Click to View

Early Church Fathers
Click to ViewMaster Index
Click to ViewPower Search

 Click to View

17 This paragraph is regarded by Valesius as spurious.

18 The source of this chapter certainly is not Moses Chorenensis. Tiridates III. reigned a.d.286-342. At first a persecutor, through Gregory the Illuminator he became a Christian. Yet parts of Armenia were Christianized much earlier. Dionysius bishop of Alexandria wrote a letter on Repentance to the Armenians in the reign of Gallus. Eus. H. E. vi. 46. Cf. Agathangelas, History of Tiridates the Great, and the preaching of Gregory the Illuminator.

19 Here follows in the Greek text a repetition, word for word, of the first two lines of this chapter, which seem to be superfluous, if we do not reject the paragraph above.

20 Soz. is wrong in attributing the conversion of Persia to Armenia.

21 The source for chaps. 9-14 must be some early translation of Acta Persarum, which the Syrians, especially those of Edessa, made; cf. chap. 14. Soz. is independent. The persecution began under Shapur II. a.d. 343.

22 The attempt to fix the date as Pagi, Ap. 21, 349, has no historical warrant; see Pagi, under 343 iii.

23 Assemanus, Bibl. Orient. t. i. 189, speaks of Azades as the eunuch of Artascirus, ruler of Adiabene, who was a cousin of Sapor.

24 Am. Marcell. 20. 7, 1, Zabdiceni; 25. 7, 9, Zabdicena.

25 The Embassy is spoken of in Eus. V. C. iv. 8; the letter of Constantine to Shapur, iv. 9-13. But Soz. is mistaken about its date; for it was written before Sapor had commenced his persecution of the Christians. As usual, Soz. quotes briefly, and with no regard and with to the language and little to the thought. Theodoret, H. E. i. 25 (24), is accurate. For further relations of Constantine with Persia, cf. Eus. V. C. iv. 56, 57.

26 Cf. Soc. i. 14. The variations of text are slight. Is the original from Sabinus' h sunagwgh twn sunodikwn5

27 The facts (as we learn from the Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea, which is given by Soc. i. 8, and Theodoret, H. E. i. 12) are as follows: The bishops, who demurred to the term omoousion, as defined in the Nicene symbol, proposed another alleged older Antiochan form to the Synod. But the Nicene Fathers rejected it, and refused to depart from their own definition. Eusebius Pamphilus and his party then signed the Catholic and Orthodox creed, for fear of the emperor and other motives.

28 About five months after the council of Nicaea, according to a statement of Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 59.

29 This quotation is first made by Soz., and is found nowhere else.

30 See the refutation of the calumny in Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 6, where the acts of the vindicatory synod are given, 3 sqq. Cf. Philost. ii. 11, gives a different account from the Arian point of view; probably the whole story is from Sabinus.

31 Ruf. H. E. i. 14. Cf. Soc. i. 15, who credits Ruf. with the story.

32 From the Life of Antony, attributed to Athanasius, which Evagrius, a presbyter of Antioch, translated into Latin. Ruf. H. E. i. 8, Hieron. de vir. illust. 87, 88, 125.

33 Source here is Soc. i. 23, but abridged.

34 See chap. 22.

35 Soc. again the source, but abridged; the matter is entirely the fruit of his own research, as Soc. states in this chapter (chap. i. 23). Cf. Eus. V. C. iii. 23.

36 Eus. V. C. iii. 59-62; Soc. i. 24; Philost. ii. 7. Soz. has additional details, especially of names. Very likely, therefore, Soc. and Soz. have drawn from the same source.

37 Marcus is not mentioned by Soc. or Theodoret, only by the Latins. The order is correct, whereas in i. 17 Julius is mistakenly made to do duty for Silvester.

38 This whole chapter is from an unknown source, and shows familiarity with Palestinian history.

39 This chapter is also unique with Soz., both as to the Melitians and Eusebius. The Melitian opposition is evident from Soc. i. 27.

40 Soz. has taken this from the Epistle of Constantine to the Nico-medians against Eusebius and Theognis. This is preserved by Theodoret, H. E. i. 20. Theodoret gives the full text; he and Soz. both obtained it from some such collection as that of Sabinus.

41 Cf. Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 7 (in the letter of the Alexandrian Synod).

42 Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 6; Soc. i. 27; Theod. H. E. i. 26, 27. Soz. works independently from the same sources.

43 Soc. i. 27, Alypius; Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 60, where a part of the Epistle of the emperor Constantine is given, and in this Apis and Macarius are mentioned; here is an instance how Soz. corrects Soc.

44 Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 63; Ruf. H. E. i. 15-17; Soc. i. 27. Independent workers of the same and other material.

45 He was bishop of the city of Hypselitae, according to the caption of his letter to Athan. See Apol. cont. Arian. 69.

46 Athan. calls him Pinnes, presbyter of a mansio (not monastery) of Ptemencyrceus. See his letter to John in the Apol. cont. Arian. 67. How did Soz. change this name to Patrines?

47 Ruf. i. 9, who gathered the facts from Edesius himself. Cf. Soc. i. 19. Soz. substitutes the scientific order of Plato, Empedocles, and Democritus for that of Metrodorus. The story is briefly reported by Theodoret, H. E. i. 23.

48 Athan. Apol. ad Const. 29-31. Frumentius was called the Abba Salama of Aucoumij (Axum). Cf. Historia Ethiopica, Ludolf; Nic. Call. repeats this story of Rufinus in his H. E. i. 37, with which compare the narrative in xvii. 32.

49 Eus. V. C. iv. 41, 42; the letter in 42 has a late addition in Theodoret, H. E. i. 29 (27); Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 8-12, 71-83; Ruf. H. E. i. 16, 17; Soc. i. 27-32.

50 In the brief by Melitius, Achilles and Hermaeon are given as bishops respectively of Cusae and Cynus (Cynopolis) Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 71.

51 Ruf. H. E. i. 17.

52 Mention is made of a bishop of this name in the Epistle of Arsenius to Athanasius, which is preserved in the Apol. cont. Arian. 69.

53 This is in Ruf. H. E. i. 17. He also signs the first letter of the Egyptian bishops at Tyre to Dionysius; Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 79; he presumably subscribed to the second. Ibid.

Click Your Choice