Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s Reception among Key Thinkers of the 20th century Orthodox World (Vl. Lossky, Fr. Sophrony, Chr. Yannaras, J. Zizioulas)

本项目旨在考察20世纪东正教世界的四位开创性人物对6世纪的作品集的不同接受：俄罗斯方面（但仍生活在西欧），弗拉基米尔洛斯基和父亲索弗罗尼（萨哈罗夫）;希腊方面，克里斯蒂娜·扬纳拉斯和大都会约翰·齐齐乌拉斯。从历史上讲，狄奥尼修斯在东方和西方都非常受人尊敬;例如，马克西姆斯忏悔者，大马士革的约翰，托马斯阿奎那和格雷戈里帕拉马斯。然而，从文艺复兴时期开始，从发现他的名字开始，西方基督教开始批评狄奥尼修斯，而20世纪世纪一些有影响力的东正教神学家（例如，John Meyendorff）也采用了这样的批判性解读。在这一主流的背景下，洛斯基认为狄奥尼修斯的关键教义，即反犹太主义，是东正教与拉丁西方的鲜明对比。Yannaras也跟随Lossky，并试图通过特定的透镜（例如，这是他对西方的误读。然而，Zizioulas，由于他的怀疑Lossky的rehaticism，基本上忽略了狄奥尼修斯在他有影响力的神学工作。最后，出于同样的原因，虽然神父Sophrony批评狄奥尼修斯关于抽象的上升到上帝的宣言，他没有给予任何进一步的关注。 这证明了在世纪，东正教对狄奥尼修斯的接受是多种多样的，这揭示了东正教神学的主要倾向及其在现代时期的发展并不摆脱意识形态的前提（例如，（二）主观解释。毕竟，这是一个东正教神学试图重新发现其所谓的失去了“真正的身份”远离掺杂西方的影响-一个有争议的过程与混合的结果。这个项目试图，一方面，解释上述差异的东正教评价狄奥尼修斯和考虑他们各自的背景。另一方面，它试图解构这些正统的狄奥尼修斯的解读，首先，展示他们反西方话语的偶然性，因为各种西方影响仍然可以在他们身上找到痕迹。 其次，它旨在通过当代镜头，基于特殊的标准和部分非批判性的观点，展示对东正教过去和传统的武断和零碎的使用。最后，我对狄奥尼修斯的东正教接受的分析将有望证实，东方和西方之间需要一个更富有成效的相遇和富有成效的交流，不仅仅是因为它是关于一个基督教作家来自一个时期，不可分割的教会。

This project intends to examine the diverse reception of the corpus of writings from the 6th century attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite by four seminal figures of the Orthodox world in the 20th century: on the Russian side (yet living in Western Europe), Vladimir Lossky and Father Sophrony (Sakharov); and on the Greek side, Christos Yannaras and Metropolitan John Zizioulas. Historically speaking, Dionysius was held in great esteem in both the East and West; for example, by Maximus Confessor, John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory Palamas. From the Renaissance onwards, however, starting with the discovery of his pseudonymity, Western Christianity became critical of Dionysius, whereas some influential Orthodox theologians of the 20th century (e.g., John Meyendorff) also adopted such critical readings. Against this dominant current, Lossky regarded Dionysius’ key doctrine, namely apophaticism, as the distinctive mark of Orthodox Christianity in contrast to the Latin West. Yannaras also followed Lossky and attempted to examine Dionysius through a specific lens (e.g., hesychastic) so as to show his Western misreading. Yet, Zizioulas, due to his scepticism for Lossky’s apophaticism, essentially ignores Dionysius in his influential theological work. Finally, for the same reason, though Fr. Sophrony was critical of Dionysius’ proclamations about an abstract ascent to God, he did not pay any further attention to him. This attests to a quite varied Orthodox reception of Dionysius in the 20th century, which reveals major tendencies within Orthodox theology and its development in the modern period that are not free from ideological premises (e.g., anti-Western) and subjective interpretations. After all, this was a time when Orthodox theology attempted to rediscover its allegedly lost “genuine identity” away from adulterating Western influences – a controversial process with mixed results. This project attempts, on the one hand, to explain the above differences in the Orthodox evaluation of Dionysius and to consider their respective background. On the other hand, it tries to deconstruct these Orthodox readings of Dionysius by showing, first, the contingency of their anti-Western discourse, given that various Western influences can still be traced in them. Second, it aims to show the often arbitrary and fragmentary uses of the Orthodox past and tradition through contemporary lenses, based on idiosyncratic criteria and partially uncritical perspectives. Finally, my analysis of Dionysius’ Orthodox reception will hopefully confirm the need for a more fruitful encounter and productive exchange between East and West, not the least because it is about a Christian writer stemming from the period of the one, undivided Church.