Paul J.J. van Geest: Parallels and differences in the way Augustine and Eriugena prove themselves to be real negative theologians

From his Periphyseon can be deduced that John Scottus Eriugena, through his translation and study of the work of Pseudo-Dionysius and of the Cappadocian Fathers Basilus and Gregory of Nyssa, became devoted to their way of apophatic speaking about God. Before him, Augustine had also come to the understanding, reading other sources, that one could not say to God that God was good or merciful, because the predicates 'good' or 'merciful' contained too many associations with our human representation of what would be good or merciful. For both it is crucial to deny God's goodness to find - paradoxically - some of God's unimaginable 'goodness'.
Nevertheless, there are important differences in the way they understand and take up the via negativa. These differences are related to the way in which they intertwine (1) negative-theological statements in their interpretation of God as Creator. Difference can also be recognized in (2) the way in which they provide the incarnation of God with an explanation in which the influence of the via negativa appears. Finally, there are also (3) differences in their negative anthropology. This contribution attempts to trace the differences in the apophatic speaking of Augustine and Eriugena back to their respective sources and their processing of these sources.