Talk:Dionysius the Areopagite

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(a matter of faith and trust?: new section)
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
Also, what does "manuscript evidence" mean?
 
Also, what does "manuscript evidence" mean?
Or rather, why should a true Orthodox Christian need any so-called "manuscript evidence" for his/her beliefs?
+
Or rather, why should a true Orthodox Christian need any so-called "manuscript evidence" for his/her beliefs?—[[User:Preciouspearlfan|Preciouspearlfan]]

Revision as of 21:16, February 20, 2011

As far as the works of Dionysius the Areopagite go, isn't there some scholarship that suggests that these works are not those of the saint himself. Even going so far as to attribute them to Pseudo-Dionysius? Perhaps someone who is more deeply familiar with this topic could at a note regarding this to the works section. --~~John Cz. talk 17:07, November 18, 2006 (PST)

Yeah, I've noticed this before, good point. I think it's well accepted even amongst Orthodox theologians that The Celestial Hierarchy, etc. weren't written by the actual apostle. I added a couple sentences and a wikipedia quote just for a start; feel free to edit. Gabriela 20:44, November 18, 2006 (PST)
We just went over Dionysios in detail in my patristics class at STOTS, and our professor didn't put forward a specific theory of his own regarding the authorship of the Dionysian corpus. One possibility that many non-Orthodox scholars don't seem to take into account is that the corpus does indeed originate with the NT-era saint, but that the writings were expanded and revised over the years. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:32, November 19, 2006 (PST)
Sadly, that hadn't even crossed my mind as a possibility. Interesting, and certainly plausible. It would be great in an expanded section on the authorship. Hopefully someone will get around to writing such a knowledgeable discussion for us one day. I don't feel well-qualified enough to do so myself. Gabriela 20:47, November 19, 2006 (PST)

several things mitigate against a pre-6th c. date for Ps.D. 1. the lack of any manuscript evidence. the corpus dionysiacum appears for the first time in the 6th c. in the form that we now know it, and all manuscript traditions attest to it in this form (i.e., it always appears with these texts in this order). 2. the liturgy that Ps.D describes is Syrian and dates from at least around 500. 3. his ontology is influenced by Proclus and more broadly by the theurgical tradition within Neoplatonism. Especially in light of 2 and 3 it is hard to say what one would have as a supposed early core.

It might be easiest just to create a new page for the Dionysian Corpus, or for Pseudo-Dionysius. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Invocation (talkcontribs) .

I agree that a page for Pseudo-Dionysius seems to be warranted. —magda (talk) 19:45, July 7, 2008 (UTC)

a matter of faith and trust?

In my opinion, I think it ultimately boils down to faith and trust, doesn't it?

Whom do/should we believe and trust? The tradition of the Church, especially as transmitted by all those holy and God-bearing Saints from the past two millennia, or some so-called "scholarly consensus" that "definitively laid to rest" whatever it is that they laid to rest?

Also, what does "manuscript evidence" mean? Or rather, why should a true Orthodox Christian need any so-called "manuscript evidence" for his/her beliefs?—Preciouspearlfan

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox