The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite by Michael Syncellus was recently published by Scriptorum Press. In this volume Syncellus contends that the writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite are authentic, as opposed to the work of a later hand. This runs against the prevailing scholarship, though not without some detractors, primarily from traditional Eastern Orthodox circles. You can hear some of the arguments here on Craig Truglia’s channel. The framing in the discussion on Truglia’s channel is at times not reflective of the data, in my opinion. Evangelos makes it sound as if the authenticity was question by Lorenzo Valla (an Italian humanist) and then pushed hard by Protestants alone, but Johann Gerhard, in his Patrologia, puts forth the opinions of many authors, even some from before Valla, who doubted authenticity, including Theodorus Gaza, a Greek humanist, which is important since he came out of Byzantine training in Greek Orthodoxy, and two preeminent Catholic theologians– the blesséd Doctor Ecstaticus Denis the Carthusian (a Belgian Carthusian), and the Doctor Christianus cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (a German humanist mystic). Roman Catholic contemporaries of the Reformation of many varieties also doubted the authenticity such as Francisco Ribera (a Spanish Jesuit), abbot Johannes Trithemius (a German Benedictine), Sixtus Senensis (an Italian-Jewish Dominican), and William (John) Grocyn (an English humanist, not mentioned by Gerhard below), and most notably two distinguished figures, the “Prince of the Humanists” Desiderius Erasmus (a Dutch humanist priest), and cardinal and master of the Dominicans Thomas Cajetan (an Italian Dominican). It’s authenticity seems to have been doubted by Protestants of all stripes, Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed.

Here’s a full list of authors who doubted the authenticity of the corpus leading up to Valla:

• Hypatius of Ephesus (d. After 536)
• Unknown authors in the time of John of Scythopolis (536–550)
• Joseph Hazzaya (b. 710)
• Photius (810/820–893)
• Arethas of Caesarea (860-939)
• The Souda (10th c.)
• John the Oxite of Antioch (d. 1100)
• Peter Abelard (1079–1142)
• Joane Petrizi (11-12th c.)
• Euthymius Zigabenus (d. After 1118)
• Peter of Damascus (d. After 1156)
• Svimeon the Armenian (13th c.)
• George Pachymeres (1242– 1310)
• Theodore Gaza (1398-1475)
• Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)
• Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471)

If you’d like to see more from Lutherans on this, see this paper. The Lutheran fathers seem unanimous in denial of the authenticity of the corpus. Luther questions it in the Leipzig debate of 1519. Melanchthon denies it in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71. Chemnitz denies in Examen vol II. Gerhard denies (Confessio Catholica 622-624). Quenstedt denies (Sys I.681) (see Pieper in Dogmatics I, Angelology 7, footnote 11). Schmelling denies in his Union with Christ. Pelikan denies in The Christian Tradition vol II.

In this post, I have taken the time to run Gerhard’s section on Dionysius the Areopagite from his Patrologia through Chat GPT to translate it into English from Latin. The edition I’m using is free on Google Books from Sengenwald, 1668. The section on Dionysius begins on page 13 and ends on page 32. While I did try to edit the translation down for accuracy, take the translation with a grain of salt of course.

The arguments made by Gerhard should not be taken as comprehensive– far from it, they are a summary and more developed arguments have been made since his time. I also do not intend this post to be a apology for or against the authenticity of the corpus. I just thought it would be useful material to have publicly available to contribute to the conversation on this topic.

Dionysius the Areopagite

Life

He is called Areopagite because he was a judge of criminal cases in Athens before his conversion to Christ, as described by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:33. Hence, he was later called a disciple of Paul.

In Gaul, he taught in the year 80, [as mentioned by] Ambrose Pelargus.

Eusebius in Book 3, Chapter 4 of his History: “that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

Others mention that he, converted by Paul in Athens, came shortly afterward to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, and was sent by him to Gaul. There, he preached Christ in Paris and, finally, suffered the penalty of death.

Baronius, in the Roman Martyrology on October 9th and in the Annals for the year 95, number 7, and for the year 109, number 38, reports that “[Dionysius] first became the Bishop of Athens and then the Bishop of Paris.” He achieved the palm of martyrdom along with Saints Eleutherius and Rusticus, either in the final years of Trajan’s reign or certainly at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Hadrian.

Nicephorus, in Book 2 of his “History,” Chapter 20, mentions that [Dionysius] was baptized and designated as the Bishop of Athens by Paul himself, as he excelled with miraculous and divine praises. “He lived [says Nicephorus], more familiarly with the divine man Hierotheus, both of whom Paul, rapt with them into the third heaven and paradise itself, had initiated into the divine matters, the rationale of the Word of God, the Celestial Hierarchy, and the absolute disposition and ordering of all things. Paul communicated these teachings, gloriously praising Christ, in the Western parts for many years, reaching a very advanced age, and finally, adorned with the crown of martyrdom, he offered his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, to a woman, who reverently placed it in the same spot where it had fallen.”

Therefore, with words of piety and divine worship, he gloriously preached for many years in the Western parts, reaching old age and eventually being honored with the crown of martyrdom. It is said that he carried his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, in his hands for about two miles and then handed it over to a certain woman at the place where it had fallen.

Some argue that he underwent martyrdom during the reign of Domitian. However, Dionysius, in his book On the Divine Names, Chapter 4, cites the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, which was written in the 7th year of Trajan, during which Ignatius was crowned with martyrdom. Now, Trajan succeeded Domitian.

Bellarminus, therefore, asserts that Dionysius survived beyond the reign of Domitian and lived into the rule of Hadrian. This position is presented in his work On Ecclesiastical Writers on page 65.

Writings

Nicephorus, in his work Ecclesiastical History Book 2, Chapter 20, enumerates the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. According to Nicephorus, “Dionysius composed works characterized by sublime contemplation of divine matters and remarkable eloquence, far surpassing those captured by human understanding. The mentioned works are:

1. De Divinis Nominibus (On the Divine Names): 13 chapters, with an additional hundred chapters filled with divine wisdom.
2. De Coelesti Hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy): 15 chapters.
3. De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy): 7 chapters.
4. De Arcana sive Mystica Theologia (On the Hidden or Mystical Theology): 5 chapters.

Dionysius also left behind ten epistles, the last of which is addressed to the Evangelist John, who reclined on the Lord’s breast. These writings are still circulated today. Dionysius mentions other works of his, such as Theological Dispositions and Symbolic Theology. Additionally, he wrote on Angelic properties and orders, a commentary on the soul, divine justice and judgment, divine hymns, and Likewise concerning those things which are perceived either by understanding or by sensation. However, these commentaries have not been seen at all, neither by us nor by those who were before us.”

In Chapter 22, Nicephorus references passages about the assumption of Mary found in the third chapter of Dionysius’ letter to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus. This chapter includes sections titled “What is the power of prayer concerning Blessed Hierotheus & about religion and Theological History.”

According to Suidas, the following works of Dionysius the Areopagite are listed:

1. On the Celestial Hierarchy
2. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
3. Epistles to Gaius (4)
4. Epistle to Dorotheus
5. Epistle to Sopatrus
6. Epistle to Polycarp
7. On the Divine Names
8. On Mystical Theology
9. Epistle to Demophilus
10. Epistle to Titus
11. Epistle to Apollophanes
12. Epistle to Saint John the Evangelist

Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, page 325: “This is that Dionysius about whom there is so much renown in the Acts of the Apostles. He wrote excellent volumes on Hierarchies and Divine Names, in which, whatever is used in our sacraments and whatever is at all controversial, is proven to have flowed down from the very Apostles themselves. Protestants have no other escape than to deny that this work is that of Dionysius, but of some recent and obscure author, I do not know who.”

Ten Reasons by Edmund Campian (rat. 5, p.32): “The Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite teaches what classes, what sacred rites? So deeply did it disturb Luther that he judged it to be very similar to all his works and, moreover, highly pernicious.”

Baronius in the year 109, number 51 and following, along with Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 5, On Monks, Martinus Delrio in Vindications of the Areopagite, Jacobus Gaulterius in First Truth of the First Century, and Bellarmine in his First Disputation (d. 1) argue for the genuineness of Dionysius’s writings. They emphasize that these works are cited under the name of Dionysius by three Popes, two Councils, and many Doctors. It is not a new opinion that dominates in citing widely.

The works were published in Greek with the paraphrase of Pachymeres and extensive annotations in Paris by Morelius in 1562. The same works were published in Latin in Cologne by Maternus Cholinus in 1557 and in Paris by Henricus Stephanus in 1515.

Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 6, On Purgatory, and Chapter 1, Campian in his Sanctoral Calendar, and the Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, Verse 34, from Dionysius’s book On the Ecclesastical Hierarchy confirm purgatory and ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, they argue that this writing is spurious, not belonging to the Dionysius whose name it bears, as Sixtus Senensis in Book 6, of Annotations 229, Cajetan in Acts 17, Erasmus in Acts 17 (see Morton, p. 2, p. 279), and Lorenzo Valla & Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Acts. Luther in Chapter 3 of Genesis (p. 53) and Cajetan and several others, such as Whittaker and Flacius, who present reasons for considering Dionysius’s writings to be spurious.

1. From reason of the style: which is considered inflated, obscure, improper, and intricate, not in line with the style used in Athens during the time of the Apostles but rather started being used about three hundred years later in Greece and Rome. Nicholas of Cusa states about this writer that he excessively imitates Plato. The same argument is pressed by Dr. Chemnitz in an oration on the reading of the Fathers. The style itself convincingly indicates that it is not Attic and certainly not written in an apostolic manner. Casaubonus in Exercises 16, p. 565: “Dionysius the Areopagite, indeed, is a most ancient and elegant writer: But who he is, about whom mention is made in the Acts, only those unskilled in the light of literature and entirely ignorant of both the Greek language and the antiquity of the Church dare to assert.”
   
2. From the omission of his name in the writings of the ancients: Eusebius, in Book 3, Chapter 4: [“And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.”] and Book 4, Chapter 23, “That Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”
   
   Jerome, in the catalogue of his writings, makes no mention of Dionysius’s writings, even though he explicitly decided to enumerate ecclesiastical writers who left something for posterity. Indeed, no one before Gregory the Great, who, though citing his letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite was among them.
   
   Sixtus Senensis in Book 4 of the Library: “The mystical theology of Dionysius was still unknown in the century of Athanasius.”
   
   Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts 17, p. 225: “It is astonishing that if he was such an ancient author and wrote so much, he is not cited by anyone from the ancients, neither from the Greeks nor the Latins: not by Origen, not by Chrysostom, nor even by Jerome, who left nothing unexamined, so much so that Gregory himself, a man of proven faith quoting these letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite existed. Jerome in the Catalog of Illustrious Men mentions one or two Dionysius but does not mention his books.”
   
   Gennadius [Scholarius], in the Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers, also makes no mention of him. Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, who lived under the rule of Emperor Commodus around the year 185 AD, in his writing about Dionysius the Areopagite, declares how he was first converted to the faith by Paul, as is in the Acts of the Apostles. Later, he became the Bishop of the Athenians, but his about his book the “Hierarchy,” he does not even mention a word.
   
3. From the computation of time: Dionysius the Areopagite was a disciple of Paul, but the Dionysius mentioned at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy speaks in this way: ‘A delay of 40 days, as our divine priests, initiated into the ancient mysteries, handed down to us for divine worship.’ He speaks there about the baptism of infants and, in the plural, mentions instructors, suggesting that this doctrine was transmitted to them by the apostles through successive instructors. So how could he have been a disciple of the apostles? In Book 1 of Divine Names, he quotes Clement the Philosopher in the area of dialectics, saying that “exemplars of principal things are either absent or present, or their causes are formal and relative.” However, there was no other Clement the Philosopher than the Alexandrian one, whose books still exist, and he lived around 200 years after Christ. This quoted passage seems to be entirely from the eighth Miscellany, [ch. 9 par 14?] where Clement says, “causes are especially formal and relative.” In Chapter 4 of Divine Names, he quotes the Epistles of Ignatius, which, however, were written after the death of Dionysius. In the book on Hierarchy, he cites Clement of Alexandria, who lived about two hundred years after Christ.
   
   Therefore, Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus suspect that different authors are being confused. Laurentius (quoted by Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Annotations on Acts): “In this place, he refutes the opinion of those who think that this Areopagite was the author of those books that we have concerning Hierarchies and Divine Names, and that he is the same person who, at Paris, among the Parisians, was crowned with martyrdom. They identify one Dionysius out of three, if I am not mistaken.” And afterward: “Laurentius indicates that there were very learned men of his time who judged that these books were the work of Apollinaris, although Jerome mentions two by that name—one a Bishop of Hierapolis who flourished under Marcus Antoninus, the other a Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. However, Laurentius attributes neither of these to anything of this kind of work, for I do not think that such works should be attributed to that heretic Apollinaris.”
   
   In Book 4 of the Divine Names, he quotes a certain sentence from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans [Ch. 7]: “Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται.” [Latin]: “Amor meus crucifixus est.” [English]: “My love has been crucified.” But indeed, Ignatius, as testified by Eusebius in the Chronicle and Book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, wrote that Epistle to the Romans during the reign of Trajan, while Dionysius the Areopagite was killed during the reign of Domitian. That Dionysius, in the same book, cites the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse in his Hierarchy, and in such a way as if these writings had long been part of the Scriptures. However, if we believe the historians, both John and Dionysius published their works shortly before their deaths, [John’s death being] about 14 years after Dionysius’ death. Among Dionysius’ Epistles, there is one addressed to Polycarp, addressing him as both a teacher and bishop. Indeed, the writers testify that Dionysius suffered in Gaul in the year 96 AD, and Polycarp in the year 166 AD, at the age of 86. It is thus clear that Polycarp was still underage at the time of Dionysius’ passion.
   
4. From a careful consideration of the contents: first in the negative, then in the affirmative established.
   1. [Negative]: That Dionysius passed over certain things, which he asserted to have been overlooked, seems unlikely by no means. He is said to be that Dionysius, a disciple of the Apostle Paul; yet, he so forgets this teacher that he does not mention him even in a single place, calling a certain obscure Hierotheus his teacher. This seems to indicate either excessive ingratitude or remarkable forgetfulness on the part of the disciple. How was it possible for Dionysius not to have sought him out frequently by writing to Timothy, asking whether he had learned anything more accurately from the Apostle Paul himself about those very matters, with whom he had lived so familiarly for such a long time and had undoubtedly been well-instructed?
      
   2. [Affirmative]: That Dionysius is full of the most absurd nonsense. When he discusses the heavenly and ecclesiastical hierarchy, he invents new choirs like spheres, the highest seraphim, then cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, principalities; afterward, in the lower hierarchy, powers, archangels, angels. Who does not see that these are nothing but idle and futile human thoughts? Later, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, he says there are bishops, deacons, subdeacons, readers, exorcists. He, the disciple of the chief of the Apostles and the teacher of the Gentiles, is occupied with such nonsense. Yet, his authority is flaunted in such a way that inflated hypocrites decree everything as if it were uttered from oracles, while nowhere does he speak one word about faith or any useful instruction from Holy Scripture. But who told him about the nine choirs? Why did the Franciscans later add a tenth as a palace where the divine mother would dwell? Luther, in Genesis chapter 3, page 53, mentions many orders, such as pontiffs, priests, monks, etc., of which, except for bishops, Dionysius had no knowledge during his time, as can be proven.
      
      The Areopagites were judges, not philosophers. But these people regard Dionysius as the supreme philosopher, who risks the danger of comprehending the nature of things through a solar eclipse, which is not fitting since it is not plausible that those darknesses reached Athens, etc. Erasmus, in Acts chapter 17, page 225: “It is not plausible to me that there were such Christian ceremonies in those ancient times, as he describes.”
      
      “A more recent version has it that he wrote the Hierarchy to Timothy, whom he also calls his son, which is the same as if he called him a disciple, considering the use of Scripture and the Church. Since Timothy had the excellent Paul as his teacher for a very long time, being a renowned teacher and bishop while Paul was still alive, he should have taught Dionysius instead of being taught by him” (Flacius Illyricus).
      
      Dionysius himself presents that he was handed over to Hierotheus as a disciple. However, shortly after Dionysius the Areopagite’s conversion, Paul taught for a long time in Corinth and for a longer time in Ephesus, places easily accessible from Athens. If this Dionysius were eager for learning, he could have almost had Paul as his mentor for a whole two years, and it would not have been necessary for him to submit to the discipline of a man entirely unknown in the Church. The same writer mentions here the choir and the temple, distinguished from each other, and the parts of the temple. However, during the time of the Apostles and for a hundred years thereafter, Christians did not have such elaborate temple buildings; they initially gathered in houses. The same writer says that the Apostle John lived longer than the other Apostles and than Dionysius is said to have lived. However, John was mostly in Ephesus and Asia Minor, where Timothy also lived. Timothy is said to have been familiar with him, so how did this Dionysius dare to teach Timothy, who had a mentor? Would it not have been more appropriate for him to seek instruction repeatedly, asking Timothy to write to him either about this matter or others, clarifying Paul’s or John’s views?
      
      Paul mentions that it is not lawful for a man to express the things he saw in the heavenly state, and it is inconceivable that a person like Dionysius, progressing in such a state, would write and explain things that the Apostle Paul had established as ineffable and entirely unknown to humans. The opinion of the nine orders of angels is rejected by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 55) and Augustine (Enchiridion to Laurentius, Chapter 58).
      
5. From the testimony of very weighty authors:
   • Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts, page 225: “some years ago,” as he recalls, “the incomparable William Grocyn, a supreme theologian, thoroughly versed in every discipline and exercised in them, preparing to deliver a sacred discourse on St. Paul in the church of St. Paul in London, had earnestly contemplated that the work ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ was the production of Dionysius the Areopagite. Grocyn was highly indignant at those who would dissent from this view. However, before completing half of the work and examining it more closely, he openly confessed to his audience that he did not consider the work to be that of Dionysius the Areopagite.”
   • Luther, in his Smalcald Articles, calls Dionysius a “recent and fictitious author” [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71 by Philip Melanchthon].
   • Whitaker, Against Campian, page 75.: “Valla and Erasmus have collected many weighty reasons in order to persuade that Dionysius was not the person he is said to be.”
   • Theodore Gaza, in the preface to the Problems of Alexander of Aphrodisias, converted by him into Latin, argues that the author is a fabricated one.
   • Pelargus, in Comparative Theology, at position 21, page 277, disapproves of this author.
   • Add to this Zeaemann’s arguments against Keller on page 530.
   • Daniel Chamier, in his book Catholic Panstratia [Wars of the Lord], Chapter 8, Section 28, and the following sections.
   • [Francisco] Ribera, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 1: “Many follow various opinions [concerning the Hierarchy and orders of Angels] based on the authority of Dionysius alone. However, the most esteemed Greek and Latin Fathers refused to follow him. Pope Gregory was unwilling to yield to the authority of Dionysius, fearing that it might appear to contradict the divine scripture in words. If we wish to measure that obscure matter by our own reasoning, we will often and greatly go astray, and Dionysius never said that he received these things from Paul, nor has anyone been able to prove it.”
   • Bellarmine, indeed, On Ecclesiastical Writers: “I have no doubt about the works of Dionysius. They are cited by Pope Gregory in Homily 34 on the Gospel, by Pope Martin and the Martyr in the Roman Council, by Pope Agatho in the Letter to Emperor Constantine IV, by Pope Nicholas I in the Letter to Michael the Emperor. They are also cited by the Sixth General Council in Act 4 and the Seventh Council in Act 2, and finally by those who wrote commentaries on these works, such as Maximus the Monk and Saint Thomas Aquinas.” However, the objection is raised that Gregory lived in the sixth century, so why is there no mention of these books by any of the earlier writers? Bellarmine responds that “these writings may have been hidden and only discovered around the time of Gregory.” But other arguments suggest that attributing these works to Dionysius is false.
   • Denys the Carthusian, in his commentary on Dionysius: “Whoever he may be, is rather obscure and barely intelligible; he has posed a challenge for some theologians.”
   • Abbot Trithemius, concerning Ecclesiastical Writers, admits, “the works of Dionysius are covered with great obscurity.”
     
     [Responses to objections]: Some argue that this work is cited by Origen in his homily on John 1 and by Athanasius in his questions to Antiochus, question 8. But with this argument, uncertainty is proven by an equally uncertain method because in that homily, the Arians are mentioned, who arose long after Origen, and in the questions to Antiochus, authors who came after Athanasius are named. Therefore, they are not the works of Origen or Athanasius but of more recent authors. Abbot Liberatus in Chapter 10 of the Breviary and Anastasius the Librarian in a letter to Emperor Charles the Bald state that Dionysius the Areopagite is cited by Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, but the passages they cite are not found in the cited places.

Eulogies

Regarding Dionysius the Areopagite, Peter Lansselius, a Jesuit: “He is almost the only one among all the authors of Antiquity in whom no one has noted a departure from doctrine to the present day.”