DIONTSIAS
y
DIONYSIUS
script attributed it with other writings to Justin
MartjT; but that earnest philosopher and hasty
writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence,
the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of
expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most
perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two
chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no
relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a
fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of
this addition describes himself as a "disciple of the
Apostles"; and through a misunderstanding of these
words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century,
been classed with the writings "of the Apostolic
Fathers. The letter breaks off at the end of chapter
x; it may have originally been much longer.
The WTiter addresses the "most excellent Diog- netus", a well-disposed pagan, who desires to know what is the religion of Christians. Idol-worship is ridiculed, and it is shown that Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies cannot cause any pleasure to the only God and Creator of all. Christians are not a nation nor a sect, but are diffused throughout the world, though they are not of the world, but citizens of heaven; yet they are the soul of the world. God, the invisible Creator, has sent His Child, by whom He made all things, to save man, after He has allowed man to find out his own weakness and proneness to sin and his incapacity to save himself. The last chapter is an exposition, "first" of the love of the Father, evidently to be followed " secondly " by another on the Son ; but this is lost. The style is harmonious and simple. The writer is a practised master of classical eloquence, and a fervent Christian. There is no resemblance to the public apologies of the second century. A closer affinity is with the " Ad Donatum " of St. Cyprian, which is similarly addressed to an inquiring pagan. The WTiter does not refer to Holy Scripture, but he uses the Gospels, I Peter, and I John, and is saturated with the EijLstles of St. Paul. Har- nack seems to be right in refusing to place the author earlier than Irena'us. One might well look for him much later, in the persecutions of Valerian or of Diocletian. He cannot be an obscure person, but must be a WTiter otherwise illustrious; and yet he is certainly not one of those ^Titers whose works have come down to us from the second or third centuries. The name of Lucian the MartjT would perhaps satisfy the conditions of the problem; and the loss of that part of the letter where it spoke more in detail of the Son of God would be explained, as it would have been suspected or convicted of the Arianism of which Lucian is the reputed father. The so-called letter may be in reality the apology presented to a judge.
The editio princeps is that of Stephanus (Paris, 1592), and the epistle was included among the works of St. Justin by Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593) and sub- sequent editors; the best of such editions is in Otto, "Corpus Apologetarum Christ." (3d ed., Jena, 1879), III. Tillemont followed a friend's suggestion in attributing it to an earlier date, and Gallandi included it in his " Bibl. Vett. PP.", I, as the work of an anony- mous Apostolic Father. It has been given since then in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially those of Hefele, Funk (2d ed., 1901), Gebhardt, Har- nack, and Zahn (1878), Lightfoot and Harmer (Lon- don, 1891, with English tr.). Many separate editions have appeared in Ciermany. There is an English trans- lation in the Ante-Nicene Library (London, 1S92), I. The dissertations on this treatise are too numerous to catalogue; they are not as a rule of much value. Baratier and Gallandi attributed the letter to Clement of Rome, Bcihl to an .Apostolic Father, and he was followed by the Catholic editors or critics, Mohlcr, Hefele, Permaneder, Alzog; whereas Cirossheiui, Tzschirner, Semisch, placed it in the time of Justin; Domer referred it to Marcion; Zeller to the end of the second century, while Ceillier, Hoffmann, Otto,
defended the MS. attribution to Justin; Fessler held
for the first or second century. These defLnite views
are now abandoned, likewise the suggestions of Kriiger
that Aristides was the author, of Driiseke that it is by
Apelles. of Overbeck that it is post-Constant inian,
and of Donaldson that it is a fifteenth-century rhetor-
ical exercise (the M.S. was thirteenth- or fourteenth-
century). Zahn has sensibly suggested 250-310.
Harnack gives 170-300.
References to all these writers will be found in Patres Apos- iolici, ed. FcxK. See also Bardenhewer, Gcsch. der altkirchl. Lit., I. and bibliography in Richardson, Bibliogr, Synopsis, and Chevauer, Bio.-bM. On the IIS. see Texte und Unter- siichungen, I (1S82, H.arnack), and II (1883, Gebhardt), and Harnack, Gesch. der alt-chr. Lit., I, 757. The concluding chapters are attributed to Hippobtus by Di Pauu ia Theol. Quartalschrift, LXXXVIII (1906), i, 28.
John Ch.\pman.
Dionysias, a titular see in Arabia. This city, which figures in the "Synecdemos" of Hierocles (723, 3) and Georgius Cyprius (1072), is mentioned only in Parthey's "Prima Notitia", about 840, as a suffragan of Bostra. Lequien (Or. christ., II, 885) gives the names of three Greek bishops, Severus, present at Nicsea in 325, Elpidius at Constantinople in 381, and Maras at Chalcedon in 451. Another, Peter, is known by an inscription (Waddington, Inscriptions . . . de Syrie, no. 2327). Fifteen or sixteen titular Latin bishops are known throughout the fifteenth century (Lequien, op. cit.. Ill, 1309; Eubel, I, 232, II, 160). Waddington (op. cit., 529 sqq.) identifies Dionysias with Soada, now es-Suweda, tlie chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Damascus, where many inscriptions have been found. Soada, though an important city, is not alluded to in ancient authors under this name; inscriptions prove that it was built by a "lord builder Dionysos" and that it was an episcopal see. Noldeke admits this view. Gesenius identifies Dionysias with Shohba (Phihppopolis), but this is too far from Da- mascus.
Gelzer, ed., Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani, 206.
S. Petrides.
Dionysius, Saint, Pope, date of birth unknown; d. 26 or 27 December, 2(58. During the pontificate of Pope Stephen (254-57) Dionj'sius appears as a presby- ter of the Roman Church and as such took part in the controversy concerning the validity of heretical bap- tism (see B.iPTiSM under sub-title Rehaptism). This caused Bishop Dionysius of .Alexandria to write him a letter on baptism in which he is described as an excel- lent and learned man (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., VII, vii). Later, in the time of Pope Sixtus II (257-58), the same Bishop of Alexandria addressed Dionysius a letter concerning Lucianus (ibid., VII, Ix); who this Lucianus was is not known. After the martyrdom of Sixtus II (6 August, 258) the Roman See remained vacant for nearly a year, as the violence of the perse- cution made it impossible to elect a new head. It was not until the persecution had begun to subside that Dionysius was raised (22 July, 259) to the office of Bishop of Rome. Some months later the Emperor Gallienus issued his edict of toleration, which brought the persecution to an end and gave a legal existence to the Church (Eu.sebius, Hist, eccl., VII, xiii). Thus the Roman Church came again into possession of its buildings for worship, its cemeteries, and other proper- ties, and Dionysius was able to bring its administra- tion once more into order. About 260 Bishop Diony- sius of Alexandria wrote his letter to .\nimonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its re- lation to God the Father (sec Dionysius of. Alexan- dria). Upon this an accus.ation .against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who calltxl a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an im- portant doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous
