Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Paul of Samosata, who succeeded Demetrianus as bishop of Antioch in 260 C. E., faced heresy charges early in his career and formal interrogations in 264 and 268 at synods in Antioch. The second of these condemned him. This study seeks to reinterpret the Christological position of the faction opposing Paul and to analyze its implications for the later development of eastern Christian thought. Of course, the bishops and presbyters who met at Antioch in the 260s to discuss the morals and doctrines of Paul did not represent a unified doctrinal position. Gathered from various regions, they revealed a diversity of motives and concerns. Even the label “Origenists,” often used to characterize the group, is misleading. Although many of the attending prelates followed Origen and his school, there is no record of conscious appeal to the writings of the Alexandrian master.
1. Here, as in all cases of references to the Acta, I am referring both to the actual “dialogue” between Malchion and Paul and to a supposed synodal “letter”of Antioch, parts of which are often included with the dialogue in the ancient dossiers. None of this material is to be confused with the synodal letter of Antioch whose text is provided in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 7. 30. 10.Google Scholar
2. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7. 29. 2 (Ed. Schwartz, E., Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 704).Google Scholar
3. These fragements have been collected by Bardy, Gustave, Paul de Samosate: Etude historique, nouvelle édition entierement refondue (Paris, 1929), pp. 9–79;Google ScholarLoofs, Friedrich, Paulus von Samosata (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 320–340;Google Scholar and most recently by de Riedmatten, Henri, Les Actes du procès de Paul de Samosate (Fribourg, 1952), pp. 136–158.Google Scholar There has been a growing investigation into, and scepticism about, the authenticity of the Acta, though no definite verdict has been reached. In the forefront of this research has been the work of Richard, Marcel, “Malchion et Paul de Samosate: Le Témoignage d' Eusèbe de Césarée,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 35 (1959) 325–330.Google ScholarChadwick, H., “Review of H. de Riedmatten, Les Actes du procès de Paul de Samosate,” Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 4 (1953): 91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar also provides some very valuable remarks about the creation and redaction of the Acta.
4. Eusebius, of Dorylaeum, Contestatio publice proposita a clericis Constantinopolitanis (Ed.E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecmenicorum, t. 1, vol. 1, pt. la, pp. 101–102;Google Scholar reprinted in Riedmatten, pp. 136–137).
5. Leontius, Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos 3 Patrologia Graeca 86, 1393;Google Scholar reprinted in Reidmatten, pp. 150–155).
6. Justinian, Tractatus contra Monophysitas (PG 86, 1117–1120;Google Scholar reprinted in Riedmatten, pp. 157–158).
7. Aelurus, TimothyAgainst Those Who Say Two Natures (Trans. Van den Oudenrijn, T. R. P. [Latin], reprinted in Riedmatten, pp. 137–139).Google Scholar
8. Severus, Contra Grammaticum 3. 25 (Trans. Riedmatten, [French], pp. 140–145).Google Scholar
9. Monophysite Anthology (Trans. Riedmatten, [French], pp. 145–147).Google Scholar
10. “And so you say this, that wisdon lives in him just as we also dwell in our house, as one thing in another. But neither are we part of the house, nor is the house a part of us,”says Malchion. Diaconus, PetrusDe Incarnatione et Gratia Domini Nostri, Jesu Christi (Patrologia Latina 62, 85;Google Scholar reprinted in Riedmatten, pp. 148–150).
11. Leontius, , Adv. Nest. et Eut. 3 (PG 86, 1393).Google Scholar
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Codex Januensts 27 (Ed. J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra, 3: 600–601;Google Scholar reprinted in Riedmatten, pp. 156–157).
15. Leontius, Ado. Nest. et. Eut. 3 (PG 86, 1393).Google Scholar
16. Cod. Jan. 27 (Pitra, p. 600).Google Scholar
17. Sellers, R. V., Two Ancient Christologies (London, 1940), p. 29.Google Scholar
18. Leontius, Adv. Nest. et Eut. 3 (PG 86, 1393).Google ScholarAduersus Nestorianos et Eutyehianos.
19. “Malchion: … the very logos, the very wisdom, was in that body as that which moves life in us.” Cod. Jan. 27 (Pitra, p. 600).Google Scholar
20. The Letter of Six Bishops 8 (Bardy, Paul, p. 18).Google Scholar
21. Ep. 8 (Bardy, p. 18).Google Scholar This divergence, and the general difference in language and thrust of the Acta and the Epistula, make it clear that the sentiments of the Epistula and “Malchion” cannot be from the same, or similar, circles. Bardy, (Paul, p. 479)Google Scholar insists that Malchion expresses the same doctrines as the six bishops, but it is an untenable position.
22. Eusebius, De ecclesiastica theologia 1. 20 (Ed. E. Klostermann, GCS, vol. 4, p. 8).Google Scholar
23. Eusebius, Eclogae Propheticae 3. 19 (PG 22, 1021).Google Scholar
24. Athanasius, De Synodis 45 (Ed. H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, vol. 2, pt. 1, fasc. 9, p. 270).Google Scholar
25. Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Apollinarem 2. 3 (PG 26, 1135).Google Scholar
26. Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene 5 (PG 17, 578–584).Google Scholar
27. de Riedmatten, H., Les Actes du proès, pp. 49–50.Google ScholarSellers, , Two Ancient Christologies, p. 29Google Scholar also shows that a similar use of “ousia” was made by Apollinaris and his disciples.
28. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7. 29. 2 (Schwartz, p. 704).Google Scholar
29. For the best analysis of Malchion's thought, on the basis of the Acta, see the studies of Riedmatten, , Les Actes du procès, pp. 149ff,Google Scholar and Sellers, , Two Ancient Christologies, pp. 27–32.Google Scholar Sellers is sensitive to the problem that Malchion's words are at times anachronistic or inappropriate for a third-century theologian, but accepts the authenticity of the sentiments nonetheless.
30. Cf. Athanasius, De Synodis 45. 4 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, fasc. 9, p. 270).Google Scholar
31. See the remarks of Raven, Charles, Apollinarianism (Cambridge, 1923), pp. 46–65,Google Scholar and Riedmatten, , Les Actes du procès, pp. 52ff.,Google Scholar both of whom insist on the “Apollinarian”or “pre-Apollinarian”nature of the early evidence about Malchion and the Council of Antioch. Bardy has presented a very convincing study of this issue and refutes the notion that the Letter of Six Bishops is in any way “Apollinarian”(Paul p. 29).
32. See Loofs' argument that Paul, like Marcellus, postulated a łóγοζ 
σαρνοζ (Paulus, p. 274).
33. Ep. 4 (Bardy, p. 15).
34. Ep. 3 (Bardy, p. 14).
35. Ep. 2 (Bardy, p. 14).
36. Ep. 4 (Bardy, p. 15).
37. Ep. 5 (Bardy, p. 16).
38. Ep. 8 (Bardy, p. 18).
39. Ep. 8 (Bardy, p. 18).
40. Ep. 2 (Bardy, p. 14).
41. Ep. 5 (Bardy, p. 16).
42. Ep. 8 (Bardy, p. 18).
43. Ep. 2 (Bardy, p. 14).
44. Ep. 3 (Bardy, p. 14).
45. Athanasius De Syn. 26 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, fasc. 9, p. 252).Google Scholar
46. Socrates, Hist. ecct. 2. 19.Google Scholar NPNF translation.
47. Athanasius, De Syn. 45. 4 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, fasc. 9, p. 270).Google Scholar
48. Groh, Dennis and Gregg, Robert, “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism, Anglican Theological Review 59 (1977): 265–267.Google Scholar
49. Ibid., p. 268. Cf Athanasius Or. c. Ar. 1. 9 (PG 26, 28).
50. Ibid., p. 270. Cf. Alexander, Ep. ad Alex. (Opitz, vol. 3, Urk. 14. 28, p. 24).Google Scholar
51. Theodoret Hist. eccl. 1. 5. 4 (Ed. L. Parmentier, GCS, vol. 44, p. 26).Google Scholar
52. Athanasius Or. c. Ar. 2, 5 (PG 26, 156).
53. Groh and Gregg, “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism,” p. 274.
