The Beauty of the Unity and the Harmony of the Whole

The Concept of Theosis in the Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Kharlamov

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498271196
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This book traces the emergence and development of the deification theme in Greek patristic theology and its subsequent transformation into the theology of theosis in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. This volume dwells on the deification theme as it is situated in the complex context of its historical development and thus avoids the common tendency to treat this notion of Christian theology in an anachronistic manner. Significant attention is given to the influence of Neoplatonism on Pseudo-Dionysius. His theology is justified neither as essentially orthodox Christian nor as essentially orthodox Neoplatonic. Dionysius's sophisticated synthesis of Christian and Neoplatonic elements, especially in his exposition of theosis, does justice to this anonymous author's originality and demonstrates the importance of his influence both on the further development of Christian theology, and on the advancement of the Neoplatonic tradition. The intricate cultural background of the Pseudo-Dionysian world helps clarify the formation process of Christian imperial identity, and throws additional light on why these works were attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, not as a conscious forgery, but as a literary device. Such attribution was a common practice of the time. Comprehensive analysis of the development of the deification theme opens possibilities for further study of Trinitarian and christological formations, of philosophical and individual moral theology, of Christian and Neoplatonic mysticism, and of cultural studies. By surveying the historical development of deification and by opening further areas of research, this book serves a valuable introductory source for both professionals and students. While primarily focusing on academic interests, the book is written keeping the general reading audience in mind as well. All quotations of the original texts are provided with existing or new English translations, while important Greek terminology is acknowledged. Readers interested in Christian spirituality, late antiquity, early Christian theology, and Neoplatonism will find this book useful.

1

The Ideas of Divine and Divinization in the Context of Greek Antiquity

Conceptual and Technical Vocabulary of Deification

Modern scholarship often finds it curious that when early Christian writers refer to deification, their audience understands what they are talking about, despite the boldness of their language. By the time patristic writers were defining the concept of deification in Christian theology, an understanding of the divine quality of human nature had already gained considerable notoriety on both popular and philosophic levels and could not be considered an original innovation of Christian thought. Christian writers are not the first to introduce the concept and language of deification. A long history of ancient writers had preceded them.1

The idea of deification is perhaps as ancient as humanity. The ancients usually associated the realm of the gods with happiness, perfection, and the absence of suffering, illness, and death. It is no surprise, then, that people from primitive times expressed a desire to participate either partially or fully in the divine life, to exercise various powers attributed to the gods, and to have freedom from the anxieties of earthly life and the anguish of death.

The line that separated people from gods in Greek antiquity was not as transcendental as it sometimes seems. In Greek mythology, the gods were depicted in anthropomorphic terms; they were like human beings of a different kind who were directly involved in human affairs. Ontologically, both humans and the gods came into existence from a common mother and therefore were related, despite an unbridgeable distance that separated them.2 It was the attribute of immortality that distinguished people from gods, not their origin or ontological otherness.3 Homer (ninth–eighth cent. BCE)4 and the majority of the Greek tradition often used the terms “god” and “immortal” synonymously. Yet the immortality attributed to gods, as Kleinknecht notes, “does not mean eternal pre-existence. It means only that they are not subject to death.”5

Although the realm of the gods was associated with youth and happiness, the power of the gods, which greatly surpassed that of humans, was not unlimited. The Greek notion of fate (μοῖρα or αἶσα), in both the general sense and the sense of the providential divine predetermining principle, was an autonomous, non-personal, and all-powerful order that operated independently from and above the gods. As such, it can be associated with the concept of karma in Hinduism. The gods might have been aware of the “fateful” order of things and of human destiny, but they could not change it. Thus it is important to see that the highest divine principle operative in the universe was not theistic in nature; it was above the pantheon of gods and therefore was theological and cosmic naturalism. Philosophical, and at the same time religious, expression of this principle underlined to some degree the highest element of Plotinian monistic metaphysics—the idea of the One (ἕν).

The notion of “god” in Greek antiquity, especially in the philosophic tradition, did not necessarily connote the idea of a personality, as in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. God or the gods were not ultimate and mighty beings but rather the archetypes of certain orders or representations of their intrinsic meaning. Kleinknecht provides an interesting illustration that vividly demonstrates this difference. In 1 John 4:16 we read, “God is love.” In Kleinknecht’s opinion, classical Greek would reverse this statement to read “Love is God.” He continues: “This shift of subject and predicate expresses a whole world of religious difference. The Greek gods are simply basic forms of reality, whether this be conceived in the forms of myth (Homer), in a final, unifying ἀρχή (Ionic physics), or in the ἰδέα of philosophers.”6 Thus, Kleinknecht’s research leads him to the following conclusion:

In the world of religious philosophy θεός is used increasingly to denote impersonal metaphysical powers and forces, and is thus often replaced by general and neutral terms like the divine ([τὸ]θεῖον), destiny, or even the good, the existence, the one. This is linked with the total development of the Greek concept, which might be regarded as a process of progressive refinement in the sense that the palpable divine figures of myth are increasingly spiritualised and moralized, thus gaining in dignity, spirituality, and purity, but to the same degree losing in proximity, in relationship to man and in mythical presence. The Greek concept of God, which achieved its first enduring form in the myth of Homer, ends in the philosophical idea, in religious philosophy.7

Being a god indicated the attainment of a certain status and quality of existence that corresponded to a specific form of reality. Even though we can not rule out an Oriental influence, especially from the mystery cults, the idea of a divine or divinized human being belongs specifically to the Greek world and serves as a confirmation or recognition of certain achievement. It was not uncommon for Greeks from Homer on to call human beings divine (θεῖος). Usually seers, priests, heroes, poets, philosophers, and more often lawgivers, rulers, and especially emperors, received this divine nomination.8

An important institution related to divinization in Greco-Roman antiquity was the cult of the emperors. It originated in the fourth century BCE with Alexander the Great (356–323), who was the first to receive veneration through titles, symbols, and forms of address that indicated his superhuman status and his equality with god. Needless to say, all these regalia were awarded him during his lifetime, when this pomposity provoked little to no resistance. The opposition, as small and insignificant as it was, did not raise any objections to venerating Alexander as divine after his death.

Homeric literature was primarily responsible for helping establish the basis for widespread acceptance of this custom in the Hellenistic world. But the roots of emperor divinization went as far back as Sumer and ancient Egypt, or at least they were not exclusively Greek. Describing the Sumerian and Egyptian understandings of the role of gods in their lives, Michael Rice remarks:

In the case of both peoples the involvement of the divine powers affected the management of the state as much as it elicited unforeseeable consequences of their concern for the affairs of humans. The Egyptian kingship is a divine institution; in Sumer the ruler was the delegate of the divine, for whilst Egyptian kings lived on equal terms with the gods, early Sumerian rulers, “great men” as they were modestly called, were always theoretically at least, stewards of a divine master.9

Pharaoh’s “Horus name,” which h...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Ideas of Divine and Divinization in the Context of Greek Antiquity
• Chapter 2: The Main Aspects of the Deification Theme in Patristic Thought Prior to Pseudo-Dionysius
• Chapter 3: Mystical Theology of Mysterious Origin
• Chapter 4: Divinization in Neoplatonism
• Chapter 5: Pseudo-Dionysian Neoplatonism and the Terminology of Deification
• Chapter 6: Theosis as Cosmic Harmony
• Chapter 7: Theosis as Knowledge
• Chapter 8: Theosis as Liturgy
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgments
• Selected Bibliography