Unraveling the Maximus-Megethius Hypothesis: A Closer Look at the Adamantius Dialogue
Understanding the Names: Maximus and Megethius
The names "Maximus" and "Megethius" are linguistically significant. In Greek, "Megethius" aligns with the concept of greatness (μεγας - noun μεγεθος = greatness, and the superlative of μεγας, namely the adjective μεγιστος). Similarly, "Maximus" in Latin also conveys the idea of greatness. This linguistic overlap suggests that the character known as Megethius in Greek texts could have been referred to as Maximus in Latin, hinting at a single individual represented differently across languages.
Philocalia and Eusebius: Connecting the Dots
The Philocalia, a collection of Origen's works, mentions a dialogue against Megethius the Marcionite. This reference appears to align with the Adamantius Dialogue, where Megethius is a prominent interlocutor. The Philocalia's mention of Maximus, who wrote on the origin of evil and the creation of matter, further complicates the picture. Eusebius, in his Preparation of the Gospel, attributes similar discussions to Maximus:
"Maximus too, a man not undistinguished in the Christian life, has composed a special treatise Concerning Matter" (Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel).
This suggests that Maximus and Megethius could be the same individual, with Eusebius possibly misunderstanding or reinterpreting the sources he encountered.
Methodios and Droserius: Editorial Transformations
The text of Methodios, cited in the Philocalia, does not appear verbatim in the Adamantius Dialogue but is present in an edited form. This section falls within the anti-Valentinian part of the dialogue, which adds to the complexity. BAKHUYZEN notes that the similarity between the texts of Methodios and Maximus might have misled Eusebius:
"Apparently this note is not based on personal knowledge" (BAKHUYZEN, p. XI).
This editorial transformation suggests that Methodios and Maximus might have drawn from a common source, further blurring the lines between these figures.
T. D. Barnes' Hypothesis
T. D. Barnes offers a radical hypothesis, proposing that Maximus could be the author of the Adamantius Dialogue. He argues that the dialogue, written around the mid-3rd century, was later drawn upon by Methodios. Barnes suggests that Eusebius' assistant mistakenly cited Methodios' text as belonging to Maximus. This hypothesis, while intriguing, faces criticism. SCHMID points out:
"The title 'About Matter' does not fit the Adamantius dialogue as a whole" (SCHMID).
Barnes' theory requires rejecting the priority of the Greek text over Rufinus' translation and positing an earlier composition date for the dialogue, which contradicts established scholarship.
The Implications
If Maximus and Megethius are indeed the same individual, it has significant implications for our understanding of early Christian texts. It suggests a continuity of theological debates across different cultural and linguistic contexts. The conflation of these figures highlights the fluid nature of textual transmission and the potential for misattribution.
Conclusion
The hypothesis that Maximus and Megethius are the same individual sheds new light on the Adamantius Dialogue and its theological debates. While the evidence is not conclusive, it opens up new avenues for scholarly exploration. By examining the linguistic, historical, and editorial contexts of these texts, we gain a deeper understanding of early Christian thought and the complexities of its transmission.
For those interested in delving deeper into this topic, references to the relevant sections in Eusebius' Preparation of the Gospel, the Philocalia, and BAKHUYZEN's critical editions provide a comprehensive foundation for further research.
Comments
Post a Comment