Constructing the Apostolic Past: The Case of Dionysius the Areopagite

2013 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Louth
Keyword(s):  
Sixth Century ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
Mystical Theology

Somewhere around the 620s, there began to appear in the Byzantine world references to works allegedly by Dionysius the Areopagite, that is, the judge of the court of the Areopagus converted by Paul the apostle according to the account in Acts 17. The corpus of works consisted of two works, on the heavenly and earthly church respectively, theCelestial Hierarchyand theEcclesiastical Hierarchy;a treatise called theDivine Names; a short treatise called theMystical Theology;and ten letters, addressed to various people, arranged hierarchically, from a monk called Gaius, through lesser clergy, bishops (or ‘hierarchs’) such as Polycarp and Titus, to the apostle John. Although they were initially cited by Monophysite theologians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon, there was little resistance to the acceptance of this body of texts; gradually in the course of the sixth century these works came to be regarded as genuinely belonging to the apostolic period.

Denys and Later Platonic Traditions

2016 ◽  
pp. 495-510
Author(s):  
Wayne J. Hankey
Keyword(s):  
Sixth Century ◽  
Catholic Theology ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite

This chapter on later Platonic traditions focuses Denys, otherwise known as Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite. A late fifth- to early sixth-century theologian, influenced by the Platonist philosophers Plotinus, Damascius, and above all Proclus, Denys has been influential throughout Catholic theology. The chapter begins by placing Denys’s innovations against the background of Christian engagement with Neoplatonism since St Augustine. After tracing Denys’s influence from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, his role in modernity is considered, tracing a path through Pierre de Bérulle and neo-scholasticism. The chapter concludes by noting Denys’s importance for some postmodern Catholic thinkers.

God, Hierarchy, and Power

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley M. Purpura
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Spiritual Leadership ◽  
Sixth Century ◽  
Orthodox Christianity ◽  
Underlying Assumption ◽  
Divine Power ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
Maximus The Confessor

What are the religious justifications for the historical development and maintenance of hierarchy as the model of ecclesiastical organization in Orthodox Christianity? Beginning with its Christian coinage by Dionysius the Areopagite in the early sixth century, this book explores the theological development of ecclesiastical “hierarchy” in Byzantium. By presenting case studies of historically disparate Byzantine theologians who draw upon Dionysius’s hierarchic conception and engage it theoretically, liturgically, and pragmatically—Maximus the Confessor, Niketas Stethatos, and Nicholas Cabasilas—this book suggests a common tradition of constructing authentic ecclesiastical hierarchy as foremost that which communicates divinity. It is by this conception that each author is able to affirm the divinizing potential of church order and sacramental validity even while negating the authority of those that may fail to function in a divinely imitative way. For all four Byzantine authors, including Dionysius, this interpretation of hierarchy relies on an underlying assumption that only divine power is believed to be authentic and only divinely reflective authority is legitimate. The authors suggest that true power is recognized paradoxically by humble service and kenotic self-giving. Constructing power, authority, and hierarchy in these ways has resonances in other genres within the tradition of Orthodox Christianity. The theological trajectory posited by the study of the four Byzantine authors reshapes several issues of spiritual leadership and ecclesial organization within contemporary Orthodoxy, provides insight for historians, and prompts rethinking the ways both secular and religious power are understood by modern theorists.

Pseudo-Dionysius (fl. c. AD 500)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes Jarka-Sellers
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Religious Orientation ◽  
World View ◽  
Sixth Century ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
The World ◽  
Literary Device ◽  
Pseudo Dionysius ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Christian World View

‘Pseudo-Dionysius’ was a Christian Neoplatonist who wrote in the late fifth or early sixth century and who presented himself as Dionysius the Areopagite, an Athenian converted by St Paul. This pretence – or literary device – was so convincing that Pseudo-Dionysius acquired something close to apostolic authority, giving his writings tremendous influence throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The extant four treatises and ten letters articulate a metaphysical view of the cosmos, as well as a religious path of purification and perfection, that are grounded in the Neoplatonism developed in the Platonic Academy in Athens. Although this strand of Neoplatonist thought, in contrast to that developed at the school in Alexandria, was deliberately pagan in its religious orientation, Pseudo-Dionysius used its conceptual resources (drawing especially on Proclus) to give precision and depth to the philosophical principles of a Christian world view. Cardinal points of Pseudo-Dionysius’ thought are the transcendence of a first cause of the universe, the immediacy of divine causality in the world and a hierarchically ordered cosmos.

Sculpting God: The Logic of Dionysian Negative Theology

1996 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
John N. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Logical Structure ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Primary Task ◽  
Negative Theology ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
Postmodern Theology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Mystical Theology ◽  
Pseudo Dionysius

In recent decades, the theology of Dionysius the Areopagite (pseudo-Dionysius) has recaptured the attention of a number of scholars. These scholars address Dionysius's importance for the history of philosophy, for Christian aesthetics and liturgical and biblical symbols, and for postmodern theology. Much of this attention focuses on the brief and historically influentialThe Mystical Theology, written ca. 500 CE. For scholars, however, this text, like the God of which it speaks, seems to embody contradictions. I s there a consistent logic in the text, or is it deliberately inconsistent? In this essay, I shall analyze passages throughout the Dionysian corpus in order to interpret the sometimes dense expressions ofMystical Theologyand uncover the logical structure of Dionysius's negative theology. I shall suggest that Dionysius's primary task is to deny that God is a particular being. By identifying the patterns of language used to speak of beings, Dionysius can identify both affirmative and negative language that avoids such patterns and hence is appropriate for speech about God. This interpretation demands close attention to the distinction between particular assertions or denials and the assertion or denial of all beings. By focusing on this distinction and on the higher status of negative over affirmative theology, I shall show, against the dominant trend in Dionysian scholarship, that this negative theology logically coheres; it is neither self-negating nor logically contradictory.

scholarly journals Exegetical Puzzles and the Mystical Theologies of Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Ann Conway-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Text ◽  
Gregory Of Nyssa ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Mystical Theology ◽  
Exodus Narrative

Abstract Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite both contemplate the Exodus narrative of Moses’ experiences on Sinai. That narrative is complex, with Moses ascending and descending the mountain several times, sometimes in company, sometimes alone. Gregory follows the biblical twists and turns in Life of Moses; the relevant paragraph in Dionysius’ Mystical Theology tells of just one ascent. This article re-examines their dependence on the details of the biblical text, arguing that its exegetical puzzles proved fertile ground for their apophatic insights. Both seize on Exodus 20:21 as symbolising the utter incomprehensibility of God. But they resolve the enigmas of Exodus 33-34 differently. Gregory uses Exodus 33:18-23 as a springboard to his articulation of a never-ending journey into the infinite divine, while Exodus 34:29-35 provides the biblical impetus behind Dionysius’ concept of “union.”

What does doctrinal development mean?

2019 ◽  
pp. 133-162
Author(s):  
Norman Russell
Keyword(s):  
Church Fathers ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
The West ◽  
Doctrinal Development ◽  
Dionysius The Areopagite ◽  
Mystical Theology ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Church

This chapter, the first to address ‘the larger questions’, discusses the philosophical and theological context in which Palamas worked. The East made a distinction between the ‘outer wisdom’ of the pagan Greek philosophers and the ‘inner wisdom’ of the Church Fathers. Palamas rejected the parity of the two wisdoms espoused by Barlaam, who argued that ‘truth is one’, but did not repudiate philosophy as such. All parties to the controversy, however, gave priority to the Church Fathers, taking as their chief authority Dionysius the Areopagite. The correct exegesis of Dionysius became central to the debate. Methodological issues that were discussed explicitly include the relationship between dogmatic and mystical theology, and between theology and contemplation, and the correct explication (anaptyxis) of Christological dogma. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the different ways in which theological decisions were made authoritative in the East and in the West.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document