Early Christian Church

¶ … Christianity

The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and Philostorgius:

The Arian Controversy and Historical Biases in Early Christian History

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Spirit)." Even for non-Christians who know little about doctrine, the notion of the Trinity established in the Nicaea Creed of the first Council of Nicaea in 325 BCE has become familiar. It is a matter of cultural common knowledge in the West and East. The notion of the Trinitarian God or God as existing in three persons in one deity has become largely accepted and unquestioned in Christendom, with some exceptions such as the liberal Unitarian church in America. However, as diverse as current Christian sects may be in their practices and faith, this plurality of points-of-view and level of scrupulosity pales in comparison to the early churches' controversy over the nature of the Son and Father as well as what texts ought to be canonized as truthful accounts of Christ's words and teachings. Some early Christian believers advocated Trinitarian doctrine, while others questioned this ideal, suggesting that Christ's existence and God's existence were fundamentally separate and did not come into being at the same time.

The vehemence of this controversy surrounding the Trinity is one reason that Socrates Scholasticus is praised as an early chronicler of the church who captures history with a reasonable, accurate, and unbiased eye that renders his history relevant to modern readers as a statement of fact. His work stands in marked contrast to, for example, the more florid and biased account of "The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius," which was only compiled by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople after the advocates of Philostorgius' point-of-view had been defeated. The latter, compiled work is less a useful history than an unintentional time capsule of how anti-Trinitarians were later viewed by the Eastern orthodoxy who opposed the so-called evil Arian heresy, and only by chance does the real, Arian point-of-view of Philostorgius emerge from the rhetoric of those like Photius who preached against anti-Trinitarian ideals.

Socrates Scholasticus wrote his legendary Ecclesiastical History, subtitled "A History of the Church in Seven Books" not merely to show the error of the Arians but to tell a truthful history. He did not accept all of evolving orthodox doctrine wholesale, nor did he see himself as an advocate, merely an ordinary man recounting events for posterity. Thus, although he advances what became a Trinitarian viewpoint, in terms of historiography, it must be conceded that Socrates Scholasticus in stark contrast to many other Christian historians of his era, attempted to relate the narrative of the foundation of the early Christian Church with an objectivity that is rare, or perhaps appears rare because so many more biased histories have survived. Rather than relating fantastic tales of martyrdom or painting heretics and pagans as diabolical, the historian attempted to present a picture of the conflicts of Christendom with criticism and balance, much like earlier classical historians of Greece and Rome.

In Socrates Scholasticus' work, an objective historian's ideal of a correct history, rather than a correct Christian view alone prevailed. Socrates Scholasticus was a layperson, not a bishop, although a devout Christian. He openly expressed admiration for higher ideals of historical accuracy as well as doctrinal purity. In contrast, "The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius," was a history "was written as an encomium on the heretical party, and an attack and assault upon the orthodox," rather than a transcription of accurate history. It is because of the dominance of works like "The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius" that makes Socrates Scholasticus so unique, notable, and commendable for his desire to paint an entire picture of the developing Christian world, as manifested in his frequent inclusion of letters of historical figures, such as the Emperor Constantine. Of course it is possible to use included letters in a way to support a particular thesis as well as to counteract a thesis in a biased manner, but the inclusion of the letters in their totality points to Socrates Scholasticus' balanced treatment of controversy, even when the author, such as Constantine, reproaches the Arians for taking "the most holy people" and rending them "into two factions" in a way that departs from the "harmony of the common body" (18). In "The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius," Philostorgius is never allowed to speak for himself, he is merely excoriated for his heresy, and when his views are presented, the reader is warned beforehand of their potentially damaging evil content that can do moral damage to the mind and heart of the believer. The believer is treated in a childish way, easily lead astray by a word or two of heresy, while Socrates Scholasticus credits the believer with the ability to evaluate opposing evidence with a critical eye.

Socrates Scholasticus significantly includes the emperor's counsel towards magnanimity in the same document: "Even the philosophers, of one Sect, yet often disagree on some parts of their theory" (19). There is also occasional uses of humor on his part that gives his work a modern, refreshingly generous tone, as when he recounts a conflict between Eustathius bishop of Antioch and Eusebius Pamphilus, both of whom accused the other "of perverting the Nicene Creed...In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against adversaries; and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons, yet from what cause I am unable to divine they could not agree amongst themselves and thus were never at peace"(82). Socrates greatly admired Eusebius, but also saw that the bishop was not without flaws. His wording also shows how the heated nature of the controversy between like-minded believers, even good men, could grow petty and silly.

Socrates Scholasticus' open mind and attitude, recognizing that men are neither wholly good nor bad is also shown in how he quotes amply from pagan sources. He thought little of the imperial law that "forbad Christians to study Grecian literature" and praised Apollinaris, "who was well trained in eloquence," and "expounded the gospels and apostolic doctrines in the way of dialogue, following Plato among the Greeks as his model. By this joint service to the Christian cause, they baffled the emperor's subtlety" (248). Although Socrates Scholasticus was not a Platonist and he thought the notion of Pythagoras and Plato on the transmigration of souls' absurd he still believed studying pagans, although of course not worshipping or believing like pagans of the past, was a valuable mental, philosophical, and rhetorical pedagogical device (279). In this Constantine, whom he sometimes praises, he saw as in error

The most striking honesty manifest Socrates Scholasticus is when he narrates the cruelty of early Christian zealots as well as pagans who persecuted Christians: "There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius" (482).

Socrates Scholasticus' ideology is not anti-Christian, as manifest in this passage, rather he stresses that intolerance is counter to the spirit of Jesus. He gives special note that this happened during the holy time of Lent. His advocacy of female preaching also shows his manifest resistance to a Pauline bias, given the number of injunctions by Saint Paul (and those writing under the name of Paul) against female teaching and shows the considerable influence of women in the early Christian Church. Also, men oppose her for reasons of jealousy, he stresses, not because they really think that she is acting in an anti-Christian manner. Thus while Socrates Scholasticus himself never even entertained any point-of-view remotely considered heretic, including Gnosticism and Manichaeism as well as Arianism, he never condoned violence and was able to see how personal and political biases could fuel hateful actions masking as 'anti-heretical' actions like the murder of a woman preacher. Although he on a few occasions used the term "evil" is in regards to the Arians, and he gave ample attention to the benefits of the creation of the creed of Nicene, praising its ideals, more often than not Socrates Scholasticus used cool and factual language to describe controversies. Sometimes even the Arians who denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and Trinitarian notions of God are given a chance, through excerpts, to 'speak' their peace, even while the author makes it clear he disagrees with them.

This stands in contrast to the way that Philostorgius is treated by the patriarch of Constantinople. Philostorgius believed, like Arius, that the Son was a different being, not holding to what Socrates Scholasticus called the "sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance" (33). But in what survives of Philostorgius' writings, he is called "impious" by the Patriarch of Constantinople even when the patriarch grudgingly admits that Philostorgius showed a balanced perspective, praising "Eusebius Pamphilus as well on other grounds as on account of his Ecclesiastical History." (I.2). Some of Philostorgius' statements sound relatively benign, or rather like statements of fact, despite the Patriarch's inflamed rhetoric: "He [Philostorgius] says that Arius, after his secession from the church, composed several songs to be sung by sailors, and by millers, and by travellers along the high road, and others of the same kind, which he adapted to certain tunes, as he thought suitable in each separate case, and thus by degrees seduced the minds of the unlearned by the attractiveness of his songs to the adoption of his own impiety" (II.2).