On Dionysius the Areopagite. Volume 1: Mystical Theology and The Divine Names, Part I. Volume 2: The Divine Names, Part II by Marsilio Ficino

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-336
Author(s):  
Leo Catana
2013 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Louth

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.


1996 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
John N. Jones

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Ann Conway-Jones

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.”


Author(s):  
Norman Russell

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