Human Knowledge According to Saint Maximus the Confessor

Human Knowledge According to

Saint Maximus the Confessor

Nevena Dimitrova

Human Knowledge According to Saint Maximus 
the Confessor

Copyright © 2016 Nevena Dimitrova. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Resource Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-62564-574-6

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-8560-5

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-0850-6

Manufactured in the U.S.A. February 13, 2017

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Saint Maximus the Confessor

Chapter 2: The Human Person as a Knowing Being

Chapter 3: Cognitive Faculties and Types of Knowledge

Chapter 4: Levels of Knowledge

Chapter 5: Cataphatic and Apophatic Ways of Knowledge

Conclusion

Bibliography

Preface

Maximus the Confessor (580–662) is regarded as the father of Byzantine philosophy and has been at the center of patristic studies. In recent times, this Byzantine thinker has become an important figure in the fields of philosophy, psychology, anthropology. During the last decade, interest in his work has increased significantly. This book is devoted to the question of human knowledge. Maximus does not investigate the issue in a separate writing; he explores the gnoseological issue from different perspectives in various texts and on diverse occasions. His treatment of this subject can be traced in terms of his use of language borrowed directly and indirectly from the Bible, ancient philosophers, and pre-Christian authors. By incorporating diverse ideas and terms into a great synthesis, he creates a new vision of the major questions of his time.

In the book, the terms practice and theory are used to signify the practical and contemplative aspects of the soul’s activity. Another division is represented by the words logos and tropos, which describe nature and its mode of existing. As the inner principle of existing things, logos also means reason (the soul’s discerning activity). Furthermore, this word is employed in the biblical sense of God, the incarnate Word. Goodness and Truth are capitalized throughout the book because they refer to the limits of human knowledge in Maximus’s Mystagogia and thereby, serve as names of the divine existence that are much better than moral and gnoseological expressions. Perichorezis is a complex word that has the meaning of unifying, yet preserving the difference between, the qualities of God’s three persons. This term is used also to signify unity between the soul and body that is the essence of the Eucharist.

Maximus the Confessor has long been of interest to philologists because of the complexity and innovative character of his language. For theologians, he is a great defender of Christian truth and doctrine, and in the philosophical realm, he brings ancient language into the Christian sphere of dialogue regarding the Other. A special emphasis in the book is made on the terms describing the human situation in the knowing process: heksis and gnomi. Those give way to explaining the paradox of the human existence in this world. Following Maximus’s example, quotations are used in different chapters to draw attention on different topics and some of the topics are called more than once in order to be seen from different perspective and in another context. This would allow the path of knowledge to be seen not as an everlasting circle but as a growing spiral (the way apocatastasis is described). In the end what is knowledge if not opening our eyes for reading the Truth that has always been written.

Acknowledgments

This book is a publication of my PhD project that was defended in 2010 at Sofia University Saint Kliment Ohridski, Bulgaria. Epistemological problems in patristics and especially in Saint Maximus the Confessor have been of main interest in my studies. My aim is to present his understanding of human knowledge in a systematized way (something that is not typical for this author as he is largely unsystematic). Thus the structure of the text is devided into five chapters beginning with the position of human being as a knower and continuing with the sense perception, rational and noetic knowledge—a process that ceases in the mystical union of divine-human communion above discursive reflection and thought.

For my personal and professional development resulting in this monograph, I am grateful to the following persons (in chronological order):

I would like to give thanks to my teachers Tzocho Boiadjiev, Kalin Yanakiev and Georgi Kapriev. To Tzocho Boyadjiev for his lectures and books became the reason for me to study philosophy at Sofia University. To Kalin Yanakiev for his profound knowledge, beautiful lectures and deep interest in my development; for the long dialogues on the topic and not last for the dear friendship. And to my supervisor Georgi Kapriev under whose guidance I became the first scholar with a PhD on Byzantine Philosophy (being an Orthodox woman).

The research on the dissertation topic has been led at De Wulf-Mansion Center for Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy at KU Leuven, Belgium and later at Thomas Institute at Cologne University. I am grateful to Prof. Carlos Steel for his constant encouragement and readiness to help me with discussions (and the translation of parts of Ambigua), to Peter van Deun who gave me the access to the library at the Faculty of Arts, and to Jacques Noret and Carl Laga for the advices and discussions.

At Thomas Institute, I would like to thank to its director, Prof. Andreas Speer, for accepting me as a doctoral researcher at TI where I had the opportunity to work with sources from the library. I am grateful for his advices on my work and caring supervision.

This monograph would not have been born without the love and generosity of my teacher and friend—Ivana Noble. Her constant belief in me, thorough supervision and tender friendship during the two years of post doctoral research at Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University in Prague made it possible for me to write and publish the text of the dissertation.

Thanks to Ivana I met other important persons in my academic life to whom I am grateful too: Aristotle Telly Papanikolaou for being always a supportive friend as well as critical reader of my work.

I would also like to thank David Fagerberg for reading the whole manuscript and replicating in conversational manner to the places which did not seem clear enough.

I have been greatly supported from the Protestant Theological Faculty in the face of the dean Doc. Dr. Jindrich Halama from whom I received the financial resources for publishing this text and to whom I am in great debt.

My very special gratitude to the proof reader of this text Joyce Michaels—a great friend and a dedicated person on this project!

I would like to thank my family and to dedicate this book to the loving memory of my grandparents Boyka and Athanas.

Abbreviations

Amb. Io. Ambigua ad Iohannem

Amb. Th. Ambigua ad Thomam

Cap. Gnost. Chapters on Gnoseology

Car. Capita de caritate

CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca

Myst. Mystagogia

Disput. Pyrr. Disputatio cum Pyrrho

Opusc. Opuscula theologica et polemica

Pater On our Father

PG Patrologia Graeca

Q. Thal. Quaestiones ad Thalassium

Qu. Dub. Quaestiones et dubia

Th. Oec. Capita theologica et oeconomica

1

Saint Maximus the Confessor

His Epoch and His Importance for Byzantine Thought

Introduction

All research is, in some sense, a translation of, and a journey through, source material. Yet, at the same time, it is a searc h for a particular motif in the source material. Answering a major question involves opening a new horizon. In this respect, the result of the dialogue that takes place in this book is not a new discovery. Instead, it is a conversation, an act of rewriting and re-creation, as the work of any person who is reading, rather than writing, may be. ¹ The metaphysical position represented in the thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor also follows such a pattern.

Not speaking for themselves is a characteristic pattern of medieval writers from Augustine onwards, and continuing this tradition by engaging in a careful reading and critical clarification of his predecessors is an important feature of Maximus’s thought. Thus, the challenge facing anyone who wishes to understand Maximus’s texts is to read carefully and to see through his writings and the ideas expressed therein. Therefore, the necessary condition for fulfilling this objective is not only a reconstruction of the Confessor’s personality and of the language he uses. It also entails a clarification of the innovative elements of his thought since he is the one who corrects the ancient philosophical legacy of Aristotle, Plato, and the Neoplatonists; interprets and clarifies difficult places in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite; and makes possible the transition from pre-Christian to Christian philosophy (albeit not in a chronological sense) by moving beyond the teachings of Evagrius and Origen.

The accumulation of theological and philosophical works during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries and the formation of general theological/philosophical problems, thematic unities, and terminological conventions constitute the foundation of Eastern thought and Byzantine philosophy and theology. Maximus’s place in the center of the Byzantine thought as the father of Byzantine philosophy confirms the key role of the Confessor’s work and personality.² His contributions not only had great significance for the cultural history of Byzantium during a particular period of foreign and internal political, social, and religious problems; they continue to have universal value. The descent into the illusory "dolce vita mentality" and the human inclination toward a disunited tropos of existence, as well as humankind’s tendency to forget its original mission to unite this world and return it to the creator, necessitates a figure like Maximus, who was orthodox before his successors divided household of God. The witness of such a true believer is critical when numerous heresies threaten the foundations of a way of life that is grounded in the truth of Christ.

At the time of the christological controversies in the seventh century, the physical foundations of the empire were threatened by Arab and Persian forces that made use of the instability which resulted from divisions between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian (Monophysite) communities. Disputes, which lasted for centuries, regarding the meaning of the Incarnation culminated in two key questions: what kind and how many energies are at work in God the Son and how many wills exist in Christ? This situation and Maximus’s involvement in it are aptly described in the following summary:

The doctrines of monenergism (one energy or activity in Christ) and monothelitism (one will which subsumed both human and divine aspects) were instigated by theologians close to the court, particularly the patriarch of Constantinople, as a way of shoring up ecclesiastical unity in a time of political turmoil. With Avar-Slav enemies to the North and Persians and Arabs to the East, the last thing Emperor Heraclius needed was a recalcitrant monk stirring up dissent in Africa and Italy. This was Maximus the Confessor, whose theological obstinacy had a quite unprecedented impact on Heraclius’ precarious hold on imperial rule in the declining capital of Constantinople.³Maximus had the support of popes John IV, Theodore I, and Martin I, and he found even more supporters in the West. The power of the West’s opposition to the imperial doctrines was demonstrated by the

150

bishops who participated in the Lateran Council that was convened in Rome in

649

. Their opposition eventually resulted in Pope Martin

1

, Maximus, and his disciple Anastasius being brought to trial on trumped-up charges in Constantinople, where they were condemned to torture and to exile under appalling physical conditions that eventually brought about their deaths.⁴

This backdrop for entering into dialogue with Maximus’s thought is necessary for two reasons. On the one hand, the Byzantine thinker’s existential situation and spiritual quests have contributed to the central position that he holds in the collective theological, cultural, and historical memory. On the other hand, although scholarly research has been carried out with regard to a number of Maximus’s ideas, much of this work has focused on the trinitarian, christological, and anthropological aspects of his teachings.⁵ However, in several texts, the issue of human knowledge is discussed in relation to other key themes.⁶ In fact, this is Maximus’s own approach; he does not devote a separate text to the question of human knowledge. His teachings on this topic are not presented in a systematic way. He takes a stand against the chaos of his age by disclosing the Christian truth in nonsystematic rejoinders. His thought is designed to answer the questions of his time.⁷ The absence of texts composed in an orderly fashion does not diminish the meaning and depth of the powerful synthesis that Maximus creates as he inaugurates the beginning of Byzantine philosophy.

Scholarly considerations of Byzantine philosophy, which had already begun in the eighteenth century, are associated with noteworthy thinkers like Basil Tatakis, Hans-Georg Beck, and Klaus Oehler, as well as with independent academic researchers like Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, Dumitru Staniloae, and Kallistos Ware. Maximus’ texts are not focused on a specific issue; their aim is to find the reason for—the beginning of—questioning itself. Therefore, the problem of human knowledge is addressed in a large number of his writings. Human knowledge is the place where creator and creation meet. It is the way that the ascent of human beings and the descent of God simultaneously happen in communion with the Logos. Thus, this book represents an attempt to analyze the divine-human relationship that characterizes the movement of knowledge from—and to—unity and communion. Ascertaining the scope, limits, rhythm, and consummation of the parameters of existence is the basic task of every metaphysical quest, of every cognitive act, and of every return to the beginning.

In short, this work is devoted to the synergetic process of divine-human communion, which, according to the father of Byzantine theology and the most ecumenical of the Church Fathers of the seventh century, is an integral part of the knowledge of God that is possible for human beings. Various types of knowledge play an important, but hitherto unexplored, role in Maximus the Confessor’s thought, which, in many respects, is both a synthesis and the culmination of the Greek patristic tradition, as well as a successor of pre-Christian thinking and an antecedent of Christian philosophy.

Human knowledge lies at the center of Maximus’s works: it consists of an experience of divine presence which reveals the reason and telos of everything that exists and makes humankind’s future growth possible. Extension of the limits of created nature and transcendence beyond the given are two of the great tasks that lie before human beings who strive to achieve reunion with their creator. This specific process of attaining knowledge of God becomes a means of becoming human in God through the restoration of human nature to the way it initially existed in the logoi. Hence, the capacity that human beings have to let God enter their universe points to the major aspects of Maximus’s anthropology that I will explore. These include the soul-body relationship and a detailed examination of the soul’s cognitive capacities, which involve sense perception, rational activity, and the operation of the mind.

These different, but interrelated, parts of the human ascent to knowledge are constitutive of the movement of the trichotomously structured soul, which begins with practical philosophy and is followed by natural contemplation and theology. The two modes of knowledge—positive (cataphatic) and negative (apophatic)—demonstrate the rational and beyond-rational levels of discourse that are operative in human knowledge of God. In the next chapter, these types of knowledge are presented as interdependent and mutually presupposing modes that lead to divine-human communion in knowledge. Among the greatest features of Maximus’s inventive thought and one of the emphases of this book is his understanding of hexis (ἕξις) and gnomi (γνώμη), which are two of the human preconditions for opening the door to the divine-human communion that occurs as human beings attain knowledge of God. God as Goodness and God as Truth provide the telos, or end, of our practical and theoretical activities. Goodness and Truth reveal the consummation of the knowledge of God that it is possible for human beings to attain. Beyond that lies the mystical experience and real life in Christ that God promises from beginning to end.

Life and Work

It is difficult to say whether it is extraordinary persons or momentous times that give rise to great ideas. The life, work, and teachings of Saint Maximus the Confessor unfolded during a very interesting age when Byzantium was trying to establish its greatness. Emperor Justinian (527–65) and his great success in the East resulted in the Byzantine Empire being seen as the earthly manifestation of the heavenly kingdom of God. Justinian was the first Byzantine emperor depicted on gold coins holding a sphere and a cross. After his death, the first signs of decline appeared. His successor, Heraclius (610–41), attempted to maintain universal hegemony. Although he was victorious against enemies from the outside (and especially against Persian forces), after losing the eastern provinces, he was unable to cope with the Arabian invasion and the disunity of the empire. During the reign of the next emperor, Constans II (664–68), the status quo remained unchanged.

During the rule of these two emperors, Maximus the Confessor—who never held a high position in the ruling hierarchy—appeared on the scene. He tirelessly stood up for the primacy of truth, regardless of political developments. In other words, while Heraclius and Constans II were busy preserving their universal hegemony, Maximus did not accept the fact that the price for this must be a falsification of the truths of faith that are inherent in doctrine and church practice. The task of the public officials was to preserve the eastern part of the empire where the Monophysites were intransigent opponents of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council that was held in Chalcedon in 451. After the Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism primarily spread in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. At the beginning of the seventh century, there was a religious schism that resulted in the existence of two churches in the Byzantine Empire. These were the Orthodox Church and the unofficial Monophysite Church, which was subject to persecution and was a potential ally of the enemies of the Byzantine Empire. The religious tensions between these two groups were intensified by external political conflicts and internal problems.⁸

Facts about Maximus’s life and work received renewed consideration during the last century.⁹ One of the most important sources of information is the Greek version of the lives of the saints. The first and second editions of the four redactions of this text that are known to exist have been combined in a single written tradition to which a long and a short version of a Georgian account of the saints’ lives has been added. The Greek biography of Maximus’s life was composed in the tenth century at the Monastery of Stoudios by a monk named Michael Exabulites.¹⁰ In 1973, Sebastian Brock published a Syriac version of the lives of the saints that dates back to the seventh century. It was written by Georgius of Resh’aina, a disciple of Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, who remained a Monothelite.¹¹

According to the Greek biography, Maximus was born into a rich and influential noble family in Constantinople in 579 or 580. He received an excellent education, pursuing his studies of the Classics between 581 and 601.¹² He may have held a position in the court of Emperor Heraclius between 610 and 613, although this seems improbable. Around 613, he became a monk at a monastery in Chrysopolis, which was located near Constantinople on the shore of the Bosphorus.

In contrast, according to the Syriac biography, Maximus was born to unmarried parents in the Palestinian village Hesfin with the birth name of Moschion. His father was a Samaritan weaver from Sychar, and his mother was a Persian woman who had been a slave. They were cast out by the Samaritan community and went to the Christian priest Martyrios, who baptized them. After the death of his parents in 591, Moschion was sent to an abbot named Pantoleon at Saint Chariton’s Monastery. There he was given his religious name, Maximus. In 614, Maximus left for the monastery at Chrysopolis. In 617, a monk named Anastasius became a disciple of Maximus at the monastery near Constantinople. During the Persian onslaughts in 626, Maximus set out by way of Crete and Cypress for North Africa. There, in 632, he met Sophronius, who became his spiritual father. At the monastery of Saint George in Cyzicus, he produced his first writings, which included Letter 2—To John Cubicularius, On the Ascetic Life, The Four Hundred Chapters on Love, and a Commentary on Psalm 59. While there, he also wrote Letters 3, 4, and 10 and a work entitled Questions and Doubts.¹³

During the first five centuries of the current era, an intense clarification of Christian doctrine took place. Although question of the triune God was settled at the First Ecumenical Council with the formulation of the Nicene Creed (which the Orthodox Church calls the Symbol of Faith), christological disputes about Christ’s divine and human natures were not resolved until the seventh century. The inquiry about divine-human unity is the most important question that can be rasied about the meaning and telos of human life.

The Monothelite heresy of the seventh century is closely linked to the earlier Monophysite heresy. Although the church had already condemned the Monophysite heresy at the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, that position still had many adherents in the sixth and seventh centuries. In the critical seventh century, Monophysitism appeared in a new form as the Monothelite heresy.¹⁴ In 633, Sergius I, the patriarch of Constantinople, issued a Pact of Union that sought to cultivate peace with the dissenting Monophysites. At the end of the year, in response to Sophronius’s protests against this development, the emperor put forth a declaration (Psephos) that banned all debate about whether Christ had one or two energies. This marked a transition from Monoenergism to Monothelitism.

In 634, Sophronius became the patriarch of Jerusalem and in his synodical letter, attacked these positions. He maintained that although Christ’s two natures have two energies, this does not result in two hypostases. In a letter to Pyrrhus at the end of 633, Maximus interpreted the Psephos in a Dyothelite manner. In 638, Sergius and Heraclius came out with an imperial edict entitled Ecthesis, which professed that there is only one will in Christ. This edict marked the beginning of the disputes that were kindled by the Monothelite belief that because there is only one true God—Christ—who moves divine and human wills, there can be only one will, not two, in him. Sergius died in 638, and Sophronius passed away in 639, which was the year that Pyrrhus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, affirmed the Ecthesis at a church council. Maximus debated with Pyrrhus in Carthage, convincing him of the correctness of his views. Then, the two men set out for Rome. The next year, the bishops in North Africa officially rejected the Ecthesis. In a Bull (Typos) issued in 647, Emperor Constans II strictly forbade all discussion of whether there were one or two energies in Christ. At that time, Maximus was in Rome, where he initiated a response. In October 649, the newly chosen Pope Martin I convened the Lateran Council that condemned the Ecthesis, the Typos, and their authors and supporters.¹⁵ The council’s documents were prepared with the direct participation of Saint Maximus, who signed the final document as monk Maximus.

In 653, Saint Maximus and Pope Martin I were arrested, and in 655, they were