Dionysius - fascinating evidences - Rome Alexandria Areopagite

Steven Avery

Dionysius the Areopagite - 1st century, book of Acts

Dionysius of Alexandria - (d. 264)

Dionysius of Rome - OrthodoxWiki (d. 269)

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite


Erasmus himself questioned the identity of the author who called himself Dionysius the Areopagite, and diligently separated the wheat of Senecas real correspondence from the tares of mediaeval pseudepigrapha.

Biblical Criticism

Erasmus himself cast doubt upon the identity of the author who called himself Dionysius the Areopagite, and diligently separated the wheat of Seneca’s real correspondence from the tares of mediaeval pseudepigrapha.

Triumphus notes that this was something of an exception to the standard operating procedure in heaven. Triumphus notes that ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite had interpreted the verse Duo seraphim clamabant as an illustration of the way in which instructions are passed from one heavenly being to another. Normally divine commands are passed down in an orderly chain of command through the nine ranks of celestial beings, from the seraphim and cherubim down to archangels and angels.

Caius, 1904, 80, mentions manuscripts which passed between himself and Clement, including a copy of Dionysius Areopagita on permanent loan:
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Dionysius of Alexandria

A Vindication of 1 John, v. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach: in which is given a new view of the external evidence, with Greek authorities for the authenticity of the verse
Thomas Burgess

Authority of Dionysius of Alexandria

I have another new authority, more ancient than that of Diodorus,—Dionysius of Alexandria, who speaks so comprehensively of the entire resemblance of the Gospel and Epistle of St. John, in their characteristics of the Father and the Son, as hardly to admit the exclusion of the seventh verse. (Greek). If the attributes of the Father and the Son were represented both in the Gospel and the Epistle so entirely the same, (Grk), and (Greek) , the unity of the Son with the Father, declared in John x. 3O, “I and my Father are one,” has its counterpart only in 1 John v. 7.

“The gospel and epistles of John entirely harmonize with each other in the characteristicks of the Father and the Son. In all things they wholly agree on the perfections, and the names of the Father and the Son. There is the same form and representation of the attributes and the names, both in the gospel, and in the epistle,”
Ebenezer Soper gives good historical summary of one element of Dionysius of Alexandria

Raised objections to the Johannine authorship of Revelation, (same authorship supports important parallels of authenticity.)

Paul of Samasota
Charles Witasse

William Law to check

David Martin explaining a reference to the 8th verse as not particularly significant

John Mill ref

And search out the Charles Forster material.

Steven Avery

epistle to Paul of Samasota - earthly witnesses refs

is this in Eusebius?


Letter to Paul of Samasota alludes to earthly witnesses verse, purification of lepers
David Martin
may be Ps-Dionysius (we are regenerated)
David Martin


Steven Avery

Dionysius of Alexandria - no solecism in 1 John

This should be collated and made into one or two paragraphs focusing on the solecism claim and the fact that the short text does in fact have a bald solecism.

For some discussions, the authorship issues are related. And when you go into Revelation, which has beautiful harmonies with the Johannine Epistles, you run into more complexities.


Knittel connects the Dionysius grammar point with the Eugenius teaching on the short text solecism

Nathaniel Lardner has long section about how Dionysius looks at solecisms and authorship of Revelation, Johannine Epistles and Gospel of John. The first Epistle is for Dionysius the one that is undoubtedly authentic.

William Alleyn Evanson (1786-1857) translated Knittel to English in 1829 -

Dionysius Alexandrinus (in Eusebius) certifies that the First Epistle of John is free from solecisms.
I do not remember having found such a construction in the Alexandrine Version."

The Scribes and the Book of Revelation
How Do You Copy a Book Full of Bad Grammar?
by Stephen Broyles
Dionysius of Alexandria
Revelation solecism studies

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism


The Scribes and the Book of Revelation - solecisms, authorship, language, heavenly witnesses
An interesting article on a few accounts:
The Scribes and the Book of Revelation
How Do You Copy a Book Full of Bad Grammar?
Stephen Broyles
(You have to ignore the typical error of assuming CT-Alexandrian theory.)
While most of the solecisms in Revelation are in the Alexandrian text, and not the Byzantine/TR alternative (Will Kinney has done some on that, and Maurice Robinson has made some comments that there are a smidgen in Byz) it is sometimes asserted that a couple of the solecisms are in the pure text of Byz and TR. So that is always an interesting question. I think seven verses are referenced in this article, and that can be compared to Will's paper and some other material I have.
Revelation 1:4 1:5 2:20 3:8 7:4 12:6 20:2
A second question is the authorship of Revelation, which does affect internal evidences (e.g the Word). Broyles says the language skill is too different to be the same author. I also wonder if the original language or dialect of Revelation is examined by Hoskier and others.
A third question, the one that led me to the article, is that the Gospel and Epistles of John are sans solecisms as viewed in the 200s Greek. That means that the 1 John text included the heavenly witnesses
. For that, I am looking for the Eusebius quoting of Dionysius Alexandrinus.

You have 29 pages online with lots of material on the history of the view of Revelation and solecisms (emphasis on Rev 1:4) in:
Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation: A Greek Hypothesis (2015)
Laurentiu Mot

I'll see if I can find a mini-list. And whatever you can do, excellent. Not all bar bar barbara Ann solecisms are created equal, some may be due to modern linguistic tinkering glasses. There is a related situation in Mark, where what is most assuredly translation Greek is wildly criticized because it does not feel like native Greek! (combined with the problem of rinky-dink ultra-minority Alexandrian errors, like those in geography.) Granted, Revelation has it's own unique dynamic.

Steven Avery

Dionysius the Areopagite - celestial hierarchy

Catharinus 1542

Notice how Catharinus references Dionysius for the celestial hierarchy.

Does this have any verse apologetic pizazz?

Which leads to this, a new area of study.


Steven Avery

supportive evidences

Burgess refers to the combination:

positions, or allusions of Pseudo-Clemens, Basil, Dionysius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus
Sidenote: Dionysius of Alexandrinus is in the Matthew 28:19 mix, eg.

“This is the sure and immovable teaching and tradition, begun by our Lord after his resurrection from the dead, when he gave his apostles the command: ‘Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’This then was preserved and fulfilled by his successors, the blessed apostles, and by all the bishops prior to ourselves who have died in the holy church and shared in its life; and it has lasted down to us, because it is firmer than the whole world. For, he said, ‘heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’” – Dionysius of Alexandria, “First Letter to Xystus”

Steven Avery

Dionysius of Rome quote given by John Henry Newman

Thomas Smyth long quote threading the needle between Sabellius and tritheism


Forster - Athansius quoting Dionysius of Rome

John Henry Newman

Facebook - Pure Bible

This is Dionysius of Rome, c. 250 AD, given in John Henry Newman. This is directly or indirectly using the heavenly witnesses.

The Arians of the Fourth Century (1854)
John Henry Newman

"The Ante-Nicene school of Rome is still more explicit. Dionysius of Rome says, “ We must neither distribute into three deities the awful and divine Unity, nor diminish the dignity and infinite majesty of our Lord by the notion of His being a creature, but we must put our trust in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Spirit; and believe that the Word is ever one by nature with the Supreme God. For He says, I and the Father are One; and, I am in the Father, and the Father in He. For thus the Divine Trinity and the holy doctrine of the Unity will be safe.”

Pure Bible Forum (this thread)
Last edited:

Steven Avery

some additional refs


Schumacher - various Dionysius and Ps-Dionysius refs
Nestle - p. 198-200

William Law

George Bull (compare to Forster, also check Knittel)

ECW Refs
"tres sunt personae"

New searches - my email and more
Forster material always needs modernized presentation