Touching the Divine




With the kind permission of Andrew Psarommatis, here is an excerpt from his forthcoming translation of Quaestiones ad Theopemptum (CPG 7696), by Saint Maximos the Confessor. The excerpt is from Maximos’ answer regarding the “Touch me not” passage from the Gospel of John.

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρὸς Θεόπεμπτον σχολαστικὸν ἐρωτήσαντα περὶ τοῦ κριτοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ τοῦ, Ἐὰν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, καὶ τοῦ, Μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.  

Τὸ δέ, Μή μου ἅπτου, πρὸς τὴν Μαγδαληνὴν λέλεκται Μαρίαν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, κηπουρὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι νομίσασαν, δηλοῦντος τοῦ μυστηρίου καὶ ὑποφαίνοντος, ὡς ψυχὴ πᾶσα νοερά, μήπω τὸ συμφυὲς σκῆνος ὑπεραναβᾶσα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῶν ἐν γενέσει καὶ φθορᾷ μόνων, οὐδὲν οὐδαμῶς διαφερόντων λαχάνων κηπευομένων—ἴση γὰρ ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν ἥ τε ῥοὴ καὶ ἀπορροὴ καὶ ἡ τοῦ χρόνου περιγραφὴ καὶ περίοδος—, δημιουργὸν εἶναι τὸν Λόγον ὑπολαμβάνουσα διὰ τὴν περὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἕως τούτων πρόοδον αὐτοῦ καὶ συγκατάβασιν, οὐκ ἀξία τῆς τούτου κατὰ πνεῦμα καθέστηκεν ἐπαφῆς ἐν νεκροῖς καὶ ταῦτα τοῖσδε τοῖς φαινομένοις αὐτὸν ἐπιζητοῦσα, καὶ σάρκα δι’ ἡμᾶς γεγενημένον γινώσκουσα μόνον αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ πρεπόντως καὶ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον γινώσκουσα.

From Maximos the monk, to the scholarly Theopemptos, who asked about the “unjust judge” (Luke 18:6) and about, “To him who strikes you on the right cheek” (Luke 6:29) and also about the “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” (John 20:17).

The phrase, “Touch me not,” has been said by the Lord towards Mary Magdalene, who thought that He was the gardener, manifesting and bringing to light the mystery that, like every soul with intellect which has not as yet risen above its abode, which was created together with it, and for this reason alike to those things which are only concerned with birth and corruption, in no way whatsoever differing from garden vegetables—for both it and those are equal in their coming and going and in their passage through, and period, of time—this soul,  thinks that the Word of God is the Creator, because His progress and condescension occurred around, and was limited to, those creations which are born and suffer corruption. It was not made worthy of coming in touch with Him in a spiritual sense, because it was seeking Him in these dead and visible things, having only recognised Him as being born in the flesh for our sake, but not recognising Him in the proper way, also as God born of God the Father.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Presence of Aristotle in Byzantine Theology

Image
With the kind permission of Professor David Bradshaw, below is an excerpt from his chapter, “The Presence of Aristotle in Byzantine Theology” in The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium , edited by Anthony Kaldellis & Niketas Siniossoglou (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Any attempt to survey the place of Aristotle within Byzantine theology must begin by recognizing that the category of “Byzantine theology” is itself a modern construction. The Byzantines did not think of themselves as Byzantines, but as Romans. This fact is not merely a matter of nomenclature, but a reminder of their strong sense of continuity with the classical and early Christian past. As regards theology, in particular, the Byzantines saw no sharp line dividing their own times from the foundational era of Christianity. Although they recognized the authority of the Church Fathers, they did not think in terms of a closed and completed “age of the Fathers.”[1] The holy and God-bearing Fathers
Read more

Historical Perspectives on Defining Byzantine Philosophy

Image
On 6 March 2020, scholars will gather at Macquarie University for a promising Workshop: Historical Perspectives on Defining Byzantine Philosophy. The Workshop is convened by Dr Ken Parry and Dr Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides. Below are the abstracts of the presentations. 1. Vassilis Adrahtas, The relationship between theology and philosophy in the work of John Damascene and its bearing on the question of Byzantine philosophy One of the problems that still persist with regards to the definition of Byzantine philosophy refers to the distinction between theology and philosophy and whether such a distinction is possible in the case of the history of ideas of Byzantium. This problem, however, is articulated in a rather simplistic way, insofar as it poses – anachronistically, I would dare say – theology and philosophy as two totally different fields of reference. But Byzantine thinkers seem to have opted for quite an alternative perspective: a perspective of co-inherence.   If Byzantine phil
Read more

Philosophy—A Preparation for Death?

The things that are painful for you are truly painful for us, too. For we make common property of all that belongs to friends, whether good or otherwise—this, surely, is the definition of friendship. Still, if we must philosophize a little about these things and discuss with you what seems right (and surely we must, as the law of friendship demands!), then I do not wish—I do not suppose it is a good thing—that you, Philagrius, a person unusually well schooled in the things of God, should experience the same feelings as ordinary people, or succumb to the weakness that affects your body, or that you should lament over your suffering as something incurable. You must find in your vulnerability a place to philosophize, and purify your mind now more than ever, and show yourself stronger than the things that hold you in check, and consider this illness a profitable training—namely, to look down on the body and bodily things, and on all that is fleeting and disturbing and passing away, and so
Read more