John Of Scythopolis Research Articles

Gott vor dem Sein. Ansätze einer „Proontologie“ bei Johannes von Skythopolis, Maximus Confessor und Meister Eckhart

The present article focuses on the idea that divine nature is prior to being. This idea was first articulated in John of Scythopolis’s commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius. It was adopted by Maximus Confessor and re-used in Meister Eckhart’s first Quaestio Parisiensis. The main tenant of this idea is that, if God is the origin of being, he must be more fundamental than being. Thus, being cannot be identical to divine nature. The conclusion that can be drawn from the discussion of this idea is that the importance that has been traditionally attached to the „Exodusmetaphysik“ must be reconsidered, and that the pre-ontological conception of divine nature consistutes an autonomous tradition in Christian thought.

Note per l’attribuzione a Massimo il Confessore di parte degli Scholia al Corpus Dionysiacum

This article intends to provide a further contribution to the attribution of the Greek Scholia on the Corpus Dionysiacum by examining the Latin version by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. In particular, some Latin manuscripts have recently been identified, which retain many of the critical signs used by Anastasius in order to mark the scholia dating back to Maximus the Confessor. The collation of these cruces not only allows us to identify the contribution of Maximus as a scholiast of the Corpus Dionysiacum, but also to ascertain further the work of John of Scythopolis and to point out a possible way to research the contribution of other commentators of Pseudo-Dionysius.

John of Scythopolis on Divine Darkness

Abstract The present article provides a commentary on the sixth-century Christian bishop John of Scythopolis’ scholion on Dionysius the Areopagite’s Mystical Theology I.3. In this scholion, John discusses the various Greek translations of Ex. 20:18/21. He also refers to a Jewish cosmological tradition about the seven heavens. Various rabbinic parallels to John of Scythopolis are discussed. The article argues that John most likely has recourse to an oral Jewish tradition, transmitted to him by a Jewish informant in Scythopolis. John of Scythopolis’ scholion thus provides important evidence on Christian-Jewish contacts in Byzantine Palestine.

Ariston of Pella’s Lost Apology for Christianity

The obscure 2nd century CE writer Ariston of Pella is mentioned in two accepted works: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and John of Scythopolis / Maximus Confessor’s Notes on the Mystic Theology of the Areopagite. He is also mentioned in two other works but the attributions are currently regarded with suspicion: Moses of Chorene’s History of Armenia and the Chronicon Paschale. Upon further investigation, it appears that an 18th century theory regarding Ariston’s presence in the Chronicon Paschale as the author of a previously unknown Christian Apology is correct. Also, the investigation of the theory demonstrates that previous claims regarding the Chronicon material’s reliance upon Ecclesiastical History are incorrect. With these points established, it becomes clear that Ariston can be regarded as the author of a Christian Apology addressed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian, with an internal assigned date during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 CE). This attribution sheds new light on Ariston of Pella and establishes a more reliable date for his floruit. In addition, it establishes a new Christian Apology from the time of the reign of Emperor Hadrian. It also contributes new information about Eusebius’ sources for Ecclesiastical History and further information about Aquila of Pontus, Emperor Hadrian and the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

The Evangelists in Clement’s Hypotyposes

Excerpts from Clement of Alexandria’s lost Hypotyposes recounting the scribal activities of the evangelists Mark, Luke, and John puzzlingly differ despite overlapping in content. Actually, what little Clement said of the writing of Mark’s Gospel and of Hebrews is preserved in the Adumbrations, while Eusebius of Caesarea knew the Hypotyposes only through an intermediary given to embellishing paraphrase; furthermore, the claim by John of Scythopolis that Clement ascribed the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason to Luke arose from a misplaced note on Hebrews. An additional point in the Hypotyposes is hypothesized ascribing the compilation of the Pauline corpus to Luke.

The Mystery of Union with God: Dionysian Mysticism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas by Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P.

Reviewed by: The Mystery of Union with God: Dionysian Mysticism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas by Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P. Justin Shaun Coyle The Mystery of Union with God: Dionysian Mysticism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas by Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2015), xxxiii + 495 pp. The dionysian pedigree of high medieval mysticism is often noted but seldom detailed. Bernhard Blankenhorn’s debut The Mystery of Union with God meets this lack with an accomplished analysis of Dionysian mystical union as adopted and adapted by the most prominent of its Dominican inheritors, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. The book bills itself as a work of historical theology; it is the right description, after all, just to the extent that Blankenhorn advances an argument by curating a section of the theological archive without becoming entombed therein. The section is, as the title suggests, [End Page 679] Dionysian mystical union in the thought of two of its thirteenth-century Dominican scions. And the argument? Attention to Blankenhorn’s archival redisplay reveals that he thinks the intellectualist representation of Dionysian mysticism embroidered by Albert and Thomas—for whom Dionysius’s “union beyond mind” is finally and principally intellective, as opposed to affective—the most elegant. The Mystery of Union with God unfolds in three asymmetrical parts. The first part begins with an expositional engagement with the Corpus Dionysiacum (hereafter, CD) on themes of anthropology, epistemology, divine naming, and mystical union. These are the nodes around which subsequent chapters on the Dominican Dionysius will coil. Among the book’s greatest virtues (there are many) is the historiography displayed in the second chapter. There Blankenhorn lucidly traces the CD’s migration from its early Byzantine commentators—namely John of Scythopolis and Maximus Confessor—westward to its Latin translators and glossers. It is here that the book’s argument, until now slinking in the subtext, begins to surface. Following others, Blankenhorn argues that Eriugena’s translation of the CD into Latin (inadvertently?) inaugurates the affective reading that will come to typify the Victorine-Franciscan axis. “None of this can be found in Dionysius,” Blankenhorn hastens to add. This “major transformation” acts to “radically reshape” the Mystical Theology in particular and “sharply contrasts with the historical Dionysius” in general (43; 46; 45; 444). Enter Albert the Great, whose thought occupies part II. Chapter 3 assays doctrines apposite to mystical union in the Parisian Albert’s work, itself a vertigo-inducing synthesis of Aristotelian, Augustinian, Dionysian, Avicennian, and Averroist patterns of thought. Forged in the heat of polemics issuing from the 1241 condemnations at Paris, Albert’s position on the visio Dei integrates Dionysian axioms into a broadly Augustinian frame. This introduces the category of created theophany and, so, a created lumen gloriae, “the keystone that fuses what he holds to be of lasting value in the Greek and Latin patristic traditions” (106). This innovation, along with his emphasis on created grace, allows the early Albert to interpolate active modes of cooperation into Dionysius’s largely passive grammar of union. Blankenhorn next arranges an exhaustive analysis of mystical union texts within Albert’s Cologne-era commentaries on the CD. A deeper conversion to Dionysian theology marks this era—and this “in conscious opposition to the dominant, more kataphatic Augustinianism of [Albert’s] day” (206). But Albert’s commentaries foreground human cooperation [End Page 680] by means of the theological virtues and collapse “union beyond mind” into divine naming. To that extent, the argument runs, Albert’s interpretation still indulges a chastened kataphaticism. With Albert in full view, Blankenhorn turns to Thomas. The first chapter of part III treats pillars of Thomistic anthropology, epistemology, and psychology. Playing Averroës to Albert’s Avicenna, Thomas de-Platonizes many of his teacher’s doctrines, even as he systematizes his own. Chapter 6 considers grace and its concomitants in Aquinas, and Blankenhorn stresses the fundamentally Trinitarian shape of mysticism in Thomas, whose defense of the intellect’s stayed presence in union is of a piece with his defense of filioque. The next chapter contributes to the literature on question 13 of the prima pars of the Summa theologiae with a...

Su tre Scholia teopaschiti di Giovanni di Scitopoli al de divinis nominibus

John of Scythopolis, the first scholiast of the Corpus Dionysiacum, played a role in the debates that took place after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and contributed in an original way to the development of Christological dogma in preparation for the Council of Constantinople II in 553. In particular, he uses the theopaschite formula both in its so-called “Alexandrian” version as well as in that attributed to the Scythian monks. Several instances of the formula occur in three of his Scholia on Dionysius’s De divinis nominibus and show both his concentration upon the hypostasis of the Word as well as his identification of Christ with the Lovgoç. In this way, he looks for a new via media within Christological doctrine that truly can be called “Neo-chalcedonian.”

John of Scythopolis’ marginal commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum

: The commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum composed by John of Scythopolis within 548 CE was expressly designed for the margins of the text. Cross-references by columns and sheets allow us to reconstruct John’s codex, a three columns type, with a sheet possibly like that of Callimachus’ P.Oxy. 20.2258.

La composition du corpus dionysiacum et son authenticité supposée

The rediscovery of apocryphal literature during the 19th century enables, among other things, to place the scene of the dormitio virginis (sleeping virgin) ascribed to Dionysus in De divinis nominibus 3:2 in the context of similar apocryphal stories. The Dionysian text appears then to be the first witness of the transitus Mariae and this also suggests a reexamination of the chronology of the Apocalypse of John. So then how can we explain the different receptions of the Dionysian text and this apocryphal literature ? A crucial role for the positive reception of Dionysus can be attributed to the commentary by John of Scythopolis who defended the orthodoxy and apostolicity of Dionysus based on content. John suggested also a subliminal association between the Dionysian text and the texts found in biblical canon

THE RECEPTION OF DIONYSIUS UP TO MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR

AbstractThere are various odd features about the initial reception of the Corpus Dionysiacum in the sixth century. The reception was, at first, slow and mainly concerned the few, controversial Christological assertions of the CD. The influence of the CD was mediated through a single edition, complete with introduction, variant readings, and scholia, all furnished by John of Scythopolis. The initial reception of the CD in the Syriac world seems very different: independent (at least to begin with) of Scythopolis’ edition, and deeply Origenistic. Yet, in other ways, the CD reflects the kind of historical interests we find elsewhere in the sixth century.

John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus (review)

John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus (review)

Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: The Monasteries of Palestine, 314-631.

Part 1 Sources: Cyril of Scythopolis the other sources monastic culture. Part 2 Environment: Jerusalem - resurrection of a city this desert the city of Scythopolis. Part 3 Themes: ascetics and ambassadors of Christ witnesses to truth fellow workers with God conclusion - excursus 1 - John of Scythopolis, excursus 2 - Leontius of Byzantium.

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

As is well known, theCorpus 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'sPrologueand annotated with hisScholia. 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'sScholiawith any degree of certainty. However, investigations of theScholiaare 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 theScholiaand a shorter Greek recension, both of which preserve the earliest version of theScholia, that authored by John. To date, however, she has published results for the scholia on theDivine Namesalone. 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'sScholiaand 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.

The Use of the 'Enneads' by John of Scythopolis

Pour comprendre l'influence indirecte de Jean de Scythopolis sur les traductions philosophiques arabes, l'A. met en parallele, d'une part, le texte de Plotin, d'autre part les scolies de Jean de Scythopolis aux oeuvres du Pseudo-Denys, scolies citant Plotin| l'A. reproduit ces scolies selon la traduction syriaque de Phocas ben Sargis, VIII s. (traduction etudiee par G. Wiessner, 1972), qui doit etre la source directe des auteurs arabes