Arian Controversy and Bias in Early Christian Histories

Introduction: The Trinity and Early Christian Controversy

"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 Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE has become familiar. It is a matter of cultural common knowledge in both 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 viewpoints and levels of scrupulosity pales in comparison to the early church's controversy over the nature of the Son and Father, as well as which 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 — rendering 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. That compiled work is less a useful history than an unintentional time capsule of how anti-Trinitarians were later viewed by the Eastern orthodoxy that opposed the so-called evil Arian heresy. 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 as an Objective Historian

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, he 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 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 Socrates Scholasticus stands out as so unique, notable, and commendable in his desire to paint an entire picture of the developing Christian world. This is manifest in his frequent inclusion of letters of historical figures such as the Emperor Constantine. Of course, it is possible to use included letters to support a particular thesis or to counteract a thesis in a biased manner, but the inclusion of letters in their totality points to Socrates Scholasticus' balanced treatment of controversy — even when the author quoted, 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. The believer is treated in a childish way, as easily led 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.

Balanced Treatment of Controversy and Pagan Thought

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 an occasional use 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." He writes: "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 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 who "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 that studying pagan philosophers — although of course not worshipping or believing as pagans did — was a valuable mental, philosophical, and rhetorical pedagogical device (279). In this regard, he saw Constantine, whom he sometimes praised, as being in error.

Conclusion: Historiographical Legacy of the Arian Debate

It is perhaps unfortunate that the advocates of the so-called Arian controversy are largely passed down in the testimony of those who hated them. Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History, in its range, generosity, and depth, provides a counterweight to those who would merely disparage rather than present or reasonably contend with the Arian view, the ability of female preachers to offer insight, and the value of pagan philosophy for Christians. His work remains a rare and commendable example of early Christian historiography that privileges truth-telling over doctrinal advocacy.