Byzantine thought has always faced an essential problem: the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christian Revelation. The condemnation of Origenism under Justinian, of course, was an important stage in the history of Byzantine Hellenism, which was constantly in conflict with itself. A serious blow was dealt to the so-called "Alexandrian worldview", which is a combination of the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and constitutes the essence of the system of Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism had gained acceptance in Christian circles since the time of Clement and Origen, after it had already been widely accepted by the Gnostics. According to this teaching, the world is a hierarchical structure, all elements of which emanate from God and strive towards Him, with those who are higher in the hierarchy serving as intermediaries for the lower. In attempting to solve the problem of the relation between the absolute and the relative, the philosophical "method" of Neoplatonism consciously multiplies the number of mediators, endowing them with divinatory and theurgic functions. This method satisfies the typically Hellenistic need to perceive the world as a harmonious whole (kosmos), subject to an eternal and metaphysically necessary order (eimarmenh). But since the idea of creation ex nihilo is completely excluded, the method of Neoplatonism does not avoid a monistic and essentially pantheistic view of the universe.

Following Philo, Origen tried to reconcile this system with biblical Revelation. To do this, he had to explain the existence of hierarchy as the result of the initial fall. The differentiation of minds into angelic, human, and demonic is the result of their self-determination in relation to evil, and not a consequence of divine necessity. Thus, at this point, Origen makes significant adjustments to the system of Neoplatonism, professing the doctrine of free will. Lacking a clear concept of creation, he was unable to avoid the monism inherent in Neoplatonic philosophy, which resulted in the doctrine of the preexistence of souls and universal restoration, which was condemned in 553.

However, at the very moment of its condemnation, this "Alexandrian worldview" appears in a new form, using for its own purposes the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian disciple of St. Paul. Paul. Since the identity of the author is unknown, it is very difficult to determine the historical connection with Origenism. The issue deserves careful study. It is now generally accepted that the unknown author of the Corpus Areopagiticuin belonged to the Severian circles of Syria, that is, to the moderate Monophysites. In addition, it is known that in these circles the Neoplatonic way of thinking common to Origen, Evagrius and Pseudo-Dionysius was spread, with its desire to include the hierarchical world of Neoplatonism in the Christian system. This essentially apologetic attitude is the best way to explain such an exceptional phenomenon in the history of Christian thought as the Corpus Areopagiticum. Under the direct influence of Proclus, the last of the great Neoplatonists, the author of the Areopagiticuin does not, like Origen, resort to the biblical idea of the Fall to explain the hierarchy of the world, but regards it as blessed by God and assigns it a positive role in his doctrine of the relationship between God and creation (to which he seeks to convey a Christian content). He believed that he would be able to preserve the essence of Christian Revelation intact by introducing changes into the Neoplatonic system adopted by him in connection with the doctrine of the absolute transcendence of God.

It is not our aim to give a complete analysis of Dionysius' system. We will only determine its place in the context of the Byzantine doctrine of salvation, on which Dionysius exerted a certain influence. The main attention will be paid to the teaching of Dionysius about God, "theology" in the proper sense of the word, and the hierarchical concept.

Before Dionysius, the question of the knowledge of God in Greek patristics was considered mainly in the fourth century and was associated with polemics against the extreme Arians, Eunomius and Anomoeans. In this most important dispute participated the great Cappadocians and St. John Chrysostom. According to Eunomius, the divine essence, which he identified with the essence of the Father, the Unbegotten, is accessible to the human mind; man is able to know God to the same extent that God knows Himself. This teaching of Sts. The Fathers contrasted apophatic or negative theology: the divine essence is unknowable, so it is impossible to say what God is, only what He is not. Any positive definition of God implies His identification with something. But Sts. The Fathers affirmed that God transcends all things, and that is why nothing can limit His beings. The knowable God would inevitably be limited, since our created mind is limited by nature.

Having identified the divine being with the essence of the Father, Eunomius confronted Christian thought with the following alternative: either to recognize the divine essence as knowable, or to fall into agnosticism. The Origenist trend, which Eunomius himself adhered to in its simplified-rationalistic version, tended to the former. Of course, Origen also spoke, following Philo, of "divine darkness," but he thereby strove to exclude from the knowledge of God any material or sensual images. His negative theology was associated with "Platonic" anthropology, where the condition of true knowledge was the dematerialization of the mind. The mind, once freed from bodily fetters and emerging from the fallen state, is restored, according to Origen, to its original divinity and becomes capable of contemplating God in His essence. Thus, the unknowability of God is caused by the imperfection of fallen minds, and not by the divine essence itself. The Cappadocian Fathers, on the other hand, insisted on the absolute transcendence of the divine essence. The negative definitions of apophatic theology are not limited to simply pointing out that it is impossible for fallen man to know God, but postulate the fundamental unknowability of God Himself, who is absolutely transcendent, for He is the Creator and Almighty. But doesn't this lead to agnosticism? Far from it. St. St. Gregory of Nyssa, drawing attention to the obvious contradiction between the promise to "see" God, given by the pure in heart (Matt. 5:8), and the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Basil the Great also asserts that "the energies [of God] descend to us, while His essence remains unapproachable." His opponent retorts: "If you do not know the Divine essence, then you do not know God Himself." To which St. Basil answers: "In what way am I saved? Faith. But by faith one can know that God is, and not that He is."

In a dispute with Eunomius, Sts. The Fathers firmly defended the biblical concept of a living, active God in contrast to the rationalistic philosophical concept of God the Essence. On this point their theological thought was particularly clear, although the terminology they used to express their doctrine was far from being established.

At the level of theology (qeologia) in the strict sense of the word, Pseudo-Dionysius continues and develops this thought of Sts. Fathers. Borrowing the language and conceptual system of the Neoplatonists, he nevertheless clearly dissociates himself from the latter and speaks of transcendence as a quality inherent in the divine essence. For Dionysius, God is the "Supersubstantial" (uperousios) and therefore cannot be identified with any knowable object—He is beyond all knowledge. In the first chapter of his treatise On the Divine Names, Dionysius writes:

Just as for the sensible the intellect is imperceptible and invisible, and for the one endowed with form and image the simple and without image, and for the formed in the form of bodies the imperceptible and formless formlessness of the incorporeal, so, according to the same word of truth, above essences is the super-essential indeterminacy...

Согласно платонической и оригенистской традиции, ум, чтобы познать Бога, должен освободиться от своего падшего состояния и от окружающих его существ; другими словами, он должен снова стать самим собой. По Дионисию, это «сбрасывание оков» недостаточно; ум должен выйти из самого себя, поскольку познание Бога «превосходит ум» uper noun. Уму даруется особый путь познания — «через незнание» (di agnwsias). Сами ангельские чины, по определению и по природе являющиеся чисто духовными созданиями, постоянно наслаждаются этим таинственным созерцанием, но и они не могут достичь его высшей ступени. Дионисий представляет ангельское познание как постоянное, ибо даже для ангелов Бог остается непознаваемым в Своей сущности, являя Себя через теургические действия. Эти действия «объединяют», но не ведут непосредственно к Тому, что для Платона было Единым по сущности, противопоставленным множественности существ; ибо Бог «непознаваем ни для нас, ни для любых других существ, ни как Единый, ни как Троица», хотя Он одновременно и Один и Три, трансцендентная причина того, что для нас есть и единство, и множественность.

Псевдо–Дионисий, таким образом, совершенно отрицает два неоплатонических постулата: природную божественность ума (nous) и познаваемость божественной сущности. Его Бог есть трансцендентный библейский Бог–Творец, а не Единый Плотина, что, разумеется, не исключает общения между Богом и тварью; наоборот, это общение составляет цель и высший смысл бытия твари. Бог нисходит, выходит из Самого Себя, чтобы сделаться доступным и познаваемым; тварные же существа восходят: сначала обретают богоподобие, то есть способность участвовать в божественных добродетелях, затем, выходя из самих себя, приобщаются бытию Божию (но не Его сущности) и таким образом «возвращаются» (epistrojh) к Богу.

Нисхождение Бога к тварям описано у Дионисия в терминах, напоминающих плотиновские «исхождения». Бог не только «Единое» и «Молчание»: Он умножает Себя, Он выражает Себя и Он является. Он не только трансцендентная сущность, но и причина всего сущего, открывающаяся в действиях. Дабы быть понятым современными ему неоплатониками, Дионисий говорит о двойственности Божественной природы совершенно специфическим языком. Так, он пишет:

Как я уже сказал, святые основоположники нашего богословского предания называют божественное единство (enwseis tas qeias) тайной и непередаваемой реальностью, которая глубже всякого основания, реальностью, составляющей это единство, о котором нельзя говорить, что оно невыразимо и непознаваемо. И они называют различия (diakriseis) исхождениями и проявлениями, достойными благоприличной теархии (tas agaqoprepeis ths Qearcias proodous te kai ekjanseis).

Согласно Дионисию, поскольку божественная сущность не отождествляется с «Единым» Плотина, возможно говорить о различиях в Боге, которые являются основанием Его вездесущия и всепричинности. Именно это является главной темой трактата «О Божественных именах»: