Identity

Much effort has been expended in the attempt to uncover Dionysius’ identity, yet none of the proposed solutions (Severus of Antioch, Peter the Fuller, Peter the Iberian, Sergius of Resh‘ayna, and others) is satisfactory. A more fruitful approach may be to identify the milieu in which his writings were produced and to analyze their earliest reception. Internal evidence, including Dionysius’ description of liturgical practices, indicates that he may have been active in Syria (Louth 1989). This is corroborated by his strong emphasis on the church hierarchy, likely directed against antinomian Messalian tendencies, prevalent in that region (Golitzin 2003). The possible link to Origenist circles in Palestine has also been explored (Perczel 1999, 2000, 2001). Dionysius’ debt to Athenian Neoplatonism is undeniable, and it has been suggested that he could have received his philosophical education in Athens, as his pseudonym perhaps implies, and have been a student of Proclus or Damascius (Lilla 1994), though this is uncertain. The Dionysian writings were first used by the Miaphysites (Severus of Antioch and others) against the Chalcedonians in support of their Christolog-ical position but were later eagerly adopted by the Chal-cedonians as well. This is largely due to the impact of the Chalcedonian bishop John of Scythopolis’ scholia On the Dionysian corpus (mid-sixth century), written with a view to defending its orthodoxy (Rorem and Lamoreaux 1998).