good deeds to those worthy. See, for example, qü -es: 189; I, 11; I, 37. Of the holy fathers, the most important for St. Maximus during the period of writing Qu. dub., and the Difficulties to John, of course, was St. Gregory of Nazianzus. In Qu. dub. he is mentioned seven times by name (qu. -es: 5, 9, 48, 95, 104, 105 and 137), in addition there are references to him without mentioning the name in qü -es: 87, 96–103. Among other important things for St. Maxima in Qu. dub. St. fathers: St. Gregory of Nyssa (two quotations in qu. dub. 19 and one in qu. dub. 57), St. Dionysius the Areopagite (mentioned twice by name in qu. -es: 142, II, 14) and at least two references without mentioning the name (qu. 161 and I, 68), although the doctrine of the apophatic and cataphatic theology of the Areopagite is also used in qu. -es: 73,173, 190–191, and the doctrine of the providential processes of God is in qu. dub. 173. Important for St. Maxim and St. Basil the Great (qu. -es: 93, 93 and 108–110), St. Diadochus of Photiki (qu. dub. I, 10), extremely important St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who, although mentioned by name only once (in qu. dub. 55), his teaching about the leadership (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις; lat. recapitulatio) of all creation by Christ is one of the central points in the Christology and logology of St. Maxima, as in Qu. dub., and in his other works (see, qu. dub. 53 and note 247). One time at a time, Rev. Maxim also refers to St. Cyril of Alexandria (qu. dub. 55) and St. John Chrysostom (qu. dub. 32) (we will dwell on the relationship between the exegesis of Chrysostom and St. Maximus below). Finally, it matters for St. Maximus during the period of writing Qu. dub. and much more during the period of writing the Difficulties to John - Nemesius of Emesa (see qu. 72; I, 82). However, it should be noted that there are hidden allusions, and even direct quotes from Origen and the Origenists: Didymus, Evagrius, Eusebius of Caesarea - in Qu. dub. no less than from the holy fathers. By meaning we mean that St. Maxim represents as a “translation” of a (usually Hebrew) name, and under the meaning – its spiritual content in a given context. These two aspects of St. Maxims are sometimes strongly intertwined, that is, an element is introduced into the “translation” of the name that is related to the meaning put into it. See Blowers 1991, p. 203–211; Prassas 2003, p. 72–73. See Schoors 1994, p. 257–272. This opinion was expressed by Anton Shors in his article, and A. M. Shufrin expressed it in correspondence with us. A set of arithmological interpretations of St. We present the maxim and the places where they occur in the Subject Index to Qu. dub. (pp. 444–448 present, ed.) Moreover, as D. Prassas notes, citing the research of X. Declercq, many extant samples from Qu. dub. were made in such a way that anagogical, spiritual interpretations were specially produced from them, or interpretations bearing the stamp of the “Evagrian” tradition of exegesis (see Prassas 2003, p. 62; we will dwell on the textology of Qu. dub. and the history of their apperception in the Byzantine tradition below in the preface). Phot, bibl., cod. 192a, ed. Bekker, 156b-157a, op. according to the edition: Muretov 191 5, p. XIV. Not long ago he took monastic vows with the name Maxim in the Athos monastery of Simonopetra. Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my gratitude to Fr. Maxim, who shared his works and thoughts with us. See Ibid., p. 104–106. The words of N. Constas should be clarified in the sense that the “Antiochene exegesis” itself is quite diverse, and in any case, among such authors as Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus, one can find a variety of typological interpretations, and occasionally anagogical interpretations are also found in him (although most of his interpretations are still literal-historical). In any case, the idea of ​​a shift in the exegesis of Scripture after the 7th century. no doubt. To this we can add that the “unification” and standardization of Byzantine exegesis, starting from this time, obviously was facilitated by the 19th canon of the Fifth-Sixth Council (692): “if the word of Scripture is studied, then it should not be explained in any other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set forth in their writings, and let these be verified more than by compiling their own words.” We find an echo of this tradition in the Great Penitential Canon of St. Andrew of Crete (VII century), but then it apparently leaves the main path of development of Orthodox theology for a long time, at least in the Byzantine Empire itself. One of the main reasons for this repression was, obviously, the defeat of Origenism in the 6th century, which cast a shadow on the methods of exegesis of St. Writings associated with Origenism. According to our hypothesis, defended in the article: Benevich 2009b, finding himself in North Africa around 628, St. Maxim came into close contact with extreme anti-Origenists, who obviously opposed the anagogical interpretation of Holy Scripture, which he greatly valued, as can be seen from Qu. dub. Perhaps this is why in the writings after 628: Difficulties to John and Questions and Answers to Thalassia - St. Maxim, more harshly than in Qu. dub. polemicizes with those who are committed to reading Scripture only to the letter, just as in asceticism they strive only to mortify passions, without striving for gnosis. Compare: “those who one-sidedly follow the letter and are content with sacrificing wordless passions, and proclaiming the death of Jesus by the cessation of sin, and His resurrection, for the sake of which and for which there was death, will not become partakers of the mysterious bread of divine knowledge and the cup of life-giving wisdom, through contemplation [performed] by the mind, enlightened by good deeds of righteousness, not confessing, which are very willing and ready they choose to be put to death by the flesh (1 Pet. 3:18), but they are unable to come to life by the Spirit (1 Cor. 11:26)” (Max., amb. 10: PG 91, 1145-B, Russian translation by Archim. Nektary (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim the Confessor 2006, p. 125). As we show in the above article, Difficulties to St. John. The maxims were written in polemic not only with Origenism, which is well known, but also with representatives of such an extreme anti-Origenist reaction, which was probably very widespread in the Church at that time. See eg qu. dub. 1, 7. In this regard, the most typical example is qu. dub. 143. As for Theodoret’s exegesis, it should be noted that in him we find the same question-answer form in the interpretation of Holy Scripture that we find in St. Maxima (see e.g. Theod. quaest. in Octat., ed. Fernández Marcos, Sáenz-Badillos). Perhaps, Rev. Maxim argues with one particular interpretation of Theodoret (see qu. dub. 78, note 330), it is possible that in his interpretation of the creation of man in the image of God in qu. dub. III, 1 pr. Maximus started from the Antiochian understanding of the “image”, which we find in Theodoret’s interpretation of the book of Genesis (question 21), although there are no sufficient grounds to talk about direct polemics. In general, with a very large number of coinciding questions on the Holy Scriptures, St. Maxima and Blessed It is perhaps impossible for Theodoret to talk about Maximus’s dialogue with him or about any obvious polemics or interest in his writings (although this question requires further study). Exegesis of St. Maximus unfolds, as a rule, on a different plane, and if he read Theodoret, then at least in the period of Qu. dub., his interpretation of Scripture by St. Maxim, apparently, was not touched. You can give the following example: in qu. dub. 28 prp. Maximus interprets Ex. 21, 22–23, that is, the question of punishment for miscarriage due to hitting a pregnant woman. In his interpretation of the same passage, Theodoret uses the well-known Antiochian (shared, however, by such an Alexandrian as the late John Philoponus) doctrine that the soul enters the embryo after the formation of the body (see question 48 in the interpretation of the book of Exodus). Subsequently, in amb. 42: PG 91, 1341A prp. Maximus will specifically polemicize with this teaching and in connection with this will give his interpretation of Ex. 21, 22–23, clearly at odds with both Theodoret and Philoponus (see note 126 to qu. dub. 28). However, in Qu. dub. he passes by this discrepancy. So there is reason to assume that during this period of special interest in the exegesis of Theodoret, St. Maximus was not there (which is not surprising, given the bad reputation of Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia after the Edict of Three Chapters). Another thing is St. John Chrysostom, whose reputation was impeccable, and whose influence in the Church was very significant. See Joan. Chrys. in Math. 78: PG 58, 711 f. Compare: “The active implementation of the commandments is not sufficient for the complete healing of the powers of the soul if the corresponding mental contemplations do not succeed them” (Evagr. pract. 78–79. Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from the edition: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, note 66, p. 275, with changes). See Pleasant of God Seraphim 1993, vol. 1, p. 128. See Prassas 2003, p. 309. Orig. scholia in Math.: PG 17, 304. 54–55. Wed. Life 5, 32; Life 6, 6; Life 7, 1. Joan. Chrys. in Genesim 25: PG 53, 220, rus. lane cit. by ed.: John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Book of Genesis. 1993, vol. 1 p. 243. See ibid: PG 53, 219–220. Joan. Chrys. in Joann, hom.: PG 59, 154. 46–58, rus. lane by ed.: John Chrysostom. Discourses on the Gospel of John 1993. With. 169. Joan. Chrys. in Joann, hom.: PG 59, 155. 1–12, rus. lane by ed.: John Chrysostom. Discourses on the Gospel of John 1993. With. 169. About the intelligent feeling of St. For Maxim, see: qu. dub. 43 and approx. 205. A similar assessment of the exegesis of St. Maxim, however, already known from the articles of Blowers and Berthold, was recently expressed by A. I. Sidorov (see Sidorov 2008, pp. 16–18). Rus. lane A.I. Sidorova cit. according to the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. I, p. 241. Almost complete oblivion in the Orthodox world of the exegetical works of St. Maxim, attention to which was renewed only at the beginning of the 20th century. (started just before the revolution and interrupted by it, S. L. Epifanovich’s translation of Questions and Answers to Thalasius) is a sad evidence of the spiritual crisis in the Orthodox world, which turned into atheism and revolution. Moral exegesis, divorced from mystical roots, almost completely dominant in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, could not alone withstand the total challenge posed by Russian communism, atheism and nihilism to Christian moralism, suspected of serving the interests of the ruling class or the dominant denomination. Exegesis and spiritual pedagogy (Blowers 1991). It should be noted here that while P. Blowers argues that the questions in Qu. dub. St. Maxim poses to himself (that is, this is such a rhetorical-pedagogical device) (see Blowers 1991, p. 54), D. Prassas believes that it is quite likely that St. Maximus provides answers to questions that actually arose in the monastic community (see Prassas 2003, pp. 56–57). Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a number of places discussed in Qu. dub. (although, probably not all), are classic “difficult passages” for interpreters (it is no coincidence that many of the questions of St. Maximus coincide, say, with the questions of Blessed Theodoret, whom he most likely did not read). In other words, we can to a large extent talk about difficult issues that “everyone was arguing about” back then. It is possible that Rev. Maxim took up his Questions and Perplexities because he had his own view on these questions, which, as we have seen, differed from the most common one, as was his approach to reading the Holy Scriptures as a whole, and he wanted to convey it, keeping in mind, of course, the benefits for readers. Interpretation of the book of Exodus, question 49, Russian. lane cit. according to the edition: Theodoret Kirsky 2003, p. 101. Regarding this morality, many questions immediately arise: is all murder evil when it is not evil, etc. Not necessarily monastic in the literal sense, since such jealousy can seize any Christian, especially an Orthodox one. Joan. Chrys. in ill.:si esur. enim.: PG 51, 181, rus. lane with minor changes quoted from: John Chrysostom 1994, vol. 3, book. 1., p. 174. In this regard, Rev. Maxim acts like a real biblical scholar, and the Antiochian Chrysostom, who theoretically should have been interested in textual criticism, does not even mention where the ap. Paul borrows his own words. Even the Antiochians recognized that the parable could be interpreted anagogically or allegorically. And for a person who has read F. M. Dostoevsky, such a possibility, it must be said, seems quite real. St. Maxim speaks repeatedly in Qu. dub. about hunger, “but not of bread and water, but of hearing the word of the Lord” (Amos. 8, i) (see qu. dub. 145; 161; 185). The situation of spiritual hunger and pangs of conscience - not moral, but metaphysical - anguish from the inauthenticity of one’s existence - despite the 13 centuries separating us from St. Maxima is quite recognizable to modern people. However, it can also be called an “enemy” to a certain extent conditionally. In qu. dub. 149 prp. Maxim interpreting the words from Proverbs. 25:17: Raise your foot to your friend rarely, lest he, having had enough, come to hate. you, - says that by friend here we need to understand the body, and the parable teaches us to “take care of the body not carefully, but only with the foot of the soul.” So, in relation to the soul, his body is both an “enemy”, which, however, must be fed and saved, and a “friend”, who should not be “visited” too often with care. See Prassas 2003, p. 61–69. We describe it according to Declerck himself (see Declerck 1982, P VII-IX). Epifanovich 1917, p. 26–27. José H. Declerck, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia, CCSG vol. 10 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1982). The first review consists solely of the 195 questions and answers of the Vat manuscript. gr. 1703, dating from the 10th century; 83 questions from the second review (Sample I) are presented in the manuscript: Vat. gr. 2020 (X century); Par. gr. 174 (X-XI centuries); Scor. Y.III. 3 (X-XI centuries); Coislin. 267 (XII century); Par. gr. 1277 (XIII century); Vat. gr. 43s (ff. 9V-13V, XIII century); Par. t suppl. gr. 256 (ff. 301V-304V, XIV century); Sinait. gr. 1609 (XV century); Vat. gr. 1744 (XV century); Bellun. y Bibi. Sem., 8 (XV-XVI centuries); Dresd. D 187 (XVI century); Taur. c. 11. 15 (XVI century); Bucurest., Bibi. Acad. Dacoromanae, gr. 691 (18th century), and, although containing fewer questions, Vat. gr. 2064 (XII century); Scor. Ω. IV. 1 (8 XV century); Mopas. gr. 277 (XV century); The 27 questions from the third review (Sample II) are contained in the Vat manuscript. gr. 435, Par., suppl. gr. 256, and in another representative sample: Ambros. Η 22 sup. (XVI century); the only question of the fourth review (Sample III) not included in other reviews is contained in: Vindobonensis philologicus graecus 149 (after the 14th century); For more information on direct tradition manuscripts, see Declerck 1982, p. XXV-LXXVIII. Agreements between different Qu reviews. dub. are given at the end of this publication. By the way, neither H. Declerk nor D. Prassas noticed that all the compilers of the samples were “censored”, paradoxically, by that question answer (interpretation on Ps. 8o, 3: Take the psalm, give the tympanum), in which St. Maximus follows Evagrius very closely (in Maximus: “Take the Divine teaching and give virtuous practice, achieved by mortification of the flesh” (qu. dub. 86); In Evagrius: “Take the spiritual teaching and give the mortification of the members of those on earth (Col. 3, 5)" (Evagr. in Psalmos: 80.34, ed. Pitra)). Declerck 1982, p. CCXXVI. qu. dub. I, 7; qu. dub. I, 42; I, 44; and I, 16. qu. dub. 1, 28; 1, 30; and 1, 80. From all that has been said, it is obvious that the anagogical interpretations of St. Maximus had difficulty making their way to the reader in Byzantium. On wandering questions and questions from small meetings, see Declerck 1982, p (LXX)VIII-XCII. See Declerck 1982, p. CLXXXIV. It is precisely because of the presence of false attributions that, by indicating in the comments to this translation certain “parallel passages” that we found through a search in the TLG, we could point to a passage, considering it “parallel”, while the same (or almost the same) fragment from the florilegies or catenas could be attributed, say, etc. Maxim, and any other author. Not having the opportunity to use the manuscripts ourselves, we, of course, cannot say anything for sure here, but we consider it necessary to warn the reader about the danger of such false parallels. Several of them are probably interpolations. Such methods of “grouping” or description were proposed by J.-C. Larcher in his preface to the French edition of Qu. dub. (see Qu. dub. 1999, p. 12–14), its text was reproduced by P.K. Dobrotsvetov in his preface to the first Russian translation (see Maxim Confessor 2008, pp. 14–16). See Maxim Confessor 2008. See Maxim Confessor 2007a; Maxim Confessor 2007 b. http://www. bogoslov.ru/text/370259.html. This translation is not always accurate (although it is much more accurate than the translation of P.K. Dobrotsvetov), ​​but an amateur translator who devoted himself to popularizing the work of St. Maxim and who published for the first time many translations of his main works, we can only thank him for them. This translation, unfortunately, is also not always accurate, although, perhaps, in the printed version, that is, in the book, the publication of which is announced for 2009, many of the inaccuracies will be eliminated. Just before the publication of this book, we managed to contact Despina Prassas, who reported that a number of corrections had been made to the printed version compared to the dissertation. It would be especially fruitful to compare this exegetical work by St. Maximus with the exegetical works of Origen, Didymus the Blind and Evagrius the Pontic - a comparison that we have not yet undertaken in its entirety in our commentary, but have only pointed out some parallels.