Within a generation of their first recorded appearance, the Dionysian writings attracted the attention of an editor and commentator who added both an introduction and also (marginal) scholia to the corpus, influencing subsequent readers enormously. Comprehensive treatment of the doctrinal concerns of the first Dionysian scholiast, John of Scythopolis (d. 548), would require full coverage of his Prologue to the Areopagite’s works and of all his Scholia (somewhat over 550 comments, totaling well over 100 columns of text). His central theological concerns, however, can be introduced by reference to a single brief scholion. Prompted by a cryptic phrase in the Areopagite’s Letter 8, John declares that “By ‘as a whole’ he means the Lord who by taking both soul and body has saved us ‘as wholes’ [composed] of both soul and body.”
John’s Prologue in defense of the orthodoxy and authenticity of the Dionysian writings indicates the areas of doctrine in question:
But some dare to abuse the divine Dionysius with charges of heresy, being themselves absolutely ignorant of matters of heresy. For certainly, if they were to examine each of the items condemned among the heretics, they would discover that the teachings of these babblers are as far [from truth], as true light is from darkness. For what would they say of his theology of the only-worshipped Trinity? Or what about Jesus Christ, one of this all-blessed Trinity, the only begotten Word of God who willed to become fully human? Did he [Dionysius] not expound upon the rational soul and the earthly body like ours, and all the other items mentioned by the orthodox teachers? With what error could anyone rightly blame him, with respect to the intelligible and the intelligent and the perceptible things? Or, concerning our general resurrection which will happen with both our body and our soul? And concerning the future judgment of the just and the unjust?
From this portion of the Prologue, we can summarize John’s stated doctrinal concerns under four headings: the Trinity, Christ, creation, and eschatology. (This entire approach sets aside for treatment elsewhere John’s concern for dialogue with Neoplatonism, whether the unacknowledged quotations from Plotinus or the open discussion of certain terms and concepts that stem in fact from Proclus.) As amply documented in the Scholia, these four general topics yield two specific assertions over against certain heretics: given an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, John affirms that Christ assumed an earthly body and a rational soul, against Apollinaris and his followers; given an orthodox doctrine of creation, he further affirms that humanity’s final salvation is of the soul and the body, against all who deny the resurrection. (Apollinaris, trying to affirm Christ’s full divinity, thought that the divine Logos replaced the human mind of Jesus, thus compromising his full humanity.) The two convictions—incarnation in body and soul along with salvation of soul and body—complement each other and are occasionally found in tandem in his comments, as in the particular scholion chosen to begin this brief glimpse of John’s doctrinal concerns.
In Letter 8, Dionysius rebukes a zealous and jealous monk named Demophilus with various scriptural testimonies of kindness and generosity, such as the splendid welcome of the prodigal son by his loving father. In applying Jesus’ parable to Christ’s own generous welcome of all who are penitent, the Areopagite uses a phrase that John found doctrinally marvelous. Loosely translated, it merely means “embracing them completely.” One would hardly expect such a brief phrase among so many biblical examples to imply the orthodox doctrines of the incarnation and the resurrection. But this specific nomenclature has an anti-Apollinarian history before and after the Dionysian corpus and its Scholia—namely, in Gregory of Nazianzus and in John of Damascus. Dionysius had written “holos holous periphus” (ὅλος ὅλους περιφύς), literally, “whole embracing wholes.” In his well-known Letter 101, Gregory of Nazianzus wrote “so that the whole person, fallen because of sin, might be restored by a whole person, himself also God.” Although the Dionysian use of similar phrasing seems completely casual and rhetorical, far from any explicit christological context, our unknown author may well have known and here alluded to this anti-Apollinarian doubling of the word whole, namely, “the whole Christ saving the whole humanity.” The compact formula became well-known later through John of Damascus, who combined it with another famous expression from elsewhere in Gregory’s letter: “He in His entirety assumed me in my entirety and was wholly united to the whole, so that he might bestow the grace of salvation upon the whole. For that which has not been assumed cannot be healed.” The prehistory and posthistory of this terminology should not detain us very long from examining what John of Scythopolis made of it. But if the author of the Dionysian corpus did intend an apostolic invocation of this orthodox phrasing, then the scholiast was fully justified in seizing the opportunity.
In any case, John’s scholion reveals much of his own theological position: “It is amazing how he says that [Christ] ‘as a whole [embraces] them as wholes.’ In this he puts to shame the heretics of that time, who used to say that only the soul is saved by God, not the body. By ‘as a whole’ he means the Lord who by taking both soul and body has saved us ‘as wholes’ [composed] of both soul and body. There were then heretics who followed Simon, as Irenaeus and Hippolytus indicate.” To John, the single word from Dionysius (“whole,” singular and plural) teaches not only humanity’s whole salvation including the resurrection of the body, as here asserted directly, but also Christ’s whole incarnation including a rational soul, as implied here and as explicit in the Prologue. It was typical of Dionysius to allude to a biblical scene with a pithy and creative comment, whether or not it was intended to carry the weight of orthodox Christology, and typical of John to pile dogmatic weight upon a slender text. Our attention for the moment must remain on John and his doctrinal concerns.
In this scholion, John does not emphasize christological doctrine or heresies, but merely comments that the Dionysian word whole means “the Lord, having assumed soul and body.” By itself, the phrase only hints at an anti-Apollinarian Christology, although the Prologue made explicit mention of a “rational soul.” But there are many other scholia on this subject, including one that also makes a connection between the resurrection and Christology through the word whole. While discussing funerals and the placement of the body of the deceased, Dionysius comments on the resurrection: “Thus the whole person is sanctified . . . his whole salvation and his complete resurrection.” To this, John adds a remark that refers to another Dionysian text and invokes a well-developed Christology: “Note that by ‘entire person’ he means one composed of a rational soul and body, as is suggested by the expression ‘in pure contemplation and understanding.’ Note also that he refers to the ‘whole salvation’ of soul and body. One should pay careful attention to these two points so that you might understand the Incarnation of a rational soul and body when he elsewhere says that ‘the transcendent Jesus wholly took on our human substance.’” Here again John links soteriology to Christology through his holistic anthropology: as the whole person is saved including the resurrection of the body, so the whole person was assumed in the incarnation including the rational soul. In order to analyze these twin doctrinal concerns more closely, we here sever their linkage and treat them separately, as did John himself often enough.
As suggested in the second scholion quoted above, John sees this anti-Apollinarian Christology “elsewhere” in Dionysius, and sometimes discusses it quite thoroughly including explicit refutation of heretics. (As quoted above, the Prologue shares this concern, although Charles Moeller exaggerated this concern somewhat in saying that “Tout le prologue est orienté dans le sense antiapollinariste.”) There are several direct references to Apollinaris and followers in the Scholia. At the very beginning of The Divine Names, Dionysius used the adverb “wholly” regarding the incarnation, prompting this from John: “See how he says that ‘one of the hypostases wholly participated in us.’ As the Apostle said, ‘in him the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.’ T...
