Evangelos Nikitopoulos is primarily a translator of rare hagiographies into the English language for the publisher Scriptorium Press. In 2023, he and Anthony Pavoni published The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite by Michael Syncellus.
Within this edition, the introduction of the book argued that according to the most thorough review of the Patristics and scholarship, the works ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite are in fact authentic. This thesis was then elaborated upon and condensed, being published by the Romanian journal Revista Teologica in 2024 as “In Defense of the Authenticity of the Dionysian Corpus.” Not since 1996 has scholarship (then St. Dmitru Staniloae) seriously defended the authenticity of the corpus. Mr. Nikitopoulos agreed to an interview about his most recent research and published work on the subject.
—What exactly is the Dionysian Corpus?
—The Dionysian Corpus refers to four treatises and ten letters ascribed to the first-century saint and Church Father Dionysius the Areopagite, who is mentioned in the Book of Acts. They cover a variety of topics, mostly having to do with the ideas of hierarchy and the knowledge of God. The Corpus was very influential on the Church’s theology over the centuries and was pretty much universally accepted in both East and West until the Renaissance, when certain doubts as to its authenticity began to be raised, mostly in Protestant circles. Since the late nineteenth–early twentieth century, the scholarly opinion has been that the writings are inauthentic, although there is no consensus on the identity of the supposed author or his motivations.
—Was your inclination always that the writings ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite were authentic? How did you originally square this with the previous scholarly consensus?
—As a matter of fact, I was not very familiar with the Dionysian Corpus, or Corpus Dionysiacum [hereinafter referred to as CD] until I started working on translating St. Dionysius’ Life. I knew by reputation that the writings were very profound and formed the basis of much of Eastern Patristic theology, but not much else. I suppose I simply trusted that the consensus of Holy Tradition was correct. What I did find off-putting, however, was the tendency in academia and beyond to dismiss the Corpus’ author as a fraud who had simply repackaged pagan philosophy. The tone of these criticisms struck me as irreverent, especially considering the influence that the Corpus had on great luminaries like St. Maximus and St. Gregory Palamas (not to mention it being quoted in the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils). I therefore became curious to examine for myself what the precise reasons were for why the CD was commonly dismissed as a forgery.
—What moment in your research gave you the conviction that the CD was authentic not only as a matter of Sacred Tradition, but of vigorous scholarly inquiry?
—There were many. I would say the first “aha moment” was finding a very close linguistic parallel between St. Dionysius’ Divine Names 3 and Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata. At one point in his treatise, St. Dionysius likens the spiritual life to a man on a ship pulling at a rope that is moored to a rock: He uses this simile to show that when we pray to God, we do not draw God (the “rock”) to ourselves, but we actually pull ourselves up to God. The same precise image is used by Clement. We are frequently told that there is no evidence that anyone before the year 500 AD was aware of the CD. But seeing this parallel in such an early text really convinced me that there was more to this story than meets the eye and that we were plausibly dealing with a very ancient document.
—How did your convictions change the more you researched? What additional finds did you make?
—My convictions only became stronger as the research progressed. The most important discovery was a comment found in one of the works of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus. Just to give you some context, modern scholarship since the time of Joseph Stiglmayr and Hugo Koch in the late nineteenth century has held, on the basis of certain linguistic similarities, that St. Dionysius plagiarized large parts of his Divine Names from several of Proclus’ treatises, particularly one on the nature of evil. This is currently the main justification for the Corpus’ late dating. But there is an equally-valid explanation of these similarities that is rarely considered, namely that Proclus is the one who drew from St. Dionysius.
A close linguistic comparison of the texts in fact bears this out. One of the common expressions found in both texts is “supersubstantial flowers.” St. Dionysius uses this term in a fitting way to refer to the Persons of the Son and Holy Spirit (understood as “outgrowths,” if you will, of the Divine substance of the Father—language which you find in some of the other Fathers), whereas Proclus uses it more generically to describe the highest manifestation of the pagan gods. What is significant is that this same expression is found in yet another of Proclus’ works, but when Proclus uses it there, he introduces the expression with the phrase, “as one says.” In other words, he is quoting someone else, and it very much looks like that someone is St. Dionysius.
—How did you feel when you discovered such proofs? Were there any doubts considering the scholarly consensus such conclusion would upend?
—I remember the exact moment I came across this particular proof. I almost fell out of my chair from excitement! Up to that point I had had my suspicions, but to find them validated so unexpectedly was very exhilarating. I truly felt like the saint was guiding me towards the truth [Nikitopoulos’ article was published on St. Dionysius’ name’s day according to the Old Calendar, this being providential and unintentional, as the journal operates according to the New Calendar—Ed.] In fact, I think my role in general has largely been to connect dots that have been in plain sight. Of course, I recognize that any time one challenges long-standing ideas, there is sure to be some resistance. But I also firmly believe that any objective appraisal of the evidence shows that the CD must, at the very least, pre-date Proclus’ time. And I think we have now reached a point in academia where such ideas can be seriously entertained.
—In short, what are the major proofs that the CD is authentic?
—Well, number one are the parallels to other early Christian writings. I have already mentioned Clement of Alexandria. You also have Pantaenus of Alexandria and Origen. The second piece of evidence are indirect references to the Corpus found in later authors. For instance, St. Gregory the Theologian quotes an anonymous predecessor’s interpretation of the angelic hierarchy in his Homily 38. Many of the phrases that St. Gregory uses in this passage are found verbatim in the Dionysian Corpus.
Finally, there is the complexity of the Corpus. A forger who lived four centuries after the fact must have put in a lot of effort to not only compose the writings (which are works of genius in themselves), but also to develop a unique style of Greek which matches the grammar of the period. He also must have invented fake correspondence and fictional scenarios which he refers back to, and lost works which he never in fact composed. I think all this is highly implausible. What’s more, the exact motive to forge the Corpus in the first place is unclear, as even its staunchest critics admit.
—Early sources often explicitly name a saint or earlier writer when referencing them—for example, your article speaks of St. Jerome specifically naming St. Gregory the Theologian. However, when referring to St. Dionysius, they never seem to name him directly, instead using phrases like “one of the God-bearing men” or “a certain Greek.” Is this a point against the authenticity of the CD?
—I do not think so. The ancients did not have the same fastidiousness as we do when it comes to citations. Especially when they were composing scriptural commentaries, the Fathers freely borrowed ideas and language from one another, often without attribution. It is also possible that some of the Fathers like St. Gregory actually had some qualms about citing St. Dionysius directly as the latter explicitly warns his readers not to share the texts he has written indiscriminately to the uninitiated.
—What other scholarship concurs with the findings of your research?
—There is some very interesting research being done in the past few years on the interaction between Neoplatonism and early Christian thought. For example, there is an Italian scholar named Ilaria Ramelli who has produced excellent studies on the philosophy of Origen and his possible influence on Plotinus, Porphyry, and Proclus. Furthermore, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, scholarship has belatedly come to realize that many of the details of the CD which were formerly attacked as anachronisms—like monasticism and the angelic hierarchy—are actually things that existed in first-century Judaism. To give you but one example, one of the texts found at Qumran is a liturgy dating from the first century BC which clearly speaks of angelic ranks and worship in Heaven mirroring the worship on earth, a theme you find explicitly in the first book of Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy.
—Originally, there was a fragment ascribed to St. Dionysius of Alexandria that appeared to be a proof of the early existence of the CD. This fragment has not been cited in your subsequent published work. Is the fragment falsely ascribed or is the jury still out?
—The scholion in question is found in St. Maximus’ commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy. St. Maximus says that the interpretation he is citing comes from a commentary on the CD composed by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria. If we take this at face value, it would suggest that St. Dionysius’ writings were known in the 3rd century, which would be hugely significant. Unfortunately, the manuscript tradition of St. Maximus’ commentary is very complex, and some plausible objections to the genuineness of this scholion have been raised by Hans Urs von Balthasar. As such, since we wished to focus on the strongest and most incontestable evidence in favor of authenticity, we decided not to refer to this particular scholion.
—What roles did Anthony Pavoni and Patrick (Craig) Truglia have in your research?
—Anthony, my partner and fellow-translator at Scriptorium Press, greatly helped me polish the thesis and present it in the form you find in the book. Craig initially helped break the story to the world and encouraged me to publish the thesis academically. He also contributed to some excellent additional research that will be appearing in Part II of the article.
—Why did you choose to publish in a Romanian journal?
—My co-author had experience with publishing with this particular journal before and recommended it to me. Furthermore, given the rather controversial nature of the topic, we thought that a scholarly publication with an Orthodox background like Revista Teologica would be the most receptive to the thesis, and the most appropriate venue to initiate such a discussion. It is also fitting given that St. Dmitru Staniloae, the last major supporter of the Corpus’ authenticity, published in Romania. However, now that the ice has been broken, I am optimistic that some of the prominent Western journals like Studia Patristica and Vigiliae Christianae will be willing to publish research on this question, and I in fact intend to make submissions to them.
—What findings in your research do you anticipate will be published in future work provided that you can confirm their veracity?
—I am working towards publishing further research covering similarities between Dionysius’ theology and second-century theological sources. One objection to authenticity we often encounter is that the CD “doesn’t read” like something from the early centuries or is just “too advanced”. The point I will be making is that not only does the Corpus fit that time period, but the specific references that St. Dionysius makes could only have been made by someone who wrote in the late-first to early-second centuries. The focus will be primarily on early Gnostic and Jewish texts. I have also found what I believe is a direct quote of the Divine Names in St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 14 on John, but that will probably have to wait to be published in a part 3 to receive a proper exposition.
—Where are some future areas of research relevant to this topic that you hope other scholars will undertake?
—The CD is often analyzed through the lens of Neoplatonism. As ironic as it sounds, I would love to see more studies reading St. Dionysius as a Christian. For instance, Fr. Maximos Constas of Holy Cross Seminary and Dr. Panagiotis Pavlos of the University of Oslo have done some recent work in this regard, looking at the influence of Pauline Theology in the Corpus or at the meaning of the term theurgy independent of its pagan connotations.
—What are the ramifications of there being a recognition of the CD’s authenticity and this becoming the new scholarly consensus?
—It is hard to overstate the ramifications of authenticity. Dionysius’ writings contain our earliest canon of the Bible, the earliest description of the Liturgy, a detailed exposition of the Sacraments and the role of Church orders, as well as the theology underlying iconodulia. If the writings are authentic (which I believe they are), they would be the most detailed record of Church life in the early centuries that we have, surpassing the Didache and the Ignatian letters in terms of their dogmatic significance.
