THE MEDIEVAL AFFECTIVE DIONYSIAN TRADITION

Thomas Gallus is often credited with introducing an affective innovation in medieval reception of Dionysius. While desire is not absent from the CD, no form of human affectivity plays an explicit role in Moses’ ascent to union with God in the darkness of unknowing, as described in the MT. With Gallus, however, after all knowledge fails, union occurs through love. This innovation was influential, shaping subsequent interpretations of the CD, such as The Cloud of Unknowing. Yet, the subtle interplay of love and knowledge and the complex conception of love's own cognition of God in Gallus’ theology were not generally retained by those whom he influenced.     

DIONYSIUS,DERRIDA, AND THE CRITIQUE OF “ONTOTHEOLOGY”

This essay explores Dionysius' work in light of the critique of ontotheology, focusing on Jacques Derrida's work on justice and the messianic. Ultimately, it suggests that the extent to which Dionysius troubles the ontotheological waters depends on the status of hierarchical and teleological relationships in Dionysius. Does hierarchy for Dionysius function strictly “vertically,” bringing a few chosen souls into union with God, or does it also establish ethical relations between and among creatures? And does the via negativa, as Derrida suggests, draw the soul along a pre‐determined path from hyperessence to hyperessence, or might it remain sufficiently indeterminate to welcome the unimaginable?     

DIONYSIUS,PAUL AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PSEUDONYM

This essay interprets the CD through the lens of the pseudonym, Dionysius the Areopagite, and the corresponding influence of Paul. First, this essay argues that the author of the CD writes under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in order to suggest that, following Paul, he will effect a new rapprochement between the wisdom of pagan Athens and the revelation of God in Christ. Second, this essay demonstrates how crucial Paul is for Dionysius' own “apophatic anthropology,” that is, his view of how the human self that would solicit union with the “unknown God” must also become somehow “unknown.” Finally, this essay hazards a final hypothesis regarding the significance of the pseudonym: that the practice of pseudonymous writing is itself an ecstatic devotional practice in the service of “unknowing” both God and self.     

THE EARLY LATIN DIONYSIUS: ERIUGENA AND HUGH OF ST. VICTOR

This essay sketches how Eriugena and Hugh of St. Victor interpreted the Areopagite, emphasizing key passages for each. Eriugena's translation of the CD and his Expositiones on The Celestial Hierarchy exerted a tremendous influence on subsequent Latin readers, including Hugh, and even survived the condemnation of his masterwork, the Periphyseon. The Victorine, whose own Augustinian inclinations were largely untouched by his encounter with the Areopagite, nevertheless exerted a distinctive influence by (falsely) attributing to Dionysius the view that in our pursuit of God, “love surpasses knowledge.” Together, despite their stark differences, they bequeathed a lively Dionysian tradition to the high medieval authors, scholastics and mystics alike.     

DIONYSIUS AND SOME LATE MEDIEVAL MYSTICAL THEOLOGIANS OF NORTHERN EUROPE

Though the authority of Dionysius as a virtually apostolic theological source remains unchallenged in the late Middle Ages, ownership of his inheritance is much disputed, in connection with two issues of “mystical theology” principally. The first controversy (broadly between “Intellectualist” and “affectivist” readings of Dionysius' Mystical Theology) concerns whether the soul, united to God by grace, is made one with God principally by knowledge or by love. The second controversy is well exemplified by the disagreement between Jean Gerson and Denys the Carthusian as to whether Ruusbroec's account of the nature of that union of the soul with God amounts to a heretical extinction of the identity of the created soul. But both Gerson's critique of Ruusbroec and Denys the Carthusian's rebuttal of it are equally superficial, and the theologies of Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa show why: Eckhart and Cusa retained, while Gerson and Denys had lost, their grip on the “dialectics” of “sameness” and “difference” expounded in Mystical Theology.     

Revisiting the God/World Difference

On what basis do we distinguish God from the world? I argue that the doctrine of creation, more specifically the analogical notion of causa , supplies a salutary foundation. My conversation partners are Karl Barth and Thomas Aquinas. I take up the former's five conditions for a right theological use of causa , demonstrating that despite his basic misreading of Thomas, both theologians share some basic convictions regarding God's independence. I argue, moreover, that Thomas provides a more theologically satisfying anchor for what distinguishes God from what is not God. I conclude by reflecting on the importance of experience in articulating the distinction.     

Luther as a reader of Dionysius the Areopagite

Dionysius the Areopagite has been an important point of orientation for the debate on how humans appropriately approach God. Among his avid readers is Martin Luther, whose understanding of Dionysius is investigated in this article. Luther is a critical reader, but his criticism is founded on a basic identification with Dionysius' central tenets. His main objection is that he finds Dionysius too theoretical. For Luther, God is incessant activity; the question of approaching God correctly therefore for Luther is an existential question. This is an aspect he does not find adequately integrated in Dionysius' apophatic dialectics. Luther also found faults with Dionysius' Christology. For Luther, the experience of not being properly related to God is a terrifying experience. This can be read as a reinterpretation of Dionysius' Mystical Theology, showing both influence (Luther knew this work almost by heart) and independence. Central aspects of Luther's thought thus present themselves as a reinterpretation of Dionysian mysticism.     

The ‘Mysterious’ Thomas Manlevelt and Albert of Saxony

The essay casts doubt upon the view that Albert was criticizing or was dependent upon Thomas Manlevelt's logico-philosophical views, and counter argues that it is in fact Manlevelt who knows and cites Albert's views in his recently edited Porphyrian Questions, rather than vice versa. The argument for this conclusion proceeds in two stages. First, it is argued that the brief comment Albert makes about ‘conjunct descent’ (descensus copulatim) in treating the definition of merely confused supposition his Perutilis Logica does not conclusively show that Albert is criticizing the logico-philosophical view of Thomas Manlevelt, as the notion of ‘conjunct descent’ is already present in the work of Heytesbury. Hence, Albert may have been referring to him, since the unique contribution of Thomas Manlevelt to the definition of merely confused personal supposition appears completely unknown to Albert. Second, it is argued that the views in the Porphyrian Questions on the nature of the continuum, quantity, and dispositional vs. actual predication show the author's familiarity with the logico-philosophical views of Albert of Saxony, but not vice versa.     

LUTHER AND DIONYSIUS: BEYOND MERE NEGATIONS

This article argues that common ground may be found between Dionysius and Luther if one goes beyond the customary “mystical” framework for analyzing Dionysius’ work and views Luther (despite his dismissal of Dionysius as an impostor) as standing in a long line of interpreters who had sought to give Dionysian ideas a more explicitly Christological focus. Specifically, I argue, the similarities lie in Luther's conceptualization of God's hidden presence and the reformer's strongly ontological doctrine of justification. The latter has a procession‐return structure within which the status of the justified person, qua justified, is expressed in terms reminiscent of the Dionysian analogia.     

Fine-Tuning,Atheist Criticism,and the Fifth Way

Abstract

Like the “modern watchmaker” argument formulated by William Paley, the argument from fine-tuning should not be confused with Thomas Aquinas' fifth proof for the existence of God as expressed in the Summa Theologiae. While the former is based on efficient causality, the latter is based upon final causality. Though some atheist criticisms are relevant to the fine-tuning argument, they do not affect the Fifth Way. After briefly expositing the fine-tuning argument, I will argue that Aquinas' argument from the “governance of the world” offers a more convincing proof for God—one that evades atheistic criticisms leveled against design arguments.     

Kant's Criticisms of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

According to recent commentators like Paul Guyer, Kant agrees with Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1) that physico-theology can never provide knowledge of God and (2) that the concept of God, nevertheless, provides a useful heuristic principle for scientific enquiry. This paper argues that Kant, far from agreeing with Hume, criticizes Hume's Dialogues for failing to prove that physico-theology can never yield knowledge of God and that Kant correctly views Hume's Dialogues as a threat to, rather than an anticipation of, his own view that the concept of God provides a useful heuristic principle for science. The paper concludes that Kant's critique of physico-theology reflects Kant's deep dissatisfaction with Hume's manner of argumentation and suggests that Kant's attempt to provide a more successful critique of physico-theology merits continued philosophical attention.     

Hobbes and the Imitation of God

This note discusses the implications of an incorrect quotation that appeared in Ted H. Miller's article, 'Thomas Hobbes and the Constraints that Enable the Imitation of God', from Inquiry42.2 (1999). Although surely inadvertent, this error is significant because the author uses it to support the thesis that Hobbes envisions philosophers imitating God by creating order out of chaos. The correct quotation from Leviathandoes not support such a thesis, and the paragraph in Leviathanfrom which it is taken actually runs counter to it. The correct quotation, taken in its context, and a passage from De Corporecited by Professor Miller reveal that Hobbes encourages philosophers to imitate God by following the order of creation in contemplation. In other words, philosophers imitate God by imitating the creation.     

The “Grand Medium”: An Edwardsean Modification of Thomas Aquinas on the Beatific Vision

Jonathan Edwards's understanding of the beatific vision, which draws on Neoplatonist metaphysics, marks a modification of views that became dominant in the Western Church through the rise of Aristotelian anthropology as articulated in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Edwards's account treats the resurrection of the body as significant, even indispensable for the deifying vision of God. It is also an account that regards Christ—the “grand medium” of the visio dei—as the consummate theophanic appearance of God. And it is, finally, an account that takes seriously the infinite progress of the vision of God, beginning in this life, continuing in the intermediate state, and on into the eternity of the resurrection.     

Three More Jigs in the Puzzle: The Unity of Analogy,Beatitude and Virtue in Thomas' Summa Theologiae

Scholarship abounds on the notion of analogy in Thomas Aquinas' writing. Scholarship also abounds on Thomas' treatment of beatitude and virtue. Yet seldom does scholarship treat the fundamental unity Thomas intended among analogy, beatitude and virtue in the Summa Theologiae. This article traces the connections between these terms to re‐endow terms like ‘beatitude’ and ‘virtue’ with a theological meaning that may surprise, and it shows how Thomas assumes that what we say of God is of first importance.     

There must be a First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite,Essentially Ordered,Causal Series

Several of Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God rely on the claim that causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. Because he holds that effects are ontologically dependent on their causes, he holds that the relevant causal series are wholly derivative: the later members of such series serve as causes only insofar as they have been caused by and are effects of the earlier members. Because the intermediate causes in such series possess causal powers only by deriving them from all the preceding causes, they need a first and non-derivative cause to serve as the source of their causal powers.     

Tyndale's Disagreement with Luther in the Prologue to the Epistle to the Romans

Abstract

Although it is generally assumed that Tyndale's Prologue to the Epistle to Romans (1526) is a translation of Luther's Preface (1522), this article examines those places where Tyndale deviated from a straight translation of Luther's text, and supports Thomas More's statement that Tyndale was a worse heretic than Luther. Tyndale's doctrine of God, the Father, Christ, and especially of the Holy Spirit, faith, righteousness, flesh and spirit, the state of fallen man and the temporal regiment show Tyndale was not doctrinally a Lutheran when he wrote his Prologue to Romans.     

God in the World: Lenin,Hegel, and the God‐Builders

This article reassesses a rarely noted aspect of the Russian Revolution: the long interaction between Lenin and Anatoly Lunacharsky, the ‘God‐builder’. It traces the way Lunacharsky first outlined the God‐building position in his Religion and Socialism (1908, 1911), a text virtually lost to scholarship and interpretations of the Russian revolution. It explores Lenin's initial condemnation, for political but above all theoretical reasons, only to find him reassessing his whole argument six years later in light of his re‐engagement with Hegel in 1914. Seeing that his earlier condemnation no longer held, Lenin's response to Lunacharsky's God‐building undergoes a noticeable shift. He now realizes that marginal forms of interaction with religion may sit well with, if not lead to, communism. An examination of Lunacharsky's own perseverance with God‐building after he was appointed Commissar for Enlightenment in the new Soviet state, and of Lenin's awareness and tacit allowance for such expressions, indicate a more complex and ambivalent approach to religion on Lenin's part.     

Thomas Aquinas’ Divine Simplicity as Biblical Hermeneutic

Long draws from the Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann's commentary on Jeremiah some strong reasons for rejecting the traditional teaching on divine simplicity. Above all, for Brueggemann the book of Jeremiah simply will not work if God is simple: God explicitly tells Jeremiah that God suffers and also that God changes in response to Israel. According to Long, however, Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of divine simplicity actually upholds the points that Brueggemann draws from Jeremiah. Long argues that theological accounts of divine simplicity should especially have two purposes: to serve as a way of manifesting in speech the mystery of the Triune God, and to affirm God's transcendent sovereignty over creation. In light of Brueggemann's approach, Long examines four early Reformed theologians: Peter Vermigli (1499‐1562), Girolamo Zanchi (1516‐1590), John Biddle (1615‐1662) and John Owen (1616‐1683). While Biddle rejects divine simplicity, the others uphold it. Long shows that their teaching on divine simplicity focuses on God's transcendent sovereignty over creation. By contrast, Long finds Aquinas's doctrine of divine simplicity to be more helpful in upholding Brueggemann's insights, insofar as Aquinas uses the doctrine to defend the simplicity of the Triune God. Rather than focusing on God's sovereign power, Aquinas's doctrine of divine simplicity focuses on getting the Trinitarian processions right.     

ONCE MORE …

John Ashton (ed), The Interpretation of John, T. & T. Clark C.F. Evans, The Lord's Prayer Colin E. Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, T. & T. Clark John Parratt (ed), A Reader in African Christian Theology Eduard Schweizer, Jesus the Parable of God: What Do We Really Know About Jesus? T. & T. Clark Thomas F. Torrance, God and Rationality, T. & T. Clark     

The doubled movement of infinity in Kierkegaard and in Sūfism

S?ren Kierkegaard was a very rigorous critic of traditional philosophical thinking and speculative systems. According to his theory it is possible that there is a logic system, but not a system of life. If such a system exists, it can be known only to God. Man can attain the meaning of life only by his own relationship to God. However, this relationship cannot be explained by philosophy because it has to do with a transcendent ‘double movement of infinity’ which takes place between God and the individual. Like philosophy, mysticism cannot explain one's relationship to God. The difference is that philosophy neglects God as the absolute starting point, while mysticism forgets that an individual—after he has experienced divinity—may return to the real world. The self need not disappear in divinity. The dialectic of the relationship between God and man implies that both poles (God and man) are present, thus ‘the infinite difference between God and man’ does not disappear. Since Sūfism is a type of Islamic mysticism, it may be said that a Sūfi cannot witness God's truth if he remains in his union with God. It is therefore relevant to draw some parallels between Kierkegaard's view and a comparable Sūfi view about the human relationship to God.