Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
For more information on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, visit Britannica.com.
|
Results for Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
|
On this page:
|
For more information on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, visit Britannica.com.
| Part of the series on Eastern Christianity |
|
Eastern Christianity Portal |
|
|
History |
|
|
Traditions |
|
|
Liturgy and Worship |
|
|
Theology |
|
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, also known as pseudo-Denys, is the anonymous theologian and philosopher of the 5th century whose Corpus Areopagiticum (body of works by the Areopagite) was pseudonymously ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17:34. The author was historically believed to be the Areopagite because he claimed acquaintance with biblical characters. His surviving works include the Divine Names, Celestial Hierarchy, Mystical Theology, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and various epistles.[1] Some other works are no longer extant, such as Theological Outlines.
His works are mystical and show strong Neoplatonic
influence. 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 a distinct difference between Neoplatonism and Eastern
Orthodox Christianity. In Neoplatonism, all life returns to the source to be
stripped of individual identity, a process called henosis (see Iamblichus) ending in a blank slate. However, in Orthodox
Christianity,
He appears to have belonged to the group which attempted to form a compromise position between monophysitism and the orthodox teaching. 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 writings and their mystical teaching were 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, the manuscripts grew to be very popular amongst theologians in the Middle Ages, but debates over the authenticity of his works began in the Renaissance.
During the medieval period Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Denis of France, though two distinct figures historically, became confused by historians and it was thought that after his conversion by Paul, the Areopagite had traveled to France, preached, and been martyred there. This confusion of historical detail was exacerbated by the common acceptance of Pseudo-Dionysius's writings as the authentic work of the Biblical figure. Around 1121, Pierre Abélard, a Benedictine monk at Saint Denis Basilica, turned his attention to the story of their patron saint, and disentangled the three different Dionysiuses. The monks were offended, and Abélard did not remain long at Saint Denis.
The confusion over the text might stem from the text being an oral tradition (declamatio) that was only at a later date finally put to record[citation needed]. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "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." [3]
The monastery of St. Denis, who had inadvertently conflated the Dionsysiuses, had a good Greek edition of pseudo-Dionysius's works given to them by Charles the Bald, which was translated into Latin by John Scotus Eriugena in the late 9th century. This translation widely popularized both pseudo-Dionysius' teaching and his explanation of the angels.[citation needed]
The Florentine humanist Lorenzo Valla (d. 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 noted by modern historians, but whose reservations went unheard. William Grocyn pursued Valla's lines of text criticism, and Valla's critical viewpoint of the authorship of the highly influential Corpus was accepted and publicized by Erasmus from 1504 onward, for which he was criticized by Catholic theologians. In the Leipzig disputation with Martin Luther, 1519, Johann Eck used 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 Catholics too 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 Neoplatonism into Christian terms—which is the philosophical approach that had interested the Christian Neoplatonist Valla in the first place.
The compilers of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[3] find 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." Though it must be kept in mind that Ammonius Saccas the teacher of Plotinus is depicted as a Christian. The identity of Ammonius Saccas is under some debate but according to the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Saccas (Plotinus' teacher) was a Christian until his death meaning that many of the concepts depicted in the Pseudo-Dionysius would indeed be pre-Proclus. This would also mean that some of the first concepts of Neoplatonicism were authored by a Christian rather than a Pagan.
Georgian academician Shalva Nutsubidze and Belgian professor Ernest Honigmann were authors of a theory identifying pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite with Peter the Iberian.
In dismissing the apostolic authority of pseudo-Dionysius, Protestants have generally discarded the elaborate angelology that he developed.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
![]() | Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite". Read more |
Mentioned In: