Exploring the Theosis Process through the figure of Moses in the Works of Philo of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius

Abstract

The term theosis (θέωσις) refers to the concept of divinization or deification, and it can be traced both in the Neoplatonic and Judaic/Christian tradition. In particular, the term theosis is also usually associated to the journey of contemplation taken in order to reach the union with God.

Aim of this paper is to show the central role of theosis in the contemplative path, and how Philo of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite not only evidenced in their treatises the centrality of this transformative path, but also used the figure of Moses to “symbolise” the ideal archetype to reach deification.

In the Life of Moses, Philo of Alexandria (I BC - I AD) draws a comparison between the character of Moses and the philosopher-king of the Republic (Rep. 500 BC), but also contrasts him with Aaron, his brother, using the latter as a metaphor to underscore the differences between logos endiáthetos and logos prophorikòs. Logos endiáthetos refers to internalized discourse, while logos prophorikòs pertains to externalized discourse. According to Philo, God has revealed Himself "in" Moses because logos endiáthetos represents the mind (De migratione, 76-81). Therefore, the mind is in direct communication with God and can convey truths more quickly and effectively. Here, the character of Moses finds his deification in a sort of “intellectualisation” of the process of contemplation.

Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 395 c.) also wrote a treatise on the life of Moses, also known as On Virtue, as Moses is depicted as an example of moral perfection. Specifically, Gregory is interested in the contemplative path taken by Moses, which is symbolised by the journey on Mount Sinai. In particular, the last moments of Moses’ path, where the prophet finds himself in the divine darkness before receiving the tables of Law, are of particular interest. The incomprehensibility of God and Moses' journey into darkness are archetypes of the inexhaustibility of progressing toward divinity. Moses cannot comprehend God and Jesus – symbolized by the Tabernacle, one of His many divine names according to Gregory – but can see a part of them and witness the mystery (Vita Moysis, 2, 163). Therefore, the deification described by Gregory can be seen as a partial union.

Finally, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (V – VI c.) introduces Moses as Legislator and founder of the Legal Hierarchy, the one who brings down the tablets of the Laws from Mount Sinai. Moses is the mediating figure between humanity and divinity. In the Mystical Theology (I, 1), Moses is described as an exemplum of the perfect man who, after purification and education, starts the contemplative path. The contemplative journey and immersion in the divine darkness illuminate Moses, who, upon returning from the mystical vision, is perfect. Ultimately, this allows him to be the first hierarch of all: a man capable of “divinizing” himself to transcribe the laws and, consequently, bring the right symbols to humanity in imitation of the divine. In Dionysius, the process of theosis appears to be both partial and “intellectualised”, in a sort of comprise between Gregory and Philo.

What is common in each of the three authors is that Moses perfectly embodies the principles of praxis and theoria necessary for achieving deification, even if the emphasis is placed on different elements—characterological, philosophical, spiritual. What differs, instead, is the result of the process of deification, which leads us to a question: is Moses ontologically different from the rest of humankind?

The desired conclusion is to demonstrate how Moses is not only a philosophical archetype capable of incorporating philosophical-theological elements dear to the three philosophers considered, but also how the character of Moses can be traced back to an unattainable human ideal, a perfect example of a human being both from a practical and theoretical perspective. Moses is a politician, an educated man, a jurist, a man of faith, and the man who manages to see “the back of God” (Vita Moysis, 2, 163), enabling him to bring the tablets of the Law to the people. In conclusion, if Moses is the most perfect exemplum of man and his path symbolises the complete achievement of deification and union with God, is this union possible for everyone? In other words, was Moses a perfect man because of his ontological characteristics, or was it perfect because he started the contemplative journey towards theosis? Is it possible, then, that Moses was "human, all too human"?