23. To what extent did Dionysius accept the principles and methods of
Origen, especially in the matter of Biblical criticism and
interpretation? The evidence, such as it is, is rather doubtful and
conflicting. It is somewhat ominous that after the death of Bishop
Demetrius, whose denunciations had caused the master's removal from
Alexandria and his retirement to Cæsarea, we hear of no effort on the
part of Dionysius or of any other pupil to obtain his recall. This
certainly suggests that, great as their regard and respect for him as a
man and a scholar may have been, they either felt themselves powerless to
reinstate him, or else considered his views and methods of advocating
them detrimental to the welfare of the Church at large. On the other
hand, it is pleasing to remember that Dionysius wrote an epistle to his
old teacher on the subject of martyrdom, which we may presume was
designed to comfort him during his imprisonment at Tyre. We learn, too,
on somewhat late authority that after Origen's death Dionysius wrote a
letter to Theotecnus, Bishop of Cæsarea, extolling his master's virtues.
The chief methodical comments on the Bible, of the authenticity of which
we may be certain, are those contained in the fragments of the treatise
_On the Promises_ ({peri Epangeliôn}), reproduced on pp. 82 ff. This was
a direct reply to the _Refutation of Allegorists_ ({Elenchos
Allêgoristôn}), in which Nepos of Arsenoe had thought to support his
grossly materialistic views of the Millennium by the Revelation of S.
John the Divine. As the title suggests, this work had, no doubt, attacked
Origen's fondness for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and
especially on the subject of the Millennium, and therefore we may with
some amount of certainty infer that Dionysius in his refutation of Nepos
would accept Origen's methods as a commentator. But the extracts
preserved by Eusebius deal almost wholly with the authorship and textual
criticism, and so give no proper clue as to his method of interpreting
the subject-matter of the book.
In the letter to Basilides (pp. 76 ff.) the requirements of the case do
not call for a style of interpretation which would bring out either a
correspondence or a disagreement with Origen's methods, except so far as
it is marked by the frank and free exercise of critical judgment. The
commentary on the _Beginning of Ecclesiastes_, if it is, as seems likely,
in part the work of Dionysius, is not inconsistent in style of treatment
with a general acceptance of his master's position. Procopius of Gaza,
however, ranks him among the opponents of the allegorical school of
interpreters, stating that it was in this very work that Dionysius
attacked his master, and a short extract which has been assigned to it by
Pitra (_Spic. Solesm._, i, 17) is distinctly less allegorical in
treatment than the rest: it runs as follows--
"On Eccles. iv. 9, 10: 'Two are better than one,' etc. As we understand
this literally, we do not admit those who accept the interpretation of
the statements as referring to the soul and the body; for it is by no
means justified, seeing that the soul has the entire control over the
ruling and governing both of itself and of the body, whereas the body is
the bondman of the soul, subservient and enthralled to it in all its
decisions. If, then, the soul be inclined to what is mean and evil, and
become careless of better thoughts and considerations, the body is unable
to restore it and lead it back to higher things: for that is not natural
to it."
There is also another short extract (on Gen. ii. 8, 9[9]) attributed to
our author, which is non-allegorical in its treatment. The evidence
therefore is inconclusive on this point: for though Jerome also mentions
Dionysius as a commentator on the Bible three times in his letters, he
throws no further light on the question.[10]
On the subject of Inspiration we have no ground for thinking that
Dionysius took up an independent position.[11] He introduces his Biblical
quotation with the phrases current amongst early Christian writers.
The general impression therefore left upon the reader is that Dionysius
reverted to the more sober methods of interpreting Scripture that
prevailed throughout the Church of his day as a whole, though he
approached his master's theories in his usual sympathetic spirit and
availed himself of much that was valuable in them.