© Johannes Zachhuber 2024 1 Dionysius the Areopagite on Nous Johannes Zachhuber, University of Oxford 1. Introduc,on The concept of nous is central for the Greek philosophical tradi<on beginning at least with Anaxagoras. Quite what the term means, however, scholars have found difficult to ascertain. Nous is frequently translated into English as ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’, and there is no doubt that in certain contexts the term carries no<ons corresponding to these English terms. Yet these connota<ons are hardly exhaus<ve, and there are good reasons to avoid prejudging the inves<ga<on by adop<ng a transla<on from the outset. I shall therefore, for now, leave the term untranslated. 1 From at least the early third century, nous also became important for early Chris<an thought. 2 Authors such as Origen of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Evagrius of Pontus, made us of the term to indicate the being of God as well as the unique bond connec<ng the creator with his creature. Human beings, notably, are said to be made ‘in the image of God’ by the Book of Genesis, and this idea is frequently explicated by reference to the presence of nous in them. 3 The adop<on of the terminology and the conceptuality of nous among the church fathers, is arguably one of the strong pieces of evidence for Hellenis<c, philosophical influence on early Chris<an thought. 4 While not en<rely absent from the Chris<an Bible, nous is certainly not a key term in the biblical idiom and its presence in the Chris<an writers of late an<quity, therefore, indica<ve of their use of Hellenis<c ideas to interpret their faith. 5 The existence of this kind of philosophical influence on early Chris<an use of nous does not, however, mean that the Patris<c use of the term simply extends earlier (or contemporaneous) Hellenis<c trajectories. Rather, Chris<an authors have to be interpreted on their own terms in order to understand what they meant by nous and why they integrated the term into their own conceptual apparatus. As mistaken as the insula<on of Patris<c wri<ng from its Hellenis<c environment is the assump<on that the use of the same words implies the presence of the same ideas and theories. 1 For discussions of the best transla2on of nous and the difficulty of finding a corresponding English term see, inter alia Menn (1995, esp. 14–18); Louth (2007, xiv–xvi). Anna Williams, by contrast, is rather dismissive of an overly cau2ous approach to this ques2on: (2007, 5). 2 The fullest history of this early development is Williams (2007), even though the author explicitly distances herself from focusing on Greek terms in favour of ‘the systema2c interac2ons of theological loci and themes’ (Williams 2007, 5). 3 Williams (2007, 5–6); (2007, 54): Origen; (2007, 91): Gregory of Nazianzus; (2007: 93): Gregory of Nyssa; (2007, 233–235). 4 On the problem of this influence see Ramelli (2009). 5 The term is used 12 2mes in the Septuagint and 24 2mes in the New Testament where it is most frequent in the Pauline corpus. See Frey and Nägele (2021).