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

Maximus the Confessor’s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather atypical observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person. There is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is ‘by nature’ (as found in Genesis and asserted by most...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mitralexis Sotiris
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade 2021-01-01
Series:Filozofija i Društvo
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2021/0353-57382102194M.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850153075058147328
author Mitralexis Sotiris
author_facet Mitralexis Sotiris
author_sort Mitralexis Sotiris
collection DOAJ
description Maximus the Confessor’s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather atypical observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person. There is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is ‘by nature’ (as found in Genesis and asserted by most Church Fathers) or a product of the Fall. Namely, Christ is described three times as “shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and female”, “driving out of nature the difference and division of male and female” and “removing the difference between male and female”. Different readings of those passages engender important implications that can be drawn out from the Confessor’s thought, both eschatological implications and otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, Doru Costache and Karolina Kochanczyk-Boninska, among others, but is by no means settled, as they draw quite different conclusions. The noteworthy and far-reaching implications of Maximus’ theological stance and problems are not the object of this paper. In a 2017 paper I attempted to demonstrate what Maximus exactly says in these peculiar and oft-commented passages through a close reading, in order to avoid a two-edged Maximian misunderstanding: to either draw overly radical implications from those passages, projecting decidedly non-Maximian visions on the historical Maximus, or none at all, as if those passages represented standard Patristic positions. Here, I am revisiting this argument, given that the interest in what the Confessor has to say on the subject seems to be increasing.
format Article
id doaj-art-e880d4496b9e4058850d0165fa748450
institution OA Journals
issn 0353-5738
2334-8577
language deu
publishDate 2021-01-01
publisher Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade
record_format Article
series Filozofija i Društvo
spelling doaj-art-e880d4496b9e4058850d0165fa7484502025-08-20T02:25:48ZdeuInstitute for Philosophy and Social Theory, BelgradeFilozofija i Društvo0353-57382334-85772021-01-0132219420310.2298/FID2102194M0353-57382102194MAn attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41Mitralexis Sotiris0IOCS Cambridge; Research Fellow, University of WinchesterMaximus the Confessor’s Ambiguum 41 contains some rather atypical observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person. There is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is ‘by nature’ (as found in Genesis and asserted by most Church Fathers) or a product of the Fall. Namely, Christ is described three times as “shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and female”, “driving out of nature the difference and division of male and female” and “removing the difference between male and female”. Different readings of those passages engender important implications that can be drawn out from the Confessor’s thought, both eschatological implications and otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, Doru Costache and Karolina Kochanczyk-Boninska, among others, but is by no means settled, as they draw quite different conclusions. The noteworthy and far-reaching implications of Maximus’ theological stance and problems are not the object of this paper. In a 2017 paper I attempted to demonstrate what Maximus exactly says in these peculiar and oft-commented passages through a close reading, in order to avoid a two-edged Maximian misunderstanding: to either draw overly radical implications from those passages, projecting decidedly non-Maximian visions on the historical Maximus, or none at all, as if those passages represented standard Patristic positions. Here, I am revisiting this argument, given that the interest in what the Confessor has to say on the subject seems to be increasing.https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2021/0353-57382102194M.pdfmaximus the confessorgenderbodymalefemalesexual differencenature
spellingShingle Mitralexis Sotiris
An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
Filozofija i Društvo
maximus the confessor
gender
body
male
female
sexual difference
nature
title An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
title_full An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
title_fullStr An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
title_full_unstemmed An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
title_short An attempt at clarifying Maximus the Confesor’s remarks on (the fate of) sexual difference in Ambiguum 41
title_sort attempt at clarifying maximus the confesor s remarks on the fate of sexual difference in ambiguum 41
topic maximus the confessor
gender
body
male
female
sexual difference
nature
url https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2021/0353-57382102194M.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT mitralexissotiris anattemptatclarifyingmaximustheconfesorsremarksonthefateofsexualdifferenceinambiguum41
AT mitralexissotiris attemptatclarifyingmaximustheconfesorsremarksonthefateofsexualdifferenceinambiguum41