The Overlooked Identity in the Adamantius Dialogue: Megethius as Maximus

The Adamantius Dialogue is a fascinating text for those studying early Christian heresies, but it has also been the subject of much scholarly debate and confusion. One particularly intriguing aspect is the potential misidentification of key figures within the dialogue, specifically the character of Megethius and his potential alias, Maximus. This misidentification not only reveals the complexities of early Christian texts but also suggests a continuity and transmission of ideas across different cultural and linguistic contexts.

Megethius and Maximus: Names with the Same Meaning

It is worth noting that the name "Megethius" in Greek and "Maximus" in Latin both convey the idea of greatness. "Megistos" is the proper Greek translation for "Maximus," yet "Megethius" closely aligns with the concept of greatness in Greek (μεγας - noun μεγεθος = greatness, and the superlative of μεγας, namely the adjective μεγιστος). This linguistic similarity suggests that the character known as Megethius in Greek texts could have been referred to as Maximus in Latin, hinting at the same individual or at least the same ideological representation.

Philocalia and Eusebius: References and Implications

The Philocalia, a compilation of Origen's works, makes a significant reference that seems to imply Megethius is the speaker during a section traditionally ascribed to "Maximus" by Eusebius. Eusebius, in his works, refers to a certain Maximus who wrote on the Origin of Evil and the Creation of Matter, which aligns with the discussions found in the Adamantius Dialogue.

"Maximus too, a man not undistinguished in the Christian life, has composed a special treatise Concerning Matter" (Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel).

This citation suggests that Maximus, or Megethius, was well-versed in theological debates concerning matter and evil, topics heavily featured in the dialogue.

Methodios and Droserius: The Transmission of Texts

The cited Methodios text, although not found verbatim in the Adamantius Dialogue, is present in an edited form. This section is peculiar because it falls within the anti-Valentinian part of the dialogue rather than the anti-Marcionite section. This observation led BAKHUYZEN to note:

"Apparently this note is not based on personal knowledge" (BAKHUYZEN, p. XI).

The dialogue's text seems to have undergone various edits and modifications over time, potentially leading to misattributions and the blending of different theological arguments.

The Debate Over Names and Figures

The debate over the identification of Megethius as Maximus is further complicated by the overlapping references in early Christian writings. For instance, Anastasius of Sinai mentions a "Dialogue against Megethius the Marcionite," which seems to support the idea of a Megethius-only edition of the dialogue. However, Eusebius refers to Maximus when discussing similar theological issues.

The Philocalia also supports this overlap by indicating that Megethius (or Maximus) was involved in discussions on matter, further muddying the waters between these figures.

Conclusion: A Conflated Legacy

The potential conflation of Megethius and Maximus highlights the complexities of early Christian textual transmission. This misidentification underscores how theological arguments and key figures might have been adapted and renamed to fit different cultural and linguistic contexts. By recognizing these overlaps, scholars can better understand the continuity and evolution of early Christian thought.

The Adamantius Dialogue remains a critical text for understanding early Christian heresies, and the potential identification of Megethius as Maximus provides a richer context for interpreting these debates. As scholars continue to examine these texts, further clarity may emerge, shedding more light on the intricate tapestry of early Christian theological discourse.

For further reading and a deeper dive into the linguistic and historical analysis, refer to BAKHUYZEN's critical edition and the relevant sections in Eusebius's "Preparation of the Gospel."