THE RECEPTION OF DIONYSIUS IN TWENTIETH （狄俄尼索斯的接待20）.pdf

Modern Theology 24:4 October 2008 ISSN 0266-7177 (Print) ISSN 1468-0025 (Online) THE RECEPTION OF DIONYSIUS IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY EASTERN ORTHODOXY PAUL L. GAVRILYUK The CD has made an indelible mark on the development of the Byzantine Orthodox tradition and the overall tenor of Orthodox theology. Although much in the CD could justifiably provoke controversy, the incorporation of the CD into the canon of patristic writings was surprisingly quick and met with relatively little resistance.1 Commenting on this peculiar development, Jaroslav Pelikan wrote: There is both historical significance and theological irony in the chrono- logical coincidence between the condemnation of Origen and the rise of Dionysian mysticism, for most of the doctrines on account of which the Second Council of Constantinople anathematized Origen were far less dangerous to the tradition of catholic orthodoxy than was the Crypto- Origenism canonized in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.2 Admittedly, the characterization of Dionysius as an Origenes redivivus should not be accepted without qualifications. Clearly, the Byzantine theologians did not endorse the CD out of repressed nostalgia for Origen. Besides, there are just as many differences as there are genetic links between Origen and Dionysius’ own versions of Christian Platonism. Nevertheless, there is much truth in Pelikan’s provocative remark: Dionysius is in some ways more dan- gerous “to the tradition of catholic orthodoxy” than Origen. The boldest speculations of the Alexandrian theologian pale in comparison before the linguistic and mystical audacity of the Areopagite. Paul L. Gavrilyuk Department of Theology, University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105, USA plgavrilyuk@stthomas.edu © 2008 The Author Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 708 Paul L. Gavrilyuk The rediscovery of Dionysius by twen