Recently, due to the pioneer work of Anthony Pavoni and Evangelos Nikitopoulos, the scales have decisively shifted in favor of the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus. In this article I greatly condense the evidence they have put forward (with a couple additional items to consider added in) demonstrating that imputing pseudonymity to these books and letters ascribed to Saint Dionysius the Areopogite is increasingly tenuous. Accepting as a matter of greater historical probability that the Dionysian corpus is authentic, I then reflect upon what ramifications this would have upon Protestants accepting Dionysius as part of Apostolic Christian tradition. There will be future, peer-reviewed work on this question which will be much more detailed.

Evidence in favor of the Dionysian authenticity. The following are the main proofs that the Dionysian corpus is authentic:

1. Early works explicitly cite or paraphrase Dionysius with explicit linguistic parallels.

  • Saint Jerome speaks of “[a] certain Greek, highly learned in the Scriptures” who “explained the Seraphim there have certain virtues in the heavens, who praise him before the tribunal of God, and are sent to various ministries, especially to those who need purification.” (Epistle 18 To Pope Damasus) This description matches no other work attributed to any time preceding Jerome other than Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy.
  • Saint Gregory Nazianzus cites from memory “the holy oracles and the God bearing men” who he recalls wrote “some things said of the Son or the God Spirit” calling the Holy Trinity “the root without beginning” and “three lights” where “one nature [has] been established” in reference to the Holy Trinity (PG 37, col, 412A-413a). He is obviously remembering the words of Dionysius who speaks of “how the Divine and good Nature is spoken of as one, how as Threefold…how from the immaterial and indivisible Good the Lights dwelling in the heart of Goodness sprang forth and remained, in their branching forth.” (Mystical Theology 3.1, John Parker trans.) Gregory uses the exact language and asimilar metaphor (that of plants) when explaining the same subject.

From the preceding, to presume pseudonymity one must 1) presume Jerome is citing a similar, now lost work; and 2) presume Gregory Nazianzus borrowed the technical terminology from other unknown God bearing men. While none of these things are impossible, someone impartially weighing the historical evidence must conclude going by Occam’s razor favors that the preceding saints all are citing the Dionysian corpus.

2. Proclus shows dependence on Dionysius, not the other way around.

Pavoni and Nikitopoulos torturously cover all the suspect passages where traditionally scholarship has argued a dependence of the Dionysian corpus upon the philosopher Proclus–this being the basis for dating the corpus to the late 5th or early 6th centuries. They point out that the passages originate from a few chapters on evil within a singular book of Dionysius (Divine Names), but find themselves throughout Proclus’ own corpus. Proclus sometimes disrupts internal parallels found within the Dionysian passages. Further, arguments that Dionysius borrowed concepts from Proclus is contradicted by all the same being found in early Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen. While it is possible to infer that “Pseudo” Dionysius made a point of mimicking Proclus in writing only one book (and mostly from one chapter) and that “Pseudo” Dionysius went out of his way to find the broken parallels within a passage and correct them, the simpler explanation is that Proclus had procured only a singular book and he only broke parallels when the conclusion of what he was plagiarizing had put into dispute his philosophy.

Most convincingly, Proclus quotes an authority which he does not name when speaking of the gods as “flowers and subersubstantial lights.” (On the Existence of Evils, 209/66, trans. Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel) The exact name words are used in Dionysius (Divine Names 2.7). Hence, in order to sustain the thesis that “Pseudo” Dionysius copied Proclus, it is necessary to infer that Proclus quoted someone else who is unknown and seeing the opportunity to attribute the words to himself, “Pseudo” copied them. While this is not impossible, Occam’s razor demands the simpler inference, that Proclus simply quoted a known work (Dionysius’) without attribution–a work he manifestly was indebted to throughout his writings.

3. Theological terms like “hypostasis” used in the particular sense, “parhypostasis” in reference to evil having an absence of existence, and “without confusion” are not anachronsitic and do not originate in the fourth or fifth centuries.

Typically, the strongest argument made against the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus is that it allegedly contains theological terminology which post-dates the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, as well as allegedly borrowing a technical term from Proclus. However, this claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

  • Heb 1:3, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 2:18), and Origen (Commentary on John 2.6) all use “hypostasis” in the particular sense, in reference to an individual Person of the Holy Trinity—this is before the supposed “invention” of this meaning by the Cappadocean fathers in the fourth century.
  • Saint Gregory of Nyssa uses the term “parhypostasis” in the fourth century before Proclus ever does in the fifth century. (PG 44, col. 681) This implies the term is Christian in origin and not imported from Proclus’ philosophy.
  • Hippolytus uses the term “without confusion” (ἀσυγχύτως) pertaining Christ’s divine and human essence in the early third century. (PG 10, col. 628) This is before Basil of Isauria, Dioscorus, and the Constantinopolitan senate (“glorious officials”) used the term in Chalcedon, which then incorporated in into its decree during the mid-fifth century to maintain that there is not a Eutychian conflation of Christ’s divine and human essences during the incarnation.

In short, all of the assertions that technical terminology in the Dionysian corpus is anachronistic and sources from Miaphysites and Proclus is demonstrably false. There are in fact Attic Greek words employed that fit a 1st century setting.

Briefly Revewing Other Evidences

There are more reasons and proofs of authenticity.

  • Dionysius’ corpus had universal reception from Christendom’s top thinkers spanning multiple denominations until the Renaissance.
  • It exhibits an advanced angeology which is Scriptural (Acts 7:53, Gal 3:19; cf Col 2:18), found in an Apostolic Father (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, Chap 5), and conceptually paralleled even by sources outside the Church such as the 1st-2nd century work Ascension of Isaiah.
  • Nicolo Sassi’s linguistic research in two articles (2017 and 2018) has exposed that the internal vocabulary of Dionyius is 1) consistent and 2) almost 60 percent original (typical of an author’s own voice and originality), about 30 percent Platonic (as opposed to Neo-Platonic, vocabulary fitting of someone that Acts 17:34 reputes to have already been known for philosophical expertise as the Areopagite), with the remaining language being explicitly Biblical or Christian. In other words, the capacity of a forgery to so consistently maintain an authentic vocabulary to the period and a consistent one at that is unlikely.
  • Gleaning from uncited, but strict lexical parraels between the texts (i.e. they are quoting and paraphrasing Dionysius), there is a consistent thread of dependence of Alexandrian works and authors from Saint Pantaenus, to Clement of Alexandria, to Origen, to Plotinus (who possibly studied under the same Ammonius who presumably belonged to the same Christian school of theology in Alexandria), to Saint Jerome (who studied in Alexandria), to Gregory Nazianzus (who likewise studied in Alexandria), to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, to Proclus (who likewise studied in Alexandria). While it is possible that a forgerer from Alexandria borrowed pearls from all of the preceding in creating the Dionysian corpus, this is a tenuous position considering Jerome writing in Latin and the diversity of the sources. The simpler explanation is that a single source inspired many as compared to many inspired an elaborate hoax.
  • Dionysius concerns himself with the heresies of Judaizing, the proto-Gnosticism of Simon Magnus (matching obscure details in Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies), an issue with the 18th Clementine Homily (attributing it to “Clemens the Philosopher” instead of Saint Clement, something which accords with modern text criticism pertaining to the 1st or 2nd century origin of the original core of the text and extremely perceptive for a late forger who would have accept the latter Clement’s authorship from the fourth century version of the text), and a non-simple view of God (an early Jewish idea that God took up some sort of space). A forgery generally concerns itself with heresies from its own time period, not subtle, unappreciated ones from far in the past.
  • The degree of personal details which do not seem to serve any real purpose is atypical of a forgery. For example, the language of Dionysius is typically convoluted other than his letter to the elderly Apostle John, implying deference. In his letter to Titus, he calls Timothy (who at that point is referred to as deceased) “deaf” to his theology (meaning when hearing the letters read, which was customary for books due to people not reading silently during this era, the obvious implication being that Timothy did not understand their idiom). This personal detail shows a human side to a saint and a critical evaluation at that. It makes sense with a contemporary (the Apostles and saints are often critical of one other during their own lives), but not to later writers who customarily gloss over such frictions.
  • Dionysius’ theology of divine names evidences concerns which match first century Judaism (particualrly the ideas of Philo) and precede those of Rabbinic Judaism in the mid-second century and Origen, who borrowed from Rabbinc Judaism on this point.
  • Dioysius’ view of monasticism clearly has conceptual and etymological parallels to the first and second centuries, noted by recent scholarship.

When the preceding is taken into account, there is no historical, linguistic, textual, or conceptual reason to deny the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus. One can reasonably posit that it was simply an early forgery (like Ascension of Isaiah, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras). It is never reputed as such (though perhaps Jerome in not naming the author and the other uncited parralels imply some sort of suspicion). On the other hand, early Christian forgeries tended to be prophetic so as to lend themselves authority. Dionysius does not lay a significant claim to this (though he does prophesy to Saint John he would leave exile in Patmos). When the corpus makes more significant claims about the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the angels, it appeals to the Scriptures–not to prophetic insight. If a forgery, it is atypically subtle and would stand alone as its own peculiar genre. Therefore, the possibility of the writings being a very early forgery is existent, but less probable than authenticity.

How should this affect intellectually-vigorous Protestantism? For the sake of argument, let one accept that Protestantism is a viable alternative to Orthodoxy both spiritually and intellectually. Even doing this, one must reflect that when Protestantism formed within Christendom, 1 Clement (and its emphasis on Apostolic Succession) and the Didache (with its emphasis on the sacrament of confession) were not yet “discovered” in the West. The Ignatian corpus (with its ecclesiastical and eucharistic teachings) was near-universally considered fake so it rarely weighed in on debates.

If these first and second century witnesses were acknowledged and known during the Protestant Reformation, one cannot help but honestly speculate that things may have developed quite differently. The ecclesiastical developments away from the episcopacy from the Calvinists may have not occurred and the treatment of confession and the Eucharist would at least had more care. Now that Protestants are aware of these sources’ existence, they either incorporate or harmonize them with their traditions or (more commonly in the more low church traditions, such as the Reformed Baptists) ignore them or simply impute these documents as showing error at a very early time.

What does an intellectually-vigorous Protestant now do with Dionysius, accepting the weighty evidence of his corpus being an authentic witness of someone who was a personal confidante of several Apostles and their successors who are in fact named in his text? This is a serious question. Because unlike some attempts at reinterpreting the ecclesiology of 1 Clement as being more akin to Presbyterian than episcopal or simply ignoring the Didache’s teaching of confession because the source is allegedly pseudonymous, this is not possible with Dionysius who is a known commodity. For example, he explicitly lays out how hierarchy within the Church works and is yet another witness to the sacrament of confession (along with James 5:16 and Acts 19:18-19). This then forces one to accept that two legitimate Apostolic fathers saw episcopal governance as established by God, one of them (Clement) explicitly writing that breaking with such governance was a damnable sin. (1 Clem 41) Now that the Ignatian corpus is universally received as authentic, the seriousness of this ecclesiastical teaching is only further emphasized in the earliest sources.

Mindful Protestants also must confront Dionysius’ whole approach to theology, his method of exegeting the Scriptures (interestingly metaphorical as Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s were, see Acts 2:16-21, Gal 4:21-31) and his understanding of grace (which expounds the energy-essence distinction and Theosis). Dionysius’ sacramentology presumes upon the seven sacraments (which are likewise found in the Scriptures). His soteriology incorporates asceticism (interestingly using the same Greek word to describe monastics [Therapeutae] as a near contemporary, Philo of Alexandria in his The Contemplative Life–the term not found elsewhere). The corpus makes reference to infant baptism (sorry Reformed Baptists and others, such as Everett Ferguson). Dionysius’ speaks of praying for those after death, something consistent with 2 Tim 1:16-18 and some Protestant traditions (such as the Methodists). It is also worth mentioning that Dionysius was a witness to the Dormition of the Theotokos (thereby solidifying this tradition as historical fact).

A Protestant cannot simply say Dionysius was wrong, because when he was writing these things saints Timothy (though “deaf” to what he heard), Titus, and John (the Apostle) were all alive. They are part of Dionysius’ correspondence and are in communion with him. We cannot even say his speculations were obscure and private, because even the heretics were aware of them or had stolen from the same Christian tradition that Dionysius was privy to (as the theological parallel with the angelic hierarchy in the Ascension of Isaiah* and the reference from Ignatius in Trallians would demonstrate). Dionysius speaks of his ecclesiology, sacramentology, and orthopraxy as if it were ubiquitous to the Church he was writing to. Hence, in order to disregard DIonysius’ teachings one would have to pose the “Great Apostasy” theory while the Apostles were still alive. This not only calls into question literally the entirety of all Christian tradition, rendering it useless, it calls into question the Scriptures themselves (not only anything written by John and the letters written to Titus and Timothy, but the collation of all the writings of the Apostles themselves on Jesus Christ as the Canon would have formed under the same people’s direction).

*The early dating expounded here is due to it sharing certain similarities with the ecclesiastical situation 1 Clem and Ascension of Isaiah 3:22-24 and a reference to not bowing to angels in Rev 22:8 and Ascension of Isaiah 7:21. The situation described in 3 John also seems to match that of Ascension of Isaiah 3:27, 29, indicating there were at this point deep rifts already within the Church and the prophetic element seen to be almost entirely absent, but in recent memory. A late first century date is most plausible.

And so, how does one now incorporate Dionysius into the Protestant traditions? One would have to dispense with all traditions without an episcopacy which has actual succession. Furthermore, one would have to incorporate asceticism and the sacraments. Perhaps only the Anglicans and very conservative Lutherans (though their episcopacy lacks succession in those quarters) can make this pivot without forfeiting their tradition categorically.

Now, presuming semper reformanda, let the Anglicans reform—as everyone should by the motto. Would the incorporation of asceticism, the necessary practice of the seven sacraments, and the theological constructs such as Energy-Essence Distinction effectively force the Anglicans to become Orthodox in all but name? Literally, the only real bone of contention would become whether iconodulia can be squared with the Apostolic Fathers and with this the acceptance of the seventh council. The seventh council and Confession of Dositheus were the main impediments to Anglicans in refusing union with the Orthodox in the 1700s. Does the archaeological and textual evidence in favor of pre-Nicene iconodulia now sound so unreasonable? How about Dionysius’ own endorsement of material forms being necessary for worship? If Protestants such as Henry Percival can conclude the veration of the saints was ubiquitous and we have 18 (!) plausbily pre-Nicene examples, is this gap unbridgeable either?

Concluding thoughts. I pose the preceding so that others may interact and improve upon my thoughts. I see with the honest acceptance of the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus an authentic and workable path to union with Protestants who actually care about Sacred Tradition. I honestly don’t see what strong objections can be posed in justification of maintaining the distinctives that separate Protestants from Orthodox. To be frank, this is because accepting Dionysius entails forfeiting nearly every Protestant innovation that separates our communions. Indeed, there is room for more soul searching (as Rome, Oriental Orthodoxy, and even the tiny Assyrian communion are possibilities of a sort). But at least, this is a move in the correct direction. I think honest, informed Protestants would have to agree.