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

该项目旨在研究20世纪东正教世界的四位开创性人物对六世纪的狄奥尼修斯著作的不同接受程度：在俄罗斯方面（但仍生活在西欧），弗拉基米尔·罗斯基和父亲索弗罗尼（萨哈罗夫）；希腊方面是克里斯托斯·扬纳拉斯和约翰·齐齐乌拉斯。从历史上讲，狄奥尼修斯在东方和西方都很受尊敬；比如，忏悔者马克西姆斯、大马士革的约翰、托马斯·阿奎那和格里高利·帕拉马斯。然而，从文艺复兴时期开始，从发现狄奥尼修斯的笔名开始，西方基督教开始批评狄奥尼修斯，而20世纪一些有影响力的东正教神学家（例如约翰·梅延多夫）也采用了这种批判性的解读。反对这种主流，罗斯基认为狄奥尼修斯的关键教义，即避教论，是东正教与拉丁西方相比的独特标志。Yannaras也跟随Lossky，试图通过一个特定的镜头（例如，hesychastic）来审视Dionysius，以显示他的西方误读。然而，齐齐乌拉斯由于对罗斯基的冷漠主义持怀疑态度，在其影响深远的神学著作中基本上忽略了狄奥尼修斯。最后，出于同样的原因，虽然Fr。索弗罗尼是批评狄奥尼修斯的宣言关于一个抽象的上升到上帝，他没有支付任何进一步的注意他。这证明了20世纪东正教对狄奥尼修斯的不同接受，这揭示了东正教神学及其现代发展的主要趋势，这些趋势并没有摆脱意识形态前提（例如，反西方）和主观解释。毕竟，这是一个正统神学试图从掺假的西方影响中重新发现其所谓失去的“真实身份”的时代——这是一个有争议的过程，结果好坏参半。本项目一方面试图解释上述东正教对狄奥尼修斯评价的差异，并考虑其各自的背景。另一方面，它试图解构这些东正教对狄奥尼修斯的解读，首先，通过展示他们反西方话语的偶然性，考虑到各种西方的影响仍然可以在他们身上找到。其次，它的目的是通过当代的镜头，基于特殊的标准和部分不批判的视角，展示东正教过去和传统的经常武断和零碎的使用。最后，我对狄奥尼修斯的东正教接待的分析将有望确认东西方之间更富有成效的相遇和富有成效的交流的必要性，尤其是因为它是关于一个基督教作家，源于一个未分裂的教会时期。

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.