| Homepage | Imprint |
|
||
 |
Pseudo-Dionysius the AreopagitePseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, also known as pseudo-Denys, is the name scholars have given to an anonymous theologian and philosopher of the 5th century, who wrote a collection of books, the Corpus Areopagiticum, falsely ascribedto the Dionysiusmentioned in Acts 17:34. The author was historically believed to be the Areopagite because he claimed acquaintance with biblical characters. Georgianacademician Shalva Nutsubidzeand Belgianprofessor Ernest Honigmannwere authors of a theory identifying pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite with Peter the Iberian. The author's works currently available include the Divine Names, Celestial Hierarchy, Mystical Theology, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and various epistles. He refers in his writings to some other works of his that are no longer extant such as Theological Outlines.
TeachingHis works are mysticaland show strong neo-platonicinfluence. For example he uses Plotinus' well known analogy of a sculptor cutting away that which does not enhance the desired image. He shows familiarity with Proclus, which indicates he wrote no earlier than the 5th century, as well as influence from Saint Clement of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Origen, and others. There is of course a noted difference between Neoplatonismand Eastern Orthodoxchristianity in that one believes all returns to the source to be stripped of individual identity, the other that Theosisgives the individual an infinite and divine god status. The liturgical references in his writings also date his corpus after the 4th century. He appeared to have belonged to the group which attempted to form a compromise position between monophysitismand the orthodoxteaching. His writings first appeared in the 5th century, and were initially used by monophysites to back up parts of their arguments, but they were quickly accepted by other church theologians as well. The Dionysian corpus of writings and its mystical teaching was universally accepted throughout the East, amongst both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. St. Gregory Palamas, for example, in referring to these writings, calls the author, "an unerring beholder of divine things." And in the West, these writings grew to be extremely popular amongst theologians in the middle ages, but debates over the authenticity of his works began in the Renaissance. Pierre Abélard, the 12th century theologian and philosopher, after his unfortunate experience with Heloise, became a Benedictinemonk at Saint Denis. Around 1120he was convicted of teaching Sabellianismand expelled for a short time. Upon his return around 1121, he turned his attention to the story of their patron saint, and disentangled the three Dionysiuses. The monks were offended, and Abelard did not remain long at Saint Denis. The great monastery of Saint Denis just north of Parisclaimed to have the relics? the mortal remains ? of Dionysius (Dionysius = Denys = Denis = Dennis). However, there are at least three different persons from whom the relics could be:
This also could stem from the text being an oral tradition that was only at the dates given finally put to record. "It must also be recognized that "forgery" is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocians before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition." [1] Two of the three men, of course, actually were named Dionysius, which was not an uncommon Greek name. The monastery of St. Denis cheerfully conflated the three. They had a good Greekedition of pseudo-Dionysius's works given to them by Charles the Bald, which was translated into Latinby John Scotus Eriugenain the late 9th century. This translation widely popularized both pseudo-Dionysius' neo-platonism and his explanation of the angels. IdentityThe Florentine humanist Lorenzo Valla(died 1457), in his commentaries on the New Testament, did much to establish that the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum could not have been St Paul's convert, though he was unable to identify the actual historical author. The fictitious literary persona had long been accepted on face value by all its readers, with a couple of exceptions, such as Nicholas of Cusa, who have been singled out by modern historians, but whose reservations went unheard. John Grocynpursued Valla's lines of text criticism, and Valla's critical viewpoint of the authorship of the highly influential Corpus was accepted and publicized by Erasmusfrom 1504 onward, for which he was criticized by Catholic theologians. In the Leipzig disputation with Martin Luther, 1519, Johann Eckused the Corpus, specifically the Angelic Hierarchy, as argument for the apostolic origin of papal supremacy, pressing the Platonist analogy, "as above, so below". During the 19th century modernist Catholicstoo came generally to accept that this self-identified disciple of St. Paul must have lived after the time of Proclus, whose works he paraphrased in transforming Neo-Platonismin Christian terms ? which is the philosophical approach that had interested the Christian Neo-Platonist Valla in the first place. The compilers of the Stanford History of Philosophy [2]find the Pseudo-Dionysius to be most probably "a pupil of Proclus, perhaps of Syrian origin, who knew enough of Platonism and the Christian tradition to transform them both. Since Proclus died in 485 CE, and since the first clear citation of Dionysius' works is by Severus of Antioch between 518 and 528, then we can place Dionysius' authorship between 485 and 518-28 CE." In dismissing the apostolic authority of the Pseudo-Dionysius, Protestants have generally discarded the angelologythat he developed. Works in print
See also
External links
Works available online
it:Pseudo-Dionigi ja:??????????????? hu:Pszeudo-Dionüsziosz nl:Pseudo-Dionysius pt:Pseudo-Dionísio, o Areopagita ru:???????? ????????? sk:Dionýzios Pseudo-Areiopagités sv:Dionysios Areopagita Categories: Church Fathers| Christian mysticism| Neoplatonists| Theologians| Pseudepigraphy
|
