1

The normative role of Scripture in Aquinas’ reception of

Pseudo-Dionysius.

Alan P. Darley

University of Nottingham

2

Contents

Introduction.

3

1. The central role of Scripture in Thomas’ emerging theology.

9

2. Pseudo-Dionysius on Scripture.

15

3. The place of extra-Biblical tradition in Dionysius

21

a) The Apocrypha

b) Oral Tradition and creeds.

24

c) Dionysius and extra-Biblical philosophical tradition.

25

4. Aquinas on tradition

27

5. The authority and identity of Hierotheus

34

6. Dionysian Christology

47

3

7. The Origenist link

53

8. Secret teaching in Dionysius

65

9. Secret teaching in Origen

70

10. The Perspicuity of Scripture in Aquinas

78

11. Similar and dissimilar images

81

12. The Anagogical Reading of Scripture

83

13. Origen on the anagogical sense.

91

14. ‘Proper’ or ‘Substantial’ truth about God in Aquinas

96

15. The Place of the historical in Dionysius.

100

16. What is meant by the ‘literal’ sense of scripture?

108

17. The Literal Sense as the normative sense in Aquinas.

118

18. Aquinas’ ‘architectural’ approach to hermeneutics

129

Conclusion

131

4

Introduction.

There has been a renaissance of interest in the Pseudo-

Dionysius1, both

within Roman Catholicism since the time of La Nouvelle Theologie2

from the mid 1930s-50s, to its ascendency during Vatican II

(1962-65) and similarly during the same period amongst Eastern1 Henceforth to be referred to as simply ‘Dionysius’ for brevity.2 Originally a perjorative term coined by Pietro Parente in L’Osservatore Romano in February 1942 and later taken up in the same vein by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange who associated it with the previous thought of Maurice Blondel (1861-1949) and an infiltration of modernism (in his 1947 article printed in Angelicum titled ‘la nouvelle theologie, ou va t-elle?’), la ‘nouvelle theologie’ gained increasing acceptance as a recognised movement withinRoman Catholicism which sought a return to the sources of faith (‘ressourcement’) and a renewed relationship between doctrine and life. Figures associated with this movement included Henri De Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Henri-Marie Feret, Jean Danielou, Yves Congar, Rene Draguet, Gaston Fessard, Henri Bouillard, Louis Charlier, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Hans Urs Van Balthasar. Jurgen Mettepenningen traces four distinct phases: 1. the Dominicans at le Saulchoir, Louvain and Rome, 2. the Jesuits at Fourviere, Toulouse and Paris, 3. the internationalisation of the movement for instance in the low countries and 4. its assimilation during the second Vatican Council, See Jurgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Theologie New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican 11 (T & T Clark, 2010) and Susan K. Wood, Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the theology of Henri De Lubac (Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 6-24; Richard Peddicard, O.P., The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the life and legacy of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2004), ch.7.

5

Orthodox theologians as well as fresh condemnation from some,

like Anders Nygren, from a Lutheran perspective.3 But,

analogously to the Neoplatonic Good itself, fascination for

the Areopagite has ‘bubbled over’4 into the wider riverbanks of

philosophy and theology, most notably in the fields of

phenomenology, deconstruction, ‘postmetaphysical’ theology,

Radical Theology and Radical Orthodoxy.5 3 Hans Urs Von Balthasar, associated with ‘la Nouvelle Theologie’ has been the most significant writer on the subject of Pseudo-Dionysius specifically. See Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr. Andrew Louth, Francis McDonaghand Brian McNeil C.R.V. (T & T Clark, 1995). M.D. Chenu, O.P. treats Dionysius in Towards Understanding Saint Thomas, tr. Albert M. Landry and DominicHughes (Chicago: Henry Regnery,1964), ch.6. The beginning of this movement also coincides with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu. Amongst the Eastern Orthodox, see Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, tr. Ashleigh Moorhouse (Wisconsin: The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, 1963) is based on lectures given at the Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes (5th section) at the Sorbonne in 1945-6. See also Christos Yannaras, On the absence and unknowability of God (T & T Clark International, 2005).The ProtestantNygren regards Pseudo-Dionysius as the chief culprit for introducing what he called ‘the Eros motif’ into the medieval idea of love. Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982), especially ch. 3. 4 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4, (481C). Henceforth EH.5 See helpful graph showing the explosion of publications on Pseudo-Dionysius since the mid 20th century. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/dionysius accessed 5/9/15 . See for example the collection of articles in Sarah Coakley and Charles M.Stang (ed.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) and Ysabel de Andia, (ed.), Denys L’Areopagite et sa posterite en orient et en occident (Paris: Institut d’Etudes Augustinienne, 1997); C.E. Rolt, Dionysius the Areopagite (SPCK, 1951); Rene Roques, L’Univers Dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys (Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1954); Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, c.VI, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971; John D. Jones, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite: The Divine Names and Mystical Theology (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Marquette University Press, 1980); Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981); Harry C. Marsh, ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio,Phd Dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1994); Fran O’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas (University of Notre Dame Press, 2005); Andrew Louth, Denys the Areopagite (Continuum, 1989); Wayne Hankey, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York,Routledge, 1998), pp.139-184; Jean-Luc Marion: God Without Being, tr. Thomas A.Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991), The Idol and the Distance, (New

6

There are at least four reasons for this: Firstly, the

importance of Dionysius has also been welcomed by some as a

reaction to what was perceived as a dry neo-Scholastic, even

‘rationalistic’ focus on the analytic and conceptual aspects

of Thomistic thought, divorced from ‘life’6 and spirituality.

This overlaps with the move identified by Wayne Hankey from ‘a

York: Fordham University Press, 2001), In Excess, Studies of Saturated Phenomena, tr.Robyn Horner and Vincent Berraud, Perspectives in Continental Philosophy (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002); ‘Is the argument ontological?’ in Cartesian Questions: method and metaphysics (University of Chicago Press, 1999), pp.139-160; Paul Rorem and J.C.Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998); Jacques Derrida, How to avoid speaking: Denials tr. in Kamuf and Rottenberg (ed.) Psyche:Inventions of the Other, Vol 2, (Stanford University Press, 2008); Merold Westphal, Overcoming Ontotheology: toward a postmodern Christian faith (Fordham University Press, 2011); Peter Rollins, How (not) to speak of God (SPCK, 2006); Dierdre Carabine, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena (Louvain: Peters, 1995); Jan Miernowski, Le dieu neant: Theologies negatives a l’aube des temps modernes (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Mark Vernon, After Atheism: Science, Religion, and the Meaning of Life (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2007), p.123; John D.Caputo, ‘Apostles of the Impossible: On God and the Gift in Derrida and Marion’ in Caputo and Scanlon (eds.), God, the Gift and Postmodernism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999); Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (SUNY, 2007); Christian Schäfer, The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (BRILL, 2006); John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond secular reason, (Blackwell, 2006 2nd edit.); Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2011); Adrian Pabst, Metaphysics: the creation of hierarchy (Grand Rapids, Cambridge, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012); Charles M.Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: "No Longer I"(Oxford University Press, 2012); Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids, Cambridge, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016); Brendan Thomas Sammon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a divine name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, WIPF and Stock, 2013); Rudi A Te Velde, Participation and substantiality in Thomas Aquinas (Leiden, Brill, 1995); Diarmaid MacCulloch, Silence: A Christian History (Penguin, 2014); Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York,Routledge, 2008/2016); Alexander Golitzin and Bogdun G. Bucur (ed.), Mystagogy: A monastic reading of Dionysius Areopagita, (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, Cistercian Publications), 2013.6‘ the most abstract laws of understanding have their full meaning only in relation to the concrete development of life….knowing does not dispense with doing; doing can dispense with knowing.’ Maurice Blondel, Action (1893): Essay on a Critique of Life and a Science of Practice, tr. Oliva Blanchette (University of Notre Dame Press, 1950), p. 430. Hans Boersma observes a similar tendency

7

Roman philosophie aristotelico-thomist as the basis of theology, to a

Neoplatonic thinking and spirituality’ in the ‘Parisian

Athens’ of Jean Trouillard.7 Father Reginald Garrigou-

Lagrange with his robust defence of metaphysics and

Aristotelian first principles against the philosophy of

‘becoming’ in philosophers like Bergson and Blondel was the

bête noire8 of these modern (and postmodern) theologians, but it

would be an unfair strawman to accuse Garrigou-Lagrange of

neglecting life and spirituality when he lectured in ascetical

and mystical theology for over 20 years at the Angelicum in

Rome9 and his specialism was the spirituality of St. John of

the Cross, a field in which he supervised a number of doctoral

theses.10 Nevertheless, a return to a more apophatic theology

appealed to many, who, for whatever reason were disenchanted

with rationalism, especially post-holocaust,11 (though it

within younger evangelicals to their perception of ‘dry and lifeless’ handbooks of theology. Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2011), p.27.7 Wayne Hankey has called this turn ‘the postmodern retrieval of Christian Neoplatonism’ in Hankey, Wayne, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge, 1998, p. 140. Jean Trouillard’s works on Neoplatonism include: La Procession Plotinienne (Paris, 1955), L’Un et L’Ame selon Proclus (Paris, 1972) and La Mystagogie de Proclus (Paris, 1982).8 Francoise Mauriac dubbed Garrigou-Lagrange, ‘that sacred monster (monster sacre) of Thomism’ in Le Figaro (26 May, 1966). See Richard Peddicord, O.P., The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the Life and Legacy of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006), p.2.9 http://christianperfection.info/index.php accessed 17/03/17.10 ‘I find that you are attributing to Pere Garrigou sentiments and actions that. To my knowledge, never existed…Truly, dear brother, you are being unjust.’ Paul Philippe, O.P., to Yves Congar, O.P. 20 May 1946 quoted in Richard Peddicord, O.P., The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the Life and Legacy of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (St. Augustine’s Press, Indiana, 2006), p.1. On Garrigou-Lagrange’s spirituality see ibid ch.8.11 Kieran Flanagan, for example, discerns a turn towards an implicit,but apophatic theology in the work of the Jewish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman e.g. in Modernity and the holocaust (Cambridge, Polity, 1989). See Kieran Flanagan, ‘Bauman’s implicit theology’ in Mark Davis and Keith Tester

8

should also be recognised that the Nazis were also fascinated

with mysticism and romanticism).12

Secondly, the Dionysian accent on the complete unknowability

of God resonates with those postmodern13 or ‘postmetaphysical’

theologians such as Jean-Luc Marion, John D. Jones, John

Caputo and Peter Rollins who view the God of traditional

metaphysics as ‘dead’ or ‘without being’ and has been welcomed

as a strategy for overcoming Heidegger’s condemnation of the

Western intellectual tradition as ‘ontotheology.’14

Thirdly, but relatedly, the corresponding experience of

‘silence’ from this ‘unknowable’ God is seen by others as a

positive basis for ecumenical dialogue, an alternative to

controversy over doctrine. Rosemary Arthur praises the Syrian

‘lover of the angels’ for ‘bidding us too to turn away from

interdenominational strife and towards the Indescribable

One.’15 This extends beyond the confines within Christian

(eds.), Bauman’s Challenge: sociological Issues for the 21st Century (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2010), pp.92-127. 12 See Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982), pp. 633-634, n.5.13 Wayne Hankey has called this turn ‘the postmodern retrieval of ChristianNeoplatonism’ in Hankey, Wayne, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge, 1998, p.139.14 See Thomas A. Carlson, ‘Postmetaphysical theology’ in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp.58-76; Wayne Hankey, ‘Denys and Aquinas: Antimodern cold and Postmodern hot,’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, Routledge, 1998), pp. 143ff.15 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.xii. Arthur’s book is rich in historical insight, but often imprecise andincoherent in its theological conclusions.

9

theology to what John Hick has called ‘the central problem of

theology’:16 the relationship of Christian theology to the

other world faiths. On the pluralist paradigm of thinkers like

Hick, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Panniker and others,17 the

conflicting world religions can be reconciled by an appeal to

an ineffable Mystery at the heart of them all.18 So Kung’s

theologia negativa can assimilate the ‘extinction’ doctrine of

Buddhism.19 Frances A. Yates finds earlier traces in the

mystical synthesis of Pico, ‘the many Names which he collects

from all philosophies and religions being at bottom all one in

the No Name.’20 Saint Augustine alludes to a similar view

taught by Porphyry who, while persecuting Christians, believed

in a ‘universal way’ which all of the world religions and

philosophies are agnostic about.21 The Pseudo-Areopagite has

been coopted as a resource in the modern pluralist project.22

16 John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (SCM, 1995), c.1, p.1.17 See John Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit: A constructive Christian theology (London: SCM, 1994), pp.99-108.18 Hans Kung asks rhetorically, ‘Are not the Hindus seeking in Brahman (not the personal God, Brahman), the Buddhists in the Absolute, the Chinese in the Tao and the Muslims in Allah one and the same mystery of mysteries, oneand the same ultimate reality?’ Hans Kung, On Being a Christian translated by Edward Quinn (London: Collins, 1977), p.93. But an alarm bell goes off whenyou read of a global false religion in the Apocalypse of John operating underthe name MYSTERY BABYLON. (Apoc. 17:5). We must remember too that the Roman Empire offered such a multi-faith vision, a ‘universe of faiths’ with Caesar worship at the centre. In Confucianism too, as Kung points out: ‘TheState itself is seen as a religious institution and the ruler as representative of Heaven (emperor worship).’ (Kung, p.95.) 19 Hans Kung, On Being a Christian translated by Edward Quinn (London: Collins, 1977), p.94.20 Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, c.VI, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971, p.126.21 Augustine, City of God, Bk. 10, ch.32.22 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Silence: A Christian History (Penguin, 2014), pp.228-231.

10

Fourthly, the rediscovery of ‘participation,’ ‘intensity’

and ‘plenitude’ in Thomas’ metaphysics has been correctly

identified by Geiger23 and Fabro24 as stemming from Dionysian

metaphysics.25 Thus, unlike the postmetaphysical theologians

mentioned above, Geiger and Fabro can use Dionysius against

Heidegger.26 This insight has been welcomed, particularly by

Radical Orthodoxy as a corrective to the metaphysical move towards

univocity of being, nominalism and voluntarism in late

scholastic figures such as Cajatan, Scotus and Occam which, it

is argued, cast a long shadow into modern secular thinking and

politics. 27 Whatever the connections or trajectories which 23 L.B.Geiger, La Participation dans la Philosophie de S. Thomas d’Aquin (Paris: J.Vrin, 1953), 2nd ed..24 C.Fabro, Participation et Causalite selon S.Thomas d’Aquin (Louvain: Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1961). See Fran O’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, 2005, pp.155-83. A critique of Fabro is given by Rudi A Te Velde, Participation and substantiality in Thomas Aquinas (Leiden, Brill, 1995).25 See e.g. In 1 Sent. 22.1; De Veritate, 29.3; De Potentia 1.2; 7.2.ad 9; De Malo 16.9.ad 6; c.f. Divine Names 5.26 Hankey, Wayne, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge, 1998, p. 14727 Hankey, Wayne, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge, 1998, p. 147. E.g. John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas (Routledge, 2002), p.127; John Milbank, The Word made strange: Theology, language, culture (Oxford:Blackwell, 1997); John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Blackwell, 2006); Conor Cunningham,Genealogy of Nihilism (Routledge, 2002), cc. 1-2; Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (Cambridge:William B. Eerdmans, , 2011), c.1,4; Adrian Pabst, Metaphysics: the creation of hierarchy (Cambridge:Wm. B. Eerdmans, , 2012); For a historical overview of the forces at work see also Gerald A. McCool S.J.,‘Twentieth Century Scholasticism’ in Journal of Religion: Supplement, ed. D.Tracy, 58 (1978), pp.198-224; Fergus Kerr, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (Blackwell, 2008), pp.55-56; Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians (Blackwell, 2008), cc. 1,2, 5; M.D.Chenu, Towards Understanding Saint Thomas (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1964); Ysabel de Andia, (ed.), Denys L’Areopagite et sa postrite en orient et en occident, (Institut d’Etudes Augustinienne, Paris 1997); Sarah Coakley, Sarah and Charles Stang, Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley, Blackwell, 2009), Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991),

11

modern scholars presume to find in Dionysius, Ginther sounds a

well taken warning note:

‘We often look to specific events or persons from the

theological past because we have discovered a voice or set of

ideas with which we can empathise or find familiarity. There

is nothing inherently wrong with the way we make an initial

connection with the past; however it can wreak disastrous

consequences if we continue to employ it as an interpretive

principle. We may find the voices of the past to be familiar

but that cannot negate the alterity of their existence.’28

In other words in seeking a soul mate from a previous time the

differance theologians and philosophers have failed to notice the

differance.29 One example is the way the modern interest in

Neoplatonic themes is in danger of marginalising the ways in

which Thomas transforms30 and even rejects ‘Neoplatonism’

The Idol and the Distance, tr. (Fordham, 2001), In Excess, Studies of Saturated Phenomena, tr. Robyn Horner and Vincent Berraud, Perspectives in Continental Philosophy (Fordham University Press, New York, 2002), Jacques Derrida, How to avoid speaking: Denials tr. in Kamuf and Rottenberg (ed.) Psyche:Inventions of the Other, Vol 2 (Stanford University Press, 2008).28 James R. Ginther, Master of the Sacred Page: A Study of the Theology of Robert Grosseteste ca. 1229/30-1235 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), p.2. On the role of alterity or difference in historical studies, Ginther cites the work of Paul Freedman and Gabriel Spiegel, ‘Medievalisms Old and New: The Redisovery of Alterity in North American Medieval Studies’ in American Historical Review 103 (1998), pp.677-704, who advocates ‘a renewed emphasis on a reiterated strangeness’ of the past (693). See also Stephen G. Nichols, ‘Modernism and the Politics of Medieval Studies,’ in Medievalism and the Modernist Temper, R. Howard Bloch and Nichols, eds. (Baltimore, Md., 1996), p.49.29 Wayne Hankey comments on this ‘doublemindedness’ and singles out Jean Luc-Marion as an example. See Wayne Hankey, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold andpostmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge, 1998, p.140.30 See for example Thomas’ use of the suggestive phrase ‘in this way the saying of the Platonists is saved.’ Aquinas, On Spiritual Creatures: De

12

(whatever that might precisely mean) especially in view of his

own protestations against the Platonici31 ‘whom, Dionysius

imitates in this work in many things’ as Aquinas understatedly

acknowledges in his Commentary on the Divine Names. 32

Similarly, since it is not obvious that Pseudo-Dionysius

would have agreed with modern non-cognitive pluralists,33

Thomas’ reception of him may assist in overcoming the

temptation to ignore the alterity of ancient writers by

challenging (post)modern assumptions. Thomas’ reading may not

always be the right one, but even where it is not, it may

still be a useful resource against incipient dangers in the

Dionysian approach for which the perspective of one of the

Church’s key orthodox theologians may serve as a corrective

and a transformation. Aquinas’ treatment of Dionysius is ‘new

wine in old skins.’34

Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), a.8, ad.10, p.95.31For example in the Prooemium of In librum beati Dionysii De divinis nominibus exposition, C1, 1, 34 ed. C.Pera, (Marietti, Taurini, 1950) and In de Causis, V1, 175; Seealso R.J.Henle, St.Thomas and Platonism (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff), 1970 whoargues from the textual evidence, especially in his commentaries on the Bookof Causes and on The Divine Names, that Thomas’ work is a polemic against the Platonists and that he uses Dionysius’ Divine Names as a weapon to attack thePlatonic tradition, though Henle underplays the extent to which Thomas is unconsciously Platonic through the mediation of neo-Platonic ideas in Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius. See also R. Henle, ‘A Note on Certain Textual Evidence in Fabro’s ‘La Nozione Metafisica di Partecipazione’’, pp.265–282.32 Aquinas, Exposition In De Divinis Nominibus, section 5.3, 12-30 tr. Harry C. Marsh, ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio,Phd Dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1994). 33 Aquinas indicates that because faith is an assent, it is carried by a proposition. (ST, 1a, q. 13, a. 12, sed contra; De verit., q. 14, a. 12). Theological language is therefore cognitive.34 To borrow a Biblical metaphor phrase which M.D. Chenu used in reference to Aquinas’ use of Aristotle. M.D. Chenu, O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, tr. Albert M. Landry and Dominic Hughes (Chicago: Henry

13

This paper builds on my previous published thesis that

whereas the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius entailed the

complete unknowability of God as One beyond language, concept

and being, Thomas developed a distinctly ‘positive

apophaticism’ which transformed ‘Denys’ in the light of his

synthesis of authorities including Augustine, Aristotle and

especially Scripture itself. 35 In this present dissertation I

examine how Thomas’ approach to Scripture, particularly in the

value he assigns to the ‘literal sense’ of Scripture, begins

to reconfigure the hierarchical vision of the cosmos found in

Dionysius. I argue that Thomas’ approach to the different

senses of Scripture is both more comprehensive and rigorous

than that of Dionysius and that it offers a hopeful light

through the hermeneutical fog of contemporary theology with

its dual challenges both from historical/critical methods36 Regnery,1964), p.29 cited in Gilles emery, O.P. and Matthew Levering (eds.), Aristotle in Aquinas’ Theology (Oxford University Press, 2015), p.xii.35 See Alan Philip Darley, ‘ “We know in part:” How the positive apophaticism of Aquinas transforms the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius’, Heythrop Journal (Wiley Blackwell, 2011) and Alan Philip Darley, ‘The Epistemological Hope: Aquinas versus other receptions of Pseudo-Dionysius on the Beatific Vision’ in The Heythrop Journal (Wiley Blackwell, June2016 Online edition). 36 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger exhorts: ‘We, as Christians, must help here. The Bible can give us the word to redefine not only the meaning of human being, but also the world as creation. After all, human beings cannot existif the world is meaningless. In this sense we are somewhat responsible withour exegesis to the world. For through biblical exegesis the gospel is announced and God can give truth to our times. And only truth is healing. We are not , therefore, just discussing some Christian or confessional specialities. But f we cannot understand what the Scripture is giving to us, we have nothing to give to our time. And if the Christian reality is not prescient, we are losing truth, we are losing ourself, and we have arrived at the abolition of man.’ R.J.Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1989), p.110. Cardinal Ratzinger present a meta-suspicion of historical-critical assumptions in his paper ‘Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the

14

and from deconstructive neo-kabbalistic approaches37

exemplifies by the God without Being of Jean-Luc Marion whose

silence, ‘precisely because it does not explain itself,

exposes itself to an infinite equivocation of meaning.’38

1.The central role of Scripture in Thomas’ emerging theology.

Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today’ (ibid pp.1-23). For a more pessimistic view see Thomas O’Loughlin who speaks of a ‘chasm’ between modern and pre-modern exegesis and of, ‘the impossibility of creating a theology 'out of scripture'. Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ and the Scriptures: the chasm between modern and pre-modern exegesis’, in The Month, 31 (1998), p.476. The following year an English translation of Thomas’ Literal Exposition on Job was published with an introductory essay by Malcolm D. Yaffe who can write: ‘If nothing else, Thomas’ balanced approachstill merits attention.’ This is partly because: ‘so long as modern philologians remain predominantly occupied with the minutiae of the book, they would seem unable to grasp the whole.’ Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico (Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), p.2, 7. See also Christopher Baglow, ‘Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine in Thomas Aquinas’ in Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed.), Aquinas on Doctrine: a critical introduction (T & T Clark, 2004).37 See Umberton Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language ( London, 1984, ISBN 0-333-36355-8), ‘Thus the text does not speak any longer of its own ‘outside’; it does not even speak of itself; it speaks of its own experience in reading (deconstructively) it. There is no more a dialectics of here and there, of signs and signatum. Everything happens here – and the dialiectics takes place, at most, as a further-and further movement, from signans to signans. (Eco, p.154).‘The Lacanian acknowledgement of the autonomy of thesymbolic as the chain of the signifiers, by inspiring the new deconstructionist practices, has now allowed the new and atheistic mystics of the goldess drift, to rewrite indefinitely, at every new reading, the new Torah.’ (Eco, p.156 ). Before the postmoderns, Pico had synthesised Dionysius and the Cabbala. See Pico, Heptaplus ed. Garin, pp.185, 255,277, cited by Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, c.VI, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971, pp.121-122.38Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991), p.54. Marion earlier seizes on the words of Dionysius in DN 1.3. ‘With a wise silence we do honor to the inexpressible,’ (p.54), probably because it seems to resonate with Wittgenstein and Heidegger, yet he misses out the context of the Inexpressible expressing itself ‘ in the holy words of Scripture’ DN 1.3. 539B. See also a possible background in Basil, De Spiritu, 28.44 ‘Either let the ineffable be honoured by silence; or let holy things be counted consistently with true religion.’

15

A brief examination of Aquinas’ life is enough to confirm

just how much his thought was immersed in and shaped by

Scripture. A number of Biblically based movements beginning in

the century immediately before Aquinas, such as the

Waldensians, Victorines, Franciscans and Dominicans overflowed

their banks in the 13th century and helped create the public

space of the emerging universities.39 Thomas’ inception as

‘Master of the Sacred Page’ (Magister in Sacra Pagina) at the

University of Paris in the spring of 1256, was marked by an

inaugural sermon in praise of holy Scripture as was customary

on such occasions.40 Thomas’ sermon was entitled, ‘Commendation

of and Division of Sacred Scripture’41 and he purportedly received

inspiration for this sermon in a dream42 in which he was led

to Psalm 103:12: ‘Thou waterest the hills from thy upper

rooms: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy

works’.43 Thomas conceives a hierarchy in which the wisdom of

God revealed in scripture is mediated to the world by teachers,

represented by the ‘hills.’44

39 M.D.Chenu, O.P., Towards Understanding St. Thomas, tr. A_M Landry, O.P. and D.Hughes (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1964), p.44.40 Compare for instance the inception of the contemporary scholastic, RobertGrosseteste. See James R. Ginther, Master of the Sacred Page: A Study of the Theology of Robert Grosseteste ca. 1229/30-1235, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004, p.1ff.41 ‘The Inaugural Sermons’, tr. Ralph McInerny, in Thomas Aquinas, Selected Writings (Penguin, 1998). 42 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.96.43 ‘Rigans montes de superioribus.’ See James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), pp.373-374. 44 See James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell,1975), pp.102-104. A second commendatio on sacred scripture was given by Thomas following his inception, according to Weishapl, at his resumptio , This was a systematic division of all the books of Scripture. See James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.374.

16

As a ‘Master Teacher’ of mountain-like stature himself,

Thomas’ primary duty was to read the Biblical text, refute

erroneous interpretations and preach the truth consistent with

the Catholic faith (‘legere, disputare, predicare.’) 45 This also

reflects the spirituality of the Dominican order which

emphasised taking the fruit of one’s study out into the world.

Thomas’ love of Scripture was to bear fruit in numerous

scriptural commentaries,46 most notably Expositio super Job ad litteram

(1261-65) which we possess extant as a complete book 47 written

from the hand of Thomas, rather than a reportatio (or lectura) which

is a report transcribed from student notes as is the case with

many his other works.48 We also have the famous Catena aurea

(Golden Chain) of the four Gospels (a continuous commentary

using extracts from the church fathers) written c. 1263-6749 at

the request of Urban IV.50 The difference between Thomas’

practice of actual engagement with the text of Scripture and

that of his modern followers within the sensibility known as

‘Radical orthodoxy’ has been one of the criticisms of the

45 Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Baker, 1991), p. 43.46 Expositio super Isaiah ad litteram (1248-54); Super Ieremiam et Threnos (1248-52); Expositio super Job ad litteram, (1261-65); Lectura super Mattheum, (1269-70); Lectura super Ioannem, (1270-72); Expositio et Lectura super Epistolas Pauli Apostoli, (c. 1265-73), Postilla super Psalmos, (c.1273).47 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989).48 E.g. Thomas’ lectures on the first nocturns of the Psalms, Matthew and 1Corinthians 11-Hebrews. See See James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.117.49 Beryl Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools c. 1100-1280 (London and Ronceverte Hambledon, 1985). This seminal work inspired many similar commentaries.50 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.163.

17

latter.51 It is one of the areas in which Radical Orthodoxy is

not Thomistic enough.52

Aquinas has an explicitly high view of Scripture which he

regards as ‘inspired of God,’53 meaning that it possesses

Divine authorship.54 Consequently: ‘Nothing false can underlie

the literal sense of Scripture.’55 It comprises ‘books written

wisely through the Spirit of God for the instruction of men’56

and therefore '[I]t is heretical to state that anything false

can be found in the gospels, or for that matter anywhere in

canonical scripture'57 since it is Thomas’ firm conviction that

‘none of their authors have erred in composing them.”58 Sacra

scriptura is intimately connected with sacra doctrina which is based

on ‘revelation.’59 On the basis of this unified revelation as

its first principles, theological reflection and knowledge 51 See Hans Boersma, Heavenly Paticipation: the weaving of a sacramental tapestry (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011, p.4), citing Bryan C.Hollon, Everything is Sacred: Spiritual Exegesis in the Political Theology of Henri de Lubac (Eugene, OR: Cascade/Wipf and Stock, 2009), pp. 7-8, 141-42, 164-65.)52 For other areas in which I have criticised Radical Orthodoxy for not being Thomistic enough see Alan P. Darley, ‘Is Radical Orthodoxy Thomistic enough?’ in Theofilus, 2016. 53 ST 1a, q.1, a.1 sed contra.54 ST 1a, q.1. a.10, resp. Chenu notes that for the Latins an auctor was ‘a person who took the initiative in an act.’ M.D.Chenu, O.P., Towards Understanding St. Thomas, tr. A_M Landry, O.P. and D.Hughes (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1964), p.130. 55 ST 1a q. 1,a.10.56 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), Prologue, p.68.57 Thomas Aquinas, Super euangelium S.. Ioannis lect. XIII, 158 ST 1a.q.1,a.8.59 ST 1a, q.1, a.2 ad. 2. See Christopher Baglow, ‘Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine in Thomas Aquinas’ in Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed.), Aquinas on Doctrine: a critical introduction (T & T Clark, 2004); J. Van Der Ploeg, ‘The Place of Holy Scripture in the theology of St. Thomas’, in The Thomist 10 (1947);

18

(scientia divina) can be built.60 This knowledge derives from first

principles which are known per se, first principles which are

known by faith, which is to say an intuitive knowledge

analogous to God’s knowledge. “Sacred doctrine derives its

principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine

knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all

our knowledge is set in order”.61 Without this revelation,

Aquinas concludes, “the truth about God such as reason could

discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long

time, and with the admixture of many errors.”62

The importance of Scripture for Thomas Aquinas was until

earlier last century a neglected area of Thomistic studies, as

noted by scholars such as Van der Ploeg, Geisler, Valkenberg,

Baglow, Levering and Perrson,63 although this has been

compensated by a flurry of works on his commentaries in the

last few decades.64

60 ST 1a, q.1, a.3. See also Rudi Te Velde, Aquinas on God: The ‘Divine Science’ of the Summa Theologiae (Ashgate, 2006), pp.18-28.61 ST 1a q.1,a. 6.62 ST 1a q.1,a.1.63 See J. Van Der Ploeg, ‘The Place of Holy Scripture in the theology of St. Thomas’, in The Thomist 10 (1947); Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Baker, 1991), p.45; Wilhelmus G.B.M. Valkenberg, Words of the Living God:Place and Function of Holy Scripture I the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, (Leuven:Peters, 2000); Christopher Baglow, ‘Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine inThomas Aquinas’ in Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed.), Aquinas on Doctrine: a critical introduction (T & T Clark, 2004); Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the renewal of Trinitarian Theology (Blackwell, 2004); Per Erik Persson, ‘Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas,’ tr. Ross Mackenzie (Basil Blackwell,Oxford, 1957,1970), p.4.64 E.g. Nicholas Healy, Introduction to: Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed),Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, (T & T Clark, 2005); Thomas F. Ryan, Thomas Aquinas as reader of the Psalms (University of Notre Dame Press, 2000).

19

A superficial reading of the Summa Theologiae might give the

false impression that Thomas used Scripture as only one

amongst a number of relatively equal auctoritates.65 This

misunderstanding of Aquinas has perhaps been exacerbated by

the fact that the scriptural commentaries were amongst the

last of Thomas’ works to be published and translated.66 Another

reason was perhaps the distance (or ‘chasm’ as Thomas

O’Loughlin puts it)67 between modern Higher Critical attitudes

to scripture and the reverence and devotion found amongst

medieval theologians such as Aquinas.

Philipp W. Rosemann, in ‘Omne agens agit sibi simile: a ‘repetition’ of

scholastic metaphysics,’ is one scholar who is impressed by the

breadth of authorities, including thinkers of other faiths

which Aquinas synthesises into his system, but Rosemann fails

to acknowledge in Thomas the normative use of Scriptures as

the supreme criteria for judging between competing

authorities.68 This is why the structure of Thomas’ disputed

65 E.g. David Jasper, A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics (Westminster, John Knox Press, 2004), pp.50-51.66 English translations of Thomas’ commentaries include: The Literal Exposition on Job (Expositio super Job ad litteram), tr. Anthony Damico (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989); Commentary on the Gospel of John (Lectura super Ioannem), tr. James A. Weisheipl and F.R.Larcher (2 vols, Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1980 and Petersham, MA: St Bede’s Publications, 1998); Commentary on Saint Paul’s First Letterto the Thessalonians and the Letter to the Philippians), tr. James A. Weisheipl and F.R.Larcher (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1969); Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians , tr. Matthew L.Lamb (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966); Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians , tr. F.R.Larcher, (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966).67 Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ and the Scriptures: the chasm between modern and pre-modern exegesis’, in The Month, 31 (1998), p.476.68 By using Scriptural revelation to adjudicate between authorities Thomas is in continuity with the Augustinian principle that: ‘ That which truth will reveal cannot in any way be opposed to the sacred books of the Old andNew Testament.’ Augustine, De Genesi ad litterum, II, c.18 (PL, 34, col 280)

20

questions typically includes a sed contra of a text from

Scripture, the auctoritate auctoritatibus. 69

An instructive example is how Aquinas rejects the eternity

of the world, in the face of all the philosophical weight of

the pagans,70 including the authority of ‘The Philosopher’71

(Aristotle), because this is clearly contradicted by

Scripture.72

cited in Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, c.7, 6, tr. Anton C. Pegis (University of Notre Dame, 1975), p. 75.69 Philip W. Rosemann, Omne Agens Agit Sibi Simile: a’ repetition’ of scholastic metaphysics , Louvain Philosophical Studies 12 (Louvain University Press, 1996), ch. 8. Contrast Aquinas in ST 1a, q. 108, a. 5, sed contra. ‘On the contrary is the authority of Holy Scripture wherein they are so named…’ etc.. In a. 6 resp, he goes on to arbitrate between the views of Dionysius and Gregory on the basis of what Paul says in holy Scripture.70 Proclus wrote against the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo in his work, ‘Eighteen arguments on the Eternity of the world against the Christians.’71 Aristotle teaches the eternity of the world in Physics 8, 1-4; De Coelo 1, 22-27. See Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989) on 3.25; 5.2; 7.9; 17.9; 17.16; 38.20; 40.11; Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, Bk. 2, c.12, 4 tr. Richard J.Regan (Hackett Publishing Company Inc, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2007), p. 142. N.B. Mark F. Johnson in Did St. Thomas Attribute a Doctrine of Creation to Aristotle? arguesconvincingly that while rejecting Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the world, he nevertheless does attribute to him a doctrine of creation, that is to say that Aristotle’s God gives esse to the heavens, and not just motion. (find source*). " Alius error fuit Aristotilis ponentis quidem omnia a Deo esse producta sed ab aeterno, et nullum fuisse principium temporis, cum tamen scriptum sit Gen. I: 1 " In principio creavit Deus cae!um et terram "; et ad hoc excluclendum addit ab initio temporis." Expositio super primam decretalem, 40: E35, 11. 432-437; Questiones disputatae de potentia dei, q.3, a. 5, ed. P. Pession (Turin: Marietti, 1965), p. 49; "Ex hoc apparet manifeste falsitas opinionis illorum, qui posuerunt .Aristotelem sensisse, quod Deus non sit causa substantiae caeli, sed solum motus eius "In VI Metaphysicorum, lect. 1.72 "Glorify Me, O Father, with Thyself with the glory which I had before the world was" (John 17:5); and "(T)he Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning (Proverbs 8:22)” Cited in ST 1a, q. 46, a. 1 ‘Whether the universe of creatures always existed.’ See also his detailed refutation in Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk 2, cc. 31-38; Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics, ad loc., sec. 2490, 2598 and St Thomas

21

In using Scriptural revelation to adjudicate between

authorities Thomas is in continuity with the Augustinian

principle that:

‘ That which truth will reveal cannot in any way be opposed to

the sacred books of the Old and New Testament.’73

Such independent criteria for judging between authorities is

essential for avoiding a ‘crisis’ of faith when the winds of

philosophical fashions shift, as transpired when

Aristotelianism took the ascendency over Platonism and both

schools were assimilated by Neoplatonism, as Serge-Thomas

Bonino, OP points out.74 In an analysis of the views of Plato

and Aristotle on ‘separate substances’, Aquinas reaffirms the

Christian tradition that all spiritual substances were made by

God, which is

‘proved by the authority of the canonical scriptures. For it

is said in the Psalms, “Praise ye Him, all His angels; praise

ye Him all His hosts.” And after all the other creatures have

Aquinas, Siger of Brabant, St. Bonaventure: “On the eternity of the World,” tr. C. Vollert, L.A.Kendzierski and P.M. Byrne (Milwaukee: Marquette, 1964), pp.19-25; Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c. 18, 94, tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), citing Isaiah 40:26. In II Sententiarum, cl. 1, q. 1, a. 5; See also Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2011), pp.33-34. 73 Augustine, De Genesi ad litterum, II, c.18 (PL, 34, col 280) cited in Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, c.7, 6, tr. Anton C. Pegis (University of Notre Dame, 1975), p. 75.74 Serge-Thomas Bonino, OP, ‘Aristotelianism and Angelology According to Aquinas’ in Gilles Emery OP and Matthew Levering (eds.), Aristotle in Aquinas’ Theology (Oxford University Press, 2015), p.30. Bonino speaks in general terms of ‘theology’ providing this discipline.

22

been enumerated, it is added, “For He spoke and they were

created: He commanded and they were created.” ‘75

Approaches like that of Rosemann which tend to level the

different authorities overlook the fact that, for Aquinas,

even the very concept of auctoritate is a theological one. M.D.

Chenu in Towards Understanding St. Thomas has traced how acceptance

of the authority of Scripture pedagogically evolved into

identifying relevant authorities in all fields of knowledge.76

But, of course the relationship between the two senses of

authority here, as with Thomas’ understanding of analogy,

generally is one of per prius et posterius that is to say a primary

referent followed by a derived referent (per prius et posterius ).

Both ‘authority’ and ‘author’ derive from the same Latin root

auctor which denoted ‘a person who took the initiative in an

act’ (Chenu).77 In Thomas’ high view of Scripture it was God

who took this initiative. He is the primary ‘Auctor’ of holy

Scripture;78 while human ‘authors’ are so called by

participation. Scripture consists of ‘books written wisely

through the Spirit of God for the instruction of men’79and 75 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c. 18, 91, tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle Locations 1081-1085. This is a recurring phrase in this work : See also c. 18, 93 ; 20, 104.76 M.D.Chenu, O.P., Towards Understanding St. Thomas, tr. A_M Landry, O.P. and D.Hughes (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1964), p.128. 77 M.D.Chenu, O.P., Towards Understanding St. Thomas, tr. A_M Landry, O.P. and D.Hughes (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1964), p.130.78 ST 1a, q.1. a.10, resp. 79 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia,

23

therefore '[I]t is heretical to state that anything false can

be found in the gospels, or for that matter anywhere in

canonical scripture.'80

Thomas recognises that the argument from authority is the

weakest of arguments, from the perspective of human reason81

yet from the perspective of revelation the argument from

authority is the strongest of arguments, since every science

has its own first principles and the authority of God’s

revelation is the supreme first principle82 of the Divine

Science (scientia divina) because it is derived from God’s own

knowledge.

“Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human

knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as

through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in

order”.83

This revelation makes the knowledge of God accessible to all

people, as without it, Aquinas argues, “the truth about God

such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few,

and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many

errors.”84

1989), Prologue, p.68.80 Thomas Aquinas, Super euangelium S.. Ioannis lect. XIII, 181 Summa Theologiae 1a, q.1, a.8, ad 2.82 See ST 1a, q.1, a.2, resp.; ST 1a q.1,a. 6.83 ST 1a q.1,a. 6.84 ST 1a q.1,a.1.

24

Lest we think that such deference to authority might encourage

intellectual laziness, Aquinas has already cautioned in

Quodlibetum IV:

‘..if the master determines the question on the strength of

bare authorities, the auditor, to be sure, will have a

certainty that the thing is so, but he will have acquired no

science or understanding and he will leave empty in mind.’85

Therefore in Thomas’ exposition of the book of Job, he points

out that although the necessity for Divine revelation is

demonstrated by the failure of philosophy to provide adequate

explanations of providence, this does not prevent the student

of Holy Scripture from seeking to expound the mysteries

contained within this inspired text which he goes on to

unravel line by line.86

2. Pseudo-Dionysius on Scripture.

The mysterious figure of Pseudo-Dionysius, has been firmly

located now, not in the first century as his name suggests,

and as Aquinas was led to believe,87 but rather in the late

fifth or early sixth centuries (between 485 and 532), owing to

the incontestable resemblance of his writings to the 85 Quodl IV, a.18.86 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), Prologue. 87 For example ST 3, q. 44, a.2, ad 2 where Aquinas refers to Dionysius as an ‘eyewitness’ to the eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, following Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 7, 1081A.

25

Neoplatonist writer Proclus (412-c.485), especially his

discussion of eros88 and of evil (from Proclus, De subsistentia

malorum),89 but also because of the reference to the singing of

the Nicene Creed (the ‘hymn of universal faith’) during

eucharist, which was not introduced before 476 by the

monophysite theologian, Peter the Fuller.90 The author’s

knowledge of ceremonies characteristic of the Syriac tradition

in his work Ecclesiastical Hierarchy suggest he was a bishop91 in the

Syrian church, possibly at Edessa92 or under the influence of

the school of Edessa, which was at that time a centre of

monophysitism.93 We know that some monophysites were willing it

seems to use forged sources to advance their cause.94 Istvan

Perczel has put forward a promising theory that the author was

an ‘Origenist,’95 a position reinforced by the work of Rosemary

Arthur, who sees the corpus as in part a polemic against 88 DN 4, 11-18. This was brought to light independently by two Roman Catholic scholars: H. Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziebungen zum Neoplatismus und Mysteruewesen, (Forschungen zur christlichen Litteratur – und Dogmend-geschichte, hrsg.v.A.Erhard und J.P.Kirsch, Bd.I, 1900); J. Stiglmayr, Aszeuse und Mystikdes sog. Dionysius Areopagita (Scholastik, II.Jahrg., 1927, pp.161-207.89 DN 4, 18-3590 EH 3. 425C; 3. (436C), Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, tr. Colm Luibheid (Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 211, 218; Andrew Louth, Denys the Aeropagite (Continuum, 1989), chapter 1; J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (Longman, 1981), pp.348-349; J.W.C.Wand, A History of the early church to AD 500 (Methuen, 1982), p.258f.. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/peter-fuller , accessed 12/05/17 91 Since Dionysius himself issues rebukes to a priest in Epistle 6 and the monk Demophilus in Epistle 8 Rosemary Arthur points out the obvious conclusion from this that, contrary to widespread opinion (e.g. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr. by Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V. (T & T Clark, 1995), p 178 ), Dionysius could not havebeen a monk himself at the time of writing as this is against his own principle of only rebuking those of equal or lower rank. EP 8, (1088C); seealso EH 5.7, (508C). See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York,Routledge, 2008/2016), p.158.

26

variant forms of Origenism,96 but this term needs unpacking

and we will have cause to refer to this theory during the

course of this paper, qualifying and refining its contours.

The first mention of the Areopagite’s writings appears in

532, less than 50 years after the death of Proclus, in Syria

by the monophysite monk and later patriarch of Antioch,

Severus (465- 538), who cites him as an authority in favour of

monophysitism against the Chalcedonians.97 In 533 the 92 The 6th century cathedral at Edessa before it was destroyed in 525AD had nine steps in three groups of three leading to the altar, representing the ninefold order of angels. See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.13. Cyril A. Mang, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents (University of Toronto Press; 2nd Revised edition, 1986), p.59 and is also found in the pseudonymous Book of Hierotheus,also from Edessa in the 5th century which speaks of the nine orders of angels in a triadic descent. See Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886). 93 Primary sources include The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite and The Edessene Chronlicle. See N.H.Baynes and H. St. L.B.Moss, Byzantium: An introduction to East Roman Civilisation (Oxford University Press, 1962), pp.213-214. See also Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 3; Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York,Routledge, 2008/2016), c.4.94 E.g. Julian of Halicarnasseus. Severus complains that some persons were writing pseudonymous letters in his name. See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.103-104.95 Istvan Perczel, ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M.Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp.27-41. 96 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.117f.97 In a report by Bishop Innocent of Maronia of the debate between orthodox and monophysite theologians, Innocentii Maronitae epistula de collation cum Severianuis habita. See Sarah Klittenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonic tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p. 2; Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Wipf and Stock, 2013), p.89; R. Roques, L’Univers Dionysien: Structure

27

authenticity of the Dionysian corpus was questioned by the

Chalcedonian camp98 but it was later co-opted for orthodoxy by

John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor. However, the

sparcity of references to Dionysius the Areopagite in any of

the writings of Severus prior to this conference make it

unlikely that his works were written before 523. Rosemary

Arthur argues that even these are plausibly interpolations

made after 533 to bolster the authority of the Pseudo-

Areopagite.99 Arthur gathers evidence for the view that

Dionysius was in fact Sergius of Reshaina who we know from his

biography (also written by a pseudonymous monophysite author)

was ‘a believer’ trained in the teaching of Origen,100 as well

as in ‘many books of the Greeks.’101 The evidence however

hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys (Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1954), p.311; Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981), pp.4-5; Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2016), pp.101-6. 98 Hypatius, leader of the orthodox camp, challenged the monophysites, led by Severus, to prove the authenticity of the Dionysian writings and asked why Cyril had not known of them if they were genuine. These questions remained unanswered. Acta Concilium Oecumenicorum, ed. E.Schwartz (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1914), IV.2, 173:13-18 cited in Alexander Golitzin and Bogdun G. Bucur (ed.), Mystagogy: A monastic reading of Dionysius Areopagita, (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, Cistercian Publications), 2013, p.xx, n.3. See also SarahKlittenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonic tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p. 2; Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus, (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 3; Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981), pp.4-5.99 See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.104-109.100 Pseudo-Zechariah, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariaea rhetoric vulgo adscripta , Book IX, ch.19, ed./tr.E.W.Brooks (Louvain, 1919-1924), tr. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, tr. Robert R.Phenix and Cornelia B.Horn (Liverpool University Press, 2011) cited in SamiAydin, Sergius of Reshain: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, Addressed to Philotheos (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus.Lam Mul: BRILL, 2016), pp.4-5.

28

underdetermines Arthur’s conclusions which seem to us

premature.

Martin Luther was famously scathing of Dionysius but he was

surely wrong to claim that ‘nowhere does he have a single word

about faith or any useful instruction from the Holy

Scriptures.’102 Rather, the entire Corpus Dionysiacum is saturated

with Biblical citations and allusions from at least 54 of the

canonical books, 103although only once is one of the books,

Genesis, directly named, in Epistle 9, (1105B). Those not directly

mentioned are the smaller books of: Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes,

Lamentations, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and

Haggai in the Old Testament and Philemon and 3John in the New

Testament. Dionysius does not strike us as someone who merely

quotes a few strategic ‘proof texts’ to give an illusion of

orthodoxy. His deep familiarity and application of Scripture

points to someone who genuinely accepts its authority.

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy places his theology in the context of a

community which, following the pattern from the Jewish

101 Pseudo-Zechariah, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariaea rhetoric vulgo adscripta , Book IX, ch.19, ed./tr.E.W.Brooks (Louvain, 1919-1924), tr. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, tr. Robert R.Phenix and Cornelia B.Horn (Liverpool University Press, 2011) cited in SamiAydin, Sergius of Reshain: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, Addressed to Philotheos (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus.Lam Mul: BRILL, 2016), p.8.102 Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, Lectures on Genesis 1-5 ( Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p.235.103 Hans Urs Von Balthasar is partly correct in his assessment that:‘ [Pseudo-Dionysius’] stupendous knowledge of Scripture may not be overlooked; he does not quote much, but when he does it is with exactness and with sovereign mastery.’ Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr.by Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V. (T & T Clark, 1995), p.208c.

29

synagogue,104 gives public readings from ‘the sacred tablets’

(s).105 Like Origen before him106

and Aquinas after him, but markedly unlike many of his

postmodern admirers,107 the Pseudo-Areopagite has a high view

of Scripture which he honours with such epithets as ‘divinely

104 Thomas Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America), 1981, p.142. 105 EH 3.2, (425C). Thomas Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America), 1981, p.142, 39. He cites Maximus (Scholia MG 4.136B) that readings were taken from the Old and New Testament. See also Justin, Apologia 1.67; Apostolic Constitutions 1.57; 5-8; 8.5.11.106 On First Principles IV,1 is dedicated to a defence of the inspiration of the ‘divine Scriptures’. See Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works, See Origen, On First Principles IV,1, tr. Rowan A. Greer (Paulist Press, 1979), pp.171-178. ‘the sacred books are not human compositions, but that they were written and have come to us by inspirationof the Holy Spirit, according to the will of the Father of all through Jesus Christ,’ The Philocalia of Origen, 1,9. In Prin. 4.1.6. Origen refers to Scripture as ‘theopneustos’ using the language of 2 Tim. 3:16.107 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.191-198; Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991), p.54. Marion seizes on the statement inDivine Names 1.3: ‘With a wise silence we do honor to the inexpressible,’ probably because it seems to resonate with Wittgenstein and Heidegger, yet he misses out the context of the Inexpressible expressing itself: ‘ in the holy words of Scripture’ DN 1.3. 539B. Marion divorces the Word from the text of scripture: ‘The text does not at all coincide with the event…The text carries the trace of an event but no longer opens any access to it.’’ Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp.144,146. See also Jean-Luc Marion, The Idol and the Distance, (Fordham, 2001), ch. 3; Peter Rollins, ‘How (not) to speak of God’ (SPCK, 2006), Derrida, Jacques, How to avoid speaking: Denials in Kamuf and Rottenberg (ed.) Psyche:Inventions of the Other, Vol 2 (Stanford University Press, 2008); Mark Vernon, After Atheism (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2007). Early commentators such as John Scotus Eriugena, by contrast recognise the Areopagite’s commitment to Scripture and seek to emulate it (with varying success!): ‘For the authority of Holy Scripture must in all things be followed because the truth dwells there as though in a retreat of its own, but is not to be believed as a book which always uses verbs and nouns in their proper sense when it teaches about the Divine Nature, but it employs certain allegories and transfers in various ways the meanings of verbs or nouns out of condescension towards our weakness and to encourage by uncomplicated

30

anointed,’108‘divinely inspired,’109 and ‘the Word of God.’110

The sacred scriptures are ‘enlightening beams,’111 moulding

those illuminated thereby for Divine worship. As a result, the

different levels of those being initiated are specifically

arranged according to their capacity to receive such

formation,112 beginning with the catechumens who are

‘incubated’ by the ‘paternal scriptures.’113 Reading and

singing the Scriptures wards off the powers of evil and

delivers those who are possessed.114 It is by means of the

Scriptures, he says, that we are kept in salvation since ‘in

thus preserving the Scriptures we also are preserved.’115 In

bringing the variety of creatures to a simple and stable

knowledge of God, the divine Scriptures are beautifully

compared using Biblical imagery,

‘to dew, to water, to milk, to wine, and to honey, for they

have the power like water to produce life, like milk to give

doctrine our sense which are still untrained and childish.’ John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae), Book 1, 509A, ed. and tr. I.P. Sheldon-Williams with the collaboration of Ludwig Bieler (Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968), pp. 188-189.108 DN 3 (681B).109 EH 3 (432C)110 CH 4 (180B).111 DN 1.3 (589B) tr. Luibheid Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p. 50. Eriugena picks up on this expression which he calls ‘superiores claritates’ (higher radiancies’). See John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae), Book 1 (509D), ed. and tr. I.P. Sheldon-Williams with the collaboration of Ludwig Bieler (Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968), pp. 190-191.112 EH 6.1 (532A).113 EH 3 (432D), tr. Luibheid Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p.215.114 EH 4.3.2, (477A).115 DN 2, 2 (640) tr. C.R.Rolt, Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology, (SPCK, 1940), p. 68.

31

growth, like wine to revive, like honey both to purify and to

preserve.’116

Plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is taught both in The

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in which they are described as ‘divinely

transmitted’117 and in The Divine Names in which their human

authors are said to have operated by a ‘power granted by the

Spirit.’118 Indeed, it is important to note that the

apophaticism for which Dionysius is most appreciated by

postmodernists is the very principle which leads him to

acknowledge the indispensability of revelation,119 a revelation

which is not reducible to an experiential ‘event,’ not even a

Eucharistic one (as in Marion),120 but which extends to verbal

inspiration of the text. Indeed, as Rorem astutely observes,

apophaticism for Dionysius is primarily a modus operandum for

interpreting Scripture and not a ‘free-floating

epistemological principle for individuals,’ again in sharp

contrast to postmodern pretenders to his inheritance.121 That

is why Dionysius’ great treatise on The Divine Names commences

with an appeal to holy Scripture, explaining that natural

reason is inadequate to reach that Transcendent One who ‘alone116 EP 9 (1112A-B), tr. Luibheid Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), pp.286-287.117 EH 1, 4 (376B), p.198. 118 DN 1, 1 (585B).119 Mark Julian Edwards finds the same principle in respect of Origen, ‘ ForOrigen as for Philo, the incognoscibility of God implies the necessity of a positive revelation; conversely revelation makes a cul-de-sac of every other avenue to God.’, Mark Julian Edwards, Origen against Plato (Ashgate, 2004), p.60.120 Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (The University of Chicago Press, 1991), ch.5.121 Paul Rorem, The Dionysian Mystical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015),p.123, 128. See EP 9.

32

could give an authoritative account of what it really is.’ 122

Since Dionysius has just referenced Paul’s letter to the

Corinthians in the opening words of this treatise,123 it is

likely that in these words he is echoing Paul again who cites

what seems to be an apostolic axiom just two chapters later:

μάθητετό ὴὑπὲρἃγέγραπται  124

Indeed this revelation is not only theoretically necessary for

knowledge of God but has actually taken place, since the

Source, ‘has told us about itself in the words of

Scripture.’125 Hence, in theological disputes about the nature

of the Trinity, it is to the Scriptures that Dionysius appeals

as ‘the standard, rule and light’ for leading one to the

truth.126 For example, in contrast to Aristotle’s Unmoved

Mover, who knows only himself, John 21:17 and Daniel 13:42 are

cited to demonstrate God’s omniscience127 and the ‘mysterious’

Scriptures are cited to teach the truth of our identification

with Christ’s death in baptism.128 These passages demonstrate

that the Christian Dionysius has surpassed the merely

‘rational’ theology of Plato which initially had no concept of122 DN 1, 1 (588B). Interestingly this text was later to be appropriated by John Wyclif against those papal claims he considered to have no Scriptural warrant. See David Luscombe, ‘Wyclif and Hierarchy’ in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, published for the Ecclesiastical Society(Basil Blackmore, 1987).123 1 Cor. 2:4 in DN 1.1 (585B).124 1 Cor. 4.6.125 DN 1, 1 (589B), tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.51.126 DN 2, 2 (640A).127 DN 7, (868D-869A).128 EH 4.484B, tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.231, citing Romans 6:3.

33

special revelation129 until later pagan Platonism under

Iamblichus and Proclus, when, as a result of its interaction

with Christianity, it began to revere Plato himself as an

inspired author and the Chaldean Oracles as ‘revelation’

(chiefly believed to have been given from the gods Apollo and

Psyche).130 This twin reverence is epitomised in the saying of

Proclus which Marinus uses as the conclusion to his biography:

‘ If I had the power, of all the books of the ancients I would

have only the Oracles and the Timaeus survive, and all the rest I

would conceal from the men of the present, since they have

caused great harm to some of those who approached them in a

causal and uncritical manner.’131

The term ‘oracles’ translates the Greek a term with some

background in the Christian scriptures themselves as a self-

reference132 and later used by Dionysius in common with a

129 Plato, Laws, IV, 715e, 716d; Republic VI, 600b. See John Finnis, ‘ Nature, Reason and God in Aquinas’ in Paul E. Sigmund, St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics (W.W. Norton, 1988), p.191.130 Proclus, Platonic Theology 1.i; In Timaeus, III.63.24; In Cratylus 101,3. See E.R.Dodds in Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Clarendon, Press, Oxford, 2004), p.xii. The Chaldean Oracles were written in the late second century by Julian surnamed ‘The Chaldean’ and his son Julian, surnamed ‘The Theurgist.’ See Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, pp. 4-6. ‘These Chaldean Oracles claim to contain the doctrines which the gods disclosed to the two Julians. They are revelations which the Theurgists have written down. Accordingly, the Neoplatonists who believed in the legitimate character of the inspiration frequently quoted the Chaldean Oracles as utterances of the gods themselvesand did not mention quite so often their Chaldean hypophets who, in their opinion, had only played a secondary part.’ Ibid, p.6.131 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 38 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.115.132 Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11

34

number of previous church fathers and the early church

fathers.133 Noting this reciprocal relationship between

Christianity and Neoplatonism, Anders Nygren comments:

‘After a century or two, Neoplatonism is no longer the same as

at its first appearance, and among the reasons for this is its

co-existence with Christianity.’134

3. The place of extra-Biblical tradition in Dionysius

Commitment to the full inspiration and authority of the

Scriptures however does not necessarily entail a concomitant

commitment to their sufficiency or a commitment to an identical

canon. In this section we will examine the place of the

Apocrypha, the place of oral tradition and the place of

philosophical tradition in Dionysius in comparison with

Aquinas.

a) The Apocrypha.

In keeping with his philosophical interest, it is

apparent that Dionysius is particularly fond of the

apocryphal wisdom literature. A strong motivation for this

could be that the apocryphal wisdom literature provides an 133 1 Clement 19:1; 53.1; 62.3; Augustine, De catech. Rudibus, 6:10; De Magistro 14.:46; Athanasius, Letter to Serapion 1.15, See also the use of the term in John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae), Book , ed. I.P. Sheldon-Williams with the collaboration of Ludwig Bieler, (Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968, 510A, p. 191; Book 2, 549A, 567A. Seealso J.Donovan, The Logia in Ancient and recent literature (Cambridge, 1924).134 See Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.565.See also Section 5 below.

35

important precedent for pseudonymous authorship. He

specifically cites the Wisdom of Solomon in Divine Names 4,

(709B), which, like the earlier Septuagint translation of

the Hebrew Scriptures on which it draws for citations of Job

and Isaiah, was probably written in Alexandria between the

second and first century BC. 135 This was a period in Jewish

history when the Jews were wrestling with the question of

their identity in relationship to Hellenistic culture and

this book can be read as both a defence of the

distinctiveness of Judaism for Jews but also as a missionary

text for the Hellenistic world. 136 Under the paradigm of

Solomon’s encyclopedic knowledge a pansophism (corresponding

to Dionysian heirarchy)137 can be constructed which

encompasses the best of Hellenistic thought within the

truths revealed to Israel. For the writer of The Book of Wisdom

as for Dionysius, all truth is God’s truth.138 Dionysius

counts this book amongst the ‘introductory scriptures,’ a

term which probably means that he regards the Old

Testament139 (elsewhere referred to as ‘the older

tradition,’140) as ‘introductory’ to the New Testament,141 135 Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church (SCM,1985), p.5.136 Wisdom 18:4. See Ernest G.Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G.Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.1, 4-6,8. ‘Furthermore, he sought to prepare them, as well-educated Jews, to live in a Hellenistic society; to provide religious insights, in a contemporary form, in order to establish links between their traditional faith and all the new ideas of the pagan society wherein they lived.’ (p.5).137 CH 13.3, (301C).138 Wisdom 7:15-22; DN 7, (868A).139 See a similar expression in Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio , 4.11 regarding Philo and The Book of Wisdom.140 EH 3.5.432B.141 DN 4.12.709B, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.81 footnote 154. C.f. EH 3.5.432B.

36

though it could plausibly be a reference to the introductory

nature of all scripture following the thinking of Origen:

‘‘The Scriptures, therefore, are introductions, from whose

exact understanding, called here the spring of Jacob, one

must ascend to Jesus, so that we may be graciously given the

spring of water leaping up to eternal life.’142

However, it should be noted that Origen in On First Principles

acknowledges that in his day not all Christians accepted the

authority of this book as ‘Scripture,’ 143 though he himself

does give it such a description elsewhere.144 By the time of

the Latin Vulgate of c.400 AD (as used by Aquinas), the title

had shortened simply to The Book of Wisdom, an acknowledgement

of doubts over authorship.145 This is evidence for the

conclusion that while pseudonymity was an accepted practice

in the ancient world, it was nevertheless an obstacle in

terms of a book’s full acceptance into the canon.

The Wisdom of Solomon 7:13 which refers to the generosity of

King Solomon in sharing his wisdom with his subjects appears

to be the source for the term ‘ungrudgingly impart’ as used

in Celestial Hierarchy 13, (301C) and applied to angels in

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4, (481C). So too is the language of

Wisdom 7:24 concerning Wisdom ‘permeating and pervading all142 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 13, V, 37, tr. Joseph W. Trigg (Routledge, London and New York, 1998), p.155. 143 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 4, 6.144 E.g. Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Prologue.145 Ernest G.Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G.Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p.1.

37

things’ which Dionysius applies to the Godhead in Celestial

Hierarchy 13, (300D) because it transmits is providences in an

ungraspable way. The same Wisdom language is specifically

deployed in reference to God the Logos in Divine Names 7,

(872C),146 and to God’s Smallness in Divine Names 9, (912A).

There is an oblique reference to Wisdom of Solomon 9:15

concerning the Platonic image of the perishable body

‘weighing down’ the soul in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4, (476A) –

also a favourite text of Augustine and Origen.147 Ernest G.

Clarke points out that in its original context (a prayer

ascribed to King Solomon) it speaks not of the inherent

sinfulness of the human body but of its weakness and hence

need of Divine help.148

From the wisdom literature Dionysius also cites Sirach

(otherwise known as Ecclesiasticus) in Divine Names 3, (684C): ‘We

are told not to busy ourselves with what is beyond us,’

paraphrasing Sirach 3:21-23 (which is itself based on the

canonical Psalm 131:1) and an allusion to the ‘eyes’ of the

Lord (Sirach 23:19) in Divine Names 1, (597B). Epistle 7, (1080C),

could allude to Sirach 46:4 (but this is itself based on the

canonical Joshua10:12-14 and the hierarchical application of

Epistle 8, (1092A) ‘everyone must look to himself and, without

thinking of more exalted or more profound tasks, he must 146 See also Hebrews 4:12147 Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, 3, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne(ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Pyaer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.42. See also Plotinus, Enneads 1.4.16.148 Ernest G.Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G.Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.10, 63-65.

38

think about what has been assigned to his place.’ references

Sirach 3:22: ‘the things that have been commanded thee, think

upon; For thou hast no need of the things that are secret.’

A direct quotation is made from the apocryphal book Susanna

(42): ‘ He knows all things before their birth’ which is

introduced as a ‘Scripture’ in Divine Names 7, (869A149). The

same text from Susanna is the source of the variant reading

of 7, (868D) 150 and Divine Names 1.6, (596B) which use the

non-canonical ‘Knower’ as a divine title. Divine Names 1,

(596B): ‘They call him Source of life’ finds a possible

allusion in 2 Maccabees 1:25 which names God as ‘Source,’ but

a more direct citation seems to be the Septuagint of Jeremiah

17:13, ‘Source of Life.’

b) Oral Tradition and creeds.

Although in The Divine Names, Dionysius warns against

ascribing names to God beyond those assigned by scripture: ‘We

can use only what Scripture has disclosed,’151 it is also true

that in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Dionysius prescribes a number of

rites which are not explicitly taught in the canonical

scriptures themselves, such as, during baptism, removing one’s

shoes, stripping off one’s old clothes and changing into new

ones,152 renouncing the ‘west’ and facing east,153 a triple

149 tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.108.150 tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.107.151 DN 1,2 (588C) ‘We can use only what scripture has disclosed.’152 EH 2.6 (396B).153 EH 2.6 (396a); 4, (484B); 5.6, (508A).

39

immersion representing the three days and nights of Christ in

the tomb,154 receiving the sign of the cross in oil,155 the

invocation of the Trinity,156 kissing the altar,157 the kiss of

peace,158 prayers for the dead,159 the mediation of the departed

saints160 and ‘secret invocations’ characteristic of ordination

rites.161 This tradition, which is ‘free from writing,’ is

superior he argues, since it is analogous to the level of the

celestial hierarchy in which angelic intelligences communicate

immaterially ‘from mind to mind.’162 An oral tradition also

serves a function of protecting the sacred truths from the

contamination of the uninitiated (of which more will be

discussed in section 8).163 Maimonides attests to the

prevalence of this kind of arcana disciplina amongst the teachers

of the Talmud which was passed on by word of mouth.164

Dionysius could also claim patristic precedent for his

approach. Tertullian had already argued for unwritten

154 EH 2.3. (396C).155 EH 6, (533B).156 EH 6, (533B).157 EH 2.4, (393C).158 EH 3.2, (425C).159 EH 7.160 EH 7, (561C).161 EH 3, (533B).162 EH 1, (376C).163 EH 1, (376C).164 ‘ It has been shown that a person favoured by Providence with reason to understand these mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except by viva voce, and on condition that the pupil possess certain qualifications, and even then only the heads of the sections may be communicated. This has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared from our nation, and nothing has remained of it. This was unavoidable, for the explanation of these mysteries was always communicated viva voce, it was never committed to writings.’ Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M.Friedlander (Dover, 2nd ed.), Part III, Introduction, p. 251.

40

tradition in his work On the soldier’s crown to establish certain

rites practised in his day which are not explicitly instructed

in Scripture, such as renouncing the devil, eating milk and

honey after baptism or making the sign of the cross on the

forehead (the latter also being referenced in Dionysius).165

Later, St. Basil (329-379) too ascribed to unwritten words or

expressions ( the ‘same strength for piety’ as the

written scriptures, again listing rites common to Tertullian,

such as the renunciation of Satan and the signing of the

cross, but adding the blessing of baptismal water, the

blessing of the anointing oil, praying to the east (also

taught by Dionysius),166 praying standing on every Sunday and

throughout the festival of Pentecost, and the invocation over

the eucharist. Moreover, Basil includes amongst unwritten

traditions any doctrines which these rites imply and certain

formulae, especially regarding the person and work of the Holy

Spirit.167 His justification was that the addition of strictly

‘unscriptural’ formulae such as ‘with the Son together with

the Holy Spirit’ (168was for the

165 Tertullian, On the soldier’s crown, 3,4 cited in J.Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius: documents illustrative of the history of the Church to A.D. 337 (London, SPCK, 1977),pp.182-183.166 EH 2.6, (396B).167 Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 27, sections 66,67; ch. 29, sections 71, 75; ch. 10, sections 25-26; ch. 30, section 79. See also Emmanuel Amand de Mendietta, The ‘unwritten’ and ‘secret’ apostolic traditions in the theological thought of St. Basil of Caeserea, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 13 (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1965); Andrew Louth, Denys the Aeropagite (Continuum, 1989), p.27. Origen also refers to alleged unwritten sayings of Jesus such as ‘become sound moneychangers’ in ‘Homily 12 on Jeremiah. See Joseph W. Trigg(ed. and tr.), Origen (Routledge, 1998), p.186.168 Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 27, sections 67 tr. Emmanuel Amand de Mendietta, The ‘unwritten’ and ‘secret’ apostolic traditions in the theological thought of St. Basil of Caeserea, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 13 (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1965), p 56.

41

preservation of the true meaning of the written Scripture

against its distortion by heretics (such as the

Pneumatomachians). Indeed all creeds subsequent to the New

Testament have evolved in response to threats from new

heresies and have therefore needed new vocabulary to express

this response.

c) Dionysius and extra-Biblical philosophical tradition.

Dionysius defends himself against critics, such as one

Apollophanes, who charged him with ‘making unholy use of

things Greek to attack the Greeks,’169 by pointing to an

apologetic aim for his use of non-scriptural Greek terms. Of

prime concern is the use of the Greek term eros which he

argues, is not ‘counter to scripture’ since:

‘In my opinion, it would be unreasonable and silly to look at

words rather than at the power of their meanings. Anyone

seeking to understand the divine things should never do this,

for this is the procedure followed by those who do not allow

empty sounds to pass beyond their ears, who shut them out

because they do not wish to know what a particular phrase

means or not to convey its sense through equivalent but more

effective phrases. People like this are concerned with

169 EP 7.2.1080B The language reminds us of Porphyry’s criticism of Origen that ‘while his manner of life was Christian and contrary to the Law, in his opinions about material things and the Deity he played the Greek, and introduced Greek ideas into foreign fables.’ Porphyy, Against the Christians, III,in J.Stevenson (ed.), Creeds, Councils and Controversies: documents illustrative of the historyof the Church A.D. 337-461 (SPCK, 1966), p.222. See below for further links with Origen.

42

meaningless letters and lines, with syllables and phrases

which they do not understand, which do not get as far as the

thinking part of their souls, and which make empty sounds on

their lips and in their hearing. It is as if it were quite

wrong to explain “four” by “twice two,” “a straight line” by “

a direct line,” “the motherland” by “the fatherland,” or to

make any sort of interchange among words which mean exactly

the same thing..’170

This apologetic explains Dionysius’ transformation of pagan

terms such as ‘theurgy’ into a vehicle for expressing the

incarnation,171 the divine ‘ray’ to describe Jesus,172or

‘anagogy’ for the spiritual journey into invisible truths

foreshadowed in the sacraments.173 Dionysius is defending here

the principle which Mark Edwards calls the ‘translatability of

revelation,’174 which is hardly surprising for one, who (like

Origen), preferred the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew

170 DN 4.11.408C, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.80.171 EH 3, (492C; 432B; 441C).172 EH 1, (372B); DN 3, (680C). Julian (Orationes V, 172D) refers to a ‘seven-rayed god’ (s) who causes the soul to ascend. See also Plotinus, Enneads, V,1,7; Proclus, Republic 1,152,14; 1,178,17; In Tim, III, 82, 11. Plato,Republic, 533D. See Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.186, 208, 60.173 EH 2.3.2 (397C).174 Mark Julian Edwards, Origen against Plato (Ashgate, 2004), p.56. See also George Linbeck, ‘The inescapability of this task of putting non-Christian thought to Christian uses needs to be emphasised. Even theologians who wantto be entirely Biblical cannot avoid it. Luther, despite his detestation ofAristotle, continued to employ, often quite consciously, the Ockhamist Aristotelianism in which he had been trained, and there is not a little Platonism in Calvin’s thought.’ George Linbeck, ‘Scripture, consensus and community’ in R.J.Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conferenceon Bible and Church (Wm.B.Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989), pp.86-87.

43

Scriptures.175 This was just as well, since his own writings

were to be translated from Greek first into Syriac and later

into the Latin of Hilduin, Eriugena and Saracen in their

passage into the West.176 Nor was Dionysius the first Christian

to express his faith using Platonic categories. This had

already become the mainstream tradition of the early fathers

from Justin Martyr onwards whose aim was not so much

‘synthesis’177 as contextualisation of the gospel. Even in the

time of the Biblical writers themselves, St Paul commends the

same strategy of ‘becoming all things to all people.’178 He

recontextualises, for instance, the Greek verb

literally ‘to perform sacred rites’) to convey the

ministry the gospel179 and the writer to the Hebrews

appropriates the Platonic language of shadows and ideas to

speak not of two worlds but of two covenants or

dispensations.180 Kierkegaard might have called this a ‘non-

identical repetition’; Origen called it ‘spoiling the

Egyptians’181 i.e. exploiting pagan terms for Christian ends.182

175 Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church (SCM,1985), p.5. 176 See P.G.Théry, Études Dionysiennes 1: Hilduin , Traducteur de Denys (Paris, Libraire Philosophique J.Vrin, 1932).177 Contra Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (Grand Rapids Michegan/Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans, 2011), p.40ff.178 1 Corinthians 9:22.179 Romans 15:16; in Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1872), p.327.180 Hebrews 10:1181 Origen, Letter to Gregory in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), p. 211.182 In fact Origen’s First Principles contains a striking parallel with Dionysius’ argument:‘Therefore, everyone who is concerned with truth shouldbe little concerned with names and words (c.f. 1 Tim. 1:4), because different nations have different customs about words. And he should pay more attention to what is meant than how it is expressed in words.’Origen, On First Principles, IV, 3, 15, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.),

44

Origen goes on to give the example of the Greek term asomaton

(incorporeal) which he sees as synonymous with the Biblical

term ‘invisible’ ( Col. 1:15-16.). He is also the source of

Dionysius’ contention that the Greek terms eros and agape can be

used interchangeably.183 But it remains a moot point whether

these different phonemes have an identical or similar sense to

each other, or whether they represent competing worldviews,

since there is always a danger that things are not only lost

in translation, but also added.

4. Aquinas on tradition

Like Dionysius and his patristic predecessors, Aquinas too

accepts a legitimate place for Christian oral tradition, for

such practices as anointing with oil at the sacrament of

confirmation,184 praying towards an image of Christ185 or raising

one’s eyes to heaven during the eucharist:186

Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.204.183 After an extended discussion of this question he concludes: ‘ It makes no difference, therefore, whether the Sacred Scriptures speak of love (eros), or of charity (agape), or of affection; except that the word ‘charity’ (agape) is so highly exalted that even God Himself is called Charity, as John says..’ Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue 2, p.32. It must be remembered too that Origen used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible –the Septuagint. See also the discussion in David Dawson, ‘Allegorical reading and the embodiment of the soul in Origen’ in Lewis Ayres and GarethJones (eds.), Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, 1998), pp.38-43.184 ST 3a, 64, 2, ad 1.185 ST 3a, 25, 3, ad 4 (and parallel in 2 ad Thess. 2, 3 (60).186 ST 3a, 83, 4, ad 2.

45

‘The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost,

handed down to the churches certain instructions which they

did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in

accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by

the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2

Thessalonians 2:14): "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which

you have learned, whether by word"--that is by word of

mouth--"or by our epistle"--that is by word put into writing.

Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image.

Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of

Christ, which is in Rome.’ 187

But in keeping with his systematically trained mind, Thomas

goes on to demarcate and subordinate this more clearly than

Dionysius as a ‘traditio servanda,’ in contrast with the ‘traditio

credenda’ (tradition to be believed’), whose substance is

located in Holy Scripture.188

‘Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not

essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which

is added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and

reverence in the recipients. But those things that are

essential to the sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself,

Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by

the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate

tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the

187 ST 3a, 25, 3, ad 4 (and parallel in 2 ad Thess. 2, 3 (60)188 See Per Erik Persson, ‘Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas,’ tr. Ross Mackenzie (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957,1970), pp. 45-48, 67.

46

Apostle (1 Corinthians 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when

I come."189

Even with respect to the Nicene Creed, in his mature work

Contra Errores Graecorum, Aquinas rejects what he calls the

‘absolutely false’ view that the Council of Nicaea ‘enjoys

greater authority than the letter of the Old Testament.’190

Aquinas teaches that the authority of the statements of the

Council comes not from themselves, but derivatively from the

divinely inspired scriptures which the creedal statements

elucidate.191 These examples underline the principle for

Aquinas that compared to the ‘incontrovertible proof’ of the

canonical scriptures, philosophers and even doctors of the

church possess only ‘probable’ authority:

‘For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the

apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not 189 ST 3a, 64, 2, ad 1.190 Contra Errores Graecorum, tr. Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I. ed. Joseph Kenny, O.P.Part 1, c. 32. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm191 Aquinas’ position is parallel with that of Origen’s regarding the rule of faith:‘Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of thissort, according to the precept, Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge, if he would desire to form a connected series and body of truthsagreeably to the reason of all these things, that by clear and necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of illustrations and arguments—either those which he has discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method.’ De Principiis, Preface 10. This was later the view taken by theauthors of Article 8 of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England: ‘The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.’ See https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/articles-of-religion.aspx#VIII accessed 12/08/16.

47

on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other

doctors.’192

This same passage compels John Milbank to observe that:

‘Thomas Aquinas likewise speaks of sacra scripturae as the sole

authority for sacra doctrina, in a way that sounds ‘Protestant’ by

later Tridentine standards.’ 193 The Council of Trent had gone

further than Aquinas in ascribing to tradition equal

inspiration and equal veneration.194 Consequently the

pronouncements of the Church from the 16th century onwards were

explicitly declared to also fall under the rubric of

‘revelation.’195 Of course, for Aquinas, although Scripture

alone possesses this ‘incontrovertible’ authority, as a

192 ST 1a, 1, 8, ad. 2. As a follower of Augustine who admitted to making errors in his Retractiones this was the only logical position to adopt.193 John Milbank, Being Reconciled: ontology and pardon (Routledge: London and New York, 2004), p. 134. Yet, Milbank qualifies this statement by distinguishing the nature of scripturae for Aquinas as interpreted by an allegorical method in contrast to the ‘Humanist Bible’ of the reformers (Wewill better be able to evaluate this qualification after examining Thomas’ use of the allegorical method in further detail later in this paper.)194 ‘It receives and venerates with the same sense of loyalty and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testament, for God alone is the author of both – together with all the traditions concerning faith and morals, as coming from the mouth of Christ or being inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church.’ K. Rahner (ed.), The Teaching of the Catholic Church (The Mercier Press, 1966), p.59. ‘Therefore both Scripture and Tradition should be accepted with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence…Sacred teaching and Holy Scripture form a single sacred deposit of the Word of God entrusted to the Church.’ Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 9, 10 cited in Herbert M.Carson, The Faith of the Vatican: a fresh look at Roman Catholicism (Evangelical Press, 1996), p.40. See also Catechism, Article II, 82; Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, II, 14.195 ‘All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which by the Church, either in solemn judgement or through the ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed.’ See K. Rahner (ed.), The Teaching of the Catholic Church (The Mercier Press, 1966), p.63.

48

methodological procedure for enquiring into the truth of a

doubtful issue, ‘it is much more profitable to consider

probable things than obviously false things.’196 His intention

remains identical to that of Augustine, whose letter to Jerome

he commends:

‘Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books

of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold

in such honour as to believe their authors have not erred in

any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to

deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account

of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been

their holiness and learning."197

196 Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘Politics’,Bk. 2. C.1, 1, tr. Richard Regan (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2007), p.81. See also ST 1a, q.50, a. 3 ad 3. On Thomas’ use of ‘probable’ arguments see P. Rousselot, L’Intellectualisme de S. Thomas (2nd edit., Paris, 1924), p156 ff.197 ST 1a, 1, 8, ad. 2. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article8 accessed 09/03/16. C.f. the text from Augustine: ‘Ego enim fateor caritati tuae, solis eis Scripturarum libris qui jam canonici appellantur didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendere litteris quod videatur contrarium veri tati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non am bigam. Alios autem ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. " http://www.patrologia-lib.ru/patrolog/hieronym/epist/epist04.htm accessed 09/03/16. ‘it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statementintended to mislead could find a place.’ Augustine, Epistle 82, ch. 3.24, tr. J.G. Cunningham. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1. Ed. Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.

49

Hugh of St Victor (1096-1141), nicknamed ‘Alter Augustinus’ 198

echoes the ‘first’ Augustine by insisting that even the

writings of the Fathers ‘add nothing, but by explanation and a

broader and clearer treatment they amplify the same matter

[contained in the canonical scriptures]’.199

Aquinas continues to affirm this Augustinian principle

throughout his life. In his mature work, On Separate Substances he

insists that Church tradition on matters (such as the creation

of angels) ‘is proved by the authority of the canonical

Scriptures.’200 Whether or not in practice the ‘revelations’ of

doctors within the tradition were so bracketed out by Aquinas

is more doubtful.201 Certainly, from a Protestant point of

view, Aquinas seems to have certain ‘blind spots’ in his

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm., accessed 09/13/16. This seems to have been a well known passage as it is cited also by Abelard in Sic et Non. See Reginald Lane Poole, Illustrations of the history of Medieval thought and learning ( Dover Publications, New York, 1960), p.147. 198 Hugh joined an Augustinian community in Hamersleben against the wishes of his parents, before moving to St Victor in Paris. See Paul Rorem, Hugh of St Victor (Oxford University Press, 2009), p.10; See also the introduction to Hugh of St. Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De Sacramentis)’ tr. Roy J. Deferrari (WIPF & Stock, Eugene, Origon, 2007), p.ix.199 Hugh of St Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, tr. Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), Prologue, VII, p.7.200 Aquinas, De Substantiis Separatis, Treatise on Separate Substances, c. 18, 91. See also c.18.93, 95; 19,99 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), p.1078.201 For instance regarding the speculations of church fathers on when the angels were created Aquinas generously comments: ‘But I do not consider either one of these positions to be contrary to sound teaching because it seems too presumptuous to assert that such great doctors of the Church had strayed from the sound teaching of faith.’ Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise onSeparate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c. 18, 96, tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle Locations 1156-1157.

50

application of this principle (for example in his weak

scriptural proofs for the immaculate conception and perpetual

virginity of Mary,202transubstantiation or the supremacy of the

Bishop of Rome203). But in principle this insistence on the

pre-eminence of canonical tradition addresses the problem of

criteria, raised for instance by Thomas O’Loughlin, for

distinguishing between truth and ‘rubbish’ within the one

tradition,204 after all tradition will on many points

contradict itself even in the case of single authors, such as

Augustine, who made several retractions of his earlier views

in later writings. (The Council of Trent will later address

this issue by the living role of the Magesterium employing the

criterion of a unanimous consensus amongst the fathers on matters

to be believed.)205

It is a moot point, however, which books Augustine

considered to be ‘canonical’ in comparison with Aquinas and 202 CT 224-225.203 Contra Errores Graecorum ch. 32. In this passage Aquinas turns the prima facie meaning (the literal meaning) of Matthew 18 on its head by arguing that instead of ‘little children’ being the greatest, in fact Peter is the greatest – which power is extended to the Bishop of Rome. See also Mark 10:44.204 ‘However, repetition did not come with any guarantee of utility, both the insights and rubbish were preserved equally, for it would be just as arrogant to declare something as rubbish if it had been handed to one as toinnovate. When one was identified so completely with the tradition that onesaw oneself as a member of a single teacher dispersed over time, one could not distance oneself sufficiently to become critically aware, nor evaluate exactly what was being handed on.’ Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ and the Scriptures: the chasm between modern and pre-modern exegesis’, in The Month, 31 (1998), p.483.205 ‘It belongs to her (the Church) to judge the true meaning of Scripture –and that no one dare to interpret the Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers even though such interpretations be not intended for publication.’ Article 215 of the Council of Trent, cited in K.Rahner (ed.), The Teaching of the Catholic Church (The Mercier Press, 1966), p.60.

51

Pseudo-Dionysius. Augustine instructs his readers to ‘omit the

scriptures that are called Apocrypha, because the old fathers,

of whom we had the scriptures, knew not the authors of those

works, wherein, though there be some truths, yet their

multitude of falsehoods makes them of no canonical

authority.’206 Moreover, ‘Outside this canon, if there be any

works going under prophets’ names, they are not of authority

even to better knowledge, because it is doubtful whether they

are the works of those prophets or no. Therefore we may not

trust them, especially when they speak against the canonical

truth, wherein they prove themselves directly false births.’207

An example of these is the so called book of Enoch which Origen

quotes as ‘Scripture,’208 but Augustine doubts is genuine, even

though he believes there was an original prophecy of Enoch,

quoted in Jude which has been lost in antiquity. 209 Yet,

according to his list in City of God, Augustine reckoned the

number of Old Testament books at 44, including (like

Dionysius) Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, but also Tobit, Judith, and

I and II Maccabees. Augustine acknowledges that the books of

Maccabees are not considered canonical by the Jews, but claims

that the Church does so regard them, ‘ because of the vehement

and wonderful sufferings of some martyrs for the law of God

before the coming of Christ.’210 Origen had used them in

206 Augustine, City of God, Book 15, ch.23 tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.91.207 Augustine, City of God, Book 18, ch.33 tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.213.208 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 4, 8.209 Augustine, City of God, Book 15, ch.23 tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.91. See also Book 18, ch.33 tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.212.

52

precisely this way in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. 211 Thomas seems

to accept the book of Wisdom which he points out was not ‘yet’

accepted as canonical in the days of Philo.212 He cites it as

an authority on matters of doctrine.213 However, Thomas’ more

immediate Parisian predecessor, Hugh of St Victor (1096-

1141), ‘the second Augustine,’214 explicitly differentiates

Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and I and II Maccabees as ‘

books which indeed are read, but are not written in the body

of the text or in the canon of authority.’215 This is notably

at variance with the later Council of Trent (1546) which

declared all the books in the Vulgate canonical without

distinction.216

Aquinas also follows Augustine and Jerome rather than

Origen and Dionysius in his preference for the Masoretic text

of Scripture (which Jewish scholars also regarded as more

reliable than the Septuagint by the time of Origen).217 The

210 Augustine, City of God, Book 18, ch.36. tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.211.211 Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, 22, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Pyaer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.56.212Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio, 4.11.213 E.g.‘The souls of the just are in the hand of God.’ (Wis 3:1), Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c.20, 110 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West HartfordCN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle Location 1345.214 Hugh was associated with an Augustinian community in Hamersleben before he moved to Paris. See Paul Rorem, Hugh of St Victor (Oxford University Press, 2009), p.10.215 Hugh of St Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, tr. Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), Prologue, VII, p.7.216 See F.F.Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Paternoster, 1970), p.135.217 Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church (SCM,1985), p.11. For Augustine’s view, see City of God, Bk.18, ch.43. tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 2, p.216.

53

Latin Vulgate used by Aquinas was translated from the Masoretic

Hebrew and Aramaic text by Jerome between 382 and 405 CE,

rather than from the Greek Septuagint composed in Alexandria and

favoured by Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius. Pseudo-Dionysius is

very much a Hellenised Christian. Rorem argues from a number

of passages that he knew no Hebrew,218although as Rosemary

Arthur demonstrates, this evidence is not conclusive.219

Indeed, since other evidence points to Dionysius as a Syrian

ecclesiastic, this would indicate at least a knowledge of

Syriac which is a variant of the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew

spoken by Jesus. Aquinas, however, is a Latinised Christian

who knows virtually no Greek and relied heavily on the Latin

translations.220 So, Aquinas’ choice of Jerome’s Vulgate is an

implicit acknowledgement of the importance of the ‘literal’

sense of Scripture and of the importance attached to

uncovering this sense.221 We will return to the importance of

the literal sense later in this paper.

5. The authority and identity of Hierotheus

If the fathers allowed an ancillary role for extra-Biblical

tradition and extra-Biblical philosophy, at times Dionysius

218 CH 7.205B 7f.; CH 7, (205B); CH 13, (300B); EH 4, (481C); EH 4, (485A-B). Paul Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p.176, n.115. 219 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.19-20.220 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.163.221 See Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), pp. 31-33..

54

appears to go further by implying in some case its superior

authority, when it is ‘free from writing’ and ‘more

immaterial.’222 Such appears to be the case with the oral

tradition purportedly received from the esteemed mentor and

hierarch, Hierotheus which was later to be put into written

form under the title ‘Elements of Theology’ ).223

Dionysius boldly endows the writings of Hierotheus with the

status 224 in relation to the ‘divinely anointed

scriptures themselves.’225 Does this mean that for Dionysius,

the Hierothean writings possess a parallel or equal authority

to that of the canonical scriptures? One scholar who reads

Dionysius this way is Istvan Perczel who argues that it refers

to a no longer extant,226hidden set of doctrines which

222 EH 1, 4, 376B-376C, p.198-199. This follows a similar line of thought regarding the alleged inferiority of the written form in Plato’s Letter 2 (if not authentic to Plato – at least Platonic) in which Plato, perhaps ironically declares: ‘ it is not possible that what is written down should not get divulged. For this reason I myself have never yet written anything on these subjects, and no treatise by Plato exists or will exist, but thosewhich now bear his name belong to a Socrates become fair and young. Fare thee well, and give me credence; and now, to begin with, read this letter over repeatedly and then burn it up.’ (314C tr. R.G. Bury. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 7 Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966).223 DN 2.9 (648B) and probably EH 2.1224 Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 6, 75.225 DN 3.2 (681B).226 Although, intriguingly, Dr Westcott has discovered a 5th century writer called Stephen Bar Sudhaili, abbot of a monastery in Edessa who composed awork under the pseudonym of ‘Hierotheus’ which contains a similar style of writing and similar doctrines to Pseudo-Dionysius (emanationism – similar to Proclus, nine orders of angels arranged in a triad, unknowing and ascentto the one beyond distinction, universalism, ‘that God may be all in all’).This has been translated from the Syriac by Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886). Westcott concludes that Sudhaili of Edessa was a direct influence onthe Pseudo-Dionysius whom he dates 480-520. See Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus, (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 2, but Rosemary Arthur argues that the Dionysian corpus is a

55

Dionysius expounds without directly quoting.227 Aquinas on the

other hand in Expositio in Dionysium De Divinis Nominibus rules this

possibility out in order to keep Dionysius within the

boundaries of orthodoxy. The teaching of Hierotheus in

Aquinas’ rendition of this passage has ‘a certain second authority

from the expressions of canonical scripture, to which no other

authority can be equalled ’228 Thus, following the same principle we

have seen him use in regard to the status of the creeds,

Aquinas preserves the supremacy of Scripture for Dionysius.

Whether or not one agrees with Perczel or Aquinas, it is clear

that from the perspective of Dionysius, there is no conflict

between the canonical scriptures and the Hierothean tradition

polemic against the kind of Origenism encountered in The Book of the Holy Hierotheus. See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.15-19. Kyriakos, Patriarch of Antioch ( 973-817) is cited byBar ‘Ebraia, The Book of Directions concerning ecclesiastical canons and civil laws, c. 7, section 9 as an authority for the view that Bar Sudhaili claimed to be Heriotheus. ‘The book entitled that of Hierotheus is not by him but probably by the heretic Stephen Bar Sudhaili.’ (Frothingham p. 65). Frothingham also cites John of Dara of the 8th century that the Book of Hierotheus was ‘skillfully written by another in his name’, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 66. Istvan Perczel regards this book as an integral part of the original Syriacreception of the Corpus Dionysiacum which reveals an Origenist milieu, later to be diluted in the subsequent Greek reception. See Istvan Perczel, ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M.Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp.27-41. 227 See Istvan Perczel, ‘Pseudo-Dionysius and Palestinian Origenism’ in Joseph Patrick (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present (Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, Leuven, 2001), p.280. Karlfried Froehlich observes that Dionysian teaching was exploited by Thomas More and John Fisher to bolster their convictions abouttradition as a second source of revelation in their critique of Luther. See‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’ in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.37.228 Aquinas, Expositio In De Divinis Nominibus, section 3:2, tr. Harry C. Marsh, ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio,Phd Dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1994), p.333.

56

which is ‘a tradition at one with scripture.’229 Unlike the

modern penchant for innovation, Dionysius protested, ‘I do not

aim foolishly to introduce new ideas.’230 Indeed, ‘if…someone

is entirely at loggerheads with scripture, he will be far

removed also from what is my philosophy.’231

Whilst Rosemary Arthur has traced a number of alchemists

named ‘Hierotheus’ both before and after Dionysius, from the

fourth century to the ninth century,232 it is possible that,

just as Dionysius constructed the term hierarchy, he also

constructed the character of ‘Hierotheus’ (literally ‘sanctified

by God’ or ‘priest of God’) as a codename for Proclus (d.

485), the head of the Athenian academy233 in which case the

could refer to the classic text of the same

name by Proclus.234 This thesis is consistent with the literary

fiction of Dionysius’ own identity, the motive of which is 229 DN 1.4 (592B).230 DN 3, (684C-D).231 DN 2 (640A). tr.Luibheid, p.60.232 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.37-38.233 K. Emery, ‘The Commentaries of Denys the Carthusian’, in Boiadjiev, Kapriev, Speer ed, Die Dionysius-Rezeption im Mittelalter (Societe Internationale pour l’Etude de la Philosophie Medievale, Recontres de Philosophie Medieval, 9, Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2000), p.240 n.59 See also Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969), pp. 15, 26, 28. However, Hans Urs Von Balthasar is unconvinced by this theory on the grounds that Hierotheus’ Elements is described as an exposition of Scripture (DN 3.2, 684). Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr. by Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V., (T & T Clark, 1995), p. 157 n 32.234 This thesis seems more plausible than Rosemary Arthur’s contention that Hierotheus was a Jewish mystic and rabbi. Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysiusas Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (Londonand New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.28.

57

unclear, but which symbolises a ‘convert’ to Christianity

schooled in Athenian Platonism.235 Marinus, successor to

Proclus at the school of Athens, and writing within months of

his death, records that Proclus himself ‘evaded the notice of

the mob’236 through acting discreetly in his devotion to other

gods. The ‘mob’ for Marinus was the Christians, who by this

time were persecuting Platonists.237 The coincidence of the

well established literary dependence of Dionysius on

Proclus’238 teachings on Eros with a reference to a work called

Hymns of Yearning ( ascribed to Hierotheus in

Divine Names 4, (713B239lends credence to the theory that

‘Hierotheus’ is a codename for Proclus. Hierotheus is

described as a hymnwriter in Divine Names 3.2 (684A); which

parallels the life of Proclus himself240 who, according to

Marinus, used to compose hymns even as he drifted in and out

235 Acts 17:34236 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 29 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp.82, 87, 89, 93, 95, 97 See also H.D. Saffrey, Proclus: Hymnes et Prieres (Paris, 1994), p.104. 237 Helen S. Lang and A.D.Macro point out that there was persecution of Platonists after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empirec. 380. Proclus, De Aeternitate, (On the Eternity of the World), tr. Helen S. Lang and A.D.Macro (University of California Press, 2001), Introduction by Helen S. Lang and A.D.Macro, p 6.238 Notably on his teachings about eros and evil in DN 4 and also the ontological basis of his hierarchy.239 See the introduction to Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon (Princeton University Press, 1987), ‘his hymns were often composed at night, or early in the morning, sometimes as the result of a dream.’ p.xiii. In turn Proclus credits the source of some of his belief in triads as arising from certain ‘theologians..in song.’ Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon (Princeton University Press, 1987), Book 6, 1090, p.438.240 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp.82, 87, 89, 93, 95, 97 See also H.D. Saffrey, Proclus: Hymnes et Prieres (Paris, 1994).

58

of sleep.241 On this theory, the ‘tradition at one with

Scripture’ referred to in The Divine Names would be the

Neoplatonic tradition of the Athenian school. R.F.Hathaway

points out that in Epistle 10, addressed to John (perhaps the

most ‘Platonic’ of the apostles in his teaching on the Logos),

Dionysius presents himself as continuing John’s work by his

reference to ‘those who come after you’ and ‘becoming at one

with’ John’s teachings242 (in spite of being ostensibly the

disciple of Paul).243 Dionysius jeopardises his pseudo-identity

as a disciple of Paul by adverting to since for Paul

this is a perjorative term applied to principles which are

‘weak and beggarly’, which hold people in ‘bondage’ and which

‘by nature are no gods’ (Galatians 4: 3, 8-9),244 although the 241 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 24, translated by Mark Edwards inNeoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.95.242 Epistle 10, 1120A, discussed by Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition oforder in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969), p. 64.243 It is notable that for a supposed convert of the apostle Paul, Dionysius deploys none of the distinctly Pauline themes such as justification, redemption, reconciliation etc. through the Cross. ‘Cette christologie rend parfaitement compte du johannique. Mais elle ignore totalement le ‘je ne veux savoir qu’un chose: Jesus Christcrucifie,’ affirmation centrale de la foi paulinienne. Une telle constationpiquante quand on pense que l’auteur se pretend être un converti de l’apotre Paul..’ J.M.Hormes, ‘ Quelques reflexions a propos du pseudo-Denysl’Areopagite et de la mystique Chrétienne en general’ in ‘Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuseus’27 (1947), p.53 cited in Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), p.64. Rosemary A.Arthur agrees: ‘Paul’s crucified Christ, whose blood redeems us, the SecondAdam whose obedience makes up for the disobedience of the first Adam, is absent from Dionysius’ theology.’ See Arthur, Rosemary A. Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria, London: Routledge, 2008/2016 p.94.244 W. Schmithals identifies the of Colossians 2:18 as fallen angels in ‘The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis’ in A.H.B.Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn (eds.), The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh, 1993), p.118.

59

term does have a positive connotation in Hebrews 5:12245 which

Dionysius believed to be Pauline. Dionysius informs us that

his aim in writing the Divine Names is ‘to explicate and to

separate the condensed and singular mental gymnastics of that

man’s most powerful intellect,’246 since his book was ‘too

lofty’247 for ‘Timothy’ (the purported recipient of Dionysius’

treatise). This man is commended as second only to the apostle

Paul as his ‘elementary instructor.’248 Furthermore, Dionysius

deploys a technical term ‘sympathy,’ drawn from the vocabulary

of theurgy to describe his master.249

Does this mean that he sees the real referent of the

symbolic teaching of the Christian Scriptures (or as he

prefers to name them250) as truths discovered by Proclus, just 245 s s 246 DN 3, (681B), tr. in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 69.247 DN 3, (681B), tr. in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 69.248 DN 2, (648D-649A); ); DN 3, (681B), tr. in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 69.249 DN 2.9, (648B). See footnote 121 in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.65 and E.R.Dodds, “Theurgy” in Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Clarendon, Press, Oxford, 2004), p.292. Theurgy was a form of ritualistic magic using the Chaldean Oracles as its sacred text. s is used in Proclus, The Elements of Theology, props. 28; 34;140. On theurgy see Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978. However this term also has a Biblicalprecedence in Hebrews 4:15.250 A term with some background in the Christian scriptures themselves as a self reference (Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11) and the early fathers ( 1 Clement 53.1; 62.3; Athanasius, Letter to Serapion 1.15), but also conveniently a term used of writings sacred to the Neoplatonists such as the Chaldean Oracles, (perhaps as a result of interaction with Christian thought) which may indicate that the two are at one in the mind of Dionysius. See also the use of the term in John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae), Book , ed. I.P. Sheldon-Williams with the collaboration of Ludwig Bieler, (Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968,

60

as Proclus in turn read Plato as an allegorical representation

of the deeper truths of the Proclean system?251 Does it mean

that ultimately the Christian dogmas can be reduced to Proclus,

in the same way that Hegel (himself heavily influenced by

Proclus), saw the doctrines of Christianity, including the

Trinity as only a coded symbol (Vorstellung) of his own more

‘lucid’ philosophy, which he hubristically proclaimed ‘the

consummate religion’?252 If Hierotheus is to be identified with

Proclus then this could be one understanding of Dionysius’ aim

following Divine Names 3, (684D):

‘ I have decided to put pen to paper. I do not aim foolishly

to introduce new ideas. I want only to analyse and with some

510A, p. 191; Book 2, 549A, 567A.251 For example Proclus identifies the figures of Parmenides, Zeno and Socrates as symbolic representations of the One, Life and the Theory of Ideas Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon (Princeton University Press, 1987), section 628, p.27 which in turncan be read as the same reality expressed in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: ‘The names Being, Life and Wisdom are processions of the Godhead, all of which refer equally to God. For Dionysius, the intelligible triad ofBeing, Life and Wisdom exists in God and, I think, can arguably be identified with the Trinity as God’s processions.’ Sarah Klitenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p.47252 For Hegel’s view of religion as sublated by his own philosophy see Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, tr. E. Speirs and J. Sanderson, 3 volumes (NewYork: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962). W.T.Stace writes: ‘It is in this sense, for example, that Hegel calls Christianity the one absolutely true religion, - not because its figurative expressions, as of Father and Son, Creation, Heaven, the fall, etc., can be taken literally, but because the inner meaning and thought content of these will be found to be identical with the principles of true philosophy, i.e. Hegel’s own philosophy.’ See W.T.Stace, The Philosophy of Hegel (Dover, 1955), p. 488. See also p.509 ff. On the Trinity see Hegel, The Encyclopedia Logic, tr. T.F.Geraets, W.A.Suchting and H.S.Harris (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991), Sects. 147R, 260, 265. See also David James, Hegel: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum, 2007), pp. 107-113.

61

orderly detail to expand upon the truths so briefly set down

by Hierotheus.’253

Amongst the key teachings of ‘Hierotheus’ which he shares

with Neoplatonism are the doctrine of divine return: monos,

proodos and epistrophe,254 the distinctive Dionysian theme of God

‘beyond being’ and the division of the heavenly hierarchy into

a triadic order as related in Celestial Hierarchy :

‘ The word of God has provided nine explanatory designations

for the heavenly beings, and my own sacred initiator has

divided these into three threefold groups. According to him,

the first group is forever around God and is said to be

permanently united with him ahead of any of the others and

with no intermediary. Here, then, are the most holy “thrones”

and the orders said to possess many eyes and many wings,

called in Hebrew the “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Following the

tradition of scripture, he says that they are found

immediately around God and in a proximity enjoyed by no other.

This threefold group, says my famous teacher, forms a single

hierarchy which is truly first and whose members are of equal

status. No other is more like the divine or receives more

directly the first enlightenments from the Deity. The second

group, he says, is made up of “authorities,” “dominions” and

“powers.” And the third, at the end of the heavenly

253 DN 3.2.684D tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press,1987), p. 71.254 DN 4, (713A).

62

hierarchies, is the group of “angels,” “archangels,” and

“principalities.”255

Although on the face of it this example might seem like a

trivial taxonomy, it conceals a deeper Proclean metaphysics,

summarised in Proposition 148 of : ‘ Every

divine order has an internal unity of threefold origin, from

its highest, its mean, and its last term.’256 Likewise the

Chaldean Oracles, a favourite text by Proclus and revered as

Scripture by the Neoplatonists proclaims:

ss s 257

The ninefold schema is also typically Neoplatonic, recalling

the ninefold structure of Plotinus’ work Enneads (literally

‘nines’). According to Marinus, Proclus was ‘instructed by the

leader of the Muses,’ namely Rhea, one of the nine goddesses

who governed the nine arts of epic, tragedy, comedy and

pastoral, hymnody, lyric poetry, flute playing, dance,

astronomy and history,258 which is reflected in Proclus’ works 255 CH 6. 2, (200D), tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987),p. 160.256 Proclus, tr. E.R.Dodds (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004), Proposition 148, p.131. C.f. also CH 13. 305B. On the importance of this proposition to Denys’ system see also Wayne Hankey, ‘Dionysian hierarchy in Thomas Aquinas: Tradition and transformation’ in Ysabel de Andia, (ed.), Denys L’Areopagite et sa posterite en orient et en occident (Institut d’EtudesAugustinienne , Paris 1997), p. 417.257 See Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.106.258 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 3 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p67, n.72.

63

In Cratylus and In Timaeus.259 Hierotheus is also presented as passing

on teachings regarding celestial hierarchy in Celestial Hierarchy

13, specifically there regarding the ‘mission of the

seraphim’.260 Dionysius assimilates and effectively canonise

Neoplatonic, Proclean metaphysics into the Christian system.

From the ‘mixing bowl’ comes ‘solid food’ for the perfect,261

‘ a perfection and sameness of an intellectual and stable

order, by virtue of which and during the exercise of a

knowledge which is stable, powerful, unique and indivisible,

the divine things are shared with the intelligible workings of

sense perception. It is in this way that Paul, himself a

recipient of wisdom, imparted truly solid food.’262

This definition of ‘solid food,’ appropriating language from

the writer to the Hebrews),263 simultaneously has striking

parallels with Proclus’ definition of philosophy as given in

his Commentary on the Timaeus:

‘The whole of philosophy is divisible into the study of

intelligible things and the study of parts of the world, and

rightly so, since the ordered whole is itself double, on one

hand intelligible, on the other hand perceptible.’264

259 Proclus, In Cratylus, 103-4; In Timaeus 231C. 260 CH 13. (308A).261 DN 3.2, (681C); EP 9.4, (112A).262 EP 9.4. (1112A).263 Hebrews 5: 12.264 Proclus, In Tim 1,13, 1-3, cited in Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969), p. 106.

64

This reading of Hierotheus as a codeword for Proclus could

account for why Dionysius appears weak on the doctrine of

creatio ex nihilo, since Proclus wrote against this doctrine in his

work, ‘Eighteen arguments on the Eternity of the world against the Christians.’265

When Aquinas wants to find proof texts against the eternity of

the world in Dionysius he chooses an obscure passage from the

tenth chapter of The Divine Names:

‘Therefore Dionysius says in the tenth chapter of On the Divine

Names, “Sacred Scripture does not exclusively apply the name

‘eternal’ to that which is absolutely ungenerated and truly

eternal, but the incorruptible and immortal and invariable and

unchanging, it calls ‘eternal’, as when it says, ‘Lift up, O

eternal gates’ and the like, which seems especially to be said

concerning spiritual substances.” And afterwards he adds,

“Therefore the eternal beings cannot be thought to be

absolutely coeternal with God, Who is before eternity.”’266

A Proclean understanding of the intentions of the Areopagite

is consistent with his reception by his translator and

interpreter John Scotus Eriugena who assimilated the Proclean

doctrine of an eternal universe divided into intelligible and

sensible, the sensible being a ‘fall’ from the intelligible.

He too clothed this doctrine in the language of the Scriptures

265 Proclus, De Aeternitate, (On the Eternity of the World), tr. Helen S. Lang and A.D.Macro (University of California Press, 2001).266 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c. 18, 94, tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle Locations 1131-1135

65

and the Fathers so that it appeared ‘at one with the

tradition’. Reginald Lane Poole comments:

‘Such is John Scotus’ world. To him, as to Plato, its goodness

is its essential significance: it begins and ends with

thought, with pure being, with God. He fills the outline with

a confidence, a certainty, of the truth of his speculations.

Yet, as though half conscious of their strangeness to the

understanding of his age, he is ever anxious to prove that he

is continuing, not breaking off from, the line of thought

sanctioned by the greatest of the fathers and by the Bible

itself. Authority is still a power for him, but limited,

expanded, refined.’267

However, Dionysius also admits that the writings of

Hierotheus are ‘not quite sufficient’ and that is why he has

felt it necessary to write on other matters not directly

covered by his master. In this case we could interpret

Dionysius as saying that he is going beyond the Neoplatonism

of Hierotheus. The ‘Christian’ Dionysius shines through more

explicitly in terms of affirming creatio ex nihilo when he refers to

the ‘unformed’ light in the first three days of creation

(before the creation of sun and moon) which he calls ‘the

beginning of time’ in The Divine Names chapter 4,268 and he speaks

of knowing the angels ‘from the very beginning’ before he

‘brings them into being.’269 Whittaker draws from evidence in 267 Reginald Lane Poole, Illustrations of the history of Medieval thought and learning ( Dover Publications, New York, 1960), p.57.268 DN 4, (700A). See also DN 4, (700C).269 DN 7, (869A).

66

Marinus that Proclus had followers who were ‘hearers’ (akroatai)

as well as closer ‘disciples’ (zelotai) of his philosophy and

surmises that Dionysius may have been one of the former rather

than the latter.270 This is implied in his adoption of the

Christian pseudonym Dionysius rather than one denoting a

lineage from Proclus. Proclus himself for instance in Alcibiades

notes that Socrates often called people by their father’s

names,271 and this principle extends to philosophical fathers

such as Proclus’ mentors Syrianus and Plutarch, part of the

‘Hermaic chain’.272 There are apparent departures from Proclean

metaphysics in the Dionysian system, for example the

Trinitarian framework of his theology which transfers the

properties of the second hypostasis of the Plotinean/Proclean

metaphysics back to the One himself who is now understood to

be the source of unity and distinction as the Christian

Trinity, in line with Cappodocean orthodoxy.273 But the data is

equivocal in that even the name of ‘Trinity’ has no ultimacy

for Dionysius.

270 Thomas Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists: A study in the history of Hellenism (Cambridge University Press, 1901), p.188. See Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 38 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.114. See also the same terms used of Plotinus by Porphyry in Life of Plotinus 7, ibid, p.14.271 Proclus, Alcibiades, 24.272 See Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 29 translated by Mark Edwardsin Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.104; 26, pp.97-98.273 DN 1.5 (592A), (593B); DN2.3, (640B-C); (641A-641B); 13.13, (981); CH 7.4 (212C); EH 2.7 (396D); EH 6. (533B). See Sarah Klitenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, (Ashgate, 2007), ch. 3 who point to parallels in Basil, De Spiritu 18, 45; Adversus Macarium 89, 25-90; Gregory of Nyssa De differentia et hypostaseos 4; Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, 28, 1; Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, tr. Asheleigh Moorhouse (The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, Clayton, Wisconsin, 1963), pp.100-101.

67

‘.we use the names Trinity and Unity for that which is beyond

every name, calling it the transcendent being above every

being. But no unity or trinity, no number or oneness, no

fruitfulness, indeed nothing that is or is known can proclaim

that hiddenness beyond every mind and reason of the

transcendent Godhead which transcends every being. There is no

name for it nor expression.’274

Could it be that the final truth of which the Trinity

enigmatically points turns out to be the truth already

discovered in Proclean metaphysics? E.R.Dodds notes that the

Neoplatonic idea of the intelligible world as unity in

distinction found in The Enneads275 and in Proclus, The Elements of

Theology, Prop.176 is taken up in Dionysius to ‘explain’ the

doctrine of the Trinity in Divine Names 2.5.276 Neoplatonic

language of ‘’flowers’ and ‘lights’ are transferred to the Son

and the Spirit from the henads.277 Sammon comments that the Son

is thus seen by Dionysius as a ‘concrete model for how

274 DN 13.3. 981A. tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 129. See also DN 5.2.816C, p.97. ‘[E}ven trinity is a title which must ultimately be understood as falling short of the unknowable Godhead – an idea which can still cause tremors of shock in sometheological circles.’ Deirdre Carambine, The Unknown God, Negative theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena (WIPF and Stock, 2015), p.289.275 Enneads VI.iv.14; V.viii.4276 E.R.Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Clarendon, Press, Oxford, 2004),p.292.277 DN 2.7 (645B); CH 1 (120B-121B). See E.R.Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Clarendon, Press, Oxford, 2004), p.xxviii, footnote 2. The Chaldean Oracles 39 liken the ideas emanating from the Father’s Mind to ‘the Flower ofFire at height of sleepless Time’. See G.R.S.Mead, The Chaldean Oracles (reprinted amazon, 2015), p.28.

68

emanation is manifest in light.’278 This understanding would be

compatible with the way Proclus himself treats the

personalities of Parmenides, Zeno and Socrates as

suprahistorical symbolic representations of the One, Life and

Ideas.279 In other words this data would be consistent with the

thesis that the philosophy of Proclus is the truth of what Christian

doctrines mean as far as Dionysius is concerned. Trinitarian

theology could then be reduced to the Proclean triadic system,

after all doesn’t Dionysius tell us in The Divine Names:

‘Here of course I am in agreement with the scripture writers.

But the real truth of these matters is in fact far beyond

us.’280

The following passage from Proclus’ Commentary on Parmenides

supplies additional evidence of a Neoplatonic understanding of

the ‘Trinity’ divorced from the ‘economic’ history of

orthodoxy:

‘Socrates has reached the final hypothesis regarding communion

of Forms in saying that they all undergo separation and

combination. For the joint presence of these characteristics

in them provides both unconfused unity and inseparable

distinctness to these divine objects, so that while they are

278 Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Wipf and Stock, 2013), p.168.279 Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon (Princeton University Press, 1987), section 628, p.27.280 DN 13.3 (981A), tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987),p. 130.

69

in one another each may preserve its purity. Consequently, he

admires the man who can show that the intelligible Forms can

be both unified and distinct, that they do not lose their

unmixed purity through union and nor their divine communion

through separation, but are both distinguished and combined

simultaneously by the bond of ‘that wonderful god, Eros,’ who,

according to the Oracle:

Sprang forth first out of Intellect,

His unifying fire clothed with fire, to mix the mixing-bowls

From the Source, directing towards them the bloom of his fire.281

It is this joint mingling and distinctness that Socrates wants

to see among the partless intelligible realities; to this he

invites his companions’ attention, applauding this insight

which unites while it distinguishes the intellectual powers

governing the sense world – ideal Likeness and Unlikeness,

Plurality of the realm and Unity, divine Rest and Motion.’282

We recall that it was the references to Proclus’ hymns to

Eros which finally unmasked the pseudonymity of ‘Dionysius’ and

so too, a citation here from Proclus regarding the ‘mixing

281 Chaldean Oracles, fragment 42 translated as ‘Flower of his own Fire’ by G.R.S.Mead, The Chaldean Oracles (reprinted amazon, 2015), p.30. See also Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 101, n.6.282 Proclus, In Parmenides 768.34-769.22 tr. Dillon, cited in Sarah Klitenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling theHellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p. 37.

70

bowl’ from the Chaldean Oracles283 may give a clue to his true

intent, since the image reappears in Epistle 9 of Dionysius,

which treats the ‘correct’ interpretation of holy scriptures

(which are also described as ‘fire’ in 1108C in parallel with

Proclus’ quotation from the Chaldean Oracles). Dionysius rejects

a literal meaning of Scriptural descriptions of God, which can

be tolerated amongst ‘the masses’ but not, he says, amongst

‘the wise’.

‘So then, scripture quite rightly sings the praise of that

kindly wisdom, and indeed it is nowhere near enough to call it

wise. For it prepares a mysterious mixing bowl, and, having

first made ready some solid food, it pours a sacred drink

into it and then, generously, with a great cry, it beckons to

all who have need of it..’284

The mixing bowl image is here associated with Wisdom. (We

have seen in section 3 Dionysius’ fondness for Wisdom

literature).These passages again might suggest in veiled form

that the true referent of Scripture is the truth pronounced by

283 G.R.S.Mead comments in The Chaldean Oracles (Amazon, 2015): ‘The Mixing Bowls, or Krat’res, are the Fiery Crucibles in which the elements and soulsof things are mixed. The Mixer is not Love as apart from the Father, but the Mind of the Father as Love, as we learn from the following verses: Having mingled the Spark of Soul with two in unanimity – with Mind and Breath Divine –to them he added, as a third, pure Love, the august Master binding all. (I.P. Cory, Ancient Fragments (London, 2nd ed., 1832), pp.239-280). Compare this the Mixing of Souls in ‘The Virgin of the World’ treatise: ‘For taking breath from His own Breath and blending with it Knowing Fire, He mingled them with other substances which have no power to know; and having made the two – either with other - - one, with certain hidden Words of Power, He thus set all the mixture going thoroughly’ (G.R.S.Mead, Thrice Great Hermes (London, 1906).’284 EP 9.3 (1109B) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works, (Paulist Press, 1987), p.285.

71

Proclus. Ronald Hathaway follows this line of enquiry, citing

the evidence of Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus 41d as a

further allusion to a ‘mixing bowl.’285 Here, Proclus follows

the interpretation of Iamblichus that the ‘mixing bowl’

(Greek ‘krater’) in Plato’s Timaeus represents ‘ the one

vivific cause, comprehensive of the whole of life, and

collective of it; itself sustaining itself, by certain

demiurgic reasons, which pervade through all life, and through

the whole psychic orders…’286 There are also other allusions to

Eros in this letter which Hathaway notes such as the

description of ‘that source of life, flowing into itself…et al’

in EP 9. 1104C.287 This evidence supports Anders Nygren

conclusion that: ‘..the fundamental Neoplatonism is but

scantily covered with an exceedingly thin Christian veneer.’288

6. Dionysian Christology

It is however a perennial chicken and egg dilemma whether

the Bible should be interpreted philosophically or whether

philosophy should be interpreted Biblically since all

interpretations will involve a priori presuppositions.289 Against

285 Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius:A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969), pp. 104-25286 Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato, Vol II, tr. Thomas Taylor (Prometheus Trust, 1998), Book 3, 3247, 315A.287 Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius:A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969), p 114.288 Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.576.289 For example a parallel dilemma occurs in Maimonides. See Luis Cortest, Philo’s Heirs: Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas (Boston:Academic Studies Press, 2017), pp.40-53.

72

the reduction of Dionysius to Proclus is the sometimes

overlooked aspect of Dionysian Christology.290 Dionysius

presupposes and specifically refers to the historical Jesus as

God incarnate in a number of passages of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,291

Celestial Hierarchy292 and the Divine Names.293 Epistles 3 and 4 reference

the Incarnation, the Virgin birth and the miracle of walking

on water. Epistle 7 relates the eclipse at the time of the

crucifixion.294 Epistle 8 quotes Jesus’ words from the Cross

(citing Luke 23:34) which he calls ‘the expiation for our

sins,’295his grace towards the Samaritans in Luke 9: 52-55 and

his telling of the parable of the Prodigal Son; CH 4.4 (181B)

refers to the nativity narrative and Gesthemene (181C).

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.1.553A references his bodily resurrection

as a basis for rejecting the doctrine that bodily existence

will be dissolved.296

Historically, as discussed earlier, Dionysius appears on the

scene in 533 in the context of a dispute over Chalcedonian

orthodoxy.297 Monophysite theologians contended that Christ had

a single nature which was a composition of divine and human. 290 But see Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2016) for a recent groundbreaking analysis of Dionysian Christology. See also Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Pickwick Publications, Wipf and Stock, 2013), pp.166-171; Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), c.4, pp.101-141.291 EH 3, (432D); (441A); (444A); EH 4.3.10 (484A-B); EH 5.4 (512B-C)292 CH 4 (181B-C); 7, (209B)293 DN 1.1 (592A); DN 2.3 (640C); DN 2.6 (644C); DN 2.9 (648A); DN 2.10 (649A).294 EP 7 (1081A)295 EP 8 (1096B) citing 1 John 2:2.296 Also condemned in the Wisdom of Solomon 2:2-5.297 See footnote 35 above.

73

Severus of Antioch (465-538) on behalf of the monophysites

cited the writings of Dionysius (in particular Epistula 4

regarding ‘one theandric nature’) as an authority in their

favour.298 Severus, along with over 55 monophysite bishops was

sent into exile for his beliefs.299 Epistle 10 may reflect this

background of persecution of the monophysites between 521-

531AD and another motivation for the pseudonymity of the

author:

‘As for those who deal unjustly with you and who wrongly

imagine that they have banished the sun of the gospel, I have

good reason to criticise them but, above all, I pray for them

in the hope that they will abandon the evil which they are

inflicting.’300

298 In a report entitled, Innocentii Maronitae epistula de collation cum Severianuis habita.cited in Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Wipf and Stock, 2013), p.89. Riches points out that the citation from Severus is different to the reading as ithas come down to us, possibly glossed by John of Scythopoli, which speaks instead of ‘new theandric activity.’ See Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2016), p.103. See also R. Roques, L’Univers Dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys (Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1954), p.311. Sarah Klittenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonic tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p. 2. Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili,the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus, (Leyden: E.J.Brill, 1886), p. 3. 299 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.321.300 EP 10, (1117C) cited in Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York,Routledge, 2008/2016), p.68.

74

Rosemary Arthur collates old and new evidence for the thesis

that the real ‘Dionysius’ was in fact the monophysite, Sergius

of Reshaina which seems plausible.301

To complicate matters further there was evidently a schism

between the more moderate monophysites such as Themistius who

used the Dionysian term ‘theandric’ of Christ’s will or activity

against those radically docetic monophysites who insisted on

speaking of one divine will or activity and in consequence

denied Christ’s human ignorance. The monophysitism of

Themistius can be seen, according to Van Roey and P.Allen as

‘an attempt to do justice to the humanity of Christ.’302

Dionysius speaks of ‘new theandric activity’ of Jesus Christ (in

Epistle IV and in the Divine Names303 ), who was born of a virgin and

‘became quite truly a human.’304 It is a characteristic

hallmark of Dionysian Christology, in common with Themistian

Christology, to refer to Christ’s humanity and divinity in

tandem in a way reminiscent of Cyril’s Christology before the

Chalcedonian settlement.305 Clearly the moderate camp were

closer to Chalcedon and eventually reached some kind of

rapprochement306 which is why Maximus would be able to later able 301 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.116-121, 137-139, 184-191.302 A. Von Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite texts of the Sixth Century (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Orientalistiek, 1994), p.15.303 EP 4 (1072C); c.f. DN 2.9 (648A); DN 2.3 649A. See also EH 3.444A.304 EP 4 (1072B) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works, (Paulist Press, 1987), p.264.305 EH 3 (429C) speaks of ‘the divine works of Jesus the man.’ See also AaronRiches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2016).306 A. Von Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite texts of the Sixth Century (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Orientalistiek, 1994), p.15.

75

to adopt a moderate monophysite Dionysius into the

Chalcedonian fold307 (though this also opens up the possibility

that the text was ‘corrected’ by John of Scythopolis) which

consequently augmented the reach of the corpus.308

A probable influence on Dionysian Christology is the

contemporary monophysite, John of Tella who gives as his

confession of faith (dated 519-522AD):

‘We confess that one union is made of divinity and of

humanity: not that the natures of which the union has been

made have been changed, nor have they been confused; not that

the nature of divinity has been turned into flesh, or that the

nature of the humanity has been turned into divinity. We say

that the union has taken place, but it is one nature of the

living Word which has become flesh and blood from the Virgin.

The union of the Son who has become body is made naturally and

hypostatically without change, without confusion, not in

appearance and form, and not in imagination, but inasmuch as

he has become like us in all respects except for sin; there

remains one incarnate nature, without change and without

division.’309

307 See Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982), pp. 599-600.308 See A. Von Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite texts of the Sixth Century (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Orientalistiek, 1994), pp.4-15. 309 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.111.

76

It is difficult to see how this position is coherent, since a

composition of nature is being taught here while at the same

time the two ‘x’ s which make up this composition are also

called ‘natures’ when monophysitism affirms only one nature.

It is also difficult not to reach the same conclusion as A.A.

Luce that the (incoherent) philosophy of monism is the

backdrop to monophysitism.310 It may have ploughed the field

for Islam to later plant its own version of a one nature

doctrine in the seventh century. But however one may judge the

Christology of the monophysites and even if the Areopagite is

located amongst their number, he still belongs self-evidently

to a Christian and not to a pagan sect. Although Rosemary Arthur regards Dionysian Christology as

close to that of Eutyches,311 Aquinas makes use of the

Dionysian texts in his Compendium Theologiae to defend

Chalcedonian orthodoxy against the ‘one nature’ error of

Eutyches and other heresies.312 Speaking of the example of

Christ touching and healing the leper, Aquinas writes:

‘ For this reason Dionysius calls the human activity of

Christ theandric, that is ‘divine-human,’ because actions of this

sort proceeded from His human nature in such a way that the

power of the divinity was operative in them.’313 310 See A.A. Luce, Monophysitism Past and Present: A Study in Christology (London, SPCK, 1920), p.17f..311 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.95.312 Compendium Theologiae 206. See also ST 3, q.45, a.2.313 Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae 212, tr. Cyril Vollert, S.J., in Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Sophia Institute Press,

77

A fuller treatment of Aquinas against one nature Christology

is found in In Divinus Nominibus 2.3., which I quote in full:

‘ And he says that it is discrete, i.e., pertaining to one

person simply, the supersubstantial Word, i.e. the son of God,

to be made according to us, i.e., a human being like us in

nature, by flesh received from us, not brought down from

heaven, according to Valentinus, totally, the souls or

intellect not subtracted, according to Arius and Appollinaris,

and truly, not fantastically, according to Manicheus. And not

only is the incarnation itself discrete, but also the actions

and passions of God incarnate; whatever things are with a

certain election and segregation from others attributed to

Christ according to a consideration of his humanity, as to be

conceived, to be born, to eat, to drink, to sleep, to be

crucified and others of this kind. For in these things the

Father and the Spirit communicated according to no notion,

since neither of them was incarnated or died, unless perhaps

someone might say they communicated in the foregoing according

to will befitting the divine goodness in our behalf: for the

Father and the Holy Spirit accepted the incarnation of the Son

and the passion and others of this kind and similarly they

communicated according to every divine operation placed above

creatures and ineffable to us, which Christ did while made

according to us, i.e. made a human being, remaining invariable

as God and the Word of God. For he was not a human such that

he left divinity; whence existing as a human being he had Manchester, New Hampshire, 1993), p.251.

78

divine operation, which is common to himself and to the Father

and to the Holy Spirit. And thus here is destroyed the error

of those who posit one operation in Christ, through this that

he attributes to Christ divine operation common to the whole

Trinity and human operation proper to himself..’314

Interestingly Aquinas on occasions makes use of Dionysian

texts in his objectios to show how they might be misconstrued

against orthodoxy. Is this because there were theologians in

Thomas’ day who were using them in such a way? Whether these

were actual objections or straw men constructed as part of a

university disputatio315, Thomas shows in each case how Dionysius

is to be harmonised with orthodoxy. So, for example, in Summa

Theologiae 3, on the question ‘Whether the union of the Word

Incarnate took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?’ Aquinas

uses Dionysius Divine Names 1 to raise the objection:

‘Further, the hypostasis of the Word is not included in any

genus or species, as is plain from [I:3:5]. But Christ,

inasmuch as He is made man, is contained under the species of

man; for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1): "Within the limits of our

nature He came, Who far surpasses the whole order of nature

supersubstantially." Now nothing is contained under the human

species unless it be a hypostasis of the human species. 314 Aquinas, Expositio In De Divinis Nominibus, section 2.3, 69-84, tr. Harry C. Marsh, ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio,Phd Dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1994), pp. 314-315.315 On the structure of the medieval disputatio see introduction by Mary C. FitzPatrick to Aquinas, On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), pp.3-11.

79

Therefore in Christ there is another hypostasis besides the

hypostasis of the Word of God; and hence the same conclusion

follows as above.’316

As we have seen on other questions, such as the

comprehensibility of God, it is highly unlikely that Thomas’

use of Dionysius indicates that Aquinas actually believed

Dionysius to be heterodox, but only that some of his teachings

could be mistakenly used (and perhaps actually were so used)

in the service of heterodoxy. Hence the correct way to

accommodate Dionysius would be to say:

‘In created things a singular thing is placed in a genus or

species, not on account of what belongs to its individuation,

but on account of its nature, which springs from its form, and

in composite things individuation is taken more from matter.

Hence we say that Christ is in the human species by reason of

the nature assumed, and not by reason of the hypostasis.’317

On the other hand, at other times on questions regarding

the persons of the Trinity, Aquinas specifically uses

Dionysius as an auctoritate to demonstrate his point, so in

Summa Theologiae 3.3.4 on the question of whether all three

persons of the Trinity must take on flesh in the incarnation,

he responds:

316 ST III, q. 2, a.3, obj. 3317 ST III, q. 2, a.3, ad 3.

80

‘On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii) that the

mystery of the Incarnation pertains to "discrete theology,"

i.e. according to which something "distinct" is said of the

Divine Persons.’318

In summary, then, whether Chalcedonian, monophysite or some

tertium quid, the Christological texts in Dionysius are clear

testimony to a Christian conception of an economic trinity and

not merely a metaphysical Proclean one.319

7. The Origenist link

The paradigm which I will argue holds the widest explanatory

power is that suggested by Istvan Perczel and Rosemary Arthur,

that Pseudo-Dionysius was an ‘Origenist’ Christian. Origen

(185-253AD) was a contemporary of Plotinus and fellow citizen

of Alexandria,320 following Clement, the Alexandrian father.321

To explain Dionysian thought in relation to Origen would

318 ST III, q. 3, a.4 sed contra.319 ‘For Dionysius, the concrete personhood of Jesus reveals how divine Goodness distils its plenitude as an anagogical power. Similar to how beauty and light correspond to the good, Jesus Christ is understood as a more concrete and present manifestation of the hidden God who is ever beyond all thought.’ Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Wipf and Stock, 2013), p.143.320 For more on Alexandria see Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophyin the Third Century (SCM, 1985), pp.3-8. See also Acts 18:24.321 Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 1995), cc.10-11.

81

simultaneously account for both his Neoplatonic influences

(including his justification of the ‘eros’ motif) and his high

(even if slightly suspect) Christology, since both of these

streams flourished in Alexandria.322 Both Origen and Proclus

began their studies as grammatikoi that is to say, they were

trained in the interpretation and criticism of Greek

literature, especially the interpretation of the Illiad and

Odyssey of Homer (750-650BC).323 If Proclus read Plato as an

allegorical representation of the deeper truths of the

Proclean system,324 Origen also read the Hebrew Scriptures as

allegorical representations of Christian truths325 which at

times overlapped with insights from Plato.326 For both writers,

difficulties in the text were a clue that a more elevated

322 Istvan Perczel, ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp.27-41. 323 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 8 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 67. See also Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015, ch.2.324 For example, Proclus identifies the figures of Parmenides, Zeno and Socrates as symbolic representations of the One, Life and the Theory of Ideas. See Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon (Princeton University Press, 1987), section 628, p.27 which in turn can be read as the same reality expressed in the Christian doctrine ofthe Trinity: ‘The names Being, Life and Wisdom are processions of the Godhead, all of which refer equally to God. For Dionysius, the intelligibletriad of Being, Life and Wisdom exists in God and, I think, can arguably beidentified with the Trinity as God’s processions.’ Sarah Klitenic Wear and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes (Ashgate, 2007), p.47325 See Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, (Illinois: IVP, 2015).326 Anders Nygren cites the example of Origen’s adoption of Plato’s myth of the birth of Eros (Symposium 23) to agree with the biblical story of the Fall (Contra Celsum 4.39). See Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.369. See also the reworking of ‘Know thyself’ in Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary, Book 2, section 5.

82

meaning was intended.327 Significantly, Origen shares with

Dionysius an appetite for the ‘solid food’ of Hebrews 5328 and

both ascribe Pauline authorship to it.329 Origen likewise makes

use of the aforementioned ‘mixing bowl’ imagery of both Proverbs

9 and Proclus in his Homily 12 on Jeremiah:330

‘Wisdom invites to her mixing bowl saying “Come eat my bread,

and drink wine which I have mixed for you.” (Prov. 9:5). Thus

there is a wine of Sodom and a wine which wisdom mixes..’

These references strongly suggest that both a Scriptural and a

Neoplatonic tradition were mediated to Pseudo-Dionysius

through Alexandrian Christianity.331 In Pseudo-Dionysius the

metaphor of the mixing bowl occurs specifically in the context

of his laying out a spiritual approach to scriptural

interpretation, a field in which Origen, the former grammateus

in Greek literature was a pioneer.

327 E.g. Origen, On First Principles 4.3.1.328 E.g. Origen, Treatise on the Passover 34.25, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.46.329 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue, p.22, 32; Book 1.4, p.79; Origen, Homily XXVII on Numbers in Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p. 245; On Prayer, Part 2, XXVII.5, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), An Exhortation to Martyrdom, 1, p.139 although in other writings Origen expresses more reservation on this issue; Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, 1, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.41; Eusebius, H.E. VI.25.11-14 in J.Stevenson (ed.), Creeds, Councils and Controversies: documents illustrative of the history of the Church A.D. 337-461 (SPCK, 1966), p.223.330 Origen, Homily 12 on Jeremiah, in Joseph W. Trigg (tr.), Origen (Routledge, New York, 1998), pp.180-181.331 Vladimir Lossky has a useful chapter on the Alexandrian background in The Vision of God, translated by Asheleigh Moorhouse (The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, Clayton, Wisconsin, 1963), ch.3.

83

But the term ‘Origenist’ is contentious and ambiguous, since

there is debate over how many of the teachings condemned as

‘Origenism’ in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553332 were

really taught by Origen himself and how many were the product

of later developments. Opinions regarding Origen were formed

from a controversial translation of his De Principiis made by

Rufinus who had sought to ‘correct’ Origen.333 A significant

further complication is that there were a diversity of ideas

current within Origenism itself, which distinguished itself by

the high value placed on independent and speculative thought.

It is noteworthy that both Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius share

an intellectual humility in offering their readers freedom to

decide between different interpretations of Scripture.334

Origen had an ambivalent view of the sufficiency of Scripture,

suggesting in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (also a favourite

Gospel of Pseudo-Dionysius), that the Scriptures are

‘introductions’ from which the spiritual Christian (unlike

‘the many’) can ‘ascend’ (to a position ‘above 332 The anathemas exist in the manuscript, Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Historicus gr, 7, fols. 84v-86r. See Istvan Perczel, “Pseudo-Dionysius and Palestinian Origenism” in Joseph Patrick (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), p.260, n.1.333 Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 1995), p.101.334 Origen concludes his Treatise on the Passover with the self-deprecating: ‘This is all I can say. May God, after planting within you fruitful beginnings through these pen scratchings, grant that what we have said briefly and inadequately may be brought to completion by those who love reflecion and study. Just as the Logos has assisted us, so may God assist them according to the same gift of grace in Christ.’ Origen, Treatise on the Passover 53, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.56. Compare Pseudo-Dionysius, CH 13. (308A-B). See also Origen, Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, translated by R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), p.144.

84

Scripture (’. In this ascended position the

spiritual Christian may hear ‘unspeakable words’

( like Paul, from the ‘spring of water’ itself.335 We will return to this point later under the sections on

anagogy (11-12). Another coincidence in regard to their

respective position on scripture, which we have noted earlier,

is that both theologians favour the Septuagint (Alexandrian)

translation of the Old Testament,336 which is particularly

serviceable in their defence of using the Greek concept of eros

(since it is not found in the Greek New Testament).

Origen borrows language used of Eros (Cupid), mediated via

Plato, from which he crafts his famous and influential image

of the ‘wound of love’ from Cupid’s arrow.337 Eros becomes a

dominant motif in Dionysius, not only from Proclus, as we have

seen, but also from Origen, whose Commentary on Song of Songs,

335 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 13 in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, New York, 1998), pp.154-155. Greek text from Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), tr. Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.48.336 See for example Dionysius’ citation of Deuteronomy 32:8 in CH 9 (260B); 32:9 in CH 9 (261C); 2 Samuel 7:8 in DN 10 (936D); 1 Kings 19:12 in DN 9 (909B); Daniel 9:24, Exodus 15:18 and Psalm 50:1 in DN 12 (969A); Job 5:9, 9:10, 34:24in Ep 7 (1081B); Job 14:4 in EH 7 (561D); Job 21:14 in EH 3 (432C); Psalm 18:1 in DN 5 (816C); Psalm 24:7,9 in DN 10 (937C); Psalm 55:19 in DN 5 (817D); Psalm 77:5 in DN 10 (940A); Psalm 83:1 in DN 9: (909B); Proverbs 4:6-8 in DN 4 (709A); Isaiah 6:2 in CH 7 (212A); Isaiah 9:6 in CH 4 (181D); Isaiah 63:1-2 in CH 7 (209B); Jeremiah 2:12 in Ep 8 (1093D); Jeremiah 17:13 in Ep 9 (1104C); Ezekiel 3:12 in CH 7 (212B); Ezekiel 9:2 in CH 8 (241B); Ezekiel 10:6-8 in CH 8 (241C); Hosea 5:11 in CH 9, (260C); Hosea 13:4 in DN 5(825A); Amos 5:8 in Ep 7 (1080C); Zechariah 1:13 in CH 8 (241A); Zechariah 2:4 in CH 8 (241A); Malachi 2:7 in CH 12 (292C) and EH 7 (561C).337 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies translated by R.P. Lawson (TheNewman Press, 1956), Prologue, p.29; Book 3.8, pp.195-200; Homily 2:8, p.295which references Plato, Symposium 203B-E. The figure of the ‘arrow of eros’ is later taken up by Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies 13 (1048C).

85

Prologue 2,338 turns out to be the ultimate source for

Dionysius’ insistence that the Greek terms ‘eros’ and ‘agape’

can be used interchangeably. This can be seen from the fact

that both writer make use of identical passages from the

Septuagint, namely Proverbs 4:6-8 and Wisdom 8:2 to support this

claim339 as well as the same erroneous appeal to Ignatius.

Dionysius repeats Origen’s misreading of this church father. 340

Aquinas who knew virtually no Greek341 only comprehended the

terms agape and eros through their Latin equivalents caritas,

dilectio and amor (from Saracen’s translation)342 and thus missed

the significance of the debate.343 Whether or not these 338 After an extended discussion of this question he concludes: ‘It makes nodifference, therefore, whether the Sacred Scriptures speak of love (eros), or of charity (agape), or of affection; except that the word ‘charity’ (agape) is so highly exalted that even God Himself is called Charity, as John says.’ Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (TheNewman Press, 1956), Prologue 2, p.32. It must be remembered too that Origen used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible – the Septuagint. Seealso the discussion in David Dawson, ‘Allegorical reading and the embodiment of the soul in Origen’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, 1998), pp.38-43.339 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue, p.29, 198ff, Prologue 2, p.31; Homily 2:8, p.295. Pseudo-Dionysius, Divine Names 4.12 (709A).340 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue 2, p.35; Pseudo-Dionysius, Divine Names 4.12 (709B); Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans 7.2. ‘For in the midst of life I write to you desiring death. My Eros has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of love for material things.’ Harnack shows that Ignatius was referring to the‘eros’ of desire and not to Christ as Origen thought. See Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.390.341 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), p.183.342 Hilduin, Dionysius’ first translator into Latin favours the translation cupiditas for eros in CH 15; DN 4; EP 10. See P.G. Théry, Études Dionysiennes 1: Hilduin ,Traducteur de Denys (Paris : Libraire Philosophique J.Vrin, 1932), p.34.343 ‘When Dionysius defends his use of the word by reference to the twopassages in the Septuagint, where, if not the word itself, at least a kindred word occurs, Thomas cannot see what it is all about. It is a puzzleto him why anyone should need to defend such a correct and accepted theological term as “amor”. He therefore takes Dionysius to mean that the

86

different phonemes have an identical or similar sense to each

other, or whether Nygren is correct that they represent

competing worldviews is a moot point.344 Nygren traces the

putative corruption of agape by eros back through the fathers

to Clement of Rome (though in Clement’s case the evidence for

the eros motif is underdetermined by Nygren’s evidence).345

writers of Scripture have used two words for love (amor and dilectio) quite generally and without distinction. And as regards the two passages of Scripture, Thomas is clearly surprised that Dionysius should have picked onjust these two.’ Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson(SPCK, 1982), p.653, Aquinas, Commentary on the Divine Names. 344Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982).345 Nygren cites the First Epistle of Clement,? as an example of early Christians succumbing to the eros motif while ostensibly holding onto the language of agape. 1 Clement is a letter sent to the Church of Corinth from the Church of Rome, c. 96. According to Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus, its author wasClement of Rome, a bishop of the Church of Rome, Greek by origin See J. Stevenson (ed), A New Eusebius: Documents illustrative of the Church to AD 337 (SPCK, 1977), p.399; W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), pp.9-10. Instead of being a love which descends from God to man unconditionally, Nygren claims that 1 Clement speaks of agape, as the Platonists speak of eros, as an ascent which Clement connects with the theme of beauty (as we have seen the Neoplatonists including Dionysius do) and here specifically deploys the term to make his point: ‘The height to which agape lifts ( us is not to be expressed.’ (Anders Nygren refers to 1 Clement 1.5 in Agape and Eros, tr. PhilipS. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p. 249, but this reference is incorrect. The true reference is 1 Clement 49. 4 which istranslated in W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937) as ‘The height to which love raises us is unutterable’, p. 76.). However, Nygren neglects to mention the emphasis in1 Clement on the grace of God (1 Clement 8.1 tr. W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), p. 53; 65.2,p.85) and the blood of Christ ‘poured out for our salvation.’ (1 Clement 7.4 tr. W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), p. 52. The blood of Christ is also mentioned in 12.7,p. 55; 21.6, p.61. Chapter 16 extensively quotes from Isaiah 53 (pp.57-58)). Indeed, we only need to read a few verses after the reference to (verse 4) that: ‘Because of the love he had towards us, Jesus Christ Our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God.’ (1 Clement 49. 6 tr. W.K.Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK,1937), p.77). Moreover, the rest of the chapter in 1 Clement 49 is largely a paraphrase of Paul’s poem to agape in 1 Corinthians 15 which can hardly be criticised as an alien motif! Nygren reads Clement’s account of agape as ‘the greatest human achievement,’ yet this is difficult to recognise in the

87

The relative intellectual freedom offered by Origenism helps

account for the fact that although Origen himself was not a

monophysite and many Origenists rejected monophysitism,

others, notably the 5th century Syrian, Stephen Bar Sudheili

and Sergius of Reshaina were Origenist monophysites. Rosemary

Arthur goes so far as to argue that Sergius of Reshaina was

the Pseudo-Dionysius,346 a view previously defended by, amongst

others, Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Stephen Bar Sudhaili’s work

was first discovered by Dr. Westcott and was posthumously

entitled The Book of the Holy Hierotheus, itself indicating a common

milieu with Dionysius. Bar Sudhaili was an abbot of a

monastery in Edessa and taught in common with Dionysius the

apophatic doctrine of ‘unknowing,’ a hierarchy of nine orders

of angels arranged in a triad, and the ascent to the One

beyond distinction, emanationism and universalism, ‘that God

passive language of chapter 50 which prays that ‘we might be found in love…’ (1 Clement 50. 1 tr. W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), p.77) and speaks of the saints inheaven as those who have been ‘perfected in love according to the grace of God.’ (1 Clement 50. 3 tr. W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), p.77). In support of Nygren we note that Clement adds that Rahab was justified ‘by faith and hospitality’ (12.1) as Abraham had earlier received the promised son ‘because of his faith and hospitality’ (10.7). 30.3 teaches that we are ‘justified by works and not by words’ (although the canonical book of James would agree)! But this must be read alongside the explicit statement in 32.4 that we are ‘justified not through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understandingor piety or works which we have wrought in holiness, but through faith.’ Itappears that Clement personally knew Paul and that he has substantially preserved his teachings on justification even if it is at times ambiguous (See W.K. Lowther-Clarke, D.D (ed.), The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1937), p.10).346 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.116-123.

88

may be all in all.’347 The intellectual freedom within

Origenism therefore is both a strength and a weakness since it

becomes more of a method than a fixed set of doctrines. The

heretical elements in Origenism and monophysitism would

provide another motive for pseudonymity in a time of

persecution.348 However, Rosemary Arthur argues that some

stylistic features within the Dionysian corpus suggest a

polemical intention against certain ideas found in the variant

Origenism of Stephen Bar Sudheili.

To avoid confusion, we will focus on evidence of a strong

dependence of Pseudo-Dionysius on Origen himself rather than

347 This work has been translated from the Syriac by Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili, the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J. Brill,1886). Westcott concludes that Sudhaili of Edessa was a direct influence onthe Pseudo-Dionysius whom he dates 480-520. See Arthur L. Frothingham Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili, the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus, (Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1886), p. 2. Kyriakos, Patriarch of Antioch (973-817) is cited by Bar ‘Ebraia, The Book of Directions concerning ecclesiastical canons and civil laws, c. 7, section 9 as an authority for the view that Bar Sudhaili claimed to be Heriotheus. ‘The book entitled that of Hierotheus is not by him but probably by the heretic Stephen Bar Sudhaili.’ (Frothingham p. 65). Frothingham also cites John of Dara of the 8th century that the Book of Hierotheus was ‘skillfully written by another in his name’, Stephen Bar Sudhaili, the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus (Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1886), p. 66. Istvan Perczel regards this book as an integral part of the original Syriac reception of the Corpus Dionysiacum which reveals an Origenist milieu, later to be diluted in the subsequent Greek reception. See Istvan Perczel, ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp.27-41. See also Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.15-19; 59-63.348 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.129. A background of persecution is also a common feature of the pseudonymous Wisdom of Solomon. See Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G. Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p.5.

89

upon ‘Origenism.’ A number of striking features in Origen will

be taken up by Pseudo-Dionysius.

1. Both writers stress the essential incomprehensibility of

God. Origen insists from Romans 11:33 that it is

impossible to understand God’s judgements and that no

amount of enlightenment results in arrival at the perfect

grasp of truth. In this too he acknowledges a Jewish

influence on his thinking.349 Dionysius follows suit: in

Divine Names 7.3 he tells us: ‘It might be more accurate to

say that we cannot know God in his nature, since this is

unknowable and is beyond the reach of mind or reason.’

Again, in Celestial Hierarchy 4.3 Dionysius contradicts those

who ‘claim that God has appeared himself and without

intermediaries to some of the saints.’ In fact, he

explicitly asserts that ‘scripture has clearly shown that

“no one ever has seen” or ever will see the being of God in all its

hiddenness.’350

2. Instead, for Dionysius, also in agreement with Origen, we

know God only indirectly or paradigmatically351 from those

creatures which are ‘in a sense projected out’ of

himself.352 Both Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius construct a

Neoplatonic, symbolic cosmos on the basis of Paul’s

teaching that the invisible truths are seen in the

created visible ones (Romans 1:18-20) and the author of

349 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 3, 14.350 CH 4.3, 180C.351 See also DN 5.8. 821C.352 DN 7.3. 896C ff., tr. Luibheid; Christos Yannaras, On the absence and unknowability of God (T & T Clark International, 2005), p. 62f..

90

Hebrews’ (also presumed to be Paul) teaching that visible

realities can be a ‘pattern’ of heavenly ones to which we

can ascend.353 For Origen these realities were created ‘in

the Logos or Wisdom of God which is Jesus. Both discuss

the nature of ‘matter’. Origen in On First Principles sounds

remarkably up to date when he criticises those thinkers

in his day who were ‘accustomed to toss about with great

frequency the name of matter, which they have not even

been able to understand themselves by any clear

definition of what it is.’354 Dionysius draws out the

positive value of the material world. Scaling heights of

poetic genius, Dionysius writes: ‘Matter, after all, owes

its subsistence to absolute beauty and keeps throughout

its earthly ranks, some echo of intelligible beauty.’355

Here Universal Beauty is recollected in the earthly

particulars and beautiful sights and fragrances become

theophanies of invisible Beauty and holiness.356 Anagogy

353 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956en, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 3, ch.12, p.218. Pseudo-Dionysius, DN 4 (700C); Ep 9 (1108B).354 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 4,5 tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p. 210.355 CH 2, (121C-D) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), pp.151-2, c.f. Origen’s discussion of matter inOn First Principles, IV, 4, 5-6.356 ‘These divine beauties are concealed. Their fragrance is something beyond any effort of the understanding and they effectively keep clear of all profanation. They reveal themselves solely to minds capable of graspingthem.’ EH 4, (473B), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p.225. See also CH 1, (121D). Brendan Thomas Sammon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a divine name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, WIPF and Stock, 2013); Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (SUNY, 2007). On spiritual fragrance in Origen see Homily 2 in Origen, The Song od Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), pp.285-

91

is thus for Dionysius an erotic longing to return from

the ‘fallen’ embodiment of history and culture to the

original spiritual state.

‘For it is quite impossible that we humans should, in any

immaterial way, rise up to imitate and to contemplate the

heavenly hierarchies without the aid of those material

means capable of guiding us as our nature requires’ (The

Celestial Hierarchy 1).357

3. Origen had adumbrated a threefold angelology of ‘gods’,

‘thrones’ and ‘dominions’ which anticipates Dionysius,

but was first to be adopted in Edessa.358

4. In spite of their belief in the translatability of

revelation, neither Dionysius in the Divine names nor Origen

are nominalists.359 Both teach that names refer to real

things, often ‘very deep’ things and are not merely

286; Song of Songs Commentary, Book 2.9, pp.159-162. 357 CH 1, (121C-D) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p.146.358 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1 in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, New York, 1998), p.137. On First Principles, IV, 3, 14 lists: ‘thrones, dominations, principalities and powers’ tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p. 203. See note 183 above.359 Rosemary Arthur argues that the 6th century Origenist Stephen Bar Suhaili, author of Book of the Holy Hierotheus, by Stephen Bar Sudhaili was a nominalist on the grounds that he states, ‘it too is only a sign of that glorious and holy Drink of which the Mind is accounted worthy in the place that is above.’ Yet this overlooks the element of participation even here where the Platonic language of shadows and reality is used. ‘Know, O my son, that this material and bodily bread which is set upon the material altar is a kind of perceptible sign – and … a small and unworthy shadow – of that glorious Bread which is above the heavens; and the cup of mixture also that is in our world.’ See Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.133-134.

92

conventional.360 Preeminently this is true of the visible

words of the sacraments,361 ‘a symbol of participation in

Jesus,’362 which are specifically treated in Ecclesiastical

Hierarchy. Dionysius comments that ‘even if it had no other

and more sacred meaning’ the rite of baptism communicates

physical cleansing and therefore purification from all

evil.363 But for Dionysius, these are special instances of

a metaphysics which is essentially Neoplatonic. The

transcendent Cause is manifested or revealed immanently

is expressed by Dionysius in terms of ‘differentiations’

or ‘processions’ from the One.364 Origen too operates

within such a metaphysical view. That natural things are

created according to a heavenly archetype is suggested by

Origen in his Commentary on the Song of Songs: ‘Perhaps, even as

God made man to His own image and likeness, so also did

He create the other creatures after the likeness of some

other heavenly patterns.’365 In his Treatise on the Passover,

Origen criticises those who take a crassly literal view

of the significance of the Passover (and by extension the360 Origen, Exhortation to Martyrdom, XLVI, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne(ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.75; Contra Celsum, I, 24; V, 45. He is also following the tradition from the church father Gregory of Nyssa: ‘We do not say that the nature of things was of human invention but only their names.’ Contra Eunomium ii. 283, cited in Frances M. Young, Biblical exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge, 1977), p.141. Hence Young comments: ‘the names revealed in scripture have sufficient grounding in reality, perhaps we should say refersufficiently meaningfully, to form a basis for theological argument.’ (p.142).361 The Greek term translated ‘sacrament’ in Dionysius is ‘teletas’ signifying a‘means of perfecting’.362 CH 1.3, (124A). See also EH 3, (437C).363 EH 1, (397B); EH 3 (445A).364 DN 1 (640D-641A); (649B-652A).365 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, translated by R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 3.12, p.219.

93

eucharist): ‘To show that the Passover is something

spiritual and not this sensible Passover, he himself

says, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you

have no life in you (c.f. John 6:63). Are we then to eat

His flesh and drink his blood in a physical manner? But

if this is said spiritually, then the Passover is

spiritual, not physical.’366

5. Both writers believe in and emphasise the importance of

free will. Dionysius writes in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy that

‘intelligent beings, because of their free will

(s s) can fall away from the light of

the mind and can so desire what is evil that they close

off their vision, with its natural capacity for

illumination. They remove themselves from this light

which is ceaselessly proferred to them and which, far

from abandoning them, shines on their unseeing eyes.’367

This stress on free will was absent from pagan

Neoplatonism.368 Before Augustine’s adoption of strong

predestination, Origen had championed free will against

the Valentinian Gnostics and certain pagan philosophers,

arguing that free will was part of the definition of a

rational being:369

366 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 13.24-32, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.35.367 EH 2.3.3, (400A).368 See also CH 9.3. Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981), p.130, n.69, citing C. Elsee, Neoplatonism in relation to Christianity (Cambridge, 1908), p.114.369 ‘There also is laid down in the Church’s teaching, that every rational soul is possessed of free will and choice; and also, that it is engaged in a struggle against the devil and his angels and the opposing powers; for these strive to weigh the soul down with sins, whereas we, if we lead a

94

‘Of the things that are moved, some receive their motion

from outside of themselves, for example, things that are

lifeless and held together in nothing more than a fixed

system, and things that are moved by nature and the

animating principle, since when they are moved it is not

by what makes them what they are, but in a way like the

things held together in nothing more than a fixed system.

For stone and pieces of wood, when dug out of a quarry or

having lost the power of growing, since they are held

together in nothing more than a fixed system, receive

their motion from outside themselves. Moreover, both the

bodies of living beings and the produce of plants, when

moved by someone, are not moved by what makes them living

beings and plants, but like stones and pieces of wood

that have lost the power of growing. Even if they are

moved because all bodies are in a state of flux and are

wasting away, they have this motion merely as a

consequence of their wasting away.

A second class of things that that are moved, consists of

wise and upright life, endeavour to free ourselves from such a stain. Therefollows from this the conviction that we are not subject to necessity, so as to be compelled by every means, even against our will, to do either goodor evil. For if we are possessed of free will, some spiritual powers may very likely be able to urge us on to sin and others to assist us in salvation; we are not however, compelled by necessity to act either rightlyor wrongly, as is thought to be the case by those who say that human eventsare due to the course and motion of the stars, not only those events which fall outside the sphere of our freedom of will but even those that lie within our own power.’ Origen, On First Principles 1, Preface 5 in J. Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius: documents illustrative of the history of the Church to AD 337 (SPCK, 1977), pp.213-214. See also Origen, On Prayer, Part 1, B, 6, 1; Part 2, XXIX.13; XXX1.2 tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.93, 157, 162; On First Principles II, I, 1, 7.

95

things moved by the nature or animating principle that

exists within them. These are said to be moved ‘out of’

themselves, in the opinion of those who use words with

great precision. A third kind of motion is that found in

living beings which is called motion ‘from’ themselves.

And I believe that the motion of rational beings is

motion ‘through’ themselves. Now if we take motion ‘from’

itself away from a living being, it cannot any longer be

said to be a living being, but will be like a plant moved

only by nature or like a stone hurled by something

outside itself. But if something follows along by its own

motion, since we call this motion ‘through’ itself, then

it must necessarily be rational.’ Therefore, those who

want to say that we have no freedom must necessarily

admit something extremely foolish – first that we are not

living beings and second, that we are not rational

beings. On their view, since we are in no way moved by

ourselves but by something moving outside ourselves, we

may be said to do what we suppose we are doing ourselves

only because of that external cause. On the contrary, let

anyone pay special attention to his own experiences and

see whether he will not say without blushing that it is

he who wills, he who eats, he who walks, and he who gives

his assent and acceptance to certain opinions, and he who

rejects others as false.’370

370 Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works, tr. Rowan A. Greer (Paulist Press, 1979), p.93.

96

6. In spite of the disastrous results of free will in

creatures, Origen was optimistically attracted to

universalism through the process of instruction by a

hierarchy of angels,371 for which he was roundly condemned

by Jerome.372 Origen believes in the Lamb of God ‘who

takes away the sin of the world, who alone dies so that

the whole human race might be saved.’373 The Gospel has

given an opportunity for those imprisoned in Hell to

escape and ascend to Heaven by means of Christ’s own

ascent.374 There is evidence that Dionysius thinks on

similar lines in that the hierarch is presented in the

words of 1 Timothy 2: 4 as one who, like God, ‘desires all

men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the

truth’375 and generously carries the lost sheep on his

shoulders like the Good Shepherd.376 This is also implied

in his hierarchy of illumination377 and his use of the

Neoplatonic triad, monos, prodos and epistrophe.378 There is

notably no mention of Hell as a place of torment or

punishment, although in his treatment of funeral rites in371 Origen, On First Principles 1.6.3. in J. Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius: documentsillustrative of the history of the Church to AD 337 (SPCK, 1977), p.217.372 Jerome, Adv Joann in W.H.C. Frend, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, (London: SPCK, 1987), p.192; Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London:SPCK, 1995), p.107.373 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 44.24-25, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.52.374 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 48.5-15, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J.(New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.55.375 EH 2.2.1 (393A).376 EH 2.2.1 (393C).377 CH 3.1.164D; EH 2, (393A) although in the latter text, the desire of God that ‘all men be saved’ is qualified (at least in the manuscripts we currently possess) by the capacity of recipients to be divinised supported by a citation from John 1:12 which gives conditions of receiving Christ and believing in his name.378 E.g. DN 4 (712C-713A); CH 1 (120B-121B).

97

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, there is the warning that, those

‘filled with stain and sin’ leave this life ‘pitifully

and uncertainly’ and ‘because of their culpable lives

there is no sacred hope to guide them.’379 But this

focusses more on the sinner’s subjective state of

anxiety. Objectively, in language reminiscent of

Athanasius, there is ‘the deplorable peril of destruction

and dissolution of being,’380 suggesting the possibility

of annihiliation rather than eternal torment which would

be in keeping with his doctrine of evil as privatio boni.381

Although the hierarchs following Peter have the power of

‘admitting the friends of God and keeping away the

ungodly,’382 Dionysius focusses on the generosity of the

divine Light which ‘never ceases to offer itself to the

eyes of the mind, eyes which should seize upon it for it

is always there, always divinely ready with the gift of

itself..’383 The ‘transcendently good Christ’ comes

‘lovingly to those who have turned away from him’ like

the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son,384 itself

presented as a concrete embodiment of the monos, proodos and

379 EH 7, (553D-556A).380 EH 3 (440C).381 DN 4, (716A-736B).382 EH 7, (564C).383 EH 2, (400A-B), tr. Luibheid, p.205.384 Ep 8, (1085C-1088A). See also Apostolic Constitutions Bk. 2, section 5, XL1.

98

epistrophe movement,385 that all creatures may return ‘home’

and God ‘may be all in all.’386

7. Some incidental features of ritual and practice are

common to both writers such as the use of the verb ‘to

hymn,’387 the practice of praying to the east.388

385 ‘Procession (proodos) is expressed as the prodigality of “departure,” butreflecting the Procline principle that every proceeding entity remains in the source, this remaining of the prodigal procession is expressed in termsof God “clinging lovingly to those who depart from Him.” This is the biblical God who, as the passage explains, “runs” out to embrace the returning son (i.e. the reverting identity, the epistrophe), even “makes excuses” for him, promising to further “serve” him. This God welcomes the returning prodigal (or the “reverting procession”) with “kisses”, without “reproach,” with “rejoicing” and a “feast” in communion with the entire “household”. In a word, according to Dionysius God openly welcomes the reverting prodigal by lavishing upon him greater plenitude.’ Brendan Thomas Salmon, The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite (Wipf and Stock, 2013), p.168. The image of the Prodigal Son is also alluded to in Plotinus, Enneads, V, 1, 1, ‘What can it be that has brought the souls to forget God, their Father, and through parts of the Divine and wholly belonging to It, to lose their knowledge both of themselves and of Him? The source of this evil in them was their reckless temerity, their birth into the world of sense, the first difference in their self-glory, in that they often indulged their own motion, they set off on the wrong path, and went very far astray, and lost the knowledge of their divine origin, like children who have been early separated from theirfather and nurtured for a long time in a far country, so that they know neither themselves nor their father.’ (cited in Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.190, n.1. Campbell is wrong then to claim that there is ‘an utter absence of love in the Neoplatonic system’ and that‘The love of a heavenly Father for his children, the idea that the highest of all beings could be approached by the humblest of mankind is a thought found in Christian writers alone.’ But this probably reflects the influenceof Christianity on Neoplatonism which he acknowledges in other respects. Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University of America Press, 1981), pp.112-113. 386 DN 1, (596C).387 DN 13, (981A); 1, (598B); 4, (701C), Origen, On Prayer, Part 3, 7, XXXIII, 1,4 tranlated by Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), pp.169-170.This has Biblical precedence in Hebrews 2:12. 388 Origen, On Prayer, Part 3, 7, XXXII, translated by Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.168.

99

8. Some characteristic images are common to both writers

such as that of the ‘athlete’389which originates in St.

Paul,390 but also has parallels in Philo.391

9. The idea of partaking of the divine ‘according to one’s

capacity’ is a recurring motif in Dionysius and can also

be found in Origen, Treatise on the Passover.392

8.Secret teaching in Dionysius.

For Dionysius, Scriptural discourse about God is

intentionally ‘mystic’,393 i.e. ‘concealed,’ as we have seen in

our discussion of the meaning of ‘solid food’ for Dionysius in

Epistle 9. He exhorts his readers to take care, ‘not to reveal

indiscreetly these most sacred things.’394 According to the 389 Origen, On Prayer, Part 2, XXIX, 2; of whom Origen speaks of Job as ‘the athlete of virtue’ in XXX,2 translated by Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.152 and 163; Origen, Homily XXVII on Numbers, 1 in Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.245. C.f. Dionysius in EH 2.3.6, (401D); 7, (565A).390 2 Tim 4.7; 1 Cor. 9:24-26; Phil 3:14; Eph 6:12.391 Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015, p.74.392 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 30.5, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.43.393 The Mystical Theology opens with a prayer to the mysterious Trinity:‘beyond unknowing and light,Up to the farthest, highest peakOf mystic scripture,Where the mysteries of God’s wordLie simple, absolute and unchangeableIn the brilliant darkness of a hidden silence.’ MT 1, 977A.394 EH 1.1, (372A), translated by Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University of America Press, 1981), p. 17. Campbell points out that the word translated

100

Celestial Hierarchy, too, the Divinely intended effect of enigmatic

speech is to be ‘inaccessible to the hoi polloi’, that is to exclude

the masses, since, ‘not everyone is sacred, and, as scripture

says, knowledge is not for everyone.’395 Therefore the

connotative terminology in Dionysius could serve a different

purpose to its ‘surface’ meaning. One motive for pseudonymity

could be to conceal contentious views from the untrustworthy

‘masses,’396 either because they are heretical and need to be

clothed in pseudo-apostolic authority397 or because they are

orthodox, but the masses are not spiritually ‘ready’ to

receive them. Marinus, the biographer of Proclus and successor

to him at the school of Athens, records that Proclus himself

‘evaded the notice of the mob’ through acting discreetly in

‘indiscreetly’ ( - ‘betray’, ‘let out’, ‘dance away’) derives from profanation of the sacred dance in mystery religions. Ibid p. 106.395 CH 2, (140A) ibid p.149. See also CH 2, (145C), which alludes to Christ’s saying in Matthew 7:6, ‘you must not throw before swine that pure,shining and splendid harmony of conceptual pearls.’ EH 1.1, (372A), p.195 ‘Keep these things of God unshared and undefiled by the uninitiated.’ 396 Helen S. Lang and A.D. Macro point out that there was persecution of Platonists after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empirec. 380. Proclus, De Aeternitate, (On the Eternity of the World), tr. Helen S. Lang and A.D. Macro (University of California Press, 2001), Introduction byHelen S. Lang and A.D. Macro, p 6.397 This seems to be the case in part with the 4th century Syrian document, The Apostolic Constitutions. See James Donaldson (ed.), Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Codex Spiritualis Press), p.8. 398 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 29 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp.82, 87, 89, 93, 95, 97 See also H.D. Saffrey, Proclus: Hymnes et Prieres (Paris, 1994), p.104. 399 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 28 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.102.400 Proclus, Alcibiades, 188.2 cited in Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 110, n.367.

101

The immediate historical context is a Byzantine social

hierarchy in which ceremonies formerly associated with the

imperial court had been replaced by elaborate ecclesiastical

ones.401 Christian art of this period shows evidence of an

accommodation and transformation of the enthroned emperor

theme. ‘Christ teaching the apostles’ (ivory plaque 5th century

Dijon Museum)402 has the seated Christ larger than the apostles

signifying his superiority and the apostles themselves

arranged in descending order either side of him. Similarly,

primary evidence from the architecture of 5th century Syrian

churches reveals ‘holy doors’ (probably an early

iconastasis),403 separating the nave from the sanctuary, which

illuminates Dionysius’ warning that the ‘Holy of Holies’ must

not be defiled by ‘the contamination of the mob’404 or ‘the

profane,’405 which refers not only to unbelievers, but also to

the catechumens, penitent and possessed who were only

permitted to the first part of the liturgy and excluded from

the eucharist and subsequent contemplations enjoyed by the

‘illuminated’ hierarchs, priests and minister. It was

therefore the ‘sacred obligation’ of the higher priestly class

to ‘hide this spectacle from the common people and to separate401 Andrew Louth, Denys the Aeropagite (Continuum, 1989), pp..8-9; N.H. Baynes and H.St.L.B. Moss, Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilisation (Oxford University Press, 1962), p.128ff. 402 Rene Huyghe (ed.), Larousse Encyclopedia of Byzantine and Medieval Art (Paul Hamlyn,1968), p.13 figure 9. 403 Andrew Louth, Denys the Aeropagite, (Continuum, 1989), p.54, EH 3.3.2, 428C, p.212; EP 8 1088B 27, p.272; 1088D 49, p.272; DN 4, 696B, p.73; 724B, p.212. These were a development from an earlier screen. See Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (University Press of America, 1981), p.36, 157-158404 EP 9, 1108A, p.283 in language very similar to Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, ch 27. 66. 405 EH 1. 4. 377A, p.199.

102

it from them.’406 This ‘distribution’ of roles is a fundamental

aspect of what Dionysius understands by ‘justice.’407 It is

noticeably at variance with our modern juxtaposition of

justice with ‘inclusion’.

But hierarchical social structures are not of course a

unique feature of Neoplatonism. They are also present in the

Church Fathers and the contemporary Syrian church community

which draws on Biblical, especially Old Testament practice.

406 EH 4.3, 476B, p.226. Basil of Caesarea (330-379) drew parallels between separation within Moses’ tabernacle and the protection of the eucharist under the new covenant: ‘What was the aim or the intention of this great man Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to everyone? The profane (or impure) he stationed outside the sacred barriers, the firstcourts he conceded to the purer (namely to the children of Israel who were purified), the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests. One chosen out of all of them (namelythe High Priest) he admitted into the shrine (the Holy of Holies), and eventhis one, he did not admit on every day, but only on one day in all the year; and of this one day, a time was allowed for his entry (into the sanctuary), so that he might gaze with astonishment upon the Holy of Holies, (amazed) at the outlandish (or strange) and unusual character of this sight. In his wisdom, Moses knew very well that contempt easily attaches to the trite and to the immediately obvious while a vivid interestis naturally associated with an object which is rare, and withdrawn from the usual sight. In just the same manner have also acted the Apostles and the Fathers, who from the beginning laid down laws and institutions for theChurches. They used to preserve the sacred dignity of the ‘mysteries’ (or of the sacraments and other sacred rites) in secrecy and silence. For what is disclosed carelessly and at random, for common hearing, is not at all a ‘mystery’ (or a secret truth revealed by God). This is the reason for our tradition of ‘unwritten’ (or non-Biblical) things, to prevent the mystery of our dogmata (namely of our ‘mysteries’ and the implied theological doctrines) from becoming neglected, and owing to familiarity, from becomingcontemptible in the eyes of the multitude.’ Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27, sections 66 translated by Emmanuel Amand de Mendietta, The ‘unwritten’ and ‘secret’ apostolic traditions in the theological thought of St. Basil of Caeserea, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 13 (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 5-6.407 EH 3.6. Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981), p.39.

103

Gregory Nazianzen, for example, after outlining basic creedal

teachings concludes:

‘This is all that may be divulged of the Sacrament, and that

is not forbidden to the ear of the many. The rest you shall

learn within the Church by the grace of the Holy Trinity; and

those matters you shall conceal within yourself, sealed and

secure.’408

In a similar vein, Athanasius warns:

‘ We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the

uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them,

and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended.’409

Basil of Caesarea speaks of an ‘unpublished and secret

teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the

reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation.’

These mysteries were best preserved by silence since:

408 Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on holy Baptism, 45. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm accessed 23/08/17.409 Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos ch. 1, 11. Translated by M. Atkinson and Archibald Robertson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28081.htm accessed 23/08/17.

104

‘What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was

hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written

documents.’410

Finally, Cyril of Jerusalem tantalises the catechumens with

the promise of an experience of the Spirit which will not be

revealed before the appointed time.411 However, once one moves

beyond a superficial reading of these practices it is apparent

that the detailed rites of purification and illumination were

not intended to exclude the masses in principle but only to

protect holy things until the profane were in a fit state to

receive them. In other words, the disciplina arcani served a

pedagogical purpose. There is no ‘great chasm fixed’

preventing someone from the ranks of the profane being

promoted to higher orders; there exists a possible, albeit

arduous route of ascent. John Chrysostom explains:

‘For the mysteries we too therefore celebrate with closed

doors, and keep out the uninitiated, not for any weakness of

410 Basil, De Spiritu Sanctu, 27. 66. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm accessed 23/08/17.411 ‘And on you also, who art about to be baptized, shall His grace come; yet in what manner I say not, for I will not anticipate the proper season.’Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 16.26. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Editedby Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310116.htm

105

which we have convicted our rites, but because the many are as

yet imperfectly prepared for them.’412

Dionysius insists that the purpose of the higher levels of

hierarchy is not to protect their own status, but rather to

‘ungrudgingly impart’ illumination so that ‘in their goodness

they raise their inferiors to become, so far as possible,

their rivals.’413 ‘Ungrudgingly impart’ alludes to The Wisdom of

Solomon 7:13 where the expression is used of the generosity of

King Solomon who shares his wisdom with his subjects and does

not ‘hoard it for himself.’414 In Dionysius’ mind the divinely

appointed leader reflects the Neoplatonic One whose goodness

overflows in the creation of multiplicity. Indeed, the secret

traditions do not finally prevent Dionysius from putting ‘pen

to paper’ himself (like Plato before him in Letter 7),415 in

order to ‘share these treasures generously with others’ and

412 John Chrysostom, Homily 23 on Matthew, 3, Translated by George Prevost and revised by M.B. Riddle. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200123.htm, accessed 23/08/17.413 CH 13.3.301C citing Wisdom of Solomon 7:13. tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 178.414 Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G. Clarke (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1973), p.50.415 And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.’ Plato, Letter 7, 341D-E, Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 7 tr. R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1966).

106

‘bring as many as possible to our sacred knowledge’ – hence

the existence of his corpus, though we are not clear who the

original intended audience was and therefore how wide the

intended readership.416 This is consistent with the Origenist

teaching that beings can move up or down a hierarchy and

contradicts the view of Rosemary Arthur that Dionysius had

departed from Origenism on this point.417 For Origen, the

‘strong food’ of hidden teaching could eventually be eaten by

those who had passed through the earlier stages of growth from

milk through vegetables to ‘meat’.418

Dionysius further tells us that the ‘hierarchy of the law’

(i.e. the Old Testament scriptures) is concealed from the

natural man (including Israel according to the flesh),

resorting ‘to dense enigmas and to symbolism whose meaning is

discerned with the maximum difficulty. To avoid harm, it

granted only as much light as suited the weak eyes looking up

to it.’419 The language of revelation then is accommodated or

‘veiled’420 in proportion to the capacity of recipients to

receive it. Furthermore, the decreasing length of the

416 DN 3.3.684B-684D. Even Maimonides breaks with the secret tradition in order to explain mysteries and laments the fact that relying on the viva vocehad resulted in certain teachings being lost to the nation. See Moses Maimonides, A Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Friedlander (Dover, 2nd ed.), Part III, Introduction, p.251.417 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.15, p.61.418 Origen, Homily XXVII on Numbers, 1 in Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.245.419 EH 5.501C tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.235.420 On First Principles IV.2.8.

107

treatises on Divine Names and Mystical Theology illustrates

Dionysius’ point that as you ascend in negative theology,

denying all things of God, words becomes fewer until they

disappear altogether in silence.421

9.Secret teaching in Origen.

Again Dionysius is a faithful follower of Origen who

contrasted a ‘literal sense’ of Scripture with an ‘elevated

sense’ (and went on to conclude that there are those

to whom even the existence of an elevated sense ought to be

concealed, whom like Dionysius, he refers to as ‘the many’.422

Origen had prayed to God ‘to assist us through Christ in the

Holy Spirit to open up the mystical sense (hidden

as a treasure ( in the text.’ 423 Origen here

assimilates the Platonic tradition, going back to the Republic

that love of wisdom is the privilege of the few. The price of

421 MT 3 and Robert Grosseteste’s commentary in James McEvoy (ed./tr.), Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on ‘De Mystica Theologia’ (Paris/Leuven, Peeters, 2003), pp.93-105.422 ‘If we speak of what is above Scripture, we do not say that these thingsare knowable by the many, but they could have been known by John.’ Origen, Commentary on John, Book 13, VI, 33, translated by Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), p. 155. See discussion below on the ‘anagogical’ sense.423 ‘We now ask God to assist us through Christ in the Holy Spirit to open up the mystical sense hidden as a treasure in the text.’ Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1 XV, 89 translated by Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, New York, 1998), p.120. St Basil has also spoken in a similar fashion of the ‘obscurity’ (of the scripture Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 27, sections 66 translated by Emmanuel Amand de Mendietta, The ‘unwritten’ and ‘secret’ apostolic traditions in the theological thought of St. Basil of Caeserea, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 13 (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1965), p.6. Greek text from Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,1 (1-4), tr. Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.104.

108

élite gnosis may be persecution from the ‘mob’424 which

explains why Socrates, in Plato’s Gorgias, does not court the

popular vote: ‘with the many I have nothing to do, and do not

even address myself to them.’425 Again, according to Socrates,

in the mystery religions, ‘many (are the thyrsus-

bearers, but few are the mystics,’426 whom he goes on to

identify as ‘the true philosophers,’427 amongst whom he wished

to be regarded.428 Proclus goes on to recollect this use of

in his Commentary on Alcibiades.429 As also for the Gnostics,

it was not so much the scriptures which were hidden from the

masses, as their true meaning.430

424 Plato’s Republic Book 6: ‘“Can the multitude possibly tolerate or believe in the reality of the beautiful in itself as opposed to the multiplicity ofbeautiful things, or can they believe in anything conceived in its essence as opposed to the many particulars?” “Not in the least,” he said. “Philosophy, then, the love of wisdom, is impossible for the multitude.” “Impossible.” “It is inevitable, then, that those who philosophize should be censured by them.” “Inevitable.” “And so likewise by those laymen who, associating with the mob, desire to curry favour with it.” “Obviously”’ pp.493-494 tr. Paul Shorey Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969).425 Plato, Gorgias, 474, tr. B. Jowett MA, Oxford, The Dialogues of Plato in Four Volumes, Vol 3 (The Jefferson Press, Boston, New York). 426 xPlato, Phaedo, 69C quoting Orphica fr.5 in Platonis, Opera Vol.1 (Ionnes Burnet, Oxford, Clarendon, 1967). Seealso the same reference in Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 22 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.91, n.238. 427 s s 428 Plato, Phaedo, 69C, tr. B. Jowett MA, Oxford, The Dialogues of Plato in Four Volumes, Vol 1 (The Jefferson Press, Boston, New York), p.896.429 Commentary on Alcibiades I, 111 A-D cited in Proclus, De Aeternitate, (On the Eternity of the World), tr. Helen S. Lang and A.D. Macro (University of California Press, 2001), Introduction by Helen S. Lang and A.D. Macro, p 5.See also Maimonides in A Guide for the Perplexed. ‘If we explained what ought to be explained, it would be unsuitable for the masses he writes ‘These matters are only for a few solitary individuals of a very special sort, andnot for the multitude.’ Franck, Isaac, ‘Maimonides and Aquinas on Man’s knowledge of God’ in Review of Metaphysics, 1985, Vol 38, p 810.430 ‘These simply shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of Scripture,’ writes Athanasius about the Gnostics in Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi dei, cap2, tr. a religious of C.S.M.V. ‘St Athanasius on the Incarnation’ (Mowbray,

109

Origen justifies this holy ‘deception’ by the alleged

precedence of the concealing of the truths of the Gospel by

Paul and Peter when they ‘accommodated’ their conduct to the

sensitivities of the Jews, even to the point of Paul’s

authorisation of Timothy to be circumcised. A ‘secret

Christianity’ (is thus advocated which

may be at variance with its ‘open’ manifestation (.

There are thus two stages of enlightenment for the Christian,

one which is universal in its reach and the second which is

limited to the one with true Christian ‘gnosis’.431

Origen’s most startling application of his ‘secret

Christianity’ principle is to conclude that Paul’s central

preaching of the Cross is an example of a ‘carnal’ Gospel for

‘carnal persons,’ whereas the real ‘spiritual’ Gospel has been

London and Oxford, 1982), p.27. See also F.F. Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Paternoster Press, 1970), p.91.431 Although Origen attacks the Gnostics on many points he had a significantinteraction with them particularly in his early life which may have influenced some of his thinking. See Joseph W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century (SCM, 1985), pp.38-51.

110

concealed for a privileged few.432 This Platonic theoria in

Origen433 is in tension with the Gospel theoria (sight) of the

Crucified Christ (Luke 23:48434) for although Origen wrote a

treatise on the Passover ( Peri Pascha), he makes a curious

argument that the Passover was a type of Christ but not of his

passion.435 Furthermore, the truth of the Passover was ‘carried

out in mystery’ (s) by the original celebrants and is

432 Origen, Commentary on John, Book 1:40-42 in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), pp.112-113. ‘From this reasoning it follows that we must conclude that, just as there is someone who is manifestly a Jew and circumcised and one who is in secret (see Rom. 2:29), so it is with being a Christian and with baptism. Both Paul and Peter, initially being Jews and circumcised outwardly, later received from the Jews the condition of being Jews and circumcised in secret. But for the sake of the salvation of many according to a plan (oikonomia) they showed that they were manifestly Jews not only bywords but by actions as well. And the same thing must be said concerning their Christianity. And just as it was not possible for Paul to benefit theJews according to the flesh, unless, when reason persuaded him, he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) and, when it was reasonable, shaved his head and made an offering (Acts 21:24) and, all told, became a Jew in orderto gain a Jew (see 1 Cor. 9:20), so it is not possible for what is set forth openly for the benefit of the majority to improve solely through secret Christianity, those who are receiving elementary instruction in open Christianity and lead them to greater and more elevated things. For this very reason it is necessary to act as a Christian both spiritually andbodily, and where it is appropriate to proclaim the bodily gospel, saying that one knows nothing among carnal persons except Jesus Christ and him crucified (see 1 Cor. 2:2), this must be done. But if one finds persons restored in the Spirit (see Gal. 6:1), bearing fruit in him (see Col. 1:10), and asking for the wisdom of heaven, they should participate in the Word who has returned after being incarnate to what he was in the beginningwith God (se Jn1:2).’ Greek text from Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,1 (1-4), tr. Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.82. Hegel later takes an ‘Origenist’ line when he accuses even Jesus of accommodating to the ‘positivist’ religion of the Pharisees by basing his teachings ostensibly on his own authority and not on reason alone! See Hegel, ‘The Positivity of the Christian Religion’ in Early Theological Writings, tr. T.M. Knox (University of Philadelphia Press, 1971).433 E.g. Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue 2.3. 434 s s s 435 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 13:1-15; 14.24, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 34.

111

still hidden to the many today.436 Origen equates ‘sacrifice’

(‘Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us’437) as an

experience of the believer after his initial faith which

involves all of the spiritual senses.438

Origen’s methodology then could plausibly adopted by

Dionysius as a rationalisation for his notorious pseudonym

which beguiled readers for centuries before being finally

exposed by Lorenzo Valla in the fifteenth century.439 We

suggest too that an Origenist background could offer an

intelligible explanation for the meagre references to the

Pauline kerygma of the Cross by his alleged convert in the

Corpus Dionysiacum,440 presumably because his intended hearers would

not be numbered amongst those ‘carnal’ Christians who needed

such inferior, ‘open Christianity’ as the theologiae cruxis. Martin

Luther, a true ‘disciple’ of Paul441 and the theologian of the

Cross par excellence attacks Dionysius precisely on this point

directly in the Babylonian Captivity (1520): Dionysius is “downright

dangerous; he Platonizes more than he Christianizes (plus 436 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, Introduction, translated by Robert J. DalyS.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.49.437 1 Corinthians 5.7. Origen, Treatise on the Passover 32.33, translated by Robert J.Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.45.438 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 18, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.37.439 See Karlfried Froehlich, ‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’ in Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), pp.37-40.440 The meagre references to the cross are in EH 5.3.4, 512B (a reference to the rite of the ‘sign of the cross’) Ep 7 (1081A) which refers to the eclipse at the time of the crucifixion and Ep 8.4 which refers to his pardon of sinners ‘even in his suffering’ (an allusion to Luke 23:34 – a Scripture also quoted by Origen in Treatise on the Passover II, 43.35, translatedby Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.52.) He also cites 1 Jn 2:2 ‘he is the expiation of our sins’ (1096B-C).441 For Paul on the Cross see 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5; Galatians 6:14.

112

platonisans quam Christianisans)…Let us rather hear Paul, that we may

learn Jesus Christ and him crucified. He is the way, the life

and the truth; he is the ladder by which we come to the

Father.’442 Luther’s guns are aimed directly at Dionysius’

Mystical Theology: ‘I exhort you to detest as a veritable plague

this Mystical Theology of Dionysius and similar books.’443 The

‘Mystical Theology of Dionysius is pure fables and lies.’444

This is chiefly because, according to Luther’s post-conversion

view, the mystical theologians presumed to know the Uncreated

Word in contemplation before they had been purified by the

sufferings of the Incarnate Word.445 It should be noted however

that even within the Mystical Theology itself, Dionysius is at

pains to attack those theologians ‘who think that by their own

intellectual resources they can have a direct knowledge of him

442 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman (eds) (St Louis, MO: Concordia, and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 36:109; Weimar Auflage (Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-1993), 6, p.562, cited in Piotr J. Malysz, ‘Luther and Dionysius: Beyond Mere Negations’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 150. See also Anders Nygren,Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.705; Karlfried Froehlich,‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’ in Paul Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.44.443 Luther, Disputationen 1533/38 in Weimar Auflage 39, 1, p.390 cited in Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.705. ‘Similarly, the Mystical Theology of Dionysius is pure fables and lies.’ Tischreden 1, Nr. 153, p. 72, 33f. cited in Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr.Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.706, n.1. Luther discovered Lorenzo Valla’s expose of Dionysius through reading a footnote in Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. See Paul Rorem, ‘Martin Luther’s Christocentric Critique of Pseudo-Dionysian Spirituality’ in Lutheran Quarterly, 11 (1997), p.298 cited in Piotr J. Malysz, ‘Luther and Dionysius: Beyond Mere Negations’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 150, 161.444 Tischreden 1, Nr. 153, p. 72, 33f. cited in Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.706, n.1.445 Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, Lectures on Romans (Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p.287; Vol. 54, Table Talk, p.112.

113

who has made the shadows his hiding place.’446 Luther goes on

to argue that mystical theologicans preach a ‘theology of

glory’ rather than a ‘theology of the Cross’. Therefore, ‘let

us rather hear Paul, that we may learn Jesus Christ and him

crucified.447 These are points well made as a general point

against the dangers of mysticism, but in singling out Mystical

Theology Luther by-passes relevant sections of the Ecclesiastical

Hierarchy (even though he was aware of this work448) such as the

following, in which Dionysius affirms the katagogy of the

incarnation and the necessity of the Cross for regeneration:

‘Similarly, in my view, one may explain that rite at the

purifying baptistery when the hierarch pours the ointment in

drops to form a cross. He thereby shows to those able to

contemplate it that Jesus in a most glorious and divine

descent willingly died on the cross for the sake of our divine

birth, that he generously snatches from the old swallowing pit

of ruinous death anyone who, as scripture mysteriously

446 MT 1.2, (1000A), tr. Luibheid.447 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman (eds) (St Louis, MO: Concordia, and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 36:109; Weimar Auflage (Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-1993), 6, p.562, cited in Piotr J. Malysz, ‘Luther and Dionysius: Beyond Mere Negations’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 150. See also Anders Nygren,Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.705; Karlfried Froehlich, ‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’ in Paul Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.44. Rosemary A. Arthur agrees with Luther: ‘Paul’s crucified Christ, whose blood redeems us, the Second Adam whose obedience makes up for the disobedience of the first Adam, is absent from Dionysius’ theology,’ Rosemary Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.94.448 Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 31, Explanations of the Ninety Five Theses (Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p.119.

114

expresses it, has been baptised “into his death”, and renews

them in an inspired and eternal existence.’449

Although placed in the context of ritual, this explanation

reveals that underpinning the ritual is a theology of the

believer’s identification with Christ in his death (recalling

Romans 6:4), which Dionysius tells us in a rare biographical

note, was something he had personally experienced.

‘It is true of course that all the hierarchic operations have

this in common, to pass the lght of God on to their initiates,

but nevertheless it was this one which first gave me the gift

of sight.’450

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2 further explains the significance of the

‘triple’ immersion as representing the three days and nights

in which Christ was in the tomb. The baptismal font represents

this tomb.451

The theological basis of the rituals is further developed in

the creed-like text of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3, (440C-441B), a

Dionysian presentation of salvation history which,

uncharacteristically for Dionysius, denounces the destructive

449 EH 4, (484B), tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.231, citing Romans 6:3.450 EH 3.1, (425A). Cited in Alexander Golitzin and Bogdun G. Bucur (ed.), Mystagogy: A monastic reading of Dionysius Areopagita, (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, Cistercian Publications), 2013, p.xxxv.451 EH 2. 7. See also John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 25.2 (PG 59,151 NPNF 1st series, Vol 14, 89.); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm accessed23/08/17.

115

effects of sin in the strongest of language.452 He introduces

it as an invocation of ‘what the hierarchs, those men of God,

praise and celebrate, following the Scriptures’453 and

therefore it probably derives from the liturgy of the Syrian

community of which he belonged.454 This we might say is the

‘Gospel according to Dionysius’ so it is worth quoting in

full:

‘From the beginning human nature has stupidly glided away from

those good things bestowed on it by God. It turned away to the

life of the most varied desires and came at the end to the

catastrophe of death. There followed the destructive rejection

of what was really good, a trampling over the sacred Law laid

down in paradise for man. Having evaded the yoke which gave

him life, man rebelled against the blessings of God and was

left to his own devices, to the temptation and the evil

assaults of the devil. And in exchange for eternity he

pitiably opted for mortality. Born of corruption it was only

right that he should leave the world as he entered it. He

freely turned away from the divine and uplifting life and was

dragged instead as far as possible in the opposite direction

and was plunged into the utter mess of passion. Wandering far

from the right path, ensnared by destructive and evil crowds,

the human race turned away from the true God and witlessly

served neither gods nor friends but its enemies who, out of

452 For other examples see DN 8, (897A) and EH 7, (561D)453 EH 4, (440C)454 ‘the author seems to be paraphrasing the account of salvation history found in his community’s anaphora or Eucharistic prayer.’ Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (New York, Paulist Press, 1987), p.220, n.95.

116

their innate lack of pity, took the cruellest advantage of its

weakness and dragged it down to the deplorable peril of

destruction and dissolution of being455.

Yet the goodness of the Deity has endless love for humanity

and never ceased from benignly pouring out its providential

gifts. It took upon itself in a most authentic way all the

characteristics of our nature, except sin. It became one with

us in lowliness, losing nothing of its own real condition,

suffering no change or loss. It allowed us, as those of equal

birth, to enter into communion with it and to acquire a share

of its own beauty. Thus, as our hidden tradition teaches, it

made possible for us to escape from the dominion of the

rebellious, and it did this not through overwhelming force,

but, as scripture mysteriously tells us, by an act of judgment

and also in all righteousness. Beneficently it wrought a

complete change in our nature. It filled our shadowed and

unshaped minds with a kindly, divine light and adorned them

with a loveliness suitable to their divinised state. It saved

our nature from almost total wreckage and delivered the

dwelling place of our soul from the most accursed passion and

from destructive defilement. Finally, it showed us a

supramundane uplifting and an inspired way of life in shaping

ourself to it as fully as lay in our power.’456

455 The language of ‘dissolution of being’ is reminiscent of Athanasius. SeeAthanasius, On the Incarnation 1.4, tr. A religious of C.S.M.V. (London: Mowbray, 1982), pp.29-30. 456 EH 3 (440C-441B), tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), pp.220-221.

117

This text stresses the moral nature of the Fall in contrast

to the Neoplatonic epistemic gap and hence the undeserved

nature of the ‘love for humanity’ which counts against

Nygren’s critique. Indeed the ‘famous teacher’ referred to in

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2 is more likely to be Paul than Hierotheus457

and the reference is probably a loose rendering of Romans

5:8,458 which we recall is one of the key texts used by Nygren

to distinguish eros from agape! Here we can identify in

Dionysius a form of prevenient grace, for although the goal of

hierarchy is union with God via ‘the doing of sacred acts,’ it

is quite clear that the ‘starting point’ for these acts is to

be open to ‘the divine workings of God’459 (theourgia in the

Dionysian sense of God’s own works) which begins with divine

regeneration:

‘ In the realm of the intellect, as our famous teacher has

said, it is love of God which first of all moves us toward the

divine; indeed the first procession of this love toward the

sacred enactment of the divine commands brings about in

unspeakable fashion our divine existence. And divinisation is

to have a divine birth. No one could understand, let alone

457 Against Rorem’s view that the teacher refers to Hierotheus, Paul Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.200, n.20. Butsee Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 31 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.106. Marinus uses philanthropia of a god who stooped down to ‘kiss’ the knees of Proclus and heal him of an arthritic disease.458 Thomas L. Campbell, Dionysius the Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Washington D.C., University Press of America, Inc., 1981), p.117 (following Stiglmayr).459 EH 2, (392A), tr. Luibheid in Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.200.

118

put into practice, the truths received from God if he did not

have a divine beginning..’460

The importance of these texts is increased if, following

Alexander Golitzin, we see Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as one of the

introductory Dionysian texts which set the liturgical context

for those which follow461 (bearing in mind that the internal

evidence indicates that the Celestial Hierarchy at least preceded

it).462 This is a possibility from one of the three orders

found in the manuscript tradition,463 and is supported by the

order of study commended by the medieval commentator, Robert

Grosseteste.464 On the other hand, these manuscripts have come

down to us from an edition by John of Scythopolis who may have

rearranged them. If Rosemary Arthur is correct in identifying

Sergius of Reshaina as the author of the Dionysian corpus,465

460 EH 2, (392B), tr. Luibheid in Rorem (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.200.461 ‘as at once the explication of and entry into the one and unique mystery, Christ.’ following Alexander Golitzin, ‘Dionysius Areopagita: A Christian Mysticism?’ in Pro Ecclesia, 12.2 (2003), p. 170 cited in Piotr J. Malysz, ‘Luther and Dionysius: Beyond Mere Negations’ in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 161. See also Alexander Golitzin, Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita ed. Bogdon G. Bucur (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013), p.xxxvi.462 EH 1, (372C); 5, (501A).463 CH, EH, DN, MT, EP as against CH, DN, EH, MT, EP or DN, CH, EH, MT, EP. See AlexanderGolitzin,, Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita ed. Bogdon G. Bucur (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013), p.xxxvi. 464 See James McEvoy (ed./tr.), Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on ‘De Mystica Theologia’ (Paris/Leuven, Peeters, 2003),p.56. 465 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.116-121, 137-139, 184-191.

119

then we should follow his own order in the Syriac translation

of DN, CH, MT, EH, EP which counts against Golitzin’s thesis.466

In light of evidence such as this from Ecclesiastical Hierarchy we

conclude that Rosemary Arthur goes too far in asserting that

Dionysius follows Evagrius in giving ‘a teaching rather than a

redemptive role for the Son.’ 467

Finally, in this section we must return to re-examine Origen

and note that Origen’s apparent downplaying of the Cross also

needs to be put in context, since the experience of

‘sacrifice’ is not divorced from the Cross when he speaks of

anointing the ‘house’ of one’s body with the blood of the Lamb

of God,468 which is to say ‘faith in the Gospel of the new

covenant,’469 by which one escapes the destroyer.470 The Lamb of

God takes away the sin of the world.471 ‘By this offering up

of himself the world which has gone astray is purified and

converted.’472 Hostility and wrath are pacified ‘through the

466 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London: Routledge, 2008/2016), pp.153-154.467 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.15.468 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 25, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 41.469 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 33.30, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.45.470 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 33.34, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.45. The lintels and doorways represent the boundaries by which passions can enter the body and defile it. See 42.35-43.5, p.51.471 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 44.20 (quoting John 1:29), translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.52.472 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 47.1-5, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.54

120

blood of his cross.’473 He acknowledges the lifting up of the

serpent in the desert as a type of Christ’s passion which is

only of value to those who have also been crucified to the

world.474 He explicitly affirms that salvation has been brought

about by the blood of Christ, ‘like a lamb without blemish,’

quoting Isaiah 53:7-8. 475

‘For it was not because of sin that his death came about, but

he himself bears our sins and suffers for us and by his

bruises we have all been healed.’476

The conclusion to his treatise is a battery of scriptural

texts on the Cross including 1 Peter 3:19ff; 2 Corinthians 5:19;

Colossians 2:14; Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 8:22; John 16.17; John

12:24; Hebrews 2:13-15.

We agree then with Stuart G. Hall’s assessment of the

evidence:

‘But whatever Origen held about the higher destiny of the

soul, the atoning sacrifice of the cross is repeatedly

emphasised. Without it human beings cannot be turned from

their sinfulness, they remain under the wrath of God and

473 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 47.5-9, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.54474 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 14.25-15.10, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J.(New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.35-36 following Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Galatians 6:14.475 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 41.15-35, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.50.476 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 41.34-35, translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p.50.

121

separated from him; the death of Jesus removes sin, and makes

peace with God possible.’477

10.The Perspicuity of Scripture for Aquinas.

If Dionysius dilutes Origenist and Neoplatonic secrecy,

the Angelic Doctor extends this limited dilution still further

and this seems to be, at least in part, a consequence of his

belief in the perspicuity of scripture.

Although there is a nuanced divergence between Dionysius and

Aquinas regarding what we might term the ‘sufficiency’ of

Scripture, more significant is the divergence regarding their

respective hermeneutical method. Unlike the Magister in Sacra

Pagina, Dionysius never treated the Scriptural text as an

expositor per se. On the contrary, he humbly adverts to the

authority of those ‘exegetes of the Hebrew’ indicating that he

is not himself amongst their number.478 As far as we know,

Dionysius never wrote a Biblical commentary on any entire book

of Scripture479, although on occasions he does offer humble and

at times extended interpretations of passages relevant to his

subject (such as the purification of Isaiah by the

477 Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 1995), p.109.478 EH 4.3.10, (481C).479 On the thesis that the real author is Sergius of Reshaina this is still true, although he did write commentaries on the works of Aristotle.

122

‘seraphim’).480 The difference in approach is brought into

relief when we contrast what Aquinas acknowledges to be a

deliberately ‘obscure style’ in the ‘Blessed Dionysius’481 with

Thomas’ own intention in the Summa Theologia to instruct

beginners ‘briefly and clearly!’ 482 But if Thomas wins over

Dionysius in respect of clarity, he fails on brevity with his

3 500 page Summa in comparison to Dionysius’ treatise on the

Divine Names,483 and even more so in comparison to the treatise

on Mystical Theology. To apply the principle of charity one could

say Aquinas uses brevity of expression in a work which covers

a tremendous breadth and depth of Christian doctrine. He

appears to be imitating (and excelling) Peter Lombard in his

Sententiae who reveals his aim in the Prologue that ‘the inquirer

would not have to search through numerous tomes, for the

480 CH 13 also commented on by Thomas in ST 1a, q. 112, a. 2 sed contra, a. 4 who cites Dionysius’ interpretation. 481 In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis nominibus (Turin, Marietti, 1950), Prooemium ‘Est autem considerandum quod beatus Dionysius in omnibus libris suis obscuro utitur stilo. Quod quidem non ex imperitia fecit, sed ex industria ut sacra et divina dogmata ab irrisione infidelium occultaret.’ See Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius: A commentary on the texts and an introduction to their influence (Oxford University Press, 1993), p.5.482 Prologue to Summa Theologiae. Scholars have speculated whether the actual first recipients were beginners in theology, advanced students or ordinary Dominican friars but the evidence is inconclusive. See Gregory P. Rocca Speaking the Incomprehensible God (Catholic University of America Press, 2004), p.255 n.1.483 For example, a modern blogger confesses: ‘I haven't read all of it but I had to read about a third of it for my philosophy degree. It's a very thick work and his medieval language and logic make it even more difficult.And he's dealing with difficult subjects such as being and universals. The language is highly theoretical and metaphysical and takes a lot of concentration and intellectual power to understand. That said, Aquinas is incredibly important to both philosophy and theology and I'd consider it anachievement to read the entire work. It's not too long to read if you're willing to commit to it. Nothing is. I have a few friends who've read the whole thing. But I spent my time on other works. (Peace79.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101207183937AAUdoMu)accessed 22/10/15.

123

synthesised brevity which he seeks is offered here without

much labor.’484

Thomas commences his great Summa with consideration of the

question of whether any other teaching besides philosophy is

required and concludes that, for the sake of salvation, God

has given divine knowledge by revelation as well as by

philosophy, since otherwise:

‘the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only

be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the

admixture of many errors…Therefore, in order that

the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and

more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught

divine truths by divine revelation. It was

therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built

up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned

through revelation.’485

Earlier in the sed contra of the same article and right at the

beginning of his great Summa, Thomas has identified the locus

of this ‘revelation’ as holy scripture, rather than a mystical

experience or non-canonical oral or written tradition.486 He

cites 2 Timothy 3:16.

484 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino: his life, thought and works (Blackwell, Oxford, 1975), p.68.485 ST 1a, q. 1, a. 1, resp..486 For different models of revelation than that favoured by Aquinas, see Avery Dulles, S.J., Models of Revelation (Gill and Macmillan, 1983).

124

‘On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All

Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove,

to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired

of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been

built up by human reason. Therefore, it is useful that besides

philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e.

inspired of God.’487

The question of obscurity versus transparency is addressed

again in Thomas’ commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitate. Aquinas

examines the question: ‘Should Divine Realities be veiled by obscure and

novel words?’ and rejects an objection associated with

Dionysius that holy doctrines should be communicated ‘only to

the godlike teachers of sacred things of the same rank as

yourself.’ Using his customary method of disputatio, Thomas

rebuts this view with scriptures from Matthew 10:27: ‘What I

tell you in the dark, utter in the light’488 and Romans 1:14

which describes a responsibility to both ‘the learned and the

unlearned’.489 He therefore relativises and reduces Dionysius’

487 ST 1a, q. 1, a. 1, sed contra. 488 This passage is also referenced by Chrysostom in a similar discussion and may have been known to both Aquinas and Dionysius. John Chrysostom, Homily 23 on Matthew, 3, Translated by George Prevost and revised by M.B. Riddle. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200123.htm, accessed 23/08/17. 489 In Boethius, De Trinitate, q.2, a. 4; see also John 18:20. Boethius had written, ‘Wherever I cast my eyes down from the sight of you, there appearshere base sloth and clever envy there, so that one seems to bring scorn upon theological writings, if he casts them before such remarkable specimens of humanity to be trampled rather than understood. Therefore, I rein in my pen with brevity, and I veil in significations of new words things drawn from my private study of philosophy, so that they speak only to me and to you, if you should ever turn your eyes to them, that is; and I

125

words to the point being made by Boethius to mean that only

those matters which would be harmful should be concealed,

either from unbelievers who might subject them to ridicule or

from the uneducated who might be misled in their ignorance.490

This advice has renewed applicability in our own age of

‘social media’ in which posts for one set of ‘friends’ may not

be appropriate for others.

11.Similar and dissimilar images

In a rare autobiographical note, Dionysius tells us that he

had personally struggled with the apparently ‘deformed

imagery’ used in Scripture to describe heavenly realities, out

of which he shares his solution to the difficulty.491 Sacred

symbols are of two kinds for Dionysius: there are those which

are relatively ‘similar’ to their referent, such as those

depicting God as ‘Word’, ‘Mind’ or ‘Being’492 and there are

those which are clearly ‘dissimilar,’ such as those depicting

God as ‘drunk,’493 ‘suffering from a hangover’494 or having

passions ‘only appropriate for prostitutes.’495 The latter is a

have thus, driven others away, as much as they have been unable to grasp these matters intellectually. But also seem unworthy even of reading them.’Boethius, De Trinitate, tr. Eric. C. Kenyon, lines 10-18, http://www.pvspade.com/Logic/docs/BoethiusDeTrin.pdf accessed 19/04/17. 490 In Boethius, De Trinitate, q.2, a. 4.491 CH 2.5 (145B).492 CH 2.3 (140C), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.149.493 EP 9 (1105B), a reference to Psalm 78:65.494 MT 3 (1033A); EP 9 (1112B).495 EP 9 (1105B), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.282 (Note here that Dionysius, in common with most medievals (Theodore of Mopsuesta is an exception) resists the possibility that Song of Songs might have a legitimate meaning as a poem which celebrates the goodness and joy of human love).

126

cryptic reference to the Song of Songs which, according to

Dionysius, is read by the unenlightened as if it were

pornography,496 yet those ‘lovers of holiness’ who have been

purified, can find a spiritual eroticism in the text which

enables them to see ‘the beauty hidden within these images.’497

Dionysius’ position is at one here with Origen’s, that the

Song of Songs is a ‘total allegory,’ a ‘bodiless text’ which

never had a literal sitz im leben amongst earthly lovers, but was

always intended by its author it to be prophetic of Christ and

the Church exclusively.498

Since it is evident for Dionysius that ‘dissimilar’ language

is not intended literally, Dionysius points out that the most

dangerous images are the relatively ‘similar’ ones because

these are most likely to mislead the naive. This point is

central to Dionysius’ negative theology. For although there 496 ‘And in the Songs there are those passionate longings fit only for prostitutes.’ Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9. 1105B, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.282. There is another parallel with Origen where Origen refers to ‘love’ of a harlot as an improper use of the term ‘love’. See Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue 2, p.30.497 Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9. 1105C, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), pp.282-283. It is interesting to note that Gregory of Nyssa’s homilies on Song of Songs, with clear influence from Origen, deploys the term for the spiritual meaning he discerns in the text of the soul’s ascent to God. See Homilies 5 (864C) cited in Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.433, n.6. 498 See earlier discussion. This is because the carnal reader will not ‘hearlove’s language in purity’ but will rather: ‘twist the whole manner of his hearing away from the inner spiritual man and on to the outward and carnal;and he will be turned away from the spirit to the flesh. And will foster carnal desires in himself, and it will seem to be the Divine Scriptures that are urging and egging him on to the fleshly lust!’ Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue, p. 22. See also J. Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.28ff.

127

are degrees of truth in ‘affirmative theology,’499 it is

dangerous to think that even positive terms such as Word, Mind

or Existence truly represent the Deity. The purpose of the via

negativa, synonymous with s(‘denial’ or ‘clearing aside’)

is to remove finite imperfections of language just as the

sculptor shaves off stone from the block to reveal the

underlying beauty.500 Properly, as we have seen, it is a

mystical tool to lift the soul (‘anagogy’) to a higher place

of union.

‘the more it climbs, the more language falters, and when it

has passed up and beyond the ascent, it will turn silent

completely, since it will finally be at one with him who is

indescribable.’501

A striking example is found in The Divine Names chapter 7 where

Paul’s reference to God’s ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. 1:25) is clearly

not intended in the literal, human sense, but is deployed to

‘uplift us to the ineffable truth which is there before all

reasoning.’502 The aim is to obtain an ecstasy in which we are

‘taken wholly out of ourselves and become wholly of God.’503

Again we can see the shadow of Origen standing behind

499 MT 3 (1032D), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.138.500 MT 2 (1025B), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.138; see also Plotinus, Enneads, VI.7.36; V.13.14.501 MT 3 (1033C), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.139.502 DN 7 (865C), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.105.503 DN 7 (868A), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.106.

128

Dionysius, since, as we have seen earlier, the Scriptures are

for Origen, ‘introductions’ from which the spiritual Christian

can ‘ascend’ (to a position ‘above Scripture

(’ where he can hear ‘unspeakable words’

(. 504

12.The Anagogical Reading of Scripture

A fuller understanding of the hermeneutical method of

Dionysius requires an examination of the notion of ‘anagogy’

to which we now turn.

‘Anagogy’ derives from the Greek ‘ἀνάγw, (aor.

which literally means ‘to lift/lead up.’ Scripture

itself uses this verb in Luke 2:22 (to refer to Mary

and Joseph bringing the baby Jesus ‘up’ to Jerusalem and in

Acts 9:39 to refer to Peter being ‘brought up’ to the Upper

Room. 505 In its literal meaning it is the antonym of

’to go down’ as used in Acts 9:30 and 22:30.

A technical classification of an anagogical sense of scripture

was already known to the monk John Cassian (360-435) and

earlier to Gregory of Nyssa506 who list it as one of the three

504 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 13 in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, New York, 1998), pp.154-155. Greek text from Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), tr. Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.48.505 See also Acts 16:34. It is the antonym of ’to go down’ as used in Acts 9:30.506 Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Canticle of Canticles, prologue PG 44. See Sheridon, Mark, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015, p. 92.

129

‘spiritual senses,’ along with the tropological (i.e. the

moral sense) and the analogical, 507 which combined with the

‘historical’ make up the ‘four senses of Scripture,’ a

conception which was to dominate scriptural exegesis during

the medieval period.508 This schema seems to be a suggested

‘safe’ framework for reading the Scripture, especially the

difficult Old Testament passages but the list was probably not

meant to be explicitly in the mind of the authors of scripture

themselves,509 though Cassian (following Origen) seeks

justification in the Septuagint translation of Proverbs 22:20.510

Susan K. Wood rightly surmises that the ‘four senses’ probably

developed as an amplification of Origen’s twofold schema of

‘letter’ and ‘spirit’,511 but with some fluidity in the

507 ‘the anagogical sense rises from spiritual mysteries even to still more sublime and sacred secrets of heaven’ (Anagoge uero de spiritalibus mysteriis ad sublimiora quaedam et sacratiora caelorum secreta), John Cassian, ‘Conferences’, 14, ch. 8, 3 tr. C.S. Gibson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3508.htm>.508 Henri de Lubac S.J., Exegese Medievale Vol 1-4 (Paris: Aubier, 1959-1964) translated as Medieval Exegesis: The Four senses of Scripture, Vol 1-3 tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, T & T Clark Edinburgh, 2000). De Lubac credits the Venerable Bede (673-735) with coining ‘the definitive formula of the four senses’, referencing Bede’s De schematibus et tropis 2.12 (Exegese 1.2, p.664). 509 Albert the Great, Summa Thrologiae, 1a, tractatus 1, quaestio 5, membrum 4,ad. 11, cited in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.69.510 ‘We have found in Proverbs some such instruction for the examination of divine Scripture given by Solomon. He says, “For your part describe them toyourself threefold in admonition and knowledge, that you may answer words of truth to those who question you.” (Proverbs 20:20-21 LXX). Therefore, a person ought to describe threefold in his soul the meaning of the divine letters.’ Origen, On First Principles 2.4 translated by. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.182.511 Susan K. Wood, Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the theology of Henri De Lubac (Eerdmans, 1998), p.29-30. ‘To write a history of Origenist influence on

130

terminology used. However, significantly the list always

includes the historical which is always listed first.512

Augustine’s ‘four’ are the historical, aetiological,

analogical, and allegorical,513 later reproduced by Aquinas in

his Summa,514 except that Aquinas regards Augustine’s first

three senses as subcategories of the ‘literal’, to which he

also adds the ‘parabolical’.515 This leaves only the fourth,

i.e. allegorical as the ‘spiritual’ sense.516 But by returning

to Origen’s twofold division of ‘literal’ and ‘spiritual’ as

the chief coathangers, Aquinas can then suspend from this the West would be tantamount to writing a history of Western exegesis,’ Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, Blackwell 1952), p. 4.512 Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), p.69.513 ‘All that Scripture therefore, which is called the Old Testament, is handed down fourfold to them who desire to know it, according to history, according to ætiology, according to analogy, according to allegory.’ De utilitate credendi 5. The same four are listed in a different order in On Genesis: Two Books on Genesis against the Manichees; And, on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, an Unfinished Book, ch. 2 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p.147: ‘It is a matter of history when deeds done—whether by men or by God—are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported.’ 514 ST 1a, q.1, a.10, obj 2515 ST 1a, q.1, a.10, obj 3. Earlier in Paris, Alexander of Hales had included the ‘parabolic’ sense under the historical sense. Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologica, q.1, c.1, a.4, resp. cited in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), pp.88-90.516 The device of allegory is first credited to Theagenes of Rhegium. See M.Edwards, ‘Gnostics, Greeks, and Origen: the Interpretation of Interpretation’ in Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993), 71-7, cited in J. Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song, (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.38. It was used to remove the scandal of a literalistic reading of the Homeric gods. See Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015, ch.2. See also Plato, Phaedrus,229C where Socrates appears sceptical of the way Greek myths were allegorised.

131

‘spiritual’ sense the allegorical, anagogical and moral,517

which harmonises Augustine with Cassian.518 The ‘four’ senses

of his contemporary Robert Grosseteste (in his commentary on

Mystical Theology, 1242) are the same, but in a different order:

historical, allegorical, moral and anagogical, the latter

being the truly ‘spiritual’ sense.519 Origen also contrasts

the ‘literal’ sense ( with an ‘elevated’ one

(520before the latter had received the technical

specification used by Cassian.521 (It seems that the history of

Biblical exegesis is a series of footnotes to Origen!).522

517 ST 1a, q.1, a.10 ad. 2, though Aquinas does not reference Cassian by name even though he cites him 21 times elsewhere in his writings. 518 John Cassian, Conferences, 14, ch 8, tr. C.S. Gibson in From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo,NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3508.htm>. HenriDe Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, Vol 1: The Four Senses of Scripture, tr. Mark Sebanc, William B. Eerdmans (T & T Clark, 1998) argues that the fourfold sense goes back toOrigen yet Origen himself only speaks of a threefold division corresponding to the metaphor of body, soul and spirit. Origen, ‘First Principles’, IV, ch. 2.5 519 ‘In these, however, the many communicate, for the crowd have the understanding of Scripture that is historical and allegorical and moral, but the interior man, seeking to see God without veil and truly, is not content with these things, but separating himself off from themany and moving beyond them, he ascends with the elect and the sacred contemplativesand teachers to the summit of the anagogic understandings.’ James McEvoy (ed./tr.), Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on ‘De Mystica Theologia’ (Paris/Leuven, Peeters, 2003), p.81.520 See Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), XVII. 101, translated by Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.84.521 Origen, Commentary on Matthew, x.15, cited in Frances M. Young, Biblical exegesis and the formation of Christian culture, (Cambridge, 1997), p.95.522 ‘To write a history of Origenist influence on the West would be tantamount to writing a history of Western exegesis,’ Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, Blackwell 1952), p. 4. Danielou agrees, ‘all his successors, even those who reacted against him, as St. Jerome did, owed him almost everything.’ Jean Danielou, Origen, tr. Walter Mitchell (New York, Shhed and Ward, 1955), p. 132.

132

On Cassian’s classification, Jerusalem can be interpreted

anagogically as ‘the heavenly city of God which is the mother

of us all’ in Galatians 4: 22-27. 523 St Paul does not use the

term anagogical to express this idea, but rather the more

general term allegorical ( v. 24), yet the anagogical

sense, can be inferred as a special instance of allegorical

reading, from an eschatological perspective.524 As well as its

objective reference to heaven or endtime events, the

anagogical sense also includes a subjective, mystical aspect,

perhaps deriving from its relationship to heavenly

realities,525 the ‘Jerusalem from above’

(Galatians 4:26). Significantly, there is also

an immediate background for the term in Proclus (412-485) who

speaks of an ‘elevative’ cause (anagogou), which ‘draws the

reverting existence upwards to what is more divine.’526

However, the pagan Proclus is not using anagogou to denote a

mode of Scriptural interpretation, but the aim of philosophy

from a Greek perspective. Anders Nygren explains (with

reference to Proclus’ Commentary on the Alcibiades)527:

523 John Cassian, ‘Conferences’, 14, c. 8, translated by C.S. Gibson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3508.htm>.524 Hugh of St. Victor thus classifies the anagogical as a branch of the allegorical in De Sacramentis 4.4, prologue. See also Aquinas ST 1a, q.1, a.10,ad 3. 525 Susan K. Wood, Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the theology of Henri De Lubac (Eerdmans, 1998), p. 44, citing De Lubac Exegese medievale II, 624.526 Proclus, The Elements of Theology, transated by E.R. Dodds (2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004), prop 158, p. 139 and commentary p. 281 which points out that Proclus also uses this term of the god Helios and theMuses (Hymn 1.54; Hymn 2.1).527 In primum Platonis Alcibiadem, ed. Cousin, tom. Ii., p.13.

133

‘Proclus states his conception of philosophy, and especially

of Platonic philosophy. He says that its whole meaning is

summed up in the inscription that stood over the door of the

temple of Apollo at Delphis: “know thyself.” With

self-knowledge, knowledge of God begins. To enter into oneself

and know one’s own nature is the beginning of the ascent to

the Divine, ’528

Similarly, for Dionysius, a secret admirer of Proclus,

anagogy is not treated as one of the ‘senses’ of Scripture.

Anagogy is rather the whole purpose of Scripture (in the mind

of a Neoplatonist), although this purpose does incorporate

being ‘uplifted from these most venerable images to

interpretations and assimilations which are simple and

inexpressible.’529 The closest Dionysius comes to suggesting a

fourfold sense occurs in a text appropriately concerned with

the interpretation of Scripture:

‘By the same token, scripture writers in their consideration

of a theme look at it sometimes in a social and legal

528 See Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.572.529 CH 1.3 (121D), tr. Colm Luibheid p. 146 See also CH 15.9 (337D) ‘Yet it is possible that the iconography of the wheels of the mind be explained by another uplifting [ of the mind from perceptible images to intelligible meanings]. For, as the theologian has pointed out, they are “Gelgel,” (Ez 10:13 LXX) which in Hebrew signifies both “revolving” and “revealing.” Those Godlike wheels of fire “revolve” about themselves in their ceaseless movement around the Good, and they “reveal” since they expose hidden things, and lift up the mind from below and carry the most exalted enlightenments down to the lowliest.’ and CH 15. 336C ‘each form carries anuplifting explanation of the representational images, I feel we should now move on to the sacred explication of those animal figures attributed by scripture to the intelligent beings of heaven.’ tr. Luibheid, p. 190, 188 See also CH 2.5 (145B), which speaks of ‘an uplifting through a precise explanation of these truths’ tr. Luibheid p. 153.

134

perspective and sometimes purely and without any mixture with

anything else.’ [the literal sense?] ‘They look at it sometimes at

the human and intermediate level’ [the tropological?], sometimes in

a transcendent mode and in the context of perfection.’ [the

anagogical?] ‘Sometimes they rely on the laws governing visible

things, sometimes on rules which govern invisible things.’

[allegorical?], and all this depending on what suits the sacred

writings, minds and souls. Whether one looks at the question

in its entirety or in individual detail theirs is not a

discourse totally in the bare historical domain [ the ‘literal

sense’] but one which has to do with life-giving perfection.’

Epistle 9, (1108B-C), my suggested categorisation in italics).

For Dionysius, anagogical symbols in Scripture are primarily

pointers to higher, unseen realities, based either in the

future or presently in Heaven.530

‘With eyes that look beyond the world I must behold the sacred

forms attributed to it by the scriptures, so that we may be

uplifted by way of these mysterious representations to their

divine simplicity. Then with due worship and thanksgiving we

530 John Cassian: ‘the anagogical sense rises from spiritual mysteries even to still more sublime and sacred secrets of heaven.’ in ‘Conferences’, 14, c. 8, tr. C.S. Gibson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3508.htm>. There is a ‘family resemblance’ here with Greek usage of the term anagoge, which from the first century could refer figuratively to death. See Henri de Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four senses of Scripture, Vol 2, translated by E.M. Macierowski, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), p. 180, n. 6.

135

will glorify God, the source of everything we understand

concerning the hierarchy.’531

Anders Nygren is correct then to locate the concept of anagogy

in Dionysius within what he calls the eros motif in Dionysius’

use of anagogy. In Nygren’s critique the Dionysian eros is

merely the Neoplatonic principle of hierarchy by another name.

It is a soteriological concept.532 Anagogy refers to the

mystical ascent to the ‘hierarchies of Heaven,’533of which the

sacred symbol acts as a stepping stone.534 Hierarchy is a

‘gift’535 whose ‘goal’ is divinisation.536

‘And so, it is that all things must desire, must yearn for,

must love, the Beautiful and the Good. Because of it and for

its sake, subordinate is returned to superior, equal keeps

company with equal, superior turns providentially to

subordinate, each bestirs itself and all are stirred to do and

to will whatever it is they do and will because of the

yearning for the Beautiful and the Good.’537

531 CH 4 (177C), tr. Luibheid, p.156.532 EH 1, (376B). Later Luther in his ‘Copernican revolution’ will replace anagogy with ‘katagogy’ (so to speak), by insisting that fellowship with God is not based on man rising to meet God on his level, but on God descending in grace to meet man on our level – and to justify the sinner (John 3:13: Mark 2:17). See Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), Bk. 3, c.1, pp. 681-691.533 CH 2, 1 (137B), p.148; CH 1 (121C). Following it seems John Cassian’s understanding of the term. ‘the anagogical sense rises from spiritual mysteries even to still more sublime and sacred secrets of heaven’ (Anagoge uero de spiritalibus mysteriis ad sublimiora quaedam et sacratiora caelorum secreta), (Conf. 14.8.3); EH 4, 3, 473B, p.225; CH 1, 121C, p.146; CH 2, 145B, p.153; 15, 337D, p.190. 534 CH 1, 121C.535 EH 2, 376B.536 EH 2 (392A); EH 3 (433C).537 DN 4 (708A)

136

For Nygren, the ‘Good seeking good for the sake of the

Good,’538 has displaced the distinctively Christian agape which

is based on no quality in its object but in self-sacrifice

reaches out to the unworthy and the unrighteous out of pure

grace.539

Although there is a ‘katagogic’ element to Neoplatonic eros, a

‘love for humanity,’540 largely as a result of its cross-

fertilisation with Christianity541, it retains a different

character to the unmerited agapeic love for the sinner.

Neoplatonic love is still appetitive, it yearns for the divine

in man. As Plotinus puts it on his death bed, ‘I was waiting

for you, that you might help to bring the Divine in me to the

Divine in all.’542 This explains why anagogy is for Plotinus a

self-reflexive process. He speaks of ‘ascending to himself’ in

Enneads, I, 6, 9; IV, 7, 10.543 In a sense then the idea of a 538 DN 4 (708B)539 Mark 2:17; Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:3-4; 1 John 4:10.540 EH 3, (429B); DN 4, (708A). Marinus (the successor to Proclus in the school of Athens) uses the term philanthropia of the god Asclepius who came tothe aid of a severely ill young girl at the invocation of Proclus. Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 31, translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 106.541 ‘those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs,’ Plato, Republic 7, (517) although the release prisoner does ‘pity’ those still in the cave (516). The above story of Proclus and the healing of the young girl in Marinus is clearly styled after the Gospel miracle from Mark 5. See Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 31, translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 106 ? ‘those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs,’ Plato, Republic 7, (517).542 Porphyry, De Vita Ploini, 2, cited in Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.194.543 Followed by Porphyry, Life of Plotinus, 23. See Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.488.

137

‘descent’ is, properly speaking, an anthropomorphism. As

Dionysius explains in the context of prayer, rowers do not

pull the land toward the boat but boat is pulled toward the

land; we do not pull down Heaven towards us but Heaven lifts

us up to itself.544 This is ‘the divine return to the primary

things’ which is ‘the goal of his procession toward secondary

things.’

However, Nygren’s thesis that agape is entirely unmotivated

can be criticised as a half truth characteristic of

voluntarism. According to 1 John 4:16, God does not love sinners

out of pure will but rather because God is love.545 As Charles

Wesley expressed it:

‘'T is Love! 't is Love! Thou diedst for me;

I hear thy whisper in my heart;

The morning breaks, the shadows flee;

Pure, universal Love thou art;

To me, to all, thy bowels move;

Thy nature and thy name is Love.’546

544 DN 3, (690C). See also Julian, Orationes, V, 172D who speaks of a ‘seven rayed god’ causing the soul to ascend. Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by MichelTardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p. 186.545 EH 3, (429B). In the developed form of voluntarism encountered in Descartes the absolute omnipotence of God which can change laws of logic results in Descartes’ problem of the ‘malevolent demon’ of radical scepticism. Descartes, Letter 2 to Mersenne, in Descartes Philosophical Writings, tr. E. Anscombe and P. Geach (Nelson Philosophical Texts, 1963), p 261 and Meditation 1. 546 Charles Wesley (1742), ‘Wrestling Jacob’ in Ruffer, Harrison, Barnard, Giles (eds.), Ancient and Modern: hymns and songs for refreshing worship (Canterbury Press Norwich, 2013), 616.

138

If God arbitrarily chose to act in a loving way we could never

trust him to not choose differently tomorrow. Indeed it is

telling that Nygren criticises the Johannine writings on love

for not adequately fitting into his schema!547 He concedes that

Johannine Christianity, ‘creates a spiritual environment in

which there would be some points of contact for the otherwise

alien Eros motif.’548 Furthermore, the use of bridal imagery

in Scripture for the relationship between God and his

people,549 especially in the Song of Songs, strongly suggests an

analogy between human eros and divine agape which is missing

from the grace/nature separation in Nygren’s thesis.550

Although by fallen nature human beings are ‘children of wrath’

(Ephesians 2:9), the good image of God is marred but not

destroyed by the Fall.551 Even Paul at times uses agape in the

context of ‘longing’ e.g. in Philippians 4:1 where he twins the

terms and (beloved and longed for), 2 Timothy

4:8 where he speaks of believers ‘loving (ἠγαπηκόσι) his

appearing or even of Demas who deserted Paul, ‘having loved

(ἀγαπήσας) this present age’!

547 Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), pp.146-159.548 Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.159.549 Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1-3; Mark 2:19-20; Ephesians 5:27. Revelation 19:8;21:2 refer to the white garments of the church as the bride of Christ. The union of Christ and the saints is ‘the marriage supper of the Lamb’ (Rev. 19:9).550 Nygren puts it starkly, ‘Luther, however, has taken seriously the fact that Christian love is by nature wholly other than human love.’ Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, translated by Philip S. Watson (SPCK, 1982), p.726.551 See Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9 (though none of these passages are quoted by Dionysius).

139

In The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius uses the ‘dissimilar

figure’ of the rite of anointing to teach this lesson.

Dionysius informs us that the truth of the sacred fragrance is

hidden from all but the ‘Divine artists,’ those ‘lovers of

beauty,’552 who, like the heavenly charioteers in Plato’s

Phaedrus,553 ‘.gaze solely on conceptual original..[They]..refuse

to be dragged down’554 toward the realm of ‘counterfeits’.555

Here the material world, while not quite ‘dung’ is

nevertheless inferior556 and less real than the conceptual

realm. In the Platonic myth the fall of the charioteer results

in imprisonment for the soul in the ‘living tomb’ of the body,

like oysters in a shell.557 Marinus uses the same image to

describe his master Proclus whose virtues were still visible

in ‘the shell-like covering’ of his aged body,558 but Dionysius

chooses to draw out the positive value of the material world

from Proclus’ anagogical schema. Dionysius reveals his poetic

genius when he writes: ‘Matter, after all, owes its

subsistence to absolute beauty and keeps throughout its

552 Plato, Phaedrus, 249d; Proclus, Alcibiades, 202553 Plato, Phaedrus, 247ff.554 See also Wisdom 9:13; Plotinus, Enneads 1.4.16; Methodius, Symposium, 8:2-3.Porphyry literally believed that the pneuma became heavier in its descent into matter and that this heavy moisture threatened to drag it down to a place of punishment after death. Theurgy helps it to reascend. See E.R. Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology, Appendix II, p.318.555 EH 4 (476A), tr. Luibheid, p.226.556 See also EH 1, (376B-C) where the less corporeal oral tradition is arguedto be superior since it is analogous to the level of the celestial hierarchy in which angelic intelligences communicate immaterially ‘from mind to mind.’557 Plato, Phaedrus, 250; Republic, 611D; Proclus, In Timaeus, 3.298.16ff Diehl. 558 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 3 translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.61.

140

earthly ranks, some echo of intelligible beauty.’559 Here

Universal Beauty is recollected in the earthly particulars and

beautiful sights and fragrances become theophanies of

invisible Beauty and holiness.560 Anagogy is thus for Dionysius

an erotic longing to return from the ‘fallen’ embodiment of

history and culture to the original spiritual state.

This general principle, summed up in the title of the putative

book, The Conceptual and the Perceptible,561 has two particular

applications. Firstly, it can be applied to the spiritual

meaning of Scripture, which depends on its corporeal or

‘literal’ sense,562 as a stepping stone to the higher truths.563

The Transcendent One has thought it fitting to clothe itself

with things, ‘derived from the realm of the senses’564 as

‘sacred veils,’565 in order to accommodate itself to human

nature566 and initiate the divine return. Secondly, it is true

of the visible words of the sacraments.567 Dionysius comments

that ‘even if it had no other and more sacred meaning,’ the

rite of baptism communicates physical cleansing and therefore 559 CH 2, (121C-D), c.f. Origen’s discussion of matter in On First Principles, IV, 4, 5-6.560 ‘These divine beauties are concealed. Their fragrance is something beyond any effort of the understanding and they effectively keep clear of all profanation. They reveal themselves solely to minds capable of graspingthem.’ EH 4, (473B). See also CH 1, (121D); Sammon, God Who is Beauty; Perl, Theophany. On spiritual fragrance see Origen, Song of Songs Commentary, Book 2.9, pp.159-162 and Homily 2 in Song of Songs Commentary, pp.285-286; 561 EH 2, (397C).562 See Origen, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean, 3 (13), XVII. 101, 84.563 See discussion of Tintorretto’s Ascension of Christ, in Reid, The Catholic Thing, May 25, 2017. 564 DN 1.4, (529B). 565 EH 1, (376D)566 CH 1.2, (121C).567 The Greek term translated ‘sacrament’ in Dionysius is ‘teletas’ signifying a‘means of perfecting’.

141

purification from all evil.568 In this process it is the

hierarch (i.e. the Bishop) who takes the role of a mediator

when he ‘lifts into view 569 the things praised through the

sacredly clothed symbols’ of the eucharist, the divine symbol

par excellence, which, like the Chaldean Oracles connects anagogy

with ritual.570 But for Dionysius, these are special instances

of a metaphysics which is essentially Neoplatonic. The

transcendent Cause is manifested or revealed immanently in its

effects which is expressed by Dionysius in terms of

‘differentiations’ or ‘processions’ from the One.571 It is no

accident that Dionysius prefers the term synaxis for the

eucharist since it denotes a gathering back to unity from the

plurality of the material symbols.572

‘For it is quite impossible that we humans should, in any

immaterial way, rise up to imitate and to contemplate the

heavenly hierarchies without the aid of those material means

capable of guiding us as our nature requires.’ (The Celestial

Hierarchy 1)573

In this way Dionysius can baptise Neoplatonic metaphysics into

the Christian faith, which as we have seen in Section 3, had

already become the mainstream tradition of the early fathers

from Justin Martyr onwards as contextualisation of the gospel.568 EH 1, (397B); EH 3 (445A).569 either the elevation or uncovering of the elements. See Campbell, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, 154.570 CH 1.3, (124A); EH 3, (445A).571 DN 1 (640D-641A); (649B-652A).572 EH 3.3, (429A); c.f. DN 1 (640D-641A); (649B-652A).573 CH 1 (121C-D) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.146.

142

13.Origen on the anagogical sense.

Origen (182-254) appears to also be the ultimate source

for speaking of an anagogical sense of Scripture. He

frequently contrasts the ‘literal’ sense ( with an

‘elevated’ one (574before the latter had received

the technical specification used by Cassian. In this way he

uses the Greek term in his commentary on Matthew575 and John, a

notable example of which is cited by Aquinas in his commentary

of chapter 2.2.415 for the text: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I

will raise it up again.’ Aquinas comments:

‘In the anagogical sense, according to Origen,576 we understand

by this that in the final resurrection of nature we will be

disciples of Christ, when in the great resurrection the entire

body of Jesus, that is his Church will be made certain of the

things we now hold through faith in a dark manner. Then we will

receive the fulfilment of faith, seeing in actual fact what we

now observe through a mirror.’577

574 See Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), XVII. 101, translaed by CecileBlanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.84.575 Origen, Commentary on Matthew, x.15, cited in Frances M. Young, Biblical exegesis and the formation of Christian culture, (Cambridge, 1997), p.95, Henri de LubacS.J also lists Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus and Jerome and Eucherius as forerunners who deployed this term in reference to a method of interpretation. Medieval Exegesis: The Four senses of Scripture, Vol 2 tr. E.M. Macierowski (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, T & T Clark Edinburgh, 2000), p.180.576 Origen Comm. In Io. X.43.nos. 299-306; PG 14, col. 392-393B; cf. Catena Aurea 2:18-22577 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John chapters 1-5, translated by Fabian Larcher, O.P., and James A. Weishapl, O.P. (Catholic University of America Press, 2010), ch. 2.2.415, pp.158-159

143

This appears to be a special instance of a general,

‘anagogical’ principle presented by Origen in the same

commentary:

‘The Scriptures, therefore, are introductions, from whose

exact understanding, called here the spring of Jacob, one must

ascend to Jesus, so that we may be graciously given the spring

of water leaping up to eternal life.’578

A notable sermon which treats an anagogical approach to

Scripture in detail is Homily XXVII on Numbers which, using a

Neoplatonic schema, traces 42 stages of ‘descent’ for Christ

entering the world (i.e. the generations of the patriarchs)

corresponding to 42 stages of ascent for the soul during its

earthly pilgrimage before ‘returning’ to its ‘rest’ in God.579

This anagogical background in Origen adds weight to the

contention of Istvan Perczel that the original Syriac

reception of the Corpus Dionysiacum reveals an Origenist milieu

which was later to be diluted and where necessary corrected in

the subsequent Greek reception.580

In the majority of cases, this anagogical sense is not

free-floating but presupposes a literal or historical sense. 578 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 13, V, 37, tr. Joseph W. Trigg (Routledge, London and New York, 1998), p.155.579 See the English translation in Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.),Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), pp.245-269.580 See Istvan Perczel, ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius’ in SarahCoakley and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp.27-41.

144

For example, in the paradigmatic passage in Genesis 21:9-10

(c.f. Galatians 4: 22-26), Origen notes that the remarkable thing

about Paul is precisely that he ‘called things “allegorical”

which are quite clearly done in the flesh,’581 i.e. in flesh

and blood historical persons, who are depicted in Scripture

‘warts and all’. Stuart Hall therefore goes too far in

claiming that:

‘Origen certainly is rather weak on historical reality: for

him it is the universal spiritual truth which counts, and he

has no interest in the different circumstances in which the

Biblical books took their origin.’582

David Dawson is closer to the truth when he concludes that for

Origen (as later for Dionysius,)583 the ‘literal’ and the

‘spiritual’ are so interrelated that the spiritual depends on

the literal. He compares this to the way Jesus’ physical

cleansing of the leper by his touch at the same time effected

a spiritual healing.584 Such a symbiosis could provide a window

into understanding the nature of the inspiration of Scripture

without distorting it in terms of mechanical dictation.585 581 Origen, Homilies on Genesis 7.2 and the discussion in Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015, pp.88-89. Sheridon also points to Commentary on John 22.67-74; Homilies on Genesis6.1; 13.3; Commentary on Romans 2.13; Homilies on Joshua 9.8.582 Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 1995), p.103.583 ‘In a divine fashion it (Hierarchy) needs perceptible things to lift us up into the domain of conceptions.’ EH 1, (377A), tr. Luibheid, p. 199.584 David Dawson, ‘Allegorical reading and the embodiment of the soul in Origen’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, 1998), pp. 26-43.585 Origen, Peri Archon IV.2.7. See David Dawson, ‘Allegorical reading and the embodiment of the soul in Origen’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.),

145

Indeed it is Origen who initiates the implicit analogy between

the bodily and spiritual meanings with the two natures of

Christ in the incarnation.586 This is most striking in his

Homily 1 on Leviticus 1:1:

‘As ‘in the Last Days’ (Acts 2:17), the Word of God, which was

clothed with the flesh of Mary, proceeded into this world.

What was seen in him was one thing: what was understood was

something else. For the sight of his flesh was open for all to

see, but the knowledge of his divinity was given to the few,

even the elect. So also when the Word of God was brought

without to humans through the Prophets and the lawgiver, it

was not brought without proper clothings. For just as there it

was covered with the veil of flesh, so here with the veil of

the letter, so that indeed the letter is seen as flesh but the

spiritual sense hiding within is perceived as divinity.’587

Origen’s analogy will later be picked up and developed by

Aquinas as his supreme analogy for the relationship between

the human and divine authorship of Scripture.588

Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, 1998), pp. 33-34.586 See Prin. 4.1.1; 4.2.3. See also See J.H. Crehan, ‘The analogy between Verbum Dei Incarnatum and Verbum Dei Scriptum in the fathers’, Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1955), pp. 87-90.587 Homily 1 on Leviticus 1:1. 588 In Ioannis 14:5-6 [1865-1872]. See also A. Blanco, ‘Word and Truth in Divine Revelation: A Study of the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on John 14:6’, in Leo Elders (ed.), La Doctrine de la revelation divine de saint Thomas d’Aquin. Actes du Syposium sur la pensee de saint Thomas d’Aquin tenu a Rolduc, 4 et 5 novembre 1989 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990), pp. 27-48. Cited in Christopher Baglow, ‘Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine in Thomas Aquinas’ in Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed.), Aquinas on Doctrine: a critical introduction (T & T Clark, 2004), p.21.

146

However, the question remains whether or not Dawson’s account

of the dependence of the spiritual on the literal in Origen589

does justice to those texts which Origen himself describes as

‘bodiless’590 such as Genesis 1-3,591 parts of Ezekiel, certain

prophecies regarding nations and leaders of nations, e.g. Isaiah

14, Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel 29592 and supremely the Song of Songs, whose

whole book in every word is, according to Origen, ‘perfect’

and ‘bodiless’?593 By ‘bodiless’ Origen is referring to his

comparison of exegesis with the three aspects of a human:

body, soul and spirit, the body representing the ‘literal’

meaning. A ‘bodiless’ text is thus one in which: ‘there is

absolutely no indication of a carnal denomination in it.’594

Although Origen describes the genre of the Song of Songs as both

589J. Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005).590 ‘we must not ignore the fact that there are certain passages in Scripture in which what we have called the body, that is a logically coherent narrative meaning (historia) is not always to be found…And there areplaces where only what we have called the soul and the spirit may be understood.’ Origen, ‘On First Principles, IV. 2.5 translated by Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works(Paulist Press, 1979), p.183. See also Homilies on Numbers 11.1.591 One of the 8 points of condemnation of Origen by Jerome was that, ‘he soallegorises Paradise as to destroy historical truth, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers, and he overthrows allthat is contained in the history of Paradise by his figurative interpretation.’ Jerome, Adv. Ioann. Hier.,7 in J.Stevenson (ed.), Creeds, Councils and Controversies: documents illustrative of the history of the Church A.D. 337-461 (SPCK, 1966),p.174. See Origen, De Principiis IV.3.1 in Stevenson (ed. ), A New Eusebius ( SPCK,1957), p.220 for the probable reference.592 Origen, On First Principles ,IV, 3, 9. 593 J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.28. See De Principiis, IV.3.4.594 neque aliqua prosus in his miscetur carnalis nominis intelligentia. Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prol. 4.21 p. 53.

147

‘drama’ and ‘wedding song’ (epithalamium595), and in this way

Origen could be said to give a foundational ‘literal’ sense to

the Song of Songs, this could be misleading for the reader, in

that, on Origen’s view, the song never had an historical ‘sitz

im leben’ of an earthly love affair nor an earthly marriage. On

Origen’s view ‘even the love of husbands for wives can be

dishonourable’ in contrast to the pure love of Christ for the

Church.596 This is why, Origen speculates, Solomon is described

‘neither as Son of David’ nor ‘King.’597 This does not stop

Origen referring to an ‘historical sense,’ however. He calls

the ‘elements in the drama’ itself the ‘historical sense’.598

In The Song of Songs Commentary Book 2, Origen discusses a

reference to Pharoah’s chariots from both the ‘historical’

sense and the ‘mystical’ sense, in the same way that he refers

in other books to a ‘literal’ and an ‘elevated’ sense.599

Furthermore, the prophetic experience of the human author

(assumed to be Solomon) is the historical setting for the book

itself and Origen believed that Solomon always intended the

Song to impart the ‘perfect and mystical song’ to the ‘perfect

Bride.’600 The Song thus connects to Origen’s general theology 595 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), First Homily, p.268. Lawson’s footnote 12 explains that epithalamia were written by classical poets such as Sappho, Theocritus, Catallus and Statius (pp.361-362).596 Homily 2. Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), p. 284.597 neque aliud horum quod ad corporeum pertinere possit intellectum, Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prol. 4.21 p. 53.598 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 2, section 4, p.119.599 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 2, section 6, pp 140-144.600 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prol. 4:3-4, p.47. J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs

148

of two tiers of Christianity, the tier of the ‘literal’ sense

for Origen accommodates those who are unable to receive the

deeper truths of the higher tier, but are naively bound up

with historical conceptions (which he perjoratively calls

‘sensible exegesis’).601 . In Origen’s Commentary on the Song of

Songs he interprets the text, ‘thine eyes are doves’ (1.15) as

an example of a growth in spiritual understanding. It refers

to the eyes of the Bride of Christ who ‘understands the Divine

Scriptures now, not after the letter, but after the spirit,

and perceives in them spiritual mysteries; for the dove is the

emblem of the Holy Spirit. To understand the Law and the

Prophets in a spiritual sense is therefore, to have the eyes

of a dove.’602 The purpose of Scripture for Origen is to rise

from a merely ‘carnal’ sense to an ‘elevated’ one. Texts

which fall under the category of ‘total allegory’, such as The

Song of Songs have no literal meaning, or perhaps a more

accurate way of putting it would be to say that the literal

meaning is the allegorical one.603 For example, the ‘dark’ bride

was always intended to mean the Gentile church which is the

bride of Christ604 and to ‘kiss’ in Song of Songs always referred

to the loving impartation of his teachings.605 Actions in

as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.43.601 De Principiis IV.2.1 602 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 3, section 1, p.170. 603J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’sPerfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.45.604 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 2.1, pp.96-101.605 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 1.1, pp. 58-62.

149

‘total allegory’ occur in ‘spiritual not diachronic

history.’606 Support for Origen’s interpretation can be found

in the recent thesis of James M. Hamilton Jr. who reads the

intention of the Song of Songs in its Jewish canonical context as

Messianic. This leads Hamilton to describe the genre of the

book not as allegory but as ‘literally’ referring to the

Messiah in idealised poetry.607 But they are in effect saying

the same thing using different terminology.

Not all believers will have the spiritual maturity to access

the text at Origen’s ‘elevated’ level. Even in Jewish

pedagogy, according to Origen, the rabbis saved instruction on

Genesis 1, the first and last chapters of Ezekiel and Song of Songs

until last.608 This is because the carnal reader will not ‘hear

love’s language in purity’ but will rather:

‘twist the whole manner of his hearing away from the inner

spiritual man and on to the outward and carnal; and he will be

turned away from the spirit to the flesh. And will foster

carnal desires in himself, and it will seem to be the Divine

606 J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.58. e.g. Cant. 1.2.2.607 James M. Hamilton, Jr., ‘The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs: A Non-Allegorical Interpretation,’ Westminster Theological Journal, 68 (2006), pp.331-345. 608 J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.43. See alsoMoses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Friedlander (Dover, 2nd ed.),Part III, Introduction, p.251.

150

Scriptures that are urging and egging him on to the fleshly

lust!’609

Later on in his commentary on chapter 2:6 ‘His left hand is under my

head, and his right hand shall embrace me’, Origen warns his reader,

‘..do not suffer an interpretation that has to do with the

flesh and the passions to carry you away.’610 Dionysius

similarly objects that the unenlightened read Song of Songs as if

it were pornography,611 yet those ‘lovers of holiness’ who have

been purified, can find a spiritual eroticism (the Platonic

eros motif as opposed to the vulgar eros motif) in the text which

enables them to see ‘the beauty hidden within these images.’612

For Origen (and it would seem for Dionysius) the central

meaning of the Song is: ‘..the Bridegroom and Bride as Christ

and his Beloved, united both in her true love as desire for

609 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue, p. 22. See also Augustine, De Spiritu et littera, 6. ‘If, for instance, a man were to take in a literal and carnal sense much that iswritten in the Song of Solomon, he would minister not to the fruit of a luminous charity, but to the feeling of a libidinous desire.’tr. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, and revised by Benjamin B. Warfield. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm>. 610 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 3.9, p.200.611 ‘And in the Songs there are those passionate longings fit only for prostitutes.’ Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9. 1105B, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.282. There is another parallel with Origen where Origen refers to ‘love’ of a harlot as an improper use of the term ‘love’. See Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Prologue 2, p.30.612 Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9. 1105C, tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), pp.282-283.

151

ultimate things and in his desire that she might attain them –

in him.’613

However, in Origen at least (if less so in Dionysius) an agape

motif is not altogether lost, for what is the ‘emptying out’

(kenosis) spoken of in Song of Songs 1:3 if not the descent of

agape in Philippians 2?614 As we noted earlier the presence of

this book in canonical Scripture implies an analogical

relationship between agape and eros which is obscured by the

polarised thesis of Anders Nygren.615

14. ‘Proper’ or ‘Substantial’ truth about God

What is Thomas’ response to Dionysius’ approach and what can

we learn from it? Three things may be briefly noted: Firstly

we note that Aquinas, in keeping with the medieval tradition,

recognises the value of Dionysius in showing how imagery can

raise the minds of those who receive it beyond the

constrictions of human speech to the Divine truths it

signifies. A metaphor is, by definition, a figure of speech

literally false, so Aquinas acknowledges with Dionysius that

the more incongruous a metaphor the less likely it is to

mislead the naïve, (e.g. the metaphor of God being ‘drunk’616

or hung over). 617 ‘Indeed the sheer crassness of the signs is a

613 J.Christopher King, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.40.614 See also Origen, De Principiis 1, Preface 4, in J.Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius ( SPCK, 1957), p.213. However, Nygren would point out that Neoplatonism also incorporated a descent as part of the monos, prodos, eistrophe return to the One.615 Anders Nygren, Eros and Agape, tr. Philip S.Watson (SPCK, 1982)616 EP 9 (1112C).617 MT 3 (1033A); EP 9 (1112B).

152

goad.’618 This is more ‘fitting’ 619 with Thomas’ own principle

that what God is not is clearer than what He is

It appears that new atheists and ‘fundamentalists’ both insist

on reading the Bible literalistically (in its modern sense),

though this is perhaps unfair on the fundamentalists, since

literalism was never one of the five ‘fundamentals’.620 An

example of a modern writer who both Dionysius and Aquinas

would have regarded as misled and unsophisticated would be the

‘new atheist,’ Richard Dawkins who, speaking of the way Yahweh

is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, concludes: ‘The God of

the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in

618 CH 2,3 (141B), tr. Luibheid, p.150.619 This is a Thomist term which itself can be traced to Dionysius e.g. EH 4, 473B.620 The publication ‘Fundamentals’ appeared in 12 missionary volumes in 1909 and in the following year their content was summarised at The General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church (1910) as 1. Inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, 2. The deity of Christ. 3. His virgin birth andmiracles, 4. His substitutionary atonement, 5. His physical resurrection and personal return. The term ‘fundamentalists’ was later coined in 1920 by the editor of the Baptist journal Watchman- Examiner in the positive context of ‘those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals’. See J.I.Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (IVF, 1960), c. 2; Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs (Wm. B. Eerdmaans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2002), p. 203. In October, 1942, the doctrinal basis of the LondonBible College was spelled out as ‘The Fundamental Truths of Christianity’. These comprised a revised list which did not specify inerrancy or literalism: 1. The unity of the father, the Son, and the Holy spirit in theGodhead. 2. The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures. 3. The guilt and depravity of human nature in consequence of the Fall. 4. The substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his resurrection, as the only way of salvation from sin through faith. 5. The necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth, and His indwelling in the believer for sanctification. 6. The personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ. See H.H.Rowdon, London Bible College, the first 25 years (Henry E.Walter Ltd., 1968), p.18. James Barr points out that in fact the commitment to inerrancy actually works against a commitment to literalism, since the objective is to harmonise alleged discrepancies in the canon.

153

all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,

unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic

cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,

genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,

sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.621

Dawkins demonstrates the truth of Origen’s contention that

Christian literalists are easy prey for gnostics who, like

Dawkins, find such literal accounts morally repugnant and are

consequently inclined to jettison belief in the Old Testament

God.622

But, secondly, unlike Dionysius, Thomas does not regard all

‘similar’ terms as figurative. Aquinas introduces a new and

helpful term substantialiter623 to clarify his distinctive treatment

of proper names such as ‘Being,’ ‘Life’ and ‘Wisdom.’

‘Substantialiter’ recognises that proper names (also known as

‘attributes’ or ‘excellences’624) do not describe God

perfectly, and needless to say not univocally, but neither are

621Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2006), p.51.622 Origen, Contra Celsum 4.48; On First Principles, 4.2.1. See also the discussion in Peri Archon 4.2.9 and 4.3.5 cited in David Dawson, ‘Allegorical reading andthe embodiment of the soul in Origen’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London and New York, 1998),p.35; Mark Sheridon, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism (Illinois: IVP, 2015), pp.18, 37.623 ST 1a, q. 13, a. 2 resp and a. 6 cited Gregory P. Rocca, Speaking the Incomprehensible God (Catholic University of America Press, 2004), p.307. See also De Potentia, q.7.a.5. resp. tr. the English Dominican Fathers, Html edition by Joseph Kenny, O.P.http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#7:5 accessed 22/10/15.624 Gregory P. Rocca, Speaking the Incomprehensible God (Catholic University of America Press, 2004), p.31.

154

they merely negative,625 or ‘unutterable symbols which are

intelligible only to the gods’ as in pagan theurgy,626 instead

they communicate substantial truth about God’s nature by analogy

through the via eminentia.627

Thirdly and finally Aquinas reconfigures Dionysius’

anagogical method back within the traditional fourfold

hermeneutic and follows the Victorine school in defending the

historical and the literal as the normative sense. We turn now

to examine this third aspect in more detail.

15. The Place of the historical in Dionysius.

Although we can see from the 2nd century Gnostics onwards a

downplaying of the historical in preference for the eternal

and mystical, notably in the sayings of the pseudepigraphic

‘Gospel of Thomas’628 which are detached from any narrative or even625 Maimonides, A Guide for the Perplexed, ch 58, tr. M.Friedlander (Dover, 1956) p.81 or in the Gnostic Basilides. See Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible andPhilosophy in the Third Century (SCM, 1985), p.39. 626 Iamblichus, De myst. II.ii cited in E.R.Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology(2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004), p.xx. 627 Gregory P. Rocca, Speaking the Incomprehensible God (Catholic University of America Press, 2004). p.312. Gregory of Nyssa had earlier argued that some names are ‘truly predicable of God’ though ‘with a heightened and more glorious meaning.’ Contra Eunomius 1. 620-633, cited in Frances M. Young, in Biblical Exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge, 1997), p.142. Young calls this ‘a special kind of “literalism”’628 The Gospel of Thomas translated by Thomas O. Lambdin in Robinson, James M.(ed), The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1998), pp.124-139. In his Introduction, Helmet Koester points out that Thomas was believed to have founded the church in Edessa, Syria and the ‘Gospel’ was known in Syria. Thus this Gnostic Gospel may have been read by Dionysius. Our earliest text is 2nd century from Egypt. Fragments are found in the Oxyrinchus Papyrii 1, 644 and 655. Golitzin believes that Dionysius’ use ofthe term ‘monk’ (monachos) in EH 6.1.3 (553A) can be traced back to the

155

any apocalyptic element,629 nevertheless we do not encounter a

radical separation of the historical and spiritual even in the

most notable allegorists such as Philo,630 Origen,631 or Meister

Eckhart632 until the time of Benedict Spinoza633 and Immanuel

Kant,634 to be followed in turn by Hegel, Strauss and later

term ‘solitary’ in Saying 77 (See also Sayings 16, 23, 30, 76, 114). See Golitzin, Alexander, Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita ed. Bogdon G. Bucur (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013), p.7, n.12.629 For example, Saying 79 detached from its Lukan context about the fall of Jerusalem (11.27) becomes instead an apparently disparaging remark about motherhood. See F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Hodder and Staughton, 1974), p. 143 and Tradition Old and New (Paternoster Press, 1970), p.105. See also Saying 3 ‘the kingdom is within you..’ p.113 and Saying 113 ‘the Kingdom of the Father is spread abroad on the earth and men do not see it’ which lose their eschatological significance and become atemporal truths. Bruce highlights the dangers inherent in this approach: ‘The sayings of Jesus are best to be understood in the light of the historical circumstances in which they were spoken. Only when we have understood them thus can we safely endeavour to recognise the permanent truth which they convey. When they are detached from their original historical setting and arranged in an anthology, their interpretation is more precarious…When the sayings are detached from their historical setting, they tend to be interpreted in another context, and this context will be determined by the conscious beliefs and unconscious presuppositionsof the community in which they circulate in this form’ (pp.154-155). John Caputo too makes a perceptive observation that ‘Jesus does not say that the kingdom is ‘always already’ within us, that it has always and already been there, and that we need to simply awaken to what we have all along possessed. Were that the case, then the kingdom would be a matter of ‘recollection,’ of anamnesis, and the metanoia would amount to nothing more than a kind of Platonic conversion, a turning in that recovers what we havealways possessed but have lately forgotten. Then the Teacher would only be the ‘occasion,’ as Johannes Climacus says, which is, as Climacus rightly insisted, the Greek view of things and essentially at odds with the temporality and historicity of biblical experience. Jesus says that the kingdom has come upon us, not that it has always been within us.’ John D.Caputo, The Weakness of God: A theology of the event (Indiana University Press, 2006), p.167.630 ‘Why, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to pay heed to nothing except what is shown us by the inner meaning of things.’ Philo, De Migratione Abrahae 16.4.186 tr. F.H. Colson and G.H.Whitaker cited by Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages.(Oxford, Blackwell 1952), p. 2.

156

liberal theology, with its dualism of ‘preaching’ versus ‘event’

and ‘Jesus of history’ versus ‘Christ of faith’.635

Origen, for instance, had founded a Christian school which

inherited the classical methods of textual analysis including

‘Probably there was an actual man called Samuel; but we can conceive of theSamuel of the scripture, not as a living compound of soul and body, but as a mind which rejoices in the service and worship of God and that only.’ Philo, De Ebrietate, 36,3,395 cited in Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages.(Oxford, Blackwell 1952), p. 3. See also Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge, 1997), p.82 who notes that ‘ even the greatest allegorist was rooted in the school tradition I have described.’631 ‘Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe anyhistory in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place.’ Origen, De Principiis, IV, 19. ‘For the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those interwoven with them which have merely a spiritual sense.’ Origen, De Principiis, IV.3.4, cited in Stevenson (ed. ), A New Eusebius ( SPCK, 1957), p.221.See also Homilies in Genesis 7.2.632 Eckhart contrasts with Aquinas by explicitly suppressing the ‘literal’ sense i.e. the historical sense or the authorial intention. For example in Sermon 2 ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews?’ (Matthew 2:2), in Sermons and Treatises, Volume 1, tr. and ed. M.O.C. Walshe, (Element Books, 1979), p.15 he is not interested in the literal, historical event of the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth but only of the birth of the Word in the human heart, though Sermon 3 tacitly acknowledges that there was a literal birth of Christ ‘in time,’ (Meister Eckhart, Sermon 3 in Sermons and Treatises, Volume 1, tr. and ed. M.O.C. Walshe (Element Books, 1979), p.25. It should be noted that this sermon is considered of doubtful authorship, however, by scholars such as Quine. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 3 in Sermons and Treatises, Volume 1, tr. and ed. M.O.C. Walshe (Element Books, 1979), note 2, p. 36. Even the spiritual birth too is seen not so much in terms of whatthe New Testament calls ‘the new birth’ which speaks of a new relationship with God and moral change into the likeness of God, but is symbolic of an enlightenment experience more akin to Buddhist nirvana in which ‘ a man can reach a point in where he is no longer hindered by time, multiplicity or matter.’ Meister Eckhart, Sermon 4 in Sermons and Treatises, Volume 1, tr. and ed. M.O.C. Walshe (Element Books, 1979), P.45. Eckhart has found a new reception in radical and ‘death of God’ theologians such as Thomas Altizer,The Gospel of Christian Atheism (Collins, 1967), p.62; David Jasper, The Sacred Body (Baylor University Press, 2009); phenomenologist Michel Henry, I am the Truth: towards a philosophy of Christianity, tr. Susan Emanuel (Stanford University Press, 2002); John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas: An Essay on Overcoming Metaphysics (New

157

historike.636 In his Commentary on Lamentations, Origen repeatedly

oscillates between the ‘literal’ meaning of the text in its

historical context and its ‘elevated’meaning in terms of the

application to the soul in its captivity to sin.637 Indeed his

fear of presenting ‘only’ an historical meaning of the text is

precisely to avoid a ‘Gnostic’ error of concluding that

therefore the Scriptural meaning was over and done with now for

Christians. If its meaning had been exhausted in the past,

this would be ‘contrary to the catholic faith’ just as Marcion

imagined that the historical God for the Old Testament was no

longer to be worshipped by followers of Christ. Hence Origen’s

hermeneutics was historical plus.638

York, Fordham University Press, 1982); John D. Caputo, The Weakness of God: a theology of the event (Indiana University Press, 2006) and Peter Rollins, How not to speak of God (SPCK, 2006), pp. 103-108.633 Benedict de Spinoza, ‘A Theological- Political Treatise’, ch. 7, tr. R.H.M. Elwes (Dover Publications, 1951), p. 99.634 Kant reduces scripture to the tropological sense. Its purpose is ‘to make men better; the historical element, which contributes nothing to this end, is something which is in itself quite indifferent, and we can do with it what we like.’ Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, tr. T.N.Greene and H.H. Hudson (New York:Harper and Row, 1960), p. 102 cited in Kevin J. Vanhoozer Is there meaning in this text? The Bible, the reader and the morality of literary knowledge (Apollos, 1998), p. 121.635 See David James, Hegel: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum, 2007), pp.102-113; D.F.Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, tr. George Eliot (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1972); Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the historical Jesus (London, Adam and Charles Black, 1954), pp. 396-401; R.J.Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church (Grand Rapids Eerdmans,1989), pp.19, 107-8.636 A technical term used by Quintillian but not yet with the modern sense. See Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge,1997), p.79.637 See Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), pp.73-85; Origene, Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), XVII. 101, tr. Cecile Blanc (Sources Chretiennes, Les editions du Cerf, Paris, 1966), p.84.638 Origen, Homily XXVII on Numbers, 2 in Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.248.

158

Henri de Lubac no doubt overstates the case however when he

declares, ‘there is no more “historical” thought than

Origen’s,’639 not least because Origen states quite plainly

that while all of scripture has a spiritual meaning, not all

has a ‘bodily meaning’, as we have seen pre-eminently in The

Song of Songs.640 In certain passages of On First Principles, Origen

appears to be repeating (unwittingly) the Valentinian

(Gnostic) heresy that the Fall took place in the spiritual

realm and its consequence was a descent into matter.641

Although such doctrines are nowhere taught plainly in the

Scriptures, this is not considered a problem to Origen who

surmises that these are truths which the Holy Spirit must have

hidden in ‘what appear to be historical narratives (historia)’.642

Though Origen attacked the Gnostics in his writings he seems

also, in part, to have fallen prey to elements of Gnosticism

himself. Both Valentinus and Origen were educated in

Alexandria and imbibed the same intellectual climate. Hence,

639 Henri De Lubac, S.J., Scripture in the tradition, tr. Luke O’Neill with an introduction by Peter Casarella (Herder and Herder, 2000), p. 170 citing asevidence Origen, Peri Archon, Bk II, ch. 6. Origen speaks of ‘the order of thehistory’ (ordo historiae) In Num. h.3, n3; h5, n1; h9, n5; De Principii 1.4.c2, n.5 and 9.640 Origen, De Principiis, IV.3.4-5641 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 3, 10. Aquinas comments: ‘Some others, however, were turned away from their principle by a disorderly motion of the will and these deteriorated in goodness, some more and some less; so that this was the occasion for the production of bodies, namely, that non-bodily substances having turned away from the order of the good, might be bound to them as having fallen down to the level of a lower nature.’ Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, Treatise on Separate Substances, c.12.62 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. JosephKenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle edition, Location 769). On Valentinus see J.Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius ( SPCK, 1957), pp.84-91. Mark Julian Edwards discusses Valentinus inOrigen against Plato (Ashgate, 2004), p.33.642 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 3, 11.

159

in two of his mature works De Substantiis Separatis and De Spiritualibus

Creaturis Aquinas attacks heretical views attributed to

Origen,643 because,

‘ he makes many erroneous statements in that book (Peri Archon),

following the views of the ancient philosophers.’644

Even in his account of the resurrection of the body, Origen’s

theology is discoloured by the Greek conception that the

perfect shape must be spherical and therefore the resurrection

body must be spherical.645 (We all have blind spots to our

culture and this is a chief example in Origen). Origen finds

an etymological meaning for sas ‘coolness’ and surmises

that the soul has fallen from a previous state of being ‘hot’

in contemplation of the Word.646 Such a conception is

compatible with Plato whose soul ‘provides herself with an

external body of fire and air.’647 Proclus too speaks of a

class of angels who help ‘enkindle the soul () with

divine fire’ in order to achieve union with the divine ray of

643 Aquinas, De Substantiis Separatis, Treatise on Separate Substances, c.12.62 tr.Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN:Saint Joseph College, 1959); Aquinas, On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter UniversityPress, 1949) a.5, ad. 1, p.70.644 Aquinas, On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949) a.5, ad. 1, pp.70-71. See also De Potentia, 6.6 ad 2.645 Origen, On Prayer, 3.3 tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne (ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.165. C.f. Plato, Laws, Bk. 10, 898-9.646 Origen, De Principiis 2.8.3. Porphyry literally believed that the pneuma became heavier in its descent into matter and that this heavy moisture threatened to drag it down to a place of punishment after death. See E.R.Dodds, Proclus, The Elements of Theology, Appendix II, p.318.647 Plato, Laws, Bk. 10, 899.

160

light.648 Marinus (485AD) records that when Proclus was in his

40th year he had a dream in which he uttered:

‘There hovers the supercelestial and immortal radiance,

Leaping forth from the roaring fire that congregates at the

source.’649

Proclus followed the Chaldean Oracles which describe a ‘Father’

enthroned above the intelligible world who is composed of

‘pure fire,’650 and of the god Aion ‘who dwells in fire.’651

Manifestations of Hecate might include:

‘ a fire which…leaps in the direction of the flow of the air,

or a shapeless fire from which a voice rushes forth..’652

648 Proclus In Cratylus 71, 17. See Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.260. ‘The mortal that has approached the fire, will obtain light from God.’ In Timaeus, I, 211, 2, citedLewy, ibid, p.173. ‘Let us become fire, march through fire. We know the agile way of return: the Father leads us, unfolding the ways of the fire.’ Proclus’ ‘fire song’, Lewy, ibid, p.202, pp. 491-493.649 Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 28, translated by Mark Edwards inNeoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p.101.650 Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.77.651 Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.161.652 G.Luck, ‘Theurgy and forms of worship in Neoplatonism’ in J.Neusner, E.S.Frerichs, P.V.M.Flesher (eds.), Religion, Science and Magic (Oxford, 1989), p.196; Marinus of Neapolis, 28, Proclus or On Happiness translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp.100-101. Edwards notes that there wasa shrine to Hecate in Byzantium, the birthplace of Proclus n..299.

161

Aquinas too references an ancient idea of an empyrean heaven.653

Could this understanding also be part of the background to

Dionysius’ cosmology in which the seraphim are the closest to

God because they are the ‘most fiery’ since according to the

experts in Hebrew whom Dionysius relies on, the term

‘seraphim’ means ‘those who are on fire’?654 In Celestial Hierarchy

Dionysius informs his readers: ‘Angels of the first rank

possess, more than the others, the power of fire and a share

of the divine wisdom which has been poured out to them.’655 The

fire may be related to the fire of the sun as in Divine Names 3,

(680C) which may recollect the Neoplatonic emperor Justin’s

worship of the ‘seven rayed god.’656 Certainly for Origen (at

least as Aquinas reads him) the hierarchical order of physical

653 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis, c. 18, 97, tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), kindle location 1171; Aquinas, On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949) a.8, obj. 12, p.88.654 EH 4, (481C-481D).tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 230. See also Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7. The Hebrew root SRP means ‘to burn’. 2 Enoch 26 ‘Why is their name called seraphim? Because they burn the tablets of Satan.’ Cited in Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysiusas Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (Londonand New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.66. See also CH 13.301A-B. However, Lewy points out that the first order of surrounding angels is not specifically described in the Chaldean Oracles but only in Jewish angelology, although this is one of the sources of the Chaldean Oracles. Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, pp.14-15. For Luther’s comments on the meaning of ‘seraphim’ see Jaroslav Pelikan(ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, Lectures on Genesis 1-5 ( Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p.235. pp.235-236.655 CH 13, (304A) tr. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press,1987), p. 178. See also CH 13, (304D); CH 7, (205B-C); CH 15, (328C-329C).656 Julian , Orationes, V, 172 cited in Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p. 186.

162

bodies itself is a consequence of fallen spirits (much as the

caste system in Hinduism):

‘Origen was wont to say that the whole diversity of bodies was

based on the diversity in the disorderliness of the voluntary

motion of non-bodily substance, so that those that had turned

in a lesser way from God, were bound to nobler bodies, and

those that were turned away more, were bound to less noble

bodies.’657

As part of his deconstruction of Origen, Aquinas asserts: ‘The

principle of this position is groundless and the position

itself is impossible.’658 But Aquinas falls short of following

through any negative implications for Dionysian hierarchy,

finding new ways of defending it.659

The notion that the soul has fallen from a place of ‘hot’

contemplation appears to be the ultimate explanation of

Origen’s subordination of the ‘active’ life to the

‘contemplative’ life660 and his commitment to a ‘secret’ 657 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis,Treatise on Separate Substances, c.12.62 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. JosephKenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle location 776.658 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis,Treatise on Separate Substances, c.12.63 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. JosephKenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle edition, Location 776.659 Aquinas, St. Thomas. Treatise on Separate Substances: De Substantiis Separatis,c.12.63-64 tr. Francis J. Lescoe, ed. Joseph Kenny O.P. (Kindle edition, West Hartford CN: Saint Joseph College, 1959), Kindle edition, Location 784660 Origen, Fragments from the Commentary on St. John, No. 80 cited in Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, tr. Asheleigh Moorhouse (The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, Clayton, Wisconsin, 1963), p.47. Compare Pseudo-Dionysius on the shepherds in CH 4 (181B).

163

Christianity for spiritual men of elevated spiritual truths

beyond the simple message of the Cross (which is only for

‘carnal’ Christians on the lower level of enlightenment below

the theologians),661 truths which are more akin to the

intellectualistic philosophy of Proclus. We have already had

cause to note the low priority given to history in Proclus’

use of the characters Parmenides, Zeno and Socrates in the

Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides.662 Similarly, Commentary on the Timaeus

interprets Plato’s story of Atlantis not as ‘mere history,’

but as an analogy of the opposition between the eternal,

intelligible realities and its inferior emanation. He quotes

Heraclitus to support his allegorical meaning (anticipating

Hobbes) that ‘war is the father of all things.’663

Nevertheless, De Lubac is correct to point out that ‘one can

speak of a historicality permeating the whole “allegorical”

tradition”.’664 Origen’s attention to the historical explains

why the great Origenist, Eusebius became the first Christian

historian, whose method was to shape all subsequent

historiography.665 Gregory the Great, building on this 661 Origen, In Io., 1, 7, 43. PG.14, cols. 36-37. See Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, tr. Asheleigh Moorhouse (The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, Clayton, Wisconsin, 1963), p.47662 Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, tr. Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon,(Princeton University Press, 1987), section 628, p.27.663 Plato, Timaeus 24-25; Proclus, In Timaeus 1,24, 1172-1174 tr. Thomas Taylor, Vol 1 (Prometheus Trust, 1998), pp.162-169. See also In Timaeus I, 77,7. . Hans Lewy, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes), 1978, p.499.664 Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 267, 212f.665 Frances M. Young, , Biblical Exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge,1997), p.79.

164

tradition can introduce his famous moral exposition of the

book of Job as unravelling ‘the words of the history in

allegorical senses,’666 so it is not surprising that history is

not absent in Dionysius. Dionysius can refer in Epistle 8 to what

‘ the of the Hebrews say,667’ from which he derives a

moral application concerning humility, pertinent to the ‘noble

Demophilus’ to whom the letter is addressed. As in Augustine’s

memorable couplet, Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet.668 the

Areopagite too understands the events of the New Testament as

temporal fulfilments of the concealed prophecies of the Old.

‘That is why it is right that in succession to the older

tradition one proclaims to the world the New Testament. It

seems to me that this sequence….demonstrates how the one

forecast the divine works of Jesus, while the other described

how he actually achieved them. The one wrote truth by way of

images, while the other described things as they happened.’669

Clearly too, the divine symbol of the eucharist presupposes

the historical events of the incarnation, the life, passion 666 Books of the Morals of St. Gregory the Pope, or An exposition on the book of the Blessed Job, Vol 1, the first part, The Epistle, tr. John Henry Parker; J.G.F. and J. Rivington, (London, 1844), 1.1, digitalised edition. http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoraliaIndex.html. See also 1.4 ‘But sometimes, he who neglects to interpret the historical form of words according to the letter, keeps that light of truth concealed which is presented to him, and in laboriously seeking to find in them a further interior meaning, he loses that which he might easily obtain on the outside.’667 EP 8 (1084B).668 Cited in Henri De Lubac, S.J., Scripture in the tradition, tr. Luke O’Neill withan introduction by Peter Casarella (Herder and Herder, 2000), p ix; Augustine, City of God tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol. 1, Bk. 10, ch. 32, p.310.669 EH 3 (432B), tr. Luibheid, p. 214.

165

and death of Jesus of Nazareth, which are explicitly

acknowledged in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.670 Rosemary Arthur is

therefore clearly wrong to say that ‘[t]he only Christological

similarity between Dionysius and Paul is that both more or

less ignore the human Jesus.’671

Nevertheless the reader is left with the impression (as

with Philo and Origen

that history is of secondary value in the Dionysian corpus and

serves primarily as a prelude to the hierarch’s theoria of

eternal truths.672 Most noticeably there are sparse references

to the historical crucifixion, appearing explicitly and

tangentially only in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3673 (in connection with

the ritual of the ‘signing of the cross’), Epistle 7 in reference

to the eclipse at the time of the crucifixion674 and in Epistle 8

which refers to his pardon of sinners ‘even in his suffering’

(an allusion to Luke 23:34).675 But this would not be surprising

if Dionysius sees himself as a continuation of an Origenist

670 See EH 3 (441A), EH 3 (444A), EH 4. 3.10 (484B); EH 5.4 (512B). Other references to the incarnation. Ministry and passion of Christ include DN 1.1 (592A); DN 2.3 (640C); DN 2.6 (644C), DN 2.10 (649A); Ep 3; Ep 4 ( mentions the Virgin birth and walking on water miracle); Ep 8.4 refers tohis words from the Cross (Luke 23:34) and his grace towards the Samaritans in Luke 9: 52-55; CH 4.4 (181B) refers to the nativity narrative and Gesthemene (181C).671 Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria (London and New York, Routledge, 2008/2016), p.5.672 See also EH 1, (376B-C) where the less corporeal oral tradition is arguedto be superior since it is analogous to the level of the celestial hierarchy in which angelic intelligences communicate immaterially ‘from mind to mind.’673 EH 5.3.4 (512B).674 Ep 7 (1081A)675 Ep 8.4 and his citation of 1 Jn 2:2 ‘ he is the expiation of our sins’ (1096B-C).

166

Christian tradition, since in Origen’s metaphysics the realm

of the historical, the oikonomia, is part of the fall from

unity into multiplicity and materiality on the second day of

the creation week (strangely ignored by De Lubac who betrays a

bias towards the rehabilitation of Origen).676 Hence, what

Dionysius (following the Origenist tradition) somewhat

dismissively (?) calls the ‘bare historical domain’ is

intended by the divine author to bring spiritual perfection.

It is only the commencement of ‘the sacred journey to the

heart of sacred symbols.’677 The Platonic image of the

perishable body ‘weighing down’ the soul (recalling the myth

of Phaedrus)678 finds echoes in the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon

676 These are three of the 8 charges brought against Origen by Jerome. ‘The second point is the statement that souls are tied up in the body as in a prison; and that, before man was made in Paradise, they dwelt among rational creatures in the heavens. Wherefore afterwards, to console itself,the soul says in the Psalms, Before I was humbled I went wrong (Ps. 119:67) and Return, my soul, to thy rest (Ps. 116:7), and Lead my soul out of prison (Ps. 142:7) and similarly elsewhere…Fourthly, he interprets the coat of skins, with which Adam and Eve were clothed after their fall and ejection from Paradise, to be human bodies, and we are to suppose, of course, that previously in Paradise they had neither flesh, sinews nor bones…Sixthly he so allegorisesParadise as to destroy historical truth, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers, and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of Paradise by his figurative interpretations.’ Jerome, Adv. Ioann. Hier., 7 in J.Stevenson (ed.) Creeds, Councils and Controversies: documents illustrative of the history of the Church A.D. 337-461 (London: SPCK, 1966), p.174. For evidence of these charges see Origen, De Principiis 1.8.1; 2.8.3 in J.Stevenson (ed.), A New Eusebius ( SPCK, 1957), p pp.215-217. See also Origen, De Principiis, II, 6, 3. PG.11, col. 211;II, 8, 3. PG 11, cols. 222-3 cited in Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, tr. Asheleigh Moorhouse (The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, Clayton, Wisconsin, 1963), p.49. See also De Principiis 1 praef 5; 1, 7. 4; 1,8,4; 2.10.7; 4.5.9; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm; Contra Celsum 4.30; 4.39; 5.28. Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P.Lawson(The Newman Press, 1956), Book 2, section 5, p.135; Rufinus, Epistle 124 (Ad Avitum). 14. 677 EP 9 (1108C), tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p.284: the ‘secondary things’ of EH 3.3, 429B, p.213.678 Plato, Phaedrus, 247-250.

167

9:15 which Origen cites in An Exhortation to Martyrdom 679and is in

turn adopted by Dionysius in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4, (476A). But

although Aquinas also uses this text in the Wisdom of Solomon, he

rejects the Origenist reading by interpreting the ‘weighing

down’ of the soul as ‘not a consequence of the body’s nature,

but of its corruption’ (i.e. human beings fell as embodied

persons not as disembodied ones).680 Aquinas’ reading seems

truer to the original context (a prayer ascribed to King

Solomon) which speaks of the weakness of the human body and

hence the invocation of Divine help.681

16.What is meant by the ‘literal’ sense of scripture?

The term ‘literal’ sense has a somewhat ambiguous history

which evolved with varying nuances in different periods and

writers until attaining its mature form in Thomas Aquinas. The

Latin term ‘littera’ corresponds to the Greek ‘gramma,’ yet both

terms signify more than the English transliteration of

‘letter,’ referring to the name, the sound and the sound-value

of the letter682, though the ancients also had ways of

distinguishing letter and sound when they wanted to.683 Ancient

writers Donatus, Varro and Priscian were to develop the

679 Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, 3, tr. Rowan A. Greer in Richard J. Payne(ed.), Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (Paulist Press, 1979), p.42.680 Aquinas, On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a.2, resp. tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), p.38.681 See Ernest G.Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon: Commentary by Ernest G.Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.10, 63-65. 682 Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3. 29.88.683 Vivien Law, The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600 (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 61.

168

science of ‘grammar’ which entered the curriculum of the

‘seven liberal arts’ in education.684 The apostles Peter and

John, who had not received such an elitist education, were

described by the author of Acts as ‘’685

whereas Paul was accused by Agrippa of becoming mad through

much 686We have already noted Origen’s dual study of

the ‘literal sense’ and the ‘elevated sense,’ evident for

example in his Commentary on Lamentations.687 For Origen the literal

meaning represented the ‘surface’ meaning of the text beneath

which the real treasure lay buried.688 Origen had received

training as a teacher of Greek literature (especially Homer),

known as a grammateus,689 and later deployed these skills in the

service of the Church. These skills comprised textual

criticism, reading aloud, interpretation and judgment.690

Joseph Trigg notes that:

‘Origen initially approaches the text as a grammateus,

establishing the work’s form in Hebrew, setting it in a

historical context, comparing translations, and, where

necessary, identifying prosopa…As we see in the fragments on

Lamentations 1:4, 1:9 and 1:10, Origen first uses such

grammatical techniques to establish the literal sense of the

text, which then provides the basis for an elevated sense.’691

684 Vivien Law, The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600 (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.101.685 Acts 4:13.686 Acts 26.24.687 See Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), pp.73-85.688 Origen, On First Principles, IV, 3, 11.689 A term also used with reproach in 1 Corinthians 1:20.690 See Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), pp.4-6.691 See Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (Routledge, 1998), p.73.

169

At the school of St Victor in the 12th century, Hugh keeps

this classical and Origenist heritage alive (purged of the

Origenist notion of the historical as a degradation of the

spiritual person) and develops it in his great pedagogical

work the Didascalicon. Hugh classifies the ‘Logical Arts’ as ‘the

fourth branch of Philosophy’ which are further sub-divided

into the study of grammar (‘the science of letters’) and

argument. Hugh explains however that the science of letters

must be understood in its broadest sense as ‘both verbal and

written expressions, for both pertain to grammar.’692 In

chapter 29 devoted to ‘Grammar’, Hugh gives a detailed

breakdown of the subject into ‘noun, verb, participle,

pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection,

pronunciation, the letter, the syllable, inflection,

etymology, glosses, distinctions, barbarisms, malaproprisms,

solecisms, metaplasms, rhetorical figures, tropes, prose,

poetry, fables and histories’ (citing Donatus, Servius,

Priscian and Isidore as authorities).693 We see then that the

etymological meaning of the ‘literal’ carries over from the

classical period into Hugh of St. Victor to indicate a

signification through words or ‘letters’.

However the primary meaning of the letter is, for Hugh, the

narration of events, the meaning of the term ‘literal’ becomes692 Hugh of St.Victor, Didascalicon, Bk 2, ch. 28 tr. Franklin T.Harkins in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory, Victorine Texts in translation ed. Grover Zinn, (Brepols, 2012), p.114.693 Hugh of St.Victor, Didascalicon, Bk 2, ch. 29 tr. by Franklin T.Harkins in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory, Victorine Texts in translation ed. Grover Zinn, (Brepols, 2012), p.114.

170

virtually synonymous with the ‘historical.’ 694 This becomes

plain in those sections of his opera in which he treats

Biblical hermeneutics. In De Sacramentis, the first of the great

medieval summas, Hugh introduces a threefold schema695 of

history, allegory696 and tropology. ‘History is the narration

of events, which is contained in the first meaning of the

letter,’ he writes.697 We are immediately struck by the echo of

Hugh in Aquinas who repeats: ‘that first signification whereby694 Hugh has been called ‘a second Augustine’ and the emphasis on history isembryonically there also in Augustine himself e.g. in Genesis ad litteram he privileges the literal sense as the foundational meaning: ‘ Who does not know that these are the toils and troubles of the human race on earth? And that they would not have been so had the felicity to be found in Paradise been held onto is certainly beyond question; thus there should be no reluctance to take these words first and foremost in their proper historical sense. All the same a prophetic signification is to be looked for and expected, and it is this that the divine speaker here has chiefly in mind.’ (Book XI, 38,51; tr. Edmund Hill and Matthew O’Connell in On Genesis (New City Press, Hyde Park New York, I, 13, 2006). ‘For Augustine, as for many of the Fathers, the very concept of human history was radicallyaltered by his Christianity. For the Greeks, history was a record of the glorious deeds of heroes and gods. It was cyclic, with neither beginning nor end, repeating itself to infinity. This view, however was inimical to the Christian belief that the history of mankind was a history of falling away from God and, through his mercy, of returning to Him once more. In other words, history was progressive rather than cyclic.’ See e.g. De CivitateDei, 15.1; Enchiridion 118; Contra Faustum 12.8; De Diversis Questionibus 83, q.58. Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), pp.40-41.695 Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, Prologue 4, cited by Aquinas ST 1a, 1, 10 resp. Hugh follows the same threefold schema as Gregory the Great. ‘ Butbe it known that there are some parts, which we go through in a historical exposition, some we trace out in allegory upon an investigation of the typical meaning, some we open in the lessons of moral teaching alone, allegorically conveyed.’ Books of the Morals of St. Gregory the Pope, or An exposition on the book of the Blessed Job, Vol 1, the first part, The Epistle, tr. John Henry Parker; J.G.F. and J. Rivington (London, 1844), 1.3, digitalised edition, http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoraliaIndex.html accessed 24/10/15696 For Hugh anagogy is included under allegory as Aquinas explains: Sicut et Hugo de sancto Victore sub sensu allegorico etiam anagogicum comprehendit, ponens in tertio suarum sententiarum solum tres sensus, scilicet historicum, allegoricum et tropologicum. ST 1a, 1, 10 ad 2.697 Hugh of St Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, tr. Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), Prologue, 2, p.4.

171

words signify things belongs to the first sense, the

historical or literal.’698 Although Thomas is not afraid to

differ from Hugh on several matters699, he can still refer to

Hugh as a magister and cites him directly 125 times700 even

though he falls short of possessing the full ‘force of an

authority’ in the medieval sense.701 Harnack called Hugh, ‘the

most influential theologian of the twelfth century.’702 We have

earlier seen Hugh’s influence on Thomas in respect of the

canon of Scripture. He is particularly interesting in that he

also writes a commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius.703

Otherwise excellent treatments of Thomas’ understanding of the

‘literal sense’ such as those by Eric Perrson704 or Rowan

Williams705 suffer from a neglect of this background in Hugh of

St Victor.706

698 ST 1a, 1, 10 resp..699E.g. ST 3, q. 45 a. 2 resp; 3, q. 50 a. 4 resp; ST 3, q.65, a.1, obj 8; ST 3, q. 66 a. 1 ad. 2; ST 3, q. 81 a. 3 resp..700 Roberto Busa SJ et al., Index Thomisticus, web edition by Eduardo Bernot et a.l (129 times in 125 cases).701 ST 2a, 2ae, q. 5, a. 1, ad 1. See M.D. Chenu’s comments on this passage in M.D. Chenu, O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, tr. Albert M. Landry and Dominic Hughes (Chicago: Henry Regnery,1964), p.136-7.702 Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, VI (London, 1899), p.44 cited in the Introduction to Hugh of St. Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De Sacramentis)’ tr. Roy J. Deferrari (WIPF & Stock, Eugene, Origon, 2007), p.ix.703 Aquinas refers to this in On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a.1 sed contra, iv tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), p.20.704 Per Erik Persson, ‘Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas,’ tr. Ross Mackenzie (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957,1970). 705 Rowan Williams, ‘The Literal Sense of Scripture’ in Modern Theology (Wiley, January 1991), Volume 7, Issue 2, pp.121–134.706 A notable exception is Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), pp.79-85.

172

The assumption that theological truth is grounded in real

time events is particularly noticeable in Hugh’s treatment of

the Creation as an event happening in definite periods of

time,707 which is in marked contrast to Origen’s belief that

Genesis 1 is a ‘bodiless’ text composed of ‘total allegory’.708

Similarly he discusses the geometric shape of Noah’s ark

‘according to the letter.’709 Preeminently though, as Grover

Zinn observes, the basis of Hugh’s Christian commitment to

history lies in the incarnation of the Eternal Word by which

humanity can also be restored in time:

‘The Wisdom of God Himself, except he had first been known

corporally, never would have been able to illumine that blind

eye of the mind [mentis acies] to that spiritual

contemplation.’710

707 Hugh of St Victor,‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, tr. Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), pp..8 -10 This is very different from the treatment of creation amongst some mystics e.g. Eckhart (influenced by Augustine) who writes in Sermon 1: ‘ Do not imagine that God, when he made heaven and earth and all things, made one thing one day and another the next. Moses describes it like that, but he really knew better: he did so for the sake of the people who could not conceive or grasp it any other way. All God did was this: He willed, He spoke, and they were! God works without means and without images, and the freer you are from images, the more receptive you are for His inward working.’ Meister Eckhart, Sermon 1 in Sermons and Treatises, Volume1, tr. and ed. M.O.C. Walshe (Element Books, 1979), p. 8.708 See earlier discussion on Origen on the literal sense and the anagogicalsense. 709 De arca Noe Morali chs. 12-13, tr. in J.M.Hussey OP (ed.) by a religious ofthe community of St Mary the Virgin with an introduction by Aelred Squire,Hugh of St. Victor Selected writings (Harper and Rowe, 1962), pp. 60-63.710 De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris tr. B.Smalley, cited in Zinn, G.A., ‘Historia fundamentum est: the role of history in the contemplative life according to Hugh of St.Victor’, in Shriver G.H. (ed.), Contemporary reflections on the medieval Christian tradition: essays in honor of Ray C. Petry (Duke University Press, 1974), p 155.

173

Likewise in Aquinas, events such as Noah’s flood,711 the

Exodus,712 the narrative of Job713 (in contrast to the opinion of

Maimonides that it was merely a ‘parable)’ 714 the incarnation,

life, passion, death and resurrection of the Son of God and

even the narrative of Adam and Eve are presupposed as

geographical/historical events.715

711 Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, Bk. 2, c.12, 4 tr. Richard J.Regan (Hackett Publishing Company Inc, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2007), p.142.712 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press, (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 3:1-3, p. 102; ST 2.1, q.102, a.2713 ‘Now there have been some men to whom it has seemed that the Job in question was not something in the nature of things but that he was a kind of parable made up to serve as a theme for the debate over providence, the way men often invent hypothetical cases to debate over them. Although it makes little difference one way or another to the intention of the book, itis important as far as the truth itself is concerned. For the opinion that Job was not a man in the nature of things seems to be contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture, for in Ezekiel 14:14 the Lord is represented as saying, ‘If those three men – Noah, Daniel, and Job – are in that land, they will free their souls by their justice.’ Now it is manifest that Noah and Daniel were men in the nature of things. For this reason there should be no doubt about the third man named along with them, namely Job…’ Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), Prologue, p.69. It appears that Pseudo-Dionysius accepted Job as an historical person since he briefly refers to him in Epistle 8, ‘ Job was justified because he remained aloof from all wrongdoing.’ Tr. Colm Luibheid(1085B). Job is listed alongside other presumably historical persons such as David, Joseph and Abel. 714 ‘The strange and wonderful Book of Job treats of the same subject as we are discussing; its basis is a fiction, conceived for the purpose of explaining the different opinions which people hold on Divine Providence.’ Maimonides, The guide for the perplexed, tr. M.Friedlander (Dover, 1956), Book 3, ch. 22, p.296.715 See for example his treatment of these truths in CT chs. 186-240; Commentary on the Gospel of John, chapter 1, lecture 7, tr. Fabian Larcher, OP and Jame Weisheipl, OP. (Catholic University of America, 2010); The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989),ch.10:4-9, p.188. This isanother case of Aquinas’ Augustinianism. See Augustine, City of God, Bk. 13, ch,21.

174

On the creation narratives Aquinas takes a middle ground

between Origen and Hugh, accepting an historical event

(agreeing with Hugh) and therefore not a ‘bodiless’ text

(Origen), but also an accommodation of language (like Origen

and Pseudo-Dionysius) to the original hearers which includes a

focus on sensible things rather than abstract terms such as

‘matter’.716 In respect of Thomas’ position on the Song of Songs ,

Thomas does refer to the author as one of the ‘amative

theologians’ indicating that he did not view the book as

exclusively about human love.717 There are reports that he

dictated such a text as a final gift to the monks who cared

for him on his deathbed at Fossanova but the copies purporting

to be this text are probably inauthentic.718 However, Weishapl

lists an earlier commentary on the Song of Songs as one of ten

‘distinct works’ composed in his mature years while teaching

in the papal states between 1259-1268.719 This work would be

worthy of further investigation.

This renewed attention to the historical, which Aquinas

inherits from the Augustinian tradition in Hugh,720 can also be716 See ST 1a, q.66, a.1, ad 1, 3; ST 1a, q.68, a.3; ST 1a, q.69, a.2, ad. 3; ST 1a, q.70, a.2; ST 1a, q.71, a.1, ad 3; ST 1a, q.74, a.1, ad.2.717 Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio , 4.11, tr. Harry C. Marsh, ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio,Phd Dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1994), p.378.718 See James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell,1975), pp.326-327. Ignatius T. Eschmann ‘A Catologue of St. Thomas’ works: Bibliographical notes’ in E.Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (New York, Random House, 1956), p.395.719 James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), pp.117-118.720 Although Augustine is Aquinas’ most quoted authority, Wayne Hankey notesthat he does not write any commentaries on his works and may be relying on secondary quotations rather than primary texts, for example Peter Lombard’s

175

seen as both a Jewish turn and an Aristotelian turn. Firstly it is a

Jewish turn (or perhaps better a Jewish return), in that to a

great extent Hugh and Thomas follow in the footsteps of those

Jewish exegetes who practised ‘peshat’ ( the ‘simple’ or

literal meaning),721 as especially developed by the 11th century

rabbi Rashi (1040 – 1105).722 However this should be qualified

with two caveats, firstly that this is only one branch of

Jewish interpretation, with others ranging to the extreme of

the kabbalah, for whom ‘‘in any word shine a thousand

lights’723 and secondly that, whereas Jewish interpretation

rejected Messianic prophecies on the basis of a literal

meaning, Aquinas incorporated the prophetic within the

Sentences. See Wayne J. Hankey, ‘Reading Augustine through Dionysius: Aquinas’ Correction of One Platonism by Another’ in Michael Dauphinais, Barry David and Matthew Levering (eds.), Aquinas the Augustinian (The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), pp.245-246.721 From a Hebrew root meaning to ‘flatten out’. Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. "Peshat." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 16. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 8-9. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 5 Nov. 2010. See also Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.42.722 See R.M. Grant: A short history of the interpretation of the Bible, (A.& C Black, 1965). Herman Hailperin,, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963), p.142. 723 Zophar 3.202a. See Umberto Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (London, 1984, ISBN 0-333-36355-8), pp.153-154. Eco writes: ‘In a manuscript of Rabbi Eli-yaku Kohen Ittamari of Smyrna, we read why the scrolls of the Torah, according to Rabbinic law, must be written without vowels and punctuation:‘This is a reference to the state of the Torah as it existed in the sight of God before it was transmitted to the lower spheres. For He had before Him numerous letters that were not printed into words as is the case today,because the actual arrangement of the words would depend on the way in which this lower world conducted itself….The divine purpose will be revealed in the Torah at the coming of the Messiah, who will engulf death forever…For the God will annul the present combination of letters that formthe words of our present Torah and will compose the letters into other words, which will form new sentences, speaking of other things,’ (G. Scholem, Zur Kabbala und uhrer Symbolik (Zurich. Rheim) tr. Ralph Mannheim, ‘On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism’ (New York: Schocken, 1965), cited by Eco, p. 154.

176

authorial intention of the Divine Author and probably also the

intention of the human author (see below) and therefore had a

Christianised appropriation of the Jewish literal sense.724

Secondly it is an Aristotelian turn, because from the 12th

century onwards, Aristotle’s teaching, that true knowledge

comes through the senses and that the form of a thing is its

immanent essence was embraced as a powerful return to the

Christian understanding of creation. 725 The impact of

Aristotelianism can be powerfully testified by the art of this

period. The remarkable attention to detail in 12th century

sculptures, for example at the cathedrals of Strasbourg,726or

Naumberg,727 was to inspire the young Giotto (1266 –1337) to

reject the other-worldly style of Byzantine art, introduce new

subject matter of scenes from ordinary life and pioneer an

artistic revolution of ‘three dimensional’ paintings.728

Thomas’ commitment to the historical sense is in sharp

contrast then with those modern theologians, even those

ostensibly in the Thomistic tradition, such as the Dominican,

Matthew Fox who privilege the ‘Cosmic Christ’ over the

724 The ‘pardes’ Jewish interpretation predates and anticipates the later Christian fourfold sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis). 725 E.g. in M.D. Chenu, ‘The Symbolist Mentality’ in Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on new theological perspectives in the Latin West, ed. and tr. J. Taylor and L.K.Little (University of Chicago Press, 1968).726 E.H. Gombrich, The Story of Art (Phaidon, 1966), p.138 fig. 128.727 E.H. Gombrich, The Story of Art (Phaidon, 1966), p.139, fig. 129.728 See Michael Levey,, From Giotto to Cezanne: A concise history of painting (Thomas and Hudson, 1989), pp.9-15 and Nathaniel Harris, The Art of the Renaissance (Parragon Book Service ltd., 1995), pp.8-9.

177

‘historical Jesus’.729 We would also take issue with Caputo’s

judgement that ‘Thomas does not conceive esse as an historical

presencing, a giving and apportioning of itself in time,’730

although we do welcome Caputo’s appeal (writing in 1982) for

continuing research into Thomas’ idea of history, especially

in the neglected area of his commentaries.731

These events of salvation history are for Aquinas the

foundation and presupposition of theological reflection. Even

the structure of theological reflection in the Summa appears

to be organised around the salvation-history events of

Creation, Law and the life of Christ, rather than the

previously supposed atemporal Neoplatonic structure of exitus

and reditus, which had been argued by Chenu and Geiger. 732

If this interpretation is correct, it coincides with

Augustine’s emphasis on history going somewhere (in De Civitate

Dei). Augustine distinguishes the ‘absolutely poetic’ nature of

Greek myths from ‘real history’ in City of God.733 He chastises

Porphyry for claiming that ‘he never had any historical notice

of this way’ when in reality ‘what history can be more famous 729 Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (Harper Collins, 1988).730 John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas; an essay on overcoming metaphysics (New York,Fordham University Press, 1982), p.173.731 John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas; an essay on overcoming metaphysics (New York,Fordham University Press, 1982), p.173.732 See Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.57; Rudi Te Velde, Aquinas on God: the Divine Science of the Summa Theologiae ( Ashgate, 2006), pp. 9-18; For similar conclusions drawing on evidence from Compendium Theologiae see Christopher Baglow, ‘Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine in Thomas Aquinas’ in Weinandy, Keating and Yocum (ed.), Aquinas on Doctrine: a critical introduction (T & T Clark, 2004).733 Augustine, City of God tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol.2, Bk. 18, ch.8, p.184.

178

than this that looks from such a towering authority down upon

all the world?’734 Augustine had been happy to acknowledge many

spiritual applications of Scripture, but he insisted that this

must not be at the expense of the historical. A prime example

is found in City of God in respect of Genesis 2-3 where he does not

oppose seeing allegorical meanings in Paradise, the four

rivers and the tree of life (such as Origen would have found),

however:

‘These and suchlike may be lawfully understood by paradise

taken in a spiritual sense, provided that the history of the

true and local one be as firmly believed.’735

This principle does not seem to be absolute however, as there

are cases where Augustine abandons the ‘literal’ meaning of

Old Testament passages where, in his opinion, the plain

meaning seems untenable.

‘..when a meaning based on the literal interpretation of the

words is absurd we must investigate whether the passage that

we cannot understand is perhaps being expressed by means of

one or other of the tropes.’736

Or, as he also puts it in On the Spirit and the Letter :734 Augustine, City of God tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945),Vol. 1, Bk. 10, ch. 32, p.310.735 Augustine, City of God tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol.2, Bk. 13, ch.21, p.18. Although there are cases where Augustine abandons the literal meaning of Old Testament passages where its plain meaning seems untenable, see On Christian Doctrine 3.22.32; 3.29.41. 736 Augustine On Christian Doctrine 3.29.41. See also 3.22.32; De Genesis ad Litteram, 2.1.4.

179

‘we should not take in the literal sense any figurative phrase

which in the proper meaning of its words would produce only

nonsense, but should consider what else it signifies,

nourishing the inner man by our spiritual intelligence.’737

This principle would also coincide with Alter Augustinus, Hugh of

St Victor’s teaching that the proper subject matter of

Scripture is the restoration of human beings,738 which Hugh, as

a master teacher, lays out on eight memorable tracks (‘ordered

courses’) for his foundation, of Trinity, Creation, Fall,

Natural Law, Written Law, Incarnation, Sacraments of the New

Testament and Resurrection.739 For both Hugh and Thomas, the

Bible is unique in all literature, due to its Divine origin,

in that not only do the ‘words’ have meaning740 but also the

‘things themselves’ (natural things but also including

historical things) in the providence of God: a prophetic

phenomena later to include the ‘typological’ sense.741

Cardinal Ratzinger, following this classic hermeneutic, 737 Augustine, De Spiritu et Littera, 6, tr. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, and revised by Benjamin B. Warfield. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm accessed 31/07/17. 738 Hugh of St Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, tr. Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), Prologue, 2, page 3: ‘The subject matter of all the Divine Scriptures is the works of man’s restoration.’ Interestingly there is a reference to restoration in Pseudo-Dionysius in connection with the role ofScripture: ‘ To those who fall away it is a voice calling, “Come back!” andit is the power which raises them up again. It refurbishes and restores theimage of God corrupted within them.’ DN 1 (589B-C).739 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 4, in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.169.740 ST 1a, q.1, a.10, resp. The dialectic of signification through things orwords is an Augustinian theme. See De Doctrina Christiana, 1.4; De Genesis Ad Litteram, 5.8.23; Contra Faustum 18.4; 22.24, 94.

180

observed against the dualism of ‘preaching’ versus ‘event’ in

Bultmann and Dibelius that, ‘the event itself can be word’.742

Even though Hugh was to write a commentary on Dionysius’

Celestial Hierarchy, popularising the latter’s theophanic vision of

the cosmos, Hugh can introduce this with a parallel commitment

to history in his theology. David Luscombe observes: ‘The most

evident difference between Denis and Hugh is Hugh’s vision of

history’. In light of our previous uncovering of (scriptural)

historical citations in Dionysius,743 however, we must

conclude that Luscombe goes on to overstate the case when he

adds, ‘Denis’ vision of hierarchy is virtually a-

historical.’744 Indeed Hugh of St Victor can write a

741 Quodl. 7, 16: in nulla scientia, humana industria inventa, proprie loqendo, potest inveniri nisi litteralis sensus. Per Erik Persson, ‘Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas,’ tr. Ross Mackenzie (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957,1970), pp.54-55. 742 R.J.Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1989), p20. Ratzinger further adds: ‘ The first real presupposition of all exegesis is that is accepts the bible as abook. In so doing it has already chosen a place for itself., which does notfollow simply from the study of literature. It has identified this particular literature as a product of a coherent history. That history is the proper space of coming to understand the text. If it wishes to be theology, it must take a further step. It must recognise that the faith ofthe church is present and that without the faith the Bible remains a closedbook. It must come to an understanding that faith is a hermeneutic, a spacefor understanding, which does not do dogmatic violence to the Bible but precisely holds the solitary possibility for the Bible to be itself. (p. 108).743 See EH 3, 441A, EH 3, 444A, EH 4.3.10 (484B); EH 5.4 (512B). Other references to the incarnation. Ministry and passion of Christ include DN 1.1 (592A); DN 2.3 (640C); DN 2.6 (644C), DN 2.10 (649A); EP 3; EP 4 ( mentions the Virgin birth and walking on water miracle); Ep 7 (1081A) refers to an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion; Ep 8.4 refers to his words from the Cross (Luke 23:34) and his grace towards the Samaritans in Luke 9: 52-55; CH 4.4 (181B) refers to the nativity narrative and Gesthemene (CH 181C).744 David Luscombe, ‘The Commentary of Hugh of Saint-Victor on the CelestialHierarchy’ in Boiadjiev, Kapriev, Speer ed., Die Dionysius-Rezeption im Mittelalter (Societe Internationale pour l’Etude de la Philosophie Medievale, Recontresde Philosophie Medieval, 9, Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2000), p.167. For

181

commentary on Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy without any apparent

qualms.745

Henri De Lubac argues that the abbey of St Victor stands in

continuity with the classical hermeneutical tradition of the

Fathers and if the Victorines emphasize the historical, this

is not (as Beryl Smalley had previously argued in their famous

disagreement), because it is a novelty, but because it is

becoming under threat from a rising nominalism and rationalism

(e.g. from Abelard).746 We have already had cause to criticise

De Lubac, however for neglecting to also notice the

degradation of the historical within Origen’s metaphysical

account of the fall and therefore we would want to add (in

support of Smalley) that the Victorines are an important

corrective to the hermeneutical tradition as found in Origen

in this respect. In the end, even De Lubac finds common ground

with Smalley in regard to Hugh’s methodology:

‘In Hugh the distinction [ between the historical and

spiritual] will be better supported, however, in its

an alternative view, see Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A theologicalAesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr. Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V. (T & T Clark, 1995), p.176, n. 104 citing Roques, ‘L’univers dionysien, p.123 . See note 64, 65 for references to scriptural history in Dionysius.745 Aquinas refers to this in On Spiritual Substances: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a.1 sed contra, iv tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), p.20.746 Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 266.

182

methodological consequences, and in this respect Miss Smalley

had a sound view of the matter.’747

17. The Literal Sense as the normative sense in Aquinas.

Aquinas inherited this methodological distinction from the

Victorines, particularly the importance of the literal sense

as the normative sense.748 Aquinas’s teaching on the ‘literal’

sense of Scripture is no incidental aspect of his thought, but

is part and parcel of his theological method as a scientia divina

from first principles. The main texts where this is treated

comprise Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, Prologue; Quodlibetum 7,

aa.14-16; Lectura super epistolam ad Galatas, 4.1.7; De Potentia 4.1;

Summa Theologiae 1a, q.1, aa. 9-10. Thus, even though not

extensive in treatment, the placement of these passages is

both strategic and foundational. So, a treatment of the

literal sense occurs chronologically first within the Prologue

to Scriptum super libros Sententiarum (1252), which Weisheipl

conjectures was first delivered as part of an inaugural

747 Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 237.748 This normative sense of the literal was not entirely original to Hugh but was also a feature of the Antiochene school of which Theodore of Mopsuestia (392-428) was the chief exponent. His work On Allegory and History wasdirected against perceived abuses of the allegorical method in Origen. See Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages.(Oxford, Blackwell 1952), pp.14-15; Henri De Lubac, S.J., Scripture in the tradition, tr. Luke O’Neill with anintroduction by Peter Casarella (Herder and Herder, 2000), p. 47f.; Kevin J. Vanhoozer Is there meaning in this text? The Bible, the reader and the morality of literary knowledge (Apollos, 1998), p.115; Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), pp.25-30.

183

lecture by the young Thomas as baccalaureus sententiarum in Paris.749

Robert Kennedy in his published Phd thesis on the literal

sense in Aquinas rightly observes that the literal sense is a

‘foundational element’ in his conception of theology as a

‘science’ in the Aristotelian sense.750

There is strong evidence that the seventh Quodlibetum, which

deals extensively with the literal sense was originally a

lecture given at the time of Thomas’ inception.751 At the back

of Thomas’ mind was probably an intention to combat the

teachings of Joachim de Flora (1130-1202), author of The Harp

with Ten Strings, The Unfolding of Revelation and The Harmony of the New and the

Old Testament. Although his writings had been condemned as

heretical in 1213, they received renewed interest when they

were distributed on the streets of Paris in a single volume

named The Everlasting Gospel in 1255 – one year before Thomas’

inception and the probable date of the Quodlibetum lecture. Far

from subscribing to a literal sense, Joachim de Flora claimed

the right to interpret Scripture in a highly allegorical

fashion after receiving a vision of drinking from a river of

oil. Scripture was believed to contain hidden meanings

concerning current events to culminate in the end of the age

749 James Weiseipl, O.P., Friar Thomas d’Aquino (Garden City, New York: Doubeday,1974), pp.49-50 cited in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.101.750 Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), p.98.751 See Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), p.110-112 citing Mandonet and Weishapl for support.

184

in 1260 and the inauguration of a third age of the Spirit

consisting of a new order of prophets and a free spirit of

love.752

The threat to orthodoxy from mystics like Joachim de Flora

underlined the importance of the literal sense as the final

court of appeal in an argument. In the expanded treatment of

this topic to his students in the Quodlibetum, Aquinas is

uncompromising that the literal alone is sufficient to

establish that which must be believed as doctrine: ‘No sense

other than the literal has the power to prove anything.’753

This gives the Scriptures a kind of juridical function. In

Quodlibetum 7:14, Aquinas absolutises a principle of Augustine:

‘there is nothing transmitted obscurely in some place in

Sacred Scripture which is not clearly expressed in some other

place.’754 Augustine himself had used the more qualified phrase

‘virtually nothing’755 to allow for some spiritual meanings 752 See Edward P. Cheyney, The Rise of Modern Europe: The Dawn of a New Era 1250-1453 (Harper & Row, New York, 1962), pp.202-204; Henry Bett,, Joachim of Flora (Methuen and Co, 1931), p.37; J.J. Dollinger, Prophecy and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era, tr. A. Plummer (London, 1931); James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino his life, thought and works (Blackwell, 1975), pp.84-85.753 Quodlibet V11, q.6 a.1 arg 4, “Sed nullus sensus prater litteralem habet robur ad aliquid confirmandum.” ed. Roberto Busa SJ, (Textum Taurini, 1956). 754 Aquinas, Quodlibetum 7.14 ad 3, translated by Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.256. Beryl Smalley notes that the groundwork for this had already been prepared by Stephen Langton (d. 1228) who prepared to override the authority of Augustine and insist that ‘allegory is for edification, not for proof.’ See Beryl Smalley, ‘Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture’ in Speculum 6 (1931), pp.60-76.755 Augustine On Christian Doctrine 2.6.8 tr. R.P.H. Green (Oxford University Press, 2008), p.33: ‘Virtually nothing is unearthed from these obscurities which cannot be found quite plainly expressed somewhere else.’ For examplesof how Augustine applied this principle see ibid 3.26.37-38.

185

approved by the Church in line with his high view of the

Church as the supreme interpretative authority of Scripture.756

Does Aquinas’ tightening of the Augustinian principle imply a

corresponding weakening of the interpretative authority of the

Church? This is unikely to be an intended consequence, but it

does add legitimacy to the position of the later reformers.

Aquinas continues: ‘Consequently, a spiritual exposition

should always have support from some literal exposition of

Sacred Scripture, and so avoid all occasion of error.’757 He

repeats this principle in the Summa Theologiae: ‘Nothing false

can underlie the literal sense of Scripture,’758 and

furthermore, ‘nothing necessary to faith is contained under

the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the

Scripture in its literal sense.’759 Again Aquinas follows in

the footsteps of Hugh of St. Victor, who teaches that the

literal upholds the allegorical and cannot be contradicted by

it, just as foundations support the superstructure of a

house.760

Does Aquinas think then that Pseudo-Dionysius lacks this

foundation? On the face of it the principle of a normative

function for the literal sense does seem incompatible with

756 Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus 83; 59.4; De Genesis ad literram 7.1.1; Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti 5.6; Confessions 7.7; De Utilitate Credendi 17.757 Aquinas, Quodlibetum 7.14 ad 3, tr. Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.256.758 ST 1a q.1, a.10.759 ST 1a, q.1, a.10.760 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 4, in Franklin T. Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), pp.168-169.

186

Dionysius’ ridiculing of ‘literal’ interpretations. A notable

example occurs in The Celestial Hierarchy he mocks those as ‘mad’

who reading the animal imagery used in Ezekiel’s vision

absurdly conclude that:

‘the heavens beyond really are filled with bands of lions and

horses, that the divine praises are, in effect, great moos,

that flocks of birds take wing there or that there are other

kinds of creatures all about or even more dishonourable

material things.’761

We should note, however, that Aquinas never directly

criticises Dionysius whom he reveres as a disciple of the

apostle Paul, but rather seeks to frame him within the limits

of orthodoxy.762 So in the present text, Dionysius can be

accommodated by Aquinas firstly, by making the generous

assumption that Dionysius is a master builder who has already

laid the literal foundation and so is now entitled to ascend

to higher heavenly meanings.763 (This is indeed how Hugh had

already accommodated him in the work Commentaria in hierarchum 761 CH 2, 137D. 762 E.g. ST 1a, q.50, a.3, obj. 4 and ad 4.763 This is not altogether unreasonable since Dionysius can refer in Epistle 8to what ‘ the of the Hebrews say’ (EP 8, 1084B). which uses it tropologically to reveal a moral truth concerning humility, pertinent to the‘noble Demophilus’ to whom the letter is addressed. Clearly too, the divine symbol of the eucharist presupposes the historical events of the incarnation, the life, passion and death of Jesus of Nazareth, which are spelled out more explicitly in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy See EH 3 (441A), EH 3 (444A), EH 4. 3.10 (484B); EH 5.4 (512B). Other references to the incarnation. Ministry and passion of Christ include DN 1.1 (592A); DN 2.3 (640C); DN 2.6 (644C), DN 2.10 (649A); Ep 3; Ep 4 ( mentions the Virgin birth and walking on water miracle); Ep 8.4 refers to his words from the Cross (Luke 23:34) and his grace towards the Samaritans in Luke 9: 52-55; CH 4.4 (181B) refers to the nativity narrative and Gesthemene (181C).

187

coelestem s. dionysii areopagitae (Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy).764A

second way in which Thomas can reconcile Dionysius with the

Augustinian heritage is found in the latter’s mini treatise on

interpretation in the Epistle to Titus.765 In this letter, Dionysius

distinguishes a ‘philosophic’ use of scripture for the

purposes of ‘demonstration’ from an ‘ineffable and mysterious’

use involving symbols and sacraments.766 Thomas makes use of

this distinction to argue that Dionysius neglects the literal

sense in his writings only because he is not intending to make a

demonstrative argument.767 Thomas’ reconciliation is not without

merit,768 since we have already seen that Dionysius does not

completely deny a literal/historical sense and at times

clearly presupposes it (see above discussion on the historical

sense in Dionysius) as a kind of bottom rung of the ladder to

the higher senses.769

Furthermore, we should recognise that whereas the modern

meaning of ‘literal’ is commonly restricted to the ‘non-

figurative,’ for Aquinas the meaning of the ‘literal’ sense is

more expansive and can include both metaphor and poetry within

764 Commentaria in hierarchum coelestem s. dionysii areopagitae, PL 175:923-1154; Dominique Poirel, Hugonis de Sancto Victore Opera III. CCCM 178 (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming).765 EP 9. pp..280-288. 766 EP 9, 1105D-1108A, p. 283.767 Quodlibet V11, q.6 a.1 arg. 4 op cit., a point repeated in DV, q.22, a. 11.8with an added reference from Peter Lombard (Sent. Bk 3, 11.2).768 Dionysius implies in DN 2, 2 (640A) that there is a demonstrative use ofScripture for proving the doctrine of the Trinity but does not himself givesuch an argument as he takes for granted that his readers believe in the Trinity.769 CH 1 (121C-D) tr. Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), pp.146.

188

its definition in that it relates to what the image refers to in

the mind of the author and not the image itself:

‘When Scripture speaks of the arm of God, the literal sense

is not that he has a physical limb, but that he (literally)

has what it signifies, namely the power of doing and

making,’770

Aquinas had learnt this expansive definition from Hugh of St.

Victor.771 Hence Aquinas would agree with Dionysius that the

description of angels should not be taken ‘literally’ in the

modern sense of ‘non-figurative.’772

‘The Word of God makes use of poetic imagery when discussing

these formless intelligences but, as I have said, it does so

not for the sake of art, but as a concession to the nature of

our mind.’773

770 ST, 1a, q.1, art.10. 771 Hugh of St. Victor, De Scripturis 5 (PL 175.14d). Beryl Smalley traces an earlier acceptance of metaphor under the rubric of the literal in Pascahius Radbertus. ‘Paschasius (following Eriugena) tacitly accepts the principle that the primary sense includes prophecy and metaphor. He steers a triumphant course through the difficult book of Lamentations, first briefly explaining the literal sense, which includes an explanation of metaphor, then constructing allegories and moralities on the basis of the metaphorical letter. Hence metaphor and prophecy have both i) a literal andhistorical sense, intended by the prophet, ii) a spiritual sense, discovered by the commentator. This solution was generally received.’ BerylSmalley, The study of the Bible in the Middle ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell and Mott Ltd., 1952), p.42.772 I say ‘modern’ here, but it shoud be noted that colloquially it has now become fashionable to use the term ‘literally’ as a term of emphasis for expressions which can be metaphorical e.g. ‘My shoes were literally killingme!’ 773 CH 2, (137B), translated by Colm Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987), p. 48.

189

Our historical knowledge of the contemporary situation in 6th

century Syria indicates a background to Dionysius’ comments in

a popular anthropomorphising of angels which was heavily

criticised by theologians such as Severus of Antioch.774

Dionysius, by contrast, has a more subtle reading of the

description of angels as representing their nature and duties.

The image of the lion represents ‘indomitable command’; the ox

speaks of the ‘capacity to plough deeply the furrows of

knowledge’; the eagle symbolises the ‘contemplation which is

freely, directly, and unswervingly turned’ to the divine

light; and the horse is chosen to represent “obedience and

docility.”775

In his Literal Exposition on Job, Aquinas too rejects a corporeal

interpretation of Satan ‘standing in the presence’ of the Lord

in Job 1:6, partly because of the power which Pseudo-Dionysius’

paradigm of hierarchy holds over Thomas. The Celestial Hierarchy 13

is cited as an authority under the commentary on Job 1.6.776 Only

angels of the highest rank may stand in the presence of God

according to the fixed rules of the Dionysian cosmology.

Aquinas explains therefore that in this passage spiritual

truths are being expressed under the figure of corporeal

774 Glenn Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium (Berkeley, Los Angeles,London, University of California Press, 2002), pp.77-78 citing Severus of Antioch, Les Homiliae Cathedrales, 76-78.775 CH 15.8, (336-337B), 776 CH 13 in Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 1.6, p. 77. See also ST 1a, q. 12, a.2, sed contra; a.4.

190

things. Does this mean that Aquinas has compromised his

principle of a literal foundation for interpretation in order

to accommodate Dionysius?777 Aquinas would reply that though

this might incline us to regard such an interpretation as a

‘mystical’ one, this still falls under the category of the

‘literal’ on the justification that ‘the literal sense is that

which is primarily intended by the words, whether they are

used properly or figuratively.’778

In these passages from Aquinas, ‘literal’ comes close to

what we would call ‘literary,’ and is similar to Hugh’s

‘grammatical’ sense, with the crucial added criterion of

‘authorial intention.’ Its signification is the proper referent. But

if this is the case, hasn’t the term ‘literal’ been changed

from referring to a sub category of the sensus plenior as in

Summa Theologiae 1a, q.1, a.10 resp, to being identical with the

sensus plenior? Hasn’t the term ‘literal’ become inconsist or at

least porous within Aquinas’ terminology? A similar problem

arises with Aquinas’ definition of ‘literal’ as ‘what is

primarily intended by the words’.779 While excluding arbitrary

meanings imposed by the reader, surely it still allows for the

sub category of allegorical, moral and eschatological senses 777 For a detailed discussion of this question see Wayne John Hankey, ‘Dionysian Hierarchy in Thomas Aquinas: Tradition and Transformation’ in Ysabel De Andia (ed.), Denys l’Areopagite et sa posterite en Orient et en Occident (Paris: Etude Augustiniennes, 1996), pp.405-436.778 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 1.6, p. 76. For Luther’s view see Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 29, Lectures on Philemon, Titus and Hebrews ( Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p.121.779 See also ST 1a, q.1, a.10 resp..

191

under the category of ‘what the author intended,’ especially

when, for Aquinas, the ultimate Author is God?780

If we grant these more expansive definitions of ‘literal’

and ‘what is intended’, Origen’s ‘total allegories’ could be

saved and reconciled with the teaching of Aquinas.781

Everything that had been excluded from the room as it were can

now walk back in again. Aquinas and Origen are agreed in all

but terminology since Origen’s ‘total allegory’ is Aquinas’

‘literal sense’. Indeed, in his commentary on Job, Aquinas

chooses one of the same examples as Origen, namely the first

chapter of Ezekiel, as an example of the ‘literal’ sense being

equivalent to the spiritual intention.782 Moreover, Aquinas

seems to use the word ‘literal’ on occasions to refer to the

entire class of senses in De Potentia q.4 a.1 (resp): ‘it is part of

the dignity of Holy Writ that under the one literal sense many

others are contained.’ The literal sense here seems to mean the

true referent of the language, be it historical, metaphorical or

allegorical.

780 ‘The author of Holy Writ is God, ’ST 1a, q.1, a.10 resp.. Origen also could speak of authorial intention using the Greek term but primarily in reference to the Divine author’s intention. 781 See above where we noted that Origen’s view on the historical situation of the Song of Songs is compatible with the modern position of James M. Hamilton who argues that it is literally Messianic. See James M. Hamilton, Jr.,‘The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs: A Non-Allegorical Interpretation,’ Westminster Theological Journal, 68 (2006), pp.331-345.782 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 1.6, p. 76.

192

There could be a continuity here with the proto-reformer John

Wyclif’s insistence that the various levels of meaning in

scripture (of which he identifies five),783 reduce to one

literal meaning, sensus literalis scripture est utrobique verus?784 Wyclif

appeals to another citation from the Summa Theologiae to justify

this reading:

‘The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for

words can signify something properly or figuratively. Nor does

the literal sense refer to the figure itself, but to that

which is figured.’785

It would appear that Wyclif is here a correct interpreter of

Aquinas in agreeing that the literal sense is not in

competition with a mystical sense in those instances where it

coincides with what the author (including the Divine Author)

intended, because in both cases the literal would signify the

true referent of the scripture.786 783 Frassetto, Heretic lives: Medieval heresy from Bogomil and the Cathars to Wyclif and Huss, (Profile Books, 2007), p.169. 784 Wyclif, On the Truth of Holy Scripture, tr. Ian Christopher Levy, (Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2001), p.73 cf De Pot q.4, a.1, resp.785 Sensus parabolicus scripture sub literali continetur; nam per voces signatur aliquid proprie et aliquid figurative, nec est literalis sensu silla figura, sed illud, quod est figuratum. (my translation). John Wyclif, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae Vol 1: ed. Rudolph Beddensieg, (London, Trubnerand Co, 1907), ch. 4, p.73 citing ST 1a, q.1 a.10, ad 3786 ‘In such a case the parabolic is the literal, and, moreover, the authentic sense, just as St. Thomas says. Far be it from me to recount thisexcept insofar as it is true according to his own sense, which is the literal sense, and not the historical. It is in this way therefore the parts of Scripture should be brought into their proper form, in keeping with the wholeness of the author’s sense.’ Wyclif, On the Truth of Holy Scripture,tr. Ian Christopher Levy, (Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2001), 1.4.81; p. 82). The

193

The Christian must, in the light of the Gospel, read the

Hebrew Scriptures as revealing in a concealed way, what God

intended, as the means of salvation, since for the Christian (in

contrast to the orthodox Jew), the Bible is Christocentric.787

As Smalley puts it: ‘Christ fulfilled the promises of the Old

Testament in such a way that the spiritual exposition was

needed to explain the promises.’788 This is another lesson to

heed from the negative example of Joachim de Flora, namely

that even the allegorical sense has a proper referent, ( the

‘literal’ sense in Thomas’ usage of the term again)789, which,

is primarily Christ and his Kingdom, not wild speculation

regarding future political events.790 Aquinas takes this

principle from the normative use of the allegorical sense in

Scripture itself, i.e. the application of Old Testament

figures to New Testament realities. The Muratorian Canon affirms

mystical sense is then a flowering of ‘the fullness of the literal sense’ as in those passages which speak of Christ as lamb, sheep, calf, bull, serpent, lion and worm.‘In this case I say that Christ is most properly a lion and nevertheless, is improperly a lion.’ On the Truth of Holy Scripture, tr. Ian Christopher Levy (Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2001), 1.3.48; p.63. 787 As Augustine recognised and taught, De Utilitate Credendi 3.9; Contra Faustum 4.2; De Genesis ad Litteram 5.8.23; De Doctrina Christiana 3.22.32; Ennerationes in Psalmos 47.1; De Civitatate 16.2.788 Beryl Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools c. 1100-1280 (London and Ronceverte Hambledon, 1985), p. 266.789 ST, Ia, q.1, art.10 (See continued discussion below).790 See for example Christ’s own use of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. Seealso Henri de Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four senses of Scripture, Vol 1-3 translated by E.M. Macierowski, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000); Henri De Lubac, S.J., Scripture in the tradition, translated by Luke O’Neill with an introduction by Peter Casarella (Herder and Herder, 2000); Kevin J. Vanhoozer Is there meaning in this text? The Bible, the readerand the morality of literary knowledge (Apollos, 1998).

194

that ‘Christ is the fountainhead of the Scriptures’ 791 and we

agree with Thomas O’Loughline that the difference between

mainstream patristic/medieval exegesis and modern exegesis

turns precisely on this point, whether or not it is

Christocentric or centred on the text as a medium for a

‘succession of religious perceptions’.792

In summary, we appear then to have two different uses of

the word ‘literal’ in Aquinas, either the general intention of

the author (including the Divine author) and a more restricted

sense focused on the historical, shown in his grouping of ‘the

literal or historical sense’ as one of the four senses in

Summa Theologiae 1a, q.1, a.10. What unites these two seemingly

disparate meanings is found in the responsio of Summa Theologiae

1a, 1, 10 to which we now return:

‘The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to

signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do),

but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other

science things are signified by words, this science has the

property, that the things signified by the words have

themselves also a signification. Therefore, that first

signification whereby words signify things belongs to the

first sense, the historical or literal. That signification

whereby things signified by words have themselves also a

791 principium earum esse Christian intanans prolixitc scripsit, Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ and the Scriptures: the chasm between modern and pre-modern exegesis’, in The Month, 31 (1998), p.483.792 Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ and the Scriptures: the chasm between modernand pre-modern exegesis’, in The Month, 31 (1998), p.477.

195

signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on

the literal, and presupposes it.’

The movement of thought here appears to be that, since

Sacred Scripture has a Divine Author, it follows that not only

the words, but also the things they describe carry

significance. We have traced this idea of ‘things themselves’

having significance to Hugh of St. Victor.793 It reflects what

Chenu called ‘The symbolist mentality’ of the twelfth

century.794 The events of history have significance because

nature itself has significance.795 This perspective however is

not limited to the 12th century, but is present in Biblical

hermeneutics as early as Origen in his Treatise on the Passover.

Commenting on the passage, ‘search the Scriptures, in which

you have life, and they give witness of me.’ (John 5.39),

Origen writes, ‘their witness does not consist only in words 793 Hugh of St Victor, ‘The first mode of explanation is historical, in which is considered first the signification of the words, and then the things themselves which are signified. For Sacred Scripture has a certain characteristic which differentiates it from other writings, since in it certain things are treated first through words which are recited, and then things, instead of words, are proposed to signify other things ’ De scripturis et scripturibus sacris praenotatiunculae 3 (PL 175.11-12) tr. Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.81, n.47-48.794 M.D. Chenu, ‘The Symbolist Mentality’ in Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on new theological perspectives in the Latin West, ed. and translated by J. Taylor and L.K. Little (University of Chicago Press, 1968).795 ‘The philosopher knows only the significance of words, but the significance of things is far more excellent than that of words, because the latter was established by usage, but Nature dictated the former. The latter is the voice of men, the former the voice of God speaking to men.’ Hugh of St Victor, Didascalion 5.3 tr. Jerome Taylor, The Didascalion of Hugh of St. Victor (New York, 1961), p.121 cited in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.82, n.49.

196

of prophecy but in the very acts themselves knowledge is

written.’796 Consequently Moses ‘recognises there not only the

historical but also the anagogical meaning.’797 That natural

things are created according to a heavenly archetype is again

suggested by Origen in his Commentary on the Song of Songs:

‘Perhaps, even as God made man to His own image and likeness,

so also did He create the other creatures after the likeness

of some other heavenly patterns.’798

In our view, Milbank and Pickstock are right to recognise in

this principle the only basis for true predication about God,

since:

“unless things themselves can be read as signs of God, names

cannot be used analogically of God. The limits or unlimits of

grammar reflect the limits or unlimits of the created

order.”799

In other words, because God is both the author of Scripture

and the author of creation, the whole cosmos bears a symbolic

order and thus the relationship with nature becomes the

foundation of the spiritual senses. This includes historical

events and people, a level of the symbolic order sometimes 796 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 40.10 translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.49.797 Origen, Treatise on the Passover II, 40.29 translated by Robert J. Daly S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.50.798 Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, tr. R.P. Lawson (The Newman Press, 1956), Book 3.12, p.219.799 John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas (Routledge, 2002), p.103.

197

called ‘typology’ (from the time of the Antiochan school),

which was highly valued in the Medieval period, but was

increasingly derided from the days of Spinoza onwards (1634-

1677). A major hallmark of the modern period is a gradual

unhinging of nature and meaning in which the notion of

‘authorial intention’ (mens auctoris) which Aquinas had helped to

promote,800 became reduced to the intention of the human authors

alone.801 The effects of this were far reaching in that the

truth of scripture could now be divorced from its meaning802

and historicism could replace the former revelatory status of

Biblical history.

Robert Kennedy in his Phd thesis on the literal sense of

Scripture in Aquinas locates the definition of the literal

sense on the basis of this distinction between what words mean

(the literal sense) with what the things themselves mean (the

spiritual sense).803 This distinction had been clarified in

Thomas’ mind from reading Hugh of St. Victor.

800 ‘While embracing current teaching on the senses with heart and mind, he enlarged it to demand a new, and occasional, look at the mens auctoris. The evangelist’s intention might amalgamate literal and spiritual meanings. Thomas could perceive the human, inspired writers as having his own individual gifts and purpose. In doing so he crossed over a border within which earlier commentators on the Gospel had been happy to stay.’ Beryl Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools c. 1100-1280 (London and Ronceverte Hambledon, 1985), p 271.801 Benedict de Spinoza, ‘A Theological- Political Treatise’, ch. 7, translated by R.H.M.Elwes (Dover Publications, 1951), p. 99802 ‘We are at work not on the truth of passages, but solely on their meaning.’ (Benedict de Spinoza, ‘A Theological- Political Treatise’, ch. 7, transalted by R.H.M. Elwes (Dover Publications, 1951), p. 101. 803 Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986) esp. ch.8.

198

‘History is the narration of events, which is contained in the

first meaning of the letter; we have allegory when, through

what is said to have been done, something else is signified as

done either in the past or in the present or in the future.’804

18. Aquinas’ ‘architectural’ approach to hermeneutics

Unlike modern Phd candidates, Aquinas did not intend to make

‘an original contribution to knowledge’, but rather to be

faithful to sacra doctrina. Like Hugh of St Victor, Aquinas clearly

intends to situate himself within the Augustinian tradition

dominant in the west. By maintaining the Augustinian insight

that Scripture has multiple layers of meaning,805 Aquinas is

here able to accommodate Dionysius within his new synthesis

(which is de facto an original contribution), while at the same

time privileging the Victorine (Augustinian) defence of the

literal as the normative or ‘foundational’ sense,806 implying

that without this foundation the edifice would collapse.807

Thomas’s commitment to the normative value of the literal

sense forms the basis of what I am calling his ‘architectural’

804 Hugh of St Victor, ‘On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith’, transalted by Deferrari (Wipf & Stock), Prologue, 4, page 5:805 ST 1a, q.1, a.10 resp. citing Augustine, Confessions 12.31.42; See also De Potentia 4.1; De Genesis ad litteram 1.19.38; Enneratio in Psalmum 113.1. 806 ST 1a, 1,10; Quodlibetum VII q. 6. a.1, ad 1; 14:3; De Pot q.4, a1, resp.807 De Lubac also cites Siegrid as a precursor to this approach (in reference to grammar and secular studies): ‘ One does not arrive at higher things unless one ascends through the lower levels; nor does a wall stand firm above ground unless it be supported from below by a firm-footed foundation.’ Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 217.

199

approach to hermeneutics which is more expansive than the

predominantly anagogical one of Pseudo-Dionysius.

The ancestry of this model is found in Gregory the Great who

famously described Biblical exegesis using the image of

constructing a house in his Exposition on the book of the Blessed Job.

First, he said, the historical foundations must be laid, then

the superstructure of typology is built and finally the house

is painted with the colour of moral application.808 In one of

his homilies on Luke, Gregory applies this same principle:

‘In the sacred writings, most beloved brothers, one must first

observe the truth of history and afterwards seek out the

spiritual understanding of allegory. Then indeed may the fruit

of allegory be sweetly plucked, since first, through history,

it is grounded in the origin of truth.’809 808 ‘For first, we lay the historical foundations; next, by pursuing the typical sense, we erect a fabric of the mind to be a strong hold of faith; and moreover as the last step, by the grace of moral instruction, we, as itwere, clothe the edifice with an overcast of colouring.’ Books of the Morals of St. Gregory the Pope, or An exposition on the book of the Blessed Job, Vol 1, the first part, The Epistle,tr. John Henry Parker; J.G.F. and J. Rivington, (London, 1844), 1.3. digitalised edition, http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoraliaIndex.html See also Henri DeLubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 235. 809 Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, Bk.3, Homily 40.1 (PL 76.1302) citedin Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), p.71, n.18. Kennedy goes on to note howeverthat Gregory did not always follow through on this approach, see Epistola ad Leandrum 3: ‘sometimes we neglect to explain the plain words of history, in order that we may not be slow to come to the hidden meaning. But sometimes these words cannot be understood according to the letter when, taken superficially, they have no kind of instruction for readers, but produce error..’ (Kennedy, p.72, n.19). Hence Gregory has been most noted for his spiritual interpretations.

200

The image however, is not strictly original to Gregory, Jerome

had earlier said substantially the same thing:

‘But first the foundations of history are laid down, since it

is more appropriate that the height of allegory be placed upon

a prior structure.’810

Hugh of St Victor (1096-1141), nicknamed ‘the second

Augustine’,811 picks up the thread in his Didascalicon where he

transforms it into a pedagogical programme. In Book 6,

chapter 2, Hugh makes use of the architectural image to

introduce a required pedagogical order for studying the

Scriptures within his abbey. 812 Then in chapter 3 he identifies810 sed prius historiae fundamenta ponenda sunt, ut aptius allegoria culmen priora structurae superponatur. Jerome, De benedictionibus Jacob (PL 23.13080) cited in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University MicrofilmsInternational, Michigan, 1986), p.75, n.30.811 Hugh was associated with an Augustinian community in Hamersleben before he moved to Paris. See Paul Rorem, Hugh of St Victor (Oxford University Press, 2009), p.10.812 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 2, in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.164 quoting Gregory the Great. See also G.A. Zinn, ‘Historia fundamentum est:the role of history in the contemplative life according to Hugh of St.Victor’, in Shriver G.H. (ed.), Contemporary reflections on the medieval Christian tradition: essays in honor of Ray C. Petry (Duke University Press, 1974), pp. 135-158. Alan of Lille follows suit: ‘ There is a threefold exposition in the reading of scripture); of which the first is historical, the second tropological, the third allegorical. The first is the foundation, the second the walls, and the third is the roof added to these two.’ Sermones octo, Sermon 5 (PL 210.209c) tr. in Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p. 83, n.58. Notice here that Gregory’s paintwork is Alan’s walls as the image is reworked. The metaphor is again extended and deployed in a pedagogical context by Peter the Cantor (d. 1197) which became paradigmatic for the Dominican order: ‘The exercise of Sacred Scripture consists therefore in three things: the lecture, the disputation and the sermon. The lecture is,

201

the foundation with history (historia), paying special attention

to ‘thing, person, deed, time and place.’ Only after this, he

says, is it appropriate for the student to progress to more

spiritual meanings.

‘I do not think you can be perfectly perspicuous with regard

to allegory’ writes Hugh, ‘unless you have first been grounded

in history.’813

He recommends to Bible students that they first become steeped

in the historical books which he identifies as Genesis, Exodus,

Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.814

as it were, the foundation and underpinning of the rest..The disputation islike walks for the building because nothing is fully understood and faithfully preached unless it is first chewed by the teeth of disputing. But preaching, which is served by the other functions, is, as it were, the roof and covering for the faithful from the heat and unrest of vices.’ Verbum abbreviatum, c. 1, PL, 205,25 cited in James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Friar Thomas D’Aquino: his thought and works (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1975), p. 116. 813 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 2, in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.164 quoting Gregory the Great. See also Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 235. An earlier reference to thisidea of history as a foundation is found in ninth century writer, Christianof Stavelot in his Epistola 24 (MGH Epistolarum 6.178.4-70): ‘ I have aimed to follow the historic rather than the spiritual meaning, because it seems to me illogical to look for a spiritual understanding in any book and to ignore the historical utterly; for the historical sense is the foundation of all understanding and we must seek it from the first and embrace it, andwithout it we cannot successfully pass on to other knowledge’ tr. Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.78, footnote 36. Kennedy also refers to Berengaudus, Expositio super septem visions libri Apoc., vision 7 (PL 17.960D). ‘ Whoever desires to investigate the moral and spiritual meanings of divine scripturemust necessarily first possess the historical meaning.’ (Kennedy ibid p.78, n.38.).814 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 3, in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory, (Brepols, 2012), p.166. De Lubac also finds parallels in Rabanus Maurus: ‘Therefore the most skilful

202

This does not mean that the historical is the most

important,815 but it does mean that it is the most important

place to begin. ‘Having been instructed in small things, you can

safely attempt to learn great things.’816 To borrow a different

image from Gregory the Great, an expositor might overflow the

banks of the river in his enthusiasm to bring home the supreme

importance of the spiritual application (the ‘moral sense’),

but afterwards the waters will be guided back on their course

by the river bed, representing the historical sense.817 As

Harkins and Liere put it in their introduction to Hugh of St

Victor, history is the ‘foundation’ but not necessarily the

researcher into the divine Scriptures will be the one who first would have read them all and got acquainted with them, and if not yet by means of his understanding, at least by reading…The first point to be observed in his work and his labour is as we have said, to get acquainted with those books even if not yet with respect to his understanding, still, by reading to commit them to memory or at least not to have them completely unknown.’ Clericales Institutio cited in Henri De Lubac S.J., Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Volume 3, tr. E.M. Macierowski, (William B. Eerdmands Pub Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2009), p. 225. 815 ‘It would seem to follow that the exegete ought to focus on the literal sense instead of downgrading it as a mere foundation or outer grind of spiritual sweetness…I plead guilty to having drawn this conclusion, which goes to far.’ Beryl Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools c. 1100-1280, (London and Ronceverte Hambledon, 1985), p. 265. 816 Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, Book 6, chapter 3, in Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.164.817‘if, when opportunity for edification requires it, he turn aside for a useful purpose from which he had begun to speak of; for he that treats of sacred writ should follow the way of a river, for if a river, as it flows along its channel, meets with open valleys on its side, into these it immediately turns the course of its current, and when they are copiously supplied, presently it pours itself back into its bed. Thus unquestioningly, thus should it be with everyone that treats of the Divine Word, that if, in discussing any subject, he chance to find at hand any occasion of seasonable edification, he should, as it were, force the streams of discourse towards the adjacent valley, and, when he has poured forth enough upon its level of instruction, fall back into the channel of discourse which he had proposed to himself.’ Books of the Morals of St. Gregory the Pope, or An exposition on the book of the Blessed Job, Vol 1, the first part, The Epistle, tr. John Henry Parker; J.G.F. and J. Rivington, (London, 1844), 1.2. digitalised edition, http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoraliaIndex.html accessed 24/10/15.

203

‘telos’ of his exegetical theory.818 We could compare this back

to Origen’s schema of body and soul: the goal is the spiritual

meaning, just as in the Epistle of James, the telos of faith

is works because ‘the body without the spirit is dead.’819

There are few extant examples of Hugh applying all three

senses to a single passage, but we do have three explicit

cases in respect of his treatment of Noah’s ark820, Job and

Esther. In each case the ‘letter’ is necessary821 but is of

lesser interest to Hugh than the doctrine and application

which are built on this foundation.822

Aquinas faithfully follows this Gregorian/Victorine order of

construction in his own ‘literal commentary’ ( i.e. line by

line explanation) of the Book of Job. Malcolm D. Yaffe, in

his introductory essay to Aquinas’ Commentary on Job, recollects

the image of Gregory the Great and Hugh of St. Victor by

comparing Aquinas the exegete to an architect, not this time

of a humble house, but rather of a majestic cathedral, built

on the foundation of the historical/literal, making use of the

moral and allegorical, but finally pointing to Heaven through

the anagogical.

818 Franklin T.Harkins and Frans Van Liere, ‘Interpretation of Scripture: theory (Brepols, 2012), p.36.819 James 2:26.820 De arca Noe Morali chs. 12-13, tr. in J.M.Hussey OP (ed.) by a religious ofthe community of St Mary the Virgin with an introduction by Aelred Squire,Hugh of St. Victor Selected writings (Harper and Rowe, 1962), pp. 60-63.821 Hugh follows the example of Augustine, City of God tr. John Healey (London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, 1945), Vol.2, Bk. 15, ch.27.822 See Paul Rorem, Hugh of St. Victor [trace refererence]

204

‘ ‘His finished exposition may be compared to a Gothic

cathedral, whose massive earthbound structure points

heavenward. What is most awesome here is not its massiveness,

however, but its artfulness. The whole sublime façade may be

seen to consist of units carefully fitted and bonded together

in accordance with the artisan’s design. In the case of

Thomas’ exposition the design is no ordinary product of art,

but is dictated by that of the Book of Job itself, as Thomas

reads it.’823

The ‘history’ of Job, Aquinas informs us ‘ is premised as a

foundation for the whole debate’824 (contrary to the opinion

of Maimonides who regarded the book as a parable).

Nevertheless, Thomas’ application is not restricted to matters

of history; he builds upon this cornerstone. So, ‘Leviathan’

is literally a large fish or ancient reptile but can also be

understood figuratively as the devil,825 an interpretation

823 Malcolm D. Yaffe, ‘Interpretive Essay’ in Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), p.12.824 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 1.1, p.71. Thomas’ teacher Albert the Great may have first drawn hisattention to the foundational status of the literal sense. ‘For this reasonthe literal sense is first, and upon it are founded the three other spiritual senses…And these three stand upon the literal sense as though on a foundation.’ Albert the Great, Summa Theologiae Prima pars, tractatus 1, quaestio 4, membrum 4 (Borgnet 30.28b) tr. Robert George Kennedy, Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Scripture, Phd, University of Notre Dame, 1985 (authorised facsimile, University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1986), p.92, n.86.825 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), ch. 3.8, p.105.

205

shared with Origen.826 In other passages, Job can be understood

as prophesying the hope of bodily resurrection,827 which

Aquinas uses as a platform to preach Christ, the Redeemer from

sin and death who Job foresaw, he says, ‘through the spirit

of faith.’828

The enduring power of this architectural image is apparent in

its transmission into modern commentators of the Old

Testament. So John Goldingay in speaking of relationship

between the Law and its Gospel interpretation writes:

‘ In this sense the Sermon on the Mount certainly builds on the

Decalogue, and the model of building may be a more useful one

for understanding the inter-relationships of the prescriptive

material in Scripture. The lower courses of bricks remain

essential to the stability of the total structure. We always

need the negative boundary markers as well as the positive

content.’829

It is interesting to note that the cornerstone of the

literal cathedral of Notre Dame was laid in 1163 and its

Western front completed at about the time Aquinas was born in

826 Origen, Treatise on the Passover 35.20-25,translated by Robert J.Daly S.J. (NewYork: Paulist Press, 1992), pp.46.827 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 13.9; 19:25.828 Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, tr. Anthony Damico, The American Academy of Religion Classics in Religious Studies ed. Carl A. Raschke, Scholar’s Press (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), 19:25, p.269.829 John Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (I.V.P., 1981), p.61.

206

1224. It was also the home of the sacred music of Perotin

(1180-1225) who pioneered polyphonic music with four

independent parts. So to change the image of Aquinas’

hermeneutics from architecture to music, we could say that the

bass part (or better bass vox ) is the literal sense with the

ascending harmonies of tenor, descant and soprano being the

spiritual voces. This approach is played out in Thomas’ sermons

where he does not remain on the base line (or bass line!) of

the historical or grammatical sense, but goes on to draw out

spiritual meanings for the edification of his listeners.830 We

believe then that Persson goes too far in concluding that for

Aquinas, ‘the literal interpretation is for him incomparably

the most important.’831 In terms of a hierarchy of ascent, the

spiritual senses would be closer to Heaven (the anagogical

points to this), but grounded on the earth.

Conclusion

In summary, then we find that Aquinas shares much in common

with Pseudo-Dionysius in regard to the Divine inspiration,

authority and canon of scripture. But if Pseudo-Dionysius is

Origenist; Aquinas is essentially Augustinian. This is most

clearly seen by the fact that although Aquinas synthesizes

many diverse auctoritates including Dionysius, Augustine remains

his most cited auctoritate outside of Scripture itself, but also 830 For example lecture 1 on John ch. 2, Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated by James A. Weisheipl, O.P. (Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y., 1998). See also Paul Murray OP, Aquinas at Prayer: The Bible, Mysticism and Poetry (Bloomsbury, 2013).831 Per Erik Persson, ‘Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas,’ tr. Ross Mackenzie (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957,1970), p.55.

207

the Augustinian influence on Aquinas can be seen indirectly

through his use of Hugh of St. Victor. The main development in

Aquinas is his reconfiguring of Augustine’s four senses of

scripture to accommodate the anagogical approach of Dionysius

(derivative from Origen) within a wider Victorine framework

which strengthens the literal sense with its locus in history and

authorial intention as the normative one for doctrine and the

pedagogical foundation for the ‘cathedral’ of spiritual

senses. In his faithful attempt to synthesise previous

approaches, Aquinas also succeeds in formulating a more

precise understanding of what the ‘literal’ sense means. A

commitment to this principle as his overriding methodology

transforms the surface meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian texts

in a number of key teachings and effectively ‘baptises’ him as

a faithful Catholic.832 To borrow a phrase from Thomas himself,

‘in this way the saying of Dionysius is saved.’833 In the next

chapter we will see that one important consequence of Aquinas’

commitment to the normative use of the literal sense is his

reconfiguring of the Neoplatonic/Procline understanding of

hierarchy in Church and State inherent in the Dionysian

832 Dionysius has of course already accepted baptism within the Syrian church. See EH 3, (425AB). See Golitzin, Alexander, Mystagogy: A Monastic Readingof Dionysius Areopagita ed. Bogdon G. Bucur (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013), xxxv833 Aquinas, On Spiritual Creatures: De Spiritualibus Creaturis, tr. Mary C. FitzPatrick and John J. Wellmuth (Marquetter University Press, 1949), a.8, ad.10, p.95.

208

system which opened the door for both Reformation834 and social

change.

Bibliography.

Primary Texts

Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 2, translated by Anderson, James

F., Indiana, University of Notre Dame, 1956 Summa Theologiae In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio 4.11 translated

by Marsh, Harry C. ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio, PhdDissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1994

Asclepius 21-29 (Nag Hammadi codex VI, 8) in Robinson, James M. The Nag Hammadi Library in English, New York, Harper-Collins, 1990,p.333.

Eriugena, John Scotus, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae), Book 1 (509D), ed. and translated by Sheldon-Williams, I.P. with thecollaboration of Ludwig Bieler, Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968

Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 40.4. translated by Browne, Charles Gordon and James Edward Swallow, in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.834 Luther writes in his Lectures on Genesis: ‘At last we have passed over that vast expanse of text on which all expositors have toiled exceedingly – to some degree also we ourselves, although its entire content was rather clearto us because we did not concern ourselves with allegories but adhered to the historical and strict meaning. Since the majority of the interpreters did not concern themselves with this but attached greater importance to Origen, Dionysius and others than to Moses himself, it is no wonder that they went astray. The chapters which now follow are less subject to debate and are clearer. Moreover, they support our conviction; for nobody can failto see that Moses does not intend to present allegories but simply to writethe history of the primitive world.’ Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, Lectures on Genesis 1-5 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), ch.4, p.237.

209

7. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894, revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm accessed 1/7/17

Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis: On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith translated by Deferrari, Roy J. Eugene, Origon: WIPF & Stock, 2007

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds, Longman, 1981

Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus or On Happiness, 24, translated by Mark Edwards in Neoplatonic Saints: The lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their students,Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2000.

Maximus the Confessor, Scholia MG 4.136B

Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, translated by Lawson,

R.P. The Newman Press, 1956. Commentaire Sur Saint Jean,3 (13), translated by Blanc, Cecile.

Sources Chretiennes, Paris : Les editions du Cerf, 1966 Payne, Richard, J. ed., Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer

and Selected Works, translated by Rowan E. Greer, Paulist Press, 1979

Letter to Gregory in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, Routledge, 1998 Treatise on the Passover, translated by Daly, Robert J., S.J. ,

New York: Paulist Press, 1992.

Plato, Works of Plato in 4 Volumes, translated by Jowett, B., Boston: The Jefferson Press, 1871.

Plotinus, Enneads, translated by Stephen MacKenna, London: Faberand Faber, 1930.

Porphyry, Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligible Natures, 32 in Thomas Taylor, Select Works of Porphyry Vol. II, The Prometheus Trust, 1994, pp.180-181

Proclus

210

Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Morrow, Glenn R and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press, 1987

De Aeternitate, (On the Eternity of the World), translated by Helen S. Lang, Helen S and A.D.Macro, University of California Press, 2001

The Elements of Theology translated by Dodds, E.R. Clarendon, Press, Oxford, 2004

Psellus, PG CXXII, 721D

Pseudo-Dionysius, translated by Colm Luibheid in Rorem, P. ed. Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works, Paulist Press, 1987

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (EH) Epistles (Ep) Divine Names (DN)

Robinson, James M.(ed), The Nag Hammadi Library: The definitive translation of the Gnostic Scriptures complete in one volume (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1998)

Secondary texts

Arthur, Rosemary A. Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria, London:Routledge, 2008/2016

Aydin, Sami. Sergius of Reshaina: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, Addressed to Philotheos, Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus.Lam Mul: BRILL,2016.

Balthasar, Hans Urs Von The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological

Style: Clerical styles, ed. Riches, John translated by Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil, T & T Clark, 1995

Preface to Payne, Richard J., ed., Origen: an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works, Paulist Press, 1979

Baynes N.H. and H. St. L.B. Moss, Byzantium: An introduction to East Roman Civilisation, Londond: Oxford University Press, 1962

211

Blondel, Maurice. Action (1893): Essay on a Critique of Life and a Science of Practice, translated by Blanchette, O., University of Notre Dame Press, 1950

Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: the weaving of the sacramental tapestry (Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011

Bonino, S.T., ‘Le concept d’étant et la connaisance de Dieu après Jean Cabrol’ in Revue Thomiste 95, (1995).

Campbell, Thomas L, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, University Press of America, 1981

Caputo, John D.,‘Apostles of the Impossible: On God and the Gift in Derrida and Marion’ in Caputo and Scanlon (eds.), God, the Gift and Postmodernism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999 Carabine, Dierdre, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena, Louvain: Peters, 1995 Chenu, M.D., O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, tr. Albert M. Landry and Dominic Hughes, Chicago: Henry Regnery,1964

Coakley, Sarah and Charles M. Stang, eds. Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Dawson, David. “Allegorical reading and the embodiment of the soul in Origen” in Ayres, Lewis and Gareth Jones, eds. Christian Origin: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, London: Routledge,1998

De Andia, Ysabel ed., Denys L’Areopagite et sa posterite en orient et en occident, Paris: Institut d’Etudes Augustinienne, 1997

Derrida, Jacques, How to avoid speaking: Denials translated by Kamufand Rottenberg (eds.) Psyche:Inventions of the Other, Vol 2, Stanford University Press, 2008

Descartes, Letter 2 to Mersenne, in Descartes Philosophical Writings, translated

by Anscombe, E. and P. Geach, Nelson Philosophical Texts,1963, p 261.

212

Meditations, translated by John Cottingham, Cambridge University Press; 2nd rev. ed. 1996

Edwards, Mark Julian. Origen against Plato, Ashgate, 2004

Emery, K “The Commentaries of Denys the Carthusian” in Boiadjiev, Kapriev, Speer eds, Die Dionysius-Rezeption im Mittelalter, Societe Internationale pour l’Etude de la Philosophie Medievale, Recontres de Philosophie Medieval, 9, Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2000.

Fabro, Cornelio, ‘The Problem of Being and the Destiny of Man’ in

International Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1961), pp.407-36. ‘The Intensive Hermeneutics of Thomistic Philosophy: The

Notion of Participation,’ in Review of Metaphysics 27 (1974), pp.449-91.

Finnis, John., “Nature, Reason and God in Aquinas” in Sigmund,Paul E. St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics, W.W. Norton, 1988

Frend, W.H.C. Creeds, Councils and Controversies, London: SPCK, 1987 The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge University Press,

1972

Froehlich, Karlfried. ‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation ofthe Sixteenth Century’ in Rorem, Paul, ed., Pseudo-Dionysius, the Complete Works, Paulist Press, 1987

Frothingham, Arthur L. Jr, Stephen Bar Sudhaili, the Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheus, Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1886,

Golitzin, Alexander, Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagitaed. Bogdon G. Bucur, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013

Hall, Stuart G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK,1995)

Hankey, Wayne, ‘Denys and Aquinas: antimodern cold and postmodern hot’ in Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology,

213

Rhetoric and Community, London and New York: Routledge, 1998, pp.139-184

Hathaway, R.F. Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the Form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969.

Johnson, M.F., ‘Did St. Thomas Attribute a Doctrine of Creation to Aristotle?’ in New Scholasticism 63 (1969), pp.129-155.

Klitenic Wear, Sarah and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and theNeoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, Ashgate, 2007

Koch, H. Koch, H. “Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen

Bieziehungeng zum Neuplatonismun und Mysterienwesen, Forschungen zur christlichen Litteratur,” in Erhard, V. Aund J.P. Kirsch, eds., Forschungen zur christlichen Litteratur und Dogmenggeschichte, I, 1900, Hefte 2-3.

Jones, John D., Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite: The Divine Names and Mystical Theology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 1980

Klittenic Wear, Sarah and John Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonic tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, Ashgate, 2007

Lewy, Hans, ed. and revised by Michel Tardieu, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire, Paris:Etudes Augustiniennes, 1978

Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872

Linbeck, George. “Scripture, consensus and community” in Neuhaus, R.J., ed. Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1989

Lossky, Vladimir, The Vision of God, translated by. Ashleigh Moorhouse, Wisconsin: The Faith Press, American Orthodox Press, 1963

Louth, Andrew

214

Denys the Aeropagite, Continuum, 1989 “Pagan Theurgy and Christian Sacramentalism in Denys the

Areopagite“ in Journal of Theological Studies 37.2 1986, p.434

Luce, A.A. Monophysitism Past and Present: A Study in Christology, London, SPCK, 1920

Luscombe, David. “Wyclif and Hierarchy” in Hudson, Anne and Michael Wilks, eds. From Ockham to Wyclif, Basil Blackmore, 1987.

Luther, Martin Career of the Reformer IV, in Pelikan, J ed. Luther’s Works, St.

Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1960, Vol. 34, pp.336-337.

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), in Pelikan, J ed. StLouis, MO: Fortress Press, 1955-1986, Vol. 36, p.109.

Explanations of the Ninety Five Theses in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 31, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956

First Lectures on the Psalms I: Psalms 1-75 in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10. Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956.

The Heidelberg Disputation in Rupp, E.G. and Benjamin Drewery, eds. Martin Luther: Documents of Modern History, London, Edward Arnold, 1970, p.29.

Lectures on Genesis 1-5 in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956

Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 15-20 in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), pp.166-167

Lectures on Romans, in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956), Vol. 25

Table Talk, in Pelikan, J., ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, Saint Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1956, Vol. 54

To George Spenlein, Augustinian in Memmingen, 7 April 1516 in E.G. Rupp, E.G. and Benjamin Drewery eds., Martin Luther: Documentsof Modern History, London: Edward Arnold, 1970

Malysz, P.J. “Luther and Dionysius: Beyond Mere Negations” in Coakley, Sarah and

215

Charles M. Stang, eds. Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009

MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Silence: A Christian History, Penguin, 2014

Mang, Cyril A. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents, University of Toronto Press; 2nd revised ed., 1986

Marion, Jean-Luc,

God Without Being, translated by. Thomas A. Carlson, The University of Chicago Press, 1991

The Idol and the Distance, New York: Fordham, 2001 In Excess, Studies of Saturated Phenomena, translated by. Robyn

Horner and Vincent Berraud, Perspectives in Continental Philosophy, New York: Fordham University Press, 2002

‘Is the argument ontological?’ in Cartesian Questions: method and metaphysics, University of Chicago Press, 1999, pp.139-160

Marsh, Harry C., ‘Cosmic Structure and the knowledge of God: Thomas Aquinas’ In librum Beati Dionysii De Divinis Nominibus Expositio, Phd Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1994 McEvoy, James, Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on ‘De Mystica Theologia,’ Paris/Leuven: Peeters, 2003

Mettepenningen, Jurgen, Nouvelle Theologie New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican 11, T & T Clark, 2010

Miernowski, Jan, Le dieu neant: Theologies negatives a l’aube des temps modernes, Leiden: Brill, 1998

Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond secular reason, Blackwell, 2006, 2nd edit. Nazareth, William H. “Luther’s ‘Sola Scriptura’: traditions of the Gospel for norming Christian righteousness” in Richard John Neuham, ed., Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference onBible and Church, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans, 1999.

216

Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros, translated by Watson, Philip S., SPCK, 1982

O’Rourke, Fran, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, 2005

Pabst, Adrian Metaphysics: the creation of hierarchy, Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012

Peddicard, Richard O.P., The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the life and legacy of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 2004

Perczel, Istvan “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius” inCoakley, Sarah and

Stang, Charles M. eds., Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009

Perl, Eric D. Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, SUNY, 2007

Reid, James, The Catholic Thing, May 25, 2017. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/05/25/the-ascension-of-christ-by-tintoretto/

Riches, Aaron. Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ, Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2016

Roques, R. L’Univers Dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, Montaigne, Aubier Editions,1954

Rollins, Peter, How (not) to speak of God (SPCK, 2006)

Rolt, C.R. Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology, SPCK, 1940

Rorem, Paul, “Iamblichus and the Anagogical Method in Pseudo-Dionysian Liturgical Theology” in Livingstone, E.A., ed., Studia Patristica XVII, Oxford: Pergamum Press, 1982

217

Rorem, P and J.C. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Rupp, E.G. and Benjamin Drewery, eds. Martin Luther: Documents of Modern History, London, Edward Arnold, 1970

Sammon, Brendan Thomas. The God Who is Beauty: Beauty as a divine name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite, Princeton Theological Monograph Series, WIPF and Stock, 2013

Schäfer, Christian, The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (BRILL, 2006); Stang, Charles M, Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: "No Longer I”, Oxford University Press, 2012

Sheridon, Mark, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Illinois: IVP, 2015

Stiglmayr, Joseph. “Der Neuplatoiker Proklus als Vorlage des soggen. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vum Ubel,” in Historische Jahrbuch im Auftrag der Gorresgesellschaft, XVI, 1895, pp.253-273; 721-748.

Te Velde, Rudi A, Participation and substantiality in Thomas Aquinas (Leiden, Brill, 1995)

Théry, P.G. Études Dionysiennes 1: Hilduin, Traducteur de Denys (Paris, Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1932)

Trigg, Joseph Wilson. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church, SCM, 1985

Vernon, Mark, After Atheism: Science, Religion, and the Meaning of Life (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2007)

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs, The Glory of the Lord: A theological Aesthetics, Vol 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical styles, ed. John Riches tr. Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V. (T & T Clark, 1995)

Wallis, R.T. Neoplatonism, London: Gerald Duckworth. 2nd ed., 1995

218

Wand, J.W.C. A History of the early church to AD 500, Methuen, 1982

Westphal, Merold, Overcoming Ontotheology: toward a postmodern Christian faith (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011)

Wood, Susan K. Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the theology of Henri De Lubac (Eerdmans, 1998)

Yannaras, Christos, On the absence and unknowability of God (T & T Clark International, 2005)

Yates, Frances, A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.