The works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite received the authoritative seal of 'Pseudo' from the rigorous, enlightened, truth-discerning work of...19th Century German philology 
But for this late neoplatonician to actually have been Denys the Areopagite would imply a level of apostolic authority superior to the Apostolic Fathers, nearing that of St-Paul.
-
-
The Church did not see this as an issue even when full aware of his neoplatonism; for her, authority is not based on antiquity but on correct teaching and the spiritual benefits derived from it (which is why several of Evagrius' texts remain even after his condemnation).
-
Regardless, the issue is how the text is treated once it has met the philologists' reckoning. Source is Schafer, "The Philosophy of Dionyisus the Areopagite" p. 18 (which I reccomend if you want a take on his philosophy as neither corrective nor derivative but on its own merit).pic.twitter.com/5aiD6PPHlB
-
Schafer here comments dated historiography. No one in contemporary academia treats P-DA the way he describes. The "Pseudo" does not carry the stigma he says it does, it merely denotes a common practice at the time, that of text attribution. cf. Maximus the Confessor.
-
For sure, and he goes into the lessening of this bias in the following pages. Nevertheless, there are teachers in the Church who shy away from the Areopagite because of this academic reading (rather than his spiritual incomprehensibility outside an Ecclesiastic context).
-
The difference comes down to reading something as intellectual curiosity vs within a living tradition. I don't begrudge the academics the former, but Orthodox intellectuals seem to have forgotten how to do the latter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.