ABSTRACT
This chapter provides concise, but detailed, analysis and critique of recent scholarly attempts made by Hans Urs von Balthasar, William Riordan, Alexander Golitzin, Charles Stang, and Christian Schäfer to justify pseudonymous ascription of this corpus to Dionysius the Areopagite. While acknowledging the importance and high quality of argumentation in the discussed authors this monograph points to a number of insufficiencies and weak points that jeopardize rather than support this pseudonymous attribution.
