Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:44:43.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John of Scythopolis on Apollinarian Christology and the Pseudo-Areopagite's True Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Paul Rorem  and
John C. Lamoreaux
Paul Rorem
Affiliation:
Mr. Rorem is associate professor of medieval church history in Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. Lamoreaux is a graduate student in the department of religion in Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
John C. Lamoreaux
Affiliation:
Mr. Rorem is associate professor of medieval church history in Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. Lamoreaux is a graduate student in the department of religion in Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As is well known, the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) first appeared on the stage of history in the first quarter of the sixth century; what is less well known is that within a generation of its appearance the CD was commented upon by an Orthodox author, John of Scythopolis (d.c. 548). Thereafter, the CD was circulated in a much expanded format—prefaced with John's Prologue and annotated with his Scholia. John's interpretive work, so close in time to the composition of the CD itself, holds forth the promise of great insight into the earliest stage of the reception of the Areopagite's works in the Christian East. Unfortunately, with the passing of time, John's remarks became so intermingled with the comments of later authors (such as Maximus the Confessor and Germanus of Constantinople) that until quite recently modern scholars have been unable to isolate John's Scholia with any degree of certainty. However, investigations of the Scholia are now entering a new stage, thanks in large part to the labors of Beate Regina Suchla. As she has demonstrated in a series of recent publications, it is possible to recover John's work through an early Syriac translation of the Scholia and a shorter Greek recension, both of which preserve the earliest version of the Scholia, that authored by John. To date, however, she has published results for the scholia on the Divine Names alone. Using a similar approach, the authors of this article have tentatively identified John's comments on the rest of the CD as well. It is now possible to begin examining thematic aspects of John's Scholia and to understand something of his intentions in commenting upon the CD. With this goal in mind, we here investigate John's comments on a number of intertwined issues, chiefly, the Christology of Apollinaris and the authenticity of the works of Dionysius.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 469 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For their helpful comments on earlier versions of this study, we are indebted to David Evans, Patrick Gray, and Kenneth Paul Wesche. For helping us attain copies of requisite manuscripts, our thanks to Julian Plante and the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library. For helping with the Syriac manuscripts, special thanks to Saadi Abdul Masih, deacon of the Syrian Orthodox Church and student at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago

1. The 1634 edition by Corderius, B. is reprinted in Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca (Paris, 1857–1866) (hereafter PG), vol. 4.Google ScholarThe Prologue and Scholia will be cited from this edition: by column and line number for the Prologue; by column and its number within its column for the Scholia.Google Scholar

2. Until recently, the only significant modern attempt to separate these comments has been by von Balthasar, Hans Urs, “Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis,” Scholastik 15 (1940): 16–38,Google Scholar as corrected and expanded in Kosmische Liturgie, 2nd ed. (Einsiedeln, 1961), pp. 644–672,Google Scholarunder the title “Das Problem der Dionysius-Scholien.” Balthasar, Von was limited, however, by a poor Syriac manuscript, ignorance of the shorter Greek recension, and his own fallible (but brilliant) intuitions.Google Scholar

3. The results of Suchla's researches as they pertain to the unravelling of the Scholia can be found in the following publications: “Die sogenannten Maximus-Scholien des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse (hereafter NAWG) (1980) 3: 31–66;Google Scholar“Die Überlieferung des Prologs des Johannes von Scythopolis zum griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum,” NAWG (1984) 4: 176–187.Google ScholarSome of these results are also available in the introduction to the new edition of the Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols., Suchla, B. R., Heil, G., Ritter, A. M., eds., Patristische Texte und Studien 33/36 (Berlin, 1990–1991), 1: 38–54.Google ScholarThis is the edition of the CD used here, though citations are identified according to the columns of the older edition as found in PG 3, which the new edition retains in its margins. In quoting the CD, for convenience we employ the translation of Luibheid, Colm, Pseudo—Dionysms, The Complete Works (New York, 1987). DN = Divine Names;Google ScholarEH = Ecclesiastical Hierarchy;Google ScholarCH = Celestml Hierarchy;Google ScholarMT = Mystical Theology; Ep = Epistles.Google Scholar

4. See below, pages 474–475.Google Scholar

5. On sixth-century Christology in general, see Gray, Patrick T. R., The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553) (Leiden, 1979);Google ScholarHelmer, S., Der Neuchalkedonismus (Bonn, 1962);Google ScholarGrillmeier, A., Christ in the Christian Tradition, trans. Allen, P. and Cawte, J., vol. 2/1 (Atlanta, 1987);Google Scholaridem., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, vol. 2/2 (Frieburg, 1989).Google Scholar

6. For the changing theological methodologies, see the important contributions of Patrick Gray, T. R., “‘The Select Fathers’: Canonizing the Patristic Past,” Studia Palrislica 23 (1989): 21–36;Google Scholaridem, “Forgery as an Instrument of Progress: Reconstructing the Theological Tradition in the Sixth Century,” Byzantmische Zeitschnft 81 (1988): 284–289.Google Scholar

7. Chiat, Marilyn J., “Synagogues and Churches in Byzantine Beit She'an,” Journal of Jewish Art 7 (1980): 6–24.Google ScholarFor earlier bibliography and an overview, see Lifshitz, Baruch, “Scythopolis: L'histoire, les institutions et les cultes de la ville à l'époque hellénistique et impériale,” Aufstieg und Niedergangder römischen Welt 8.2 (Berlin, 1977), pp. 262–294.Google Scholar

8. For an overview of references to John, his works, and his citations of various authors, see Flusin, Bernard, Miracle et Histoire dans l'oeuvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis (Paris, 1983), pp. 17–29.Google ScholarFor an idea of the range of authors cited by John, see also the preliminary list compiled by von Balthasar, pp. 652–653, 655–657, 666–667.Google ScholarMore recent studies have documented an intriguing number of unacknowledged citations from Plotinus: Franks, R. M., “The Use of the Enneads by John of Skythopolis,” Le Muséon 100 (1987): 101–108;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBeierwaltes, W., “Johannes von Skythopolis und Plotin,” Studia Patristica 11.2, Texte und Untersuchungen 108 (Berlin, 1972), pp. 3–7;Google ScholarBeierwaltes, W. and Kannicht, R., “Plotin-Testimonia bei Johannes von Skythopolis,” Hermes 96 (1968): 247–251.Google Scholar

9. Contra Monophysitas, PG 86: 1865BC.Google ScholarSee Grillmeier, , Jesus der Christus, p. 253Google Scholarand Gray, , Defense of Chalcedon, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

10. For Theodosius at the 536 synod, see Schwartz, E., ed., Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, tom. 3 (Berlin, 1940), p. 188.8.Google ScholarOn Theodore, see Cyril of Skythopolis, Life of Sabas, ed. Schwartz, E., Kyrillos, von Skythopolis (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 197.19–26 (hereafter Life of Sabas).Google ScholarFor details on the chronology of John's episcopate, see Loof, F.'s overturning of Lequien's views, Leontius von Byzance (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 269–272.Google ScholarLeontius of Jerusalem's reference to John as the Bishop of Scythopolis dates from 538 to 544;Google Scholarsee note 9 above;Google ScholarGray, , The Defense of Chalcedon, pp. 122–123;Google Scholarand Perrone, Lorenzo, La Chiesa di Palestina e le Controversie Christologiche (Brescia, 1980), p. 246.Google Scholar

11. The full title, Against Those Who Separate Themselves from the Church, Which is to Say, Against Eutyches and Dioscoros and Those of the Same Opinion Who Refuse to Proclaim Christ in Two Natures, is given by Photius, , Bibliotheque, ed. Henry, R., 8 vols. (Paris, 1958–1967), Cod. 95, 2: 48. The “high priest” may be Julian the Metropolitan of Bostra, an important Chalcedonian adversary of Severus;Google Scholarsee Honigmann, E., Évêques et évêchés monophysites d' Asie antèrieure au VIe siècle, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 127 (hereafter CSCO), Subsidia 2 (Louvain, 1951), pp. 76–77.Google ScholarPhotius suggests that the unknown author being refuted by John may have been Basil of Cilicia, the strict dyophysite Chalcedonian discussed below. But this is unlikely, since the tendency of the work to which John was responding was Monophysite, as noted by Honigmann, , Évêques et évêchés, pp. 80–81;Google ScholarPerrone, , La Chiesa di Palestina, pp. 241–242;Google Scholar and Helmer, , Der Neuchalkedonismus, p. 177, n. 397a.Google Scholar

12. Lebon, J., trans., Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum: Oratio tertiaepars prior, CSCO 94, Scriptores Syri 46 (Louvain, 1952), pp. 201–202. Severus wrote this refution during the first year of his exile (519);Google Scholarsee Lebon, J., Le Monophysisme Sévérien (Louvain, 1909), p. 153.Google Scholar

13. Photius, , Bibliothèque Cod. 107, 2: 74–78.Google ScholarFor the exegetical issues, see Gray, , The Defense of Chalcedon, pp. 113–114.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., 2, 78.5–11. Basil lived well into the reign of Justinian, see Photius, , Bibliothèque, Cod. 42, 1: 26–27.Google ScholarOn dating John's work after the outbreak of the theopaschite dispute in 519, see Honigmann, , Evêques et évêchés pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

15. Diekamp, F., ed., Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wendedes 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed. (Munster, 1981), pp. 85–86;Google ScholarMansi, G. D., ed., 53 vols., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence, 1761–1772), 10: 1108B and 11: 437D–440C. This last location, the largest version of the fragment, shows John's concern for Apollinaris at 440A.Google Scholar

16. Leo, 's Tome reads, “Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod propriumest,” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner, N. et al. , eds., 2 vols. (London, 1991), 1: 79, col. 2, 3–5.Google ScholarFor Severus's objections to this statement of the Tome, see Brooks, E. W., ed. and trans., A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts, Patrologia Orientalis 12.2 (Paris, 1915), p. 180, Ep. I: To Oecumenius (hereafter Letters of Severus).Google Scholar

17. Photius, , Bibliothèque Cod. 231, 5: 66.Google Scholar

18. Mansi, , Sacrorum Consiliorum, 11: 270C.Google Scholar

19. Severus observes that certain men were slandering the Council of Ephesus (449) in that Dioscorus had there welcomed Eutyches back into communion: “Not only the wretched man from Scythopolis, but many others besides him and after him,” Brooks, , ed., Letters of Severus, Ep. 31, 264.6.Google Scholar

20. As reported by Photius, , Bibliothèque Cod. 107, 2: 74.Google Scholar

21. On John's theopaschism, see Scholia 221.8, 236.10, and 360.7.Google Scholar

22. About a third of the 1,673 Scholia printed in Migne can be assigned to John. Since they are often longer than the others, they constitute perhaps forty percent of the 225 columns of the text as printed by Migne. Suchla reports finding scholia by John which are not in Migne.Google Scholar

23. Scholia 173.8: “And even now some are proceeding from the myths, not teachings, of Origen.”Google ScholarSee also Scholia 172.11 and 545.8.Google ScholarSee Life of Sabas 188.3–24.Google Scholar

24. Antipater (see Scholia 176.3) was used against the Origenists by Gelasius at the beginning of his hegumenate in 537/538, as noted in the Life of Sabas 189.14–22.Google Scholar

25. Origen is used and named as an authoritative Father in the Prologue (20C), Scholia 549.6 and perhaps 337.5, although the text of the latter scholion could be corrupt. Origen's Hexpla is used without attribution in 421.1. The similar use of Evagrius in Scholia 76.7 is not found in Syr; it is found in FA, where Evagrius is not, however, called “impious,” as in Migne's edition.Google Scholar

26. Suchla, , “Die Uberlieferung,” pp. 176–187.Google Scholar

27. Suchla, , “Eine Redaktion des griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum im Umkreis des Johannes von Skythopolis, des Verfasser von Prolog und Scholien: Ein dritter Beitrag zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des CD,” NAWG (1985) 4: 179–193.Google Scholar

28. This outline of the Prologue is confirmed in the textual criticism and reconstruction of Suchla, , “Die Uberlieferung,” p. 179: integrity, Prologue 16.4 to 17.49; orthodoxy, Prologue 17.50 to 20.27; authenticity, Prologue 20.31 to 21.8.Google Scholar

29. Prologue 16.25–30, 32–35.Google Scholar

30. Prologue 17.36–41.Google Scholar

31. Prologue 20.10–12, 16–30.Google Scholar

32. With regard to John's Prologue, Moeller, Charles exaggerates somewhat in saying that “Tout le prologue est orienté dans le sense antiapollinariste,” in his article “Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à la fin du Vie siècle,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, Grillmeier, A. and Bacht, H., eds., 2 vols. (Wurzburg, 1951), 1: 644, n. 23.Google Scholar

33. On the Apollinarian forgeries, see Lietzmann, H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tubingen, 1904), pp. 91–124Google Scholar and Mühlenberg, E., Apollinaris von Laodicea (Göttingen, 1969), pp. 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Prologue 20.33–43.Google Scholar

35. Prologue 21.1–4. Suchla notes some textual variants here, but nothing on the basic point.Google Scholar

36. Prologue 21.4–8.

37. Scholia 181.17. The passage “elsewhere” is DN 2 644 31–32, which receives important comments, Scholia 221.8, see note 44 below. When Dionysius said (Ep 8 1088A) that the prodigal son was embraced “wholly,” John adds, “‘Whole,’ he says, meaning that the Lord, having taken soul and body, has saved us whole, of soul and body,” Scholia 545.8.Google Scholar

38. Scholia 157.1. Apollinaris had minimized the distinction between the divinity of the Word and his flesh, see De fide et incarnatione 6, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea, pp. 197–198.Google Scholar

39. Scholia 197.2 (on DN 1 592B). The parallel, Scholia 196.6, is not in Syr. Compare Scholia 220.3 and 229.5, and remarks such as “without change” in Scholia 57.2 and 57.3.Google Scholar

40. Scholia 149.2 (on EH 3 441B), see Grillmeier, . Jesus der Christus, p. 65. John here groups together those who, in his view, denigrate the reality of the incarnation. The name “Akephaloi” (“headless ones”) was originally applied to the strict Monophysites who separated themselves from Peter Mongus following his acceptance of Zeno's Henotikon. It was later used with reference to the Monophysites in general.Google Scholar

41. “Note that this is [said] against the Nestorians and the Akephaloi,” Scholia 57.3, 165.18, and 425.2.otGoogle ScholarSee Scholia 72.5, 197.6, 216.3, 221.8.Google Scholar

42. Scholia 196.4 (on DN 1 592A), quoting Colossians 2:9.Google Scholar

43. Scholia 144.14 (on EH 3 436D), only the last phrase is in Syr.Google Scholar

44. Scholia 221.8 (on DN 2 644C). The phrase “logical soul” repeats Chalcedon exactly. The theopaschite sentiments are also found in Scholia 236.10 and 360.7. The Phantasiastai were Monophysites who followed Julian of Halicarnassus after he split with Severus around 519.Google Scholar

45. Scholia 216.3 (on DN 2 640C).Google Scholar

46. Scholia 149.15 (on EH 3 444C). FA includes the full text, but Syr omits the phrase έκατέρας φύσεως σώζων τάίδιώματα which repeats Leo's Tome (“salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae”) and Chalcedon: σωζομένης ζέ μάλλον τνς ίζιότητος έκατέρας φύσεως. See Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, pp. 78 and 86.Google Scholar

47. That is, Scholia 57.3: “For one and the same Christ accomplished the great mystery of the economy in two natures.”Google ScholarAfter quoting Philippians. 2:6, the scholion concludes “behold, two forms.” This portion of Scholia 57.3 is not in Syr; it seems to have been intentionally omitted by the Monophysite Syriac translator, as also is apparently the case in Scholia 149.15 (previous note).Google Scholar

48. Scholia 532.4 (on Ep 4 1072A), see Grillmeier, , Jesus der Chrtstus, pp. 180–181.Google Scholar

49. Grillmeier, , Christ in the Christian Tradition, p. 78.Google Scholar

50. “Excellent” and “divine” quoted above, at Prologue 16.25 and 20.1;Google Scholar“great” at Prologue 16.4 and 17.25;Google Scholar“hagios” at Prologue 17.45.Google Scholar

51. “Blessed” in Scholia 29.3, 33.10, 425.11, 536.5;Google Scholar“sacred” in Scholia 61.4;Google Scholar“divine” in Scholia 248.1, 249.4, 281.4, 373.1, 573.7;Google Scholar“Saint” Dionysius in Scholia 176.4, 253.1, 393.1, and perhaps 248.2;Google Scholarand the “great” Dionysius in Scholia 29.1, 60.1, 65.5, 77.5, 80.7, 109.2, 133.2, 329.1, 336.4, 337.5, 361.1, 373.1, 380.1, 429.3, 537.2, 553.9, and 573.7.Google Scholar

52. Scholia 552.11;Google ScholarCompare “bishop” in Prologue 17.40, quoted above.Google Scholar

53. Scholia 64.4 (on CH 6 200D), quoting 2 Corinthians 12:2. Compare Scholia 56.1 and 64.10. The portion of Scholia 92.2 which refers to the “third heaven” is not in Syr.Google Scholar

54. Scholia 236.8, regarding the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.Google Scholar

55. Scholia 420.2 (on MT 1 1000B).Google Scholar

56. Scholia 393.1 (on DN 11 949A). For “Justus,” see Acts 1:23, 18:17, Col. 4:11.Google Scholar

57. Scholia 360.7 (on DN 8 893A). An offhanded comment about a Dionysian peer could occasion from John a simple, unexplained reference, such as those regarding “the blessed Clement” (at Scholia 329.1 and 332.1); or no remark at all, as when Dionysius slips in a brief quotation from Ignatius of Antioch.Google Scholar

58. Scholia 48.7., with an interesting positive reference to Papias;Google Scholarcompare Scholia 176.4.Google Scholar

59. Scholia 573.7 (on Ep 10 1117A). The practice of deacons and priests also shows the “antiquity of the father,” according to Scholia 136.16.Google Scholar

60. The doubts were expressed by Hypatius of Ephesus in 532, according to Innocentius of Maronia, “Epistula de collatione cum Severuanis habita,” Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Schwartz, E., ed., (Berlin, 1914), 4/2, p. 173.Google Scholar

61. Scholia 85.6 (on CH 9 260D). That Dionysius is “from the Greeks” is also noted at Scholia 32.2.Google Scholar

62. Scholia, 176.4 (on EH 7 553C); compare Scholia 48.7. The whole of the passage is not found in Syr, but FA has the key parts.Google Scholar

63. The passage cited is from Phocas's still unpublished prologue to the CD, London BM 12152, fol. 5v, col. 1, lines 18–21.Google Scholar

64. See note 60 above.Google Scholar

65. On Plotinus in John, see note 8 above. Although von Balthasar seemed unaware of this use of Plotinus, he suspected that John only pretended to believe in Dionysian antiquity and may have known a great deal about the true authorship. See von Balthasar, “Das Problem der Dionysius-Scholien,” p. 680.Google Scholar