John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite.

Meconi, David Vincent

ROREM, Paul and LAMOREAUX, John. John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. x + 294 pp. Cloth, $75.00--In the earlier part of the sixth century, John of Scythopolis collected and edited the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. Elevated to the episcopacy of the important see of Palestina Secunda, sometime between 538 and 544, John not only gathered these texts of Dionysius, he also lent his own Neochalcedonian Christology to them in order to have one more apostolic authority from which to quote against the Monophysites of his day. Thanks in large part to Beate Regina Suchla's recent work in John's original Syrian, scholars have been able to discern more easily his commentary on the Dionysian corpus from Maximus the Confessor's, as both were unfortunately melded together by Pere Migne. This excellent study from Rorem and Lamoreaux thus introduces us to John of Scythopolis: both a compiler and commentator on the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius as well as a theologian and defensor fidei in his own right.

Broken up into two main sections, the first part (pp. 7-137) takes us through most of sixth century Syro-Palestinian Christology, what is known of John's life and writings, as well as how he attempted to meld the best of classical thought with Neoplatonism in order to serve the claims of Chaicedon. The second section (pp. 139-277) provides representative selections of John's thought as evidenced in his Scholia as well as a useful collation of the Scholia corresponding with Migne.

Scholarship surrounding the person of John of Scythopolis has been minimal and this volume accordingly performs a great service by making available his life and theological concerns. It is clear from the start that John's life cannot be understood apart from the Christological debates of his day and most of the biographicai details center around his combating those various schools of thought openly opposed to Chalcedon. John's own position was more of a Neochalcedonian Christology which aimed to supplement the dyophysitism of Chalcedon with the more vivid theopaschite formula, Unus ex trinitate passus est. With this, John was able to bring both his own as well as Dionysius' Christology more explicitly in line with the thought of Cyril of Alexandria as well as "the more moderate and more numerous Cyrillians, yet without sacrificing the individuality of Christ's humanity and the reality of his suffering and death" (p. 77). In working out this line of thought, John composed at least four treatises defending the dual-nature of Christ: conveniently referred to by Rorem and Lamoreaux as his Apology for Chalcedon, Against the Aposchists, Against the Nestorians, and Against Severus (538), the leading Monophysite of his day and the First we know to have quoted from the Dionysian corpus.

Along with these works we also have the John's Prologue to the writings of the Areopagite as well as extensive notes attached throughout. Composed sometime between 537 and 543, John's reflections on the Dionysian corpus, argue Rorem and Lamoreaux, aim to maintain the integrity of the person Dionysius, to prove the apostolic authenticity of his writings, and, perhaps most importantly, to validate the doctrinal orthodoxy of his thought by paralleling it with scripture, the earlier Fathers, conciliar statements, and the liturgy.

The second half of this work reproduces John's Prologue, in which he recalls Dionysius' original meeting with Paul and how Dionysius was consecrated Bishop of Athens by the hands of the Apostle himself. Here too are John's comments on Dionysius' The Celestial Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, The Divine Names, and each of the 10 Epistles. This section concludes with an appendix indicating what scholia present in Migne are found--and if so, where and to what extent--in the Syriac collation as worked out by Suchla.

This is no doubt the most insightful work to treat the person of John of Scythopolis in recent years. Many thanks to Rorem and Lamoreaux for making the writings of John more accessible as well as for their accurate and clear study of these texts. This work will surely prove to be a standard not only for those interested in the figures of Dionysius the Areopagite and John of Scythopolis, but for anyone wrestling with the numerous and diverse Christological claims made during the century after Chalcedon.--David Vincent Meconi, S.J., Xavier University, Cincinnati.