Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Chapter 1, Lecture 1 B

Regarding the first division, he says two things: first, he shows from what things ought to be the foundations of this book, because it ought not lean upon human reason, but divine revelation. This fact he learned from the apostle who said in I Corinthians 2 “not with persuasive words of human wisdom (…): but through the teaching of the Spirit, Spiritual things being taught by the Spirit” and this is what he says “Esto autem et nunc nobis eloquiorum lex praedefinita” which would be more easily rendered “Sit autem etiam nunc lex eloquiorum praedeterminata a nobis” and in English: “Now the law of speaking (by which law he means the things handed down in holy Scripture) ought to be fixed before hand by us” just as it once was by the apostle; and that law is this: “ veritatem nos asserverare dictorum de Deo, non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, sed in demonstratione virtutis theologorum motae a spiritu” which is more easily rendered as “nos astruere” or “nos manifestare veritatem dictorum de deo, non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, sed in demonstratione virtutis theologorum motae a spiritu” which in English is “that we strive to write true things of God, not with persuasive words of human wisdom,” that is not leaning upon the medial first principles of human reason which proceed to the proposition to be shown according to natural reason, but “in explanation of the virtue of the theologians” that is of those who wrote sacred scripture, the Apostles and Prophets, “of virtues” I say, “moved by the spirit”, that is the Holy Spirit. For in his doctrine Dionysius is supported by the authority of sacred Scripture, which authority has strength and efficacy because the Apostles and Prophets are moved to speaking by the Holy Spirit revealing to them and speaking through them.

2 comments:

David Contra Mundum said...

This is good stuff, dude!

I have a question, which is besides the point: I learned in sem that Dionysius was a forgery, i.e. "Pseudo-Dionysius"; yet, "for the most part" he was still right on the money. What do you think of this assessment? It is not original with me....

Colin Clout said...

First, lets grant he isn't really the Dionysius converted in Acts. St. Maximos the Confessor didn't know St. Paul either. Neither did St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Justin Martyr, etc. That perhaps sets him off as not an Apostolic father, but it doesn't make him not a father.

Second, even if he was cooky, Aquinas was orthodox. So Aquinas' commentary on Dionysius would "baptize" him just as his work with Aristotle "baptized" Aristotle.