The Eusebian Alliance The Case of Theodo

The Eusebian Alliance: the Case of Theodotus of Laodicea
by Mark DelCogliano
It is notoriously difficult to account for the cohesiveness of discrete ‘church

parties’ in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates. Any traditional typol-
ogy of parties and movements that relies principally upon simplistic or
monolithic doctrinal criteria breaks down when one carefully examines
the theologies of individuals placed within a single category1. In recent
scholarship, the notion of an ‘alliance’ or ‘ecclesial alliance’ has been used
instead of ‘church party’ to name groups that arise because of some com-
mon value or are formed for the promotion of a specific agenda in the
ecclesiastical sphere2. These values or agendas may or may not be theo-
logical. Such groups are characterized by features such as the performance
of ecclesiastical communion, sufficient doctrinal agreement with respect
to both principles and terminologies, the struggle with common enemies,
the activity of mutual defense, the exercise of public ecclesio-political sup-
port, and loyalty to revered figures. No single feature, value, or agenda is
necessary to constitute an ecclesial alliance, and individuals or individual
churches may be part of a larger ecclesial alliance for different reasons.
The so-called ‘Lucianists’ illustrate the usefulness of viewing fourth-cen-
tury ecclesiastical groupings and divisions in terms of alliances as conceived
above. Throughout the fourth century, various claims were made that
Arius and several of his early supporters such as Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Asterius the Sophist had been ‘students’ of Lucian of Antioch. Much
energy has gone into reconstructing the theology of Lucian and what his
1
For example, labeling both Athanasius and Marcellus as ‘Nicene’, or both Arius and
Eusebius of Caesarea as ‘Arian’ is woefully inadequate as the theological differences
between the members of each pair is patent. Over a century ago, Theodor Zahn and
Adolf von Harnack distinguished between ‘Old-Nicene’ and ‘Neo-Nicene’ theologies, and
the recent work of Michel Barnes and Lewis Ayres distinguishes (albeit differently both
from their predecessors and from each other) between ‘Neo-Nicene’ and ‘Pro-Nicene’
theologies; see M. Barnes, The Power of God. Dunamis in Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian
Theology, Washington D.C. 2001, and L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to
Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford 2004. Revisionist scholarship of the past
forty years has successfully deconstructed the term ‘Arian’ and its derivatives such as
‘Semi-Arian’ and ‘Neo-Arian’. For a concrete discussion of theological plurality within
a single group, see M. DelCogliano, Eusebian Theologies of the Son as Image of God
before 341, Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, 2006, 459-484.
2
See Ayres, Nicaea (see note 1), 13; DelCogliano, Eusebian Theologies (see note 1), 480-
483.
ZAC, vol. 12, pp. 250-266 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2008.017

© Walter de Gruyter 2008 Brought to you by | Emory University
Authenticated | 170.140.26.180
Download Date | 5/20/13 10:02 PM
The Eusebian Alliance: the Case of Theodotus of Laodicea 251
purported students might have learned from him3. The general conclusion
is that Lucian’s teaching is largely enigmatic and that the doctrinal connec-
tions between his ‘students’ are sufficiently diffuse, such that we cannot
detect a cohesive theological tradition that informed all Lucianists. Yet it is
clear enough that Arius and several of his early supporters revered Lucian,
even if we cannot determine the precise focus of their esteem, whether his
exemplary life and martyrdom4, or some aspect of his teaching, or some
combination thereof. If the label ‘Lucianist’ has any meaning in modern
scholarship, it will describe an ‘alliance’, namely a group allied by loyalty
to the revered figure of Lucian. In the case of the Lucianist alliance, rever-
ence for Lucian was coupled with the activity of mutual defense and the
struggle with common enemies, as Eusebius of Nicomedia’s support of
Arius against Alexander shows. But the evidence we have does not permit
us to claim that the Lucianist alliance was characterized by a cohesive
theological tradition. The glue that bonded the Lucianists together was
their reverence for Lucian, however differently each Lucianist may have
viewed or appropriated their ‘master’.
Nor can the Lucianist alliance be used to explain the wider ‘Eusebian’
alliance as has sometimes been done. Admittedly, ‘Eusebian’ is a prob-
lematic term. As discussed in a recent monograph by David M. Gwynn,
Athanasius popularized the description of his enemies as a heretical party,
whom he branded ‘the Eusebians’ and accused of ‘Arianism’. But Athana-
sius’s ‘Eusebians’ were neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’, and his depiction of
the fourth-century church as polarized between his own ‘orthodoxy’ and
the ‘Arianism’ of the ‘Eusebians’ is a polemical distortion of reality5. I use
‘Eusebian’ in this paper in contrast to the Athanasian usage deconstructed
by Gwynn and in line with other recent usage to name the ad hoc alliance
of eastern bishops and theologians initially formed around the figures of
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea that lasted from c. 320
to c. 3506. I have argued elsewhere that the Eusebians were allied mainly
“by expectations and the activity of mutual defense and correction, by
common opposition to enemies considered as such for reasons not neces-
3
The fundamental study remains G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d’Antioche et
son école, Paris 1936; see also R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition, Grand Rapids
(Michigan) 22001, 162-167; R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God.
The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD, Edinburgh 1988, 79-83; H.C. Brennecke, Lukian
von Antiochien in der Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, in: id./E.L. Grasmück/C.
Markschies (eds.), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski, Berlin/New York 1993,
170-192; and Ayres, Nicaea (see note 1), 57.
4
It may be the case that the Lucian who taught Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia has
been conflated with Lucian the martyr; see Hanson, The Search (see note 3), 81f.
5
D.M. Gwynn, The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Con-
struction of the ‘Arian Controversy’, Oxford 2007.
6
For a definition of the category, see Ayres, Nicaea (see note 1), 52. Also see J.T. Lienhard,
Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology, Washington D.C.
1999, 34f.
Brought to you by | Emory University

252 Mark DelCogliano
sarily theological, and by a minimal set of shared doctrinal principles and

formulas”7. The cohesiveness of the Eusebians did not lay in a monolithic
theology to which all of them ascribed.
In this paper I would like to continue my investigation of the nature of
ecclesiastical alliances in the fourth century by exploring two other factors
that contributed to the formation of the Eusebian alliance: local ecclesial
traditions and personal friendship. First, I will explore why the church of
the maritime city of Laodicea in Syria might have entered into the Eusebian
alliance at the outbreak of the controversy between Arius and Alexander. I
will do this by examining the early bishops of Laodicea to determine what
sort of men they were, what sort of ecclesiastical careers they had, and how
they might have contributed to an ecclesiastical culture in Laodicea that was
a factor in the city’s vigorous Eusebian stance in the first half of the fourth
century. There is remarkable similarity in the backgrounds of the men who
became bishops of Laodicea in the latter part of the third century and the
early part of the fourth. By studying one particular church in such great
detail we gain a sense of the importance of local traditions for churches
in the early fourth century and see that local traditions embraced not only
specific doctrinal trajectories but also certain types of episcopal leaders.
The case of the church of Laodicea shows us how such local traditions
could have been determinative for the particular stances that churches took
when faced with trans-local ecclesiastical controversy.
Second, I will investigate the specific ways in which Theodotus, the out-
standing bishop of Laodicea from the early 300s to c. 335 and a close ally
of Eusebius of Caesarea, participated in the Eusebian alliance. By studying
the career of Theodotus and especially his relationship with Eusebius of
Caesarea, we can delineate the precise ways in which the Eusebian alliance
operated in practice. Here we detect the importance of personal friendship
in the cohesiveness of the Eusebian alliance.
The Early Bishops of Laodicea
The city of Laodicea in Roman Syria on the Mediterranean Sea emerged as

one of the more prominent Christian centers in the East in the aftermath
of the Decian persecution8. From Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical His-
7
DelCogliano, Eusebian Theologies (see note 1), 482.
8
Laodicea ad mare in Syria (present day Latakia in the Syrian Arab Republic, the country’s
chief port city) is not to be confused with Laodicea ad Lycum (Phrygian Laodicea) in
Asia Minor, nor with Laodicea ad Libanum in Syria, also known as Scabrosa or Cabrosa,
on the banks of the Orontes River about 25 km southwest of Homs. Laodicea ad mare
was founded by Seleucus I Nicator on the site of the ancient Phoenican city of Ramitha
and passed into Roman hands when Syria was made a Roman province in 62 B.C.E.
(cf. Str., Geographia XVI 2,9f.). When Septimius Severus divided Syria, Laodicea wound
up in the newly-created province Syria Coele. We know nothing of the early history of
Christianity in Syrian Laodicea before the Decian persecution.

tory we know a good deal about the city’s bishops from the time of the
Decian persecution onward. Thelymidres was bishop of Laodicea during
the persecution of Decius (250-251). After the return of peace, Dionysius
of Alexandria wrote to him and the Laodicean church on the issue of re-
pentance for those who had fallen into sin, presumably in the persecution9.
Thelymidres was succeeded by Heliodorus, who became bishop during the
reign of Gallus (251-253)10. The next bishop was Socrates, about whom
nothing is known save than that he died around 26411.
Socrates was succeeded by Eusebius of Laodicea, who had been a dea-
con in Alexandria during the persecution of Valerian (257-258). When
Dionysius of Alexandria was tried before Lucius Mussius Aemelianus,
the deputy prefect of Egypt, Eusebius accompanied his bishop to the trial.
Yet he seems not to have gone into exile with him to Cephro in Libya,
but remained in Alexandria, for Dionysius singles out Eusebius for his
energetic attention to the needs of the confessors in prison and for risking
his life to bury the corpses of the martyrs12. In 264 Eusebius traveled to
Antioch (about 50 miles to the northeast of Laodicea) to participate in
the first synod convened to deal with Paul of Samosata. His participation
in this council indicates that he was an ecclesiastic of some learning and
expertise. While in Syria he was made bishop of Laodicea, detained by
those eager to have, in the words of Eusebius of Caesarea, “a most lovely
paragon of religion” as their teacher and bishop13. Presumably Eusebius
was made bishop of Laodicea because Socrates had recently died. We know
nothing about Eusebius’s tenure as bishop. He died around 268 and was
succeeded by Anatolius.
Anatolius was also from Alexandria and was renowned for his educa-
tion. He was learned in philosophy, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and
other sciences, as well as in rhetoric14. Some of his writings survive15. He
9
Cf. Eus., h.e. VI 46,2; VII 5,1.
10
Cf. Eus., h.e. VII 5,1. Eusebius is not explicit whether Thelymidres and Heliodorus were
bishops of Laodicea in Syria or of Laodicea ad Lycum in Asia Minor. That they were
bishops of Laodicea in Syria is inferred from the fact that they are named in a list of
other Syrian bishops. This seems to be the judgment of most scholars, such as A. von
Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, vol.
2, London 21908, 138.
11
Cf. Eus., h.e. VII 32,5.
12
Cf. Eus., h.e. VII 11,1-26.
13
Eus., h.e. VII 32,5 (GCS Eusebius II/2, 718,11f. Schwartz).
14
Cf. Eus., h.e. VII 32,6; Hier., vir. ill. 73.
15
Eus., h.e. VII 32,13.20 and Hier., vir. ill. 73 mention two works: a treatise on determin-
ing the date of Easter and De arithmeticae institutionibus. Eusebius cites sections from
Anatolius’s Easter treatise (Eus., h.e. VII 32,14-19). Daniel P. McCarthy and Aidan
Breen make a compelling case that the extant De ratione paschali is a Latin translation
of Anatolius’s Easter treatise; see D.P. McCarthy/A. Breen, The Ante-Nicene Christian
Pasch: De ratione paschali. The Paschal Tract of Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, Port-
land 2003, which includes a critical text and translation (44-53 and 63-70) along with

is even said to have founded an Aristotelian school in Alexandria. But

Anatolius was no mere academic – he was also a man of action, playing
a key role in saving the Alexandrian populace when the Romans attacked
Aemelianus after his rebellion16. Some time after this, Theotecnus of Pal-
estinian Caesarea made Anatolius his coadjutor bishop in the hope that
the Alexandrian cleric would succeed him. Anatolius was summoned to
Antioch in 268 to participate in the second synod convened there to deal
with Paul of Samosata. While passing through Laodicea, where bishop
Eusebius had just died, Anatolius was pressed into service as bishop by the
Christian populace17. Of Eusebius and Anatolius of Laodicea, Eusebius of
Caesarea says: “the church in Laodicea was privileged to have these two
shepherds who came there from Alexandria by divine providence”18.
Anatolius was succeeded by Stephen around 282 or 28319. Stephen was
also well-educated in philosophy and other secular studies, but apostatized
in the Great Persecution of Diocletian and his successors (303-313)20.
Stephen is one of the few apostasizers that Eusebius of Caesarea mentions
by name and he bitterly scorns him21. His replacement was Theodotus22. We
cannot fix the year of Stephen’s apostasy or Theodotus’s consecration.
Two conspicuous traits mark the bishops of Laodicea in this period.
First, one notes the deep connections between the churches of Alexan-
dria and Laodicea. Dionysius’s letter to Thelymidres shows that the two
churches were in communion and that the bishop of Alexandria had some
extensive commentary. They also argue (McCarthy/Breen, Ante-Nicene Christian Pasch

[see note 15], 126-139) that Eusebius’s citations are actually paraphrases. As for the De
arithmeticae institutionibus, those who conjecture that our Anatolius is to be identified
with Anatolius, the teacher of the Neoplatonist Iamblichus (cf. Eun., VS [Eunapii Sardiani
Vitae Sophistarum, graece et latine, denuo edidit J.F. Boissonade, Paris 1849, 457f.]), ac-
cept that fragments of this work are to be found under his name in (pseudo-)Iamblichus’s
Theologoumena arithmeticae (see J.L. Heiberg, Anatolius sur les dix premiers, Paris 1901).
Williams, Arius (see note 3), 191-198, accepted their identity and discussed these frag-
ments at length, though he admits in Appendix 1 of the revised edition that he adopted
this identification ‘over-enthusiastically’ and distances himself from it (p. 262).
16
Cf. Eus., h.e. VII 32,7-11. Some time after Valerian was captured by the Persians in 260,
Aemilianus, who had earlier exiled Dionysius as deputy prefect of Egypt and was now
the prefect, revolted against Gallienus in a bid for the empire. The Romans attacked
Aemilianus in Alexandria in 261-262. Anatolius became trapped in the Brucheum (the
Greek quarter) in Alexandria which was controlled by Aemilianus. People were starving.
He managed to get word to Eusebius, still a deacon in Alexandria, who was in a Ro-
man-controlled sector, that he should persuade the Roman general to grant immunity to
deserters from the enemy. Anatolius then orchestrated a mass desertion of Aemilianus’s
area of the city, saving many people before the rebellion was crushed.
17
18
Eus., h.e. VII 32,12 (722,5-8 S.). On Eusebius and Anatolius of Laodicea, see T.D. Barnes,
Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge 1981, 145f.
19
Jerome (Hier., vir. ill. 73) records that Anatolius flourished under the emperors Probus
(276-282) and Carus (282-283).
20
21
See Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (see note 18), 193.
22

sort of pastoral interest in the church of Laodicea. As Dionysius had

contact with many churches during his episcopacy23, Laodicea in this
regard is not unique. More significant is that two of the most esteemed
bishops of Laodicea, Eusebius and Anatolius, were both of them from
Alexandria. By the time Theodotus became bishop in the early fourth
century, the churches of Alexandria and Laodicea had a fifty year history
of interaction, chiefly in the direction from Alexandria to Laodicea. Alex-
andrian ecclesiastical traditions were undoubtedly imported to Laodicea
and influenced the Christians of Laodicea, especially during the tenure of
Eusebius and Anatolius.
Second, the erudition of several of Laodicea’s bishops is noteworthy.
Eusebius and Anatolius were not only from Alexandria, but were also
products of its world-renowned schools, or at least Anatolius was. Even if
Eusebius of Laodicea was not school-trained, the fact that he was invited
to the council in Antioch in 264 to examine Paul of Samosata indicates
his intellectual stature – a stature that Anatolius shared as evidenced by his
invitation to the council in 268. Both had theological expertise recognized
beyond their native city. Anatolius was in fact renowned for his educa-
tion. He must have been a man of exceptional talent, as Theotecnus of
Palestinian Caesarea’s attempt to secure him for his own diocese reveals.
Stephen too was trained in philosophy, though, in the words of Eusebius
of Caesarea, his apostasy “unmasked [him] as a miserable dissembler and
a coward rather than a genuine philosopher”24.
While Eusebius of Caesarea mentions only their training and expertise
in philosophy and other secular sciences, one imagines that Eusebius of
Laodicea and Anatolius had been formed in the Alexandrian theological
tradition as well. Eusebius was the deacon of Dionysius of Alexandria,
who had been a student of Origen. Anatolius expresses his admiration
for Origen whom he called “the most learned of all” (omnium eruditis-
simus), but this comment comes in the context of the computation of the
date of Easter and tells us nothing about Origen’s theological influence
upon Anatolius25. Unfortunately, we have no evidence for the appropria-
tion of the Alexandrian theological trajectory on the part of Eusebius of
Laodicea and Anatolius, though their participation in the councils against
Paul of Samostata indicate their theological learning. As both Eusebius
and Anatolius began their ecclesiastical careers during the episcopacy of
Dionysius, it is reasonable to surmise that they were both influenced by
Dionysius of Alexandria’s theology. One imagines that in their teaching
they communicated this sort of Alexandrian theological tradition in which
23
Cf. A. Jakab, Denys d’Alexandrie. Réexamen des données biographiques, RechAug 32,
2001, (3-37) 21-25.
24
Eus., h.e. VII 32,22 (726,19f. S.).
25
Anat. Laod., De ratione paschali 1 (McCarthy/Breen, Ante-Nicene Christian Pasch [see
note 15], 45; translation on 63).

they had been formed to the Christians of Laodicea. Since we know that
in the early fourth century the supporters of Arius appealed to the writ-
ings of Dionysius of Alexandria as corroborating their teachings, it seems
possible that Laodicea and Alexandria shared a theological tradition at
least partially influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria26.
Therefore, by the early fourth century Laodicea was firmly within the
ecclesial orbit of Alexandria. That Laodicea managed to pluck two suc-
cessive bishops from the ranks of the well-trained clergy in Alexandria
hints at an abiding ecclesiastical relationship whose exact contours are
irrecoverable. This long history of ecclesiastical communion between Al-
exandria and Laodicea could be one of the factors that led Theodotus to
support Arius against Alexander when disagreement arose between them.
Theodotus was formed in more or less the same Alexandrian theologi-
cal tradition as Arius was, as shown by his reaction to the disagreement.
Perhaps Theodotus’s support of Arius was not so much personal support
for an individual, but rather ecclesial support for a group within the
Alexandrian church that in Theodotus’s mind best represented the eccle-
siastical traditions of the community with which his church had been in
communion for over fifty years. Laodicea had a local ecclesial tradition
of communion and theology with Alexandria that went back to Dionysius
of Alexandria, a value that Laodicea in the person of Theodotus perhaps
thought worthy persevering.
Theodotus of Laodicea
Eusebius of Caesarea has nothing but the deepest admiration for Stephen’s
replacement, Theodotus of Laodicea27. “The church”, says Eusebius, “was
not utterly ruined because of [Stephen], but was restored to health again
when God himself, the Savior of all, at once chose Theodotus to be bishop
of that diocese, a man who by his very acts proved his personal name
and that of bishop true”28. Eusebius hints that Theodotus was instru-
mental in healing the wounds that the Laodicean church had suffered
in the persecution, highlighting Theodotus’s proficiency in both physical
and spiritual healing. “In the science of bodily healing and the curing
of souls”, Eusebius writes, “[Theodotus] was second to none; no other
26
Cf. Ath., Dion. 1, and Hanson, The Search (see note 3), 72-76. Dionysius’s theology is
summarized by Williams, Arius (see note 3), 150-157 and J. Behr, The Way to Nicaea,
Crestwood 2001, 201f.
27
A fragmentary papyrus letter (PSI 311) found at Oxyrhynchos mentions Theodotus as
the bishop of Laodicea. Due to its poorly-preserved state not much can be said about
the letter save that the author wanted to return something to Theodotus and made sure
to distinguish Laodicea in Syria from a city of the same name in Phrygia.
28
Eus., h.e. VII 32,23 (726,20-24 S.). His personal name, Theodotus, means ‘God-given’
in Greek.

man rivaled him in kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and zeal for those who
asked him for help; he was also a dedicated student of divine teachings”29.
Eusebius’s words of adulation indicate that Theodotus had some medical
training and more than a passing interest in theological matters. Hence
like Eusebius, Anatolius, and Stephen before him, he was a man of some
education and learning.
Eusebius of Caesarea’s great esteem for Theodotus of Laodicea, who
was probably very near in age to him, is clear. Perhaps a shared experience
of the horrors of the persecution and becoming bishops in its aftermath
bound them closer together as friends and allies in their common effort
to revive the church. Eusebius dedicated his two great apologetic works,
Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica, written after the
persecution c. 312-318, to Theodotus, whom he calls “a most divine
paragon of bishops, a man beloved of God and a pinnacle of holiness”30
and “a most divine paragon of bishops, a holy man of God”31. Eusebius
and Theodotus would remain devoted to one another and allied in ec-
clesiastical matters for the rest of their long episcopal careers, including
in the controversy sparked by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius’s conflict
with his bishop Alexander, to which we now turn.
Theodotus supported Arius and the ecclesio-political agenda of Eusebius
of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia from early on, and thus can be
considered part of the original Eusebian alliance. Arius himself, writing
to Eusebius of Nicomedia c. 321, claims Theodotus as one of the eastern
bishops who supported him and who was condemned along with him for
holding that God pre-existed his Son32. Athanasius claims that Theodotus
wrote in support of Arius, but unfortunately does not cite him33. Theo-
dotus was also present at the council of Antioch that took place in late
324 or early 32534. While this council was convened to deal with various
crises facing the Antiochene church35, a good part of the proceedings was
concerned with the controversy in Alexandria between Arius and Alex-
29
Eus., h.e. VII 32,23 (726,24-28 S.).
30
Eus., p.e. I 1,1 (GCS Eusebius VIII 5,5f. Mras).
31
Eus., d.e. I prooem. 1 (GCS Eusebius VI 2,1 Heikel).
32
Urkunde 1,3 (Athanasius Werke 3/1, 2,4-8 Opitz); cf. Thdt., h.e. I 5,2. The other bishops
were Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Bery-
tus, and Aetius of Lydda. Theodotus is listed immediately after Eusebius. See Hanson,
The Search (see note 3), 6. Theodotus may be one of the “three bishops in Syria” who
agree with Arius alluded to by Alexander (Urkunde 14,37 [25,15-22 O.]).
33
Cf. Ath., syn. 17,1.
34
Cf. Urkunde 18 (36-41 O.). For a discussion of the council, see Ayres, Nicaea (see note
1), 18 and 50f.; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (see note 18), 212-214; Hanson, The
Search (see note 3), 146-151; and S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the lost years of
the Arian controversy 325-345, Oxford 2006, 76-81. The latter two discussions present,
respectively, the cases for dating the council to early 325 and late 324, and they reference
the relevant scholarly literature.
35
Cf. Urkunde 18,4 (37,10-14 O.).

ander. The council produced a statement of faith largely consistent with

the theology of Alexander. Of the fifty bishops at the council, only three
rejected the council’s statement of faith: Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcis-
sus of Neronias, and Eusebius of Caesarea. These three were condemned
for holding the same views as Arius and provisionally excommunicated,
in the hope that they would repent at the upcoming council planned for
June 325, eventually held in Nicaea36.
All three attended the council of Nicaea and signed the creed, though
Eusebius felt compelled to justify his acceptance of the Nicene creed in a
letter to his church in Caesarea37. This indicates that Eusebius and most
likely Theodotus and Narcissus as well were in some sense both pressured
to sign the creed and yet enabled to do so by Constantine. Constantine
intended the council to resolve the conflict between Arius and Alexander
once and for all, and made this publicly known. The emperor, who actu-
ally participated in the debates of the council, offered an explication of
ÐmooÚsioj to which most attending bishops could agree as an alternative
to the interpretation promoted by Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of
Antioch, and others. Still, it is clear that Eusebius and most likely Theo-
dotus were not whole-hearted advocates of the Nicene creed38, viewing
its language as inconsistent with the traditions and terminologies of their
churches. However, when the creed was interpreted in a certain way with
the help of Constantine, they viewed its theology as at least consistent
with that of their churches39.
Therefore, Theodotus emerges in the initial stages of the controversy
over Arius as one of the most prominent, public, and committed supporters
of a theological tradition of which Arius was also a member. Theodotus
was willing to suffer excommunication for refusing to subscribe to a state-
ment of faith inconsistent with his beliefs, which were similar to those
of Arius. While he could subscribe to the Nicene creed and was able to
accept its theology when interpreted in a certain way, he by no means
championed it. Once again, too, we see Theodotus closely aligned with
Eusebius of Caesarea.
Further evidence for Theodotus’s reluctant acceptance of the Nicene
creed arises some three months after the council of Nicaea, when Con-
stantine banished Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea40. It
36
Cf. Urkunde 18,14f. (40,3-18 O.). The “great and holy synod” was at this time planned
to be held in Ancyra, but a decision was soon made to move it to Nicaea (cf. Urkunde
20 [41f. O.]).
37
Urkunde 22 (42-47 O.).
38
H. Chadwick, Faith and order at the council of Nicaea, HThR 53, 1960, (171-195)
172.
39
Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (see note 18), 216f.; Ayres, Nicaea (see note 1), 88-
92.
40
Cf. Soz., h.e I 21,3-5. For a discussion, see Hanson, The Search (see note 3), 172f. and
Parvis, Marcellus (see note 34), 94f.

is difficult to determine precisely why the emperor did this, but several
factors may have contributed to it. The two bishops had circulated a
document that offered an interpretation of the Nicene creed contrary to
that discussed at the council, thereby stirring up the controversy again
that Constantine hoped had been settled41. The actions of Eusebius of
Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea surely enraged Constantine, but there
was little he could do. When Constantine discovered that the two bishops
had communicated with some supporters of Arius deposed at Nicaea, he
had an unassailable legal cause to depose and banish them42. Soon after
their banishment, Constantine wrote a scathing letter to Theodotus of
Laodicea, warning him not to imitate the actions of Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis of Nicaea lest he suffer the same punishment43. This letter
indicates that Constantine was aware of Theodotus’s grudging acceptance
of the Nicene creed, but it also betrays Constantine’s estimation of Theo-
dotus as one of the leaders of the Eusebian alliance who could destroy
the work of the council.
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis were not the only eastern bishops
who tried to distance themselves from the Nicene creed they had recently
signed. Eusebius of Caesarea and Eustathius of Antioch commenced a
pamphlet war over the meaning of ÐmooÚsioj44. Constantine’s ‘final’ resolu-
tion at Nicaea was quickly being undone. Eusebius of Caesarea accused
Eustathius of Sabellianism and Eustathius accused Eusebius of polytheism.
This argument seems to have precipitated the convening of a council in
Antioch, probably in late 327, in order to depose Eustathius. Eusebius
of Caesarea presided, and Theodotus of Laodicea was in attendance45.
Eustathius was not only charged with Sabellianism, but also with several
other crimes which were probably fabricated46. He was deposed by the
council, and the sentence was approved by Constantine, who banished
Eustathius to Illyricum47. Eustathius was succeeded by Paulinus of Tyre,
who died after six months48. Paulinus was followed by Eulalius, who also
soon died49.
41
Cf. Soz., h.e. II 32,7f.
42
Urkunde 27,15f. (62,1-4 O.).
43
Urkunde 28 (63 O.).
44
Cf. Soz., h.e. II 18,3f.
45
Cf. Thdt., h.e. I 21,4; cf. Ath., h.Ar. 4,1; Socr., h.e. I 24; Soz., h.e. II 19; Eus., v.C. III
59-62. On the deposition of Eustathius, see Parvis, Marcellus (see note 34), 101-110;
Hanson, The Search (see note 3), 208-211; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (see note
18), 227f.; Williams, Arius (see note 3), 74.
46
Cf. Socr., h.e. I 24,1-4; Ath., h.Ar. 4,1; Philost., h.e. II 7; Soz., h.e. II 19,1; Thdt., h.e. I
21,5-9.
47
Cf. Ath., h.Ar. 4,1; Thdt., h.e. I 21,9-22,1.
48
Cf. Eus., Marcell. I 4,2; Philost., h.e. III 15.
49
Philost., h.e. III 15; Thdt., h.e. I 22,1.

This time, c. 328, dissension broke out over the succession, some desir-
ing to recall Eustathius, whose exile was quickly affirmed by Constantine.
A council of bishops convened to choose a new bishop. Theodotus of
Laodicea attended and may have even presided50. They chose Eusebius
of Caesarea, who declined on the grounds that the election was unca-
nonical51. Constantine accepted Eusebius’s refusal and then offered to the
council of bishops assembled at Antioch two candidates: the presbyter
Euphronius of Caesarea in Cappadocia and another presbyter, George of
Arethusa, who later became bishop of Laodicea. Constantine undoubt-
edly nominated these two presbyters, Euphronius and George, in order
to avoid the appearance of contravening the canon against the translation
of bishops that Eusebius had just invoked. In any event, Euphronius was
chosen, but he died a year or so later, and was replaced by Flaccillus52.
And so, once again, we find Theodotus at the forefront of the clash initi-
ated by the conflict of Arius with Alexander53 and closely aligned with
We last hear of Theodotus when he excommunicated a young Apol-
linarius and his father (also named Apollinarius) for neglecting to leave
Epiphanius the sophist’s recitation of a pagan hymn in honor of Dionysius
at the proper time. When according to custom Epiphanius dismissed the
uninitiated and profane – which would have included Christians – after the
exordium, Apollinarius and his father and a number of other Christians
did not leave. Since Apollinarius was a reader and his father a presbyter,
Theodotus excommunicated them for setting a bad example, but merely
reprimanded the rest of the offending lay Christians. Theodotus restored
Apollinarius and his father to communion and their offices after they had
performed the appropriate repentance54. This event must have occurred
before c. 335, which is the terminus ad quem for the episcopacy of Theo-
dotus because in this year there is evidence for George as the bishop of
Laodicea55. Accordingly, the most the evidence allows us to say is that
Theodotus’s excommunication of Apollinarius took place some time be-
tween c. 328 and c. 335. There is no reason to posit c. 335 as the date of
50
Cf. C.H. Turner (ed.), Ecclesia occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, vol. II/2, Ox-
ford 1913, 231 and 312-315; see Parvis, Marcellus (see note 34), 257. A. Cameron/S.G.
Hall (eds.), Eusebius. Life of Constantine, Oxford 1999, 306, suggest that Theodotus
presided, apparently because he is the first bishop named in Constantine’s letter to the
council after the refusal of Eusebius (cf. Eus., v.C. III 62,1).
51
C.Nic., can. 15 disallowed the translation of bishops and presbyters from one church
to another. This canon was generally ignored in practice, so its invocation by Eusebius
may simply be a politic way of refusing the episcopacy of Antioch.
52
Cf. Eus., v.C. III 62,2f.; Socr., h.e. I 24,5-8; Soz., h.e. II 19,5-7; Thdt., h.e. I 22,1; cf.
Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (see note 18), 228.
53
Theodoret (Thdt., h.e. V 7,1) named Theodotus as one of the leaders of the ‘Arians’.
54
Cf. Socr., h.e. II 46; Soz., h.e. VI 25.
55
F. Loofs, Art. Georg von Laodicea, in: RE3 6, 1899, 540; J. Gummerus, Die homöu-
sianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius, Leipzig 1900, 30.

Theodotus’s excommunication of the Apollinarii, as many scholars have

done56. This event could have occurred at any point in the late 320s or
early 330s57. In all likelihood at the time when this incident occurred it
was quite insignificant in terms of its wider ecclesiastical impact, being
mentioned by the ecclesiastical historians because of the later notoriety
of Apollinaris.
There is no extant writing of Theodotus by means of which we may
know his theology. Nonetheless, the thrust of his theological commit-
ments can be discerned from his actions in the ecclesio-political sphere.
Theodotus’s first action in the debate between Arius and Alexander is his
support and defense of Arius through letter58. Accordingly, the first way
in which Theodotus participated in the Eusebian alliance was through
the activity of defense. Above I suggested that, in addition to theological
sympathy, his support of Arius may be at least partly due to the long-stand-
ing communion between the churches of Alexandria and Laodicea. While
one might argue that Theodotus should have expressed this inter-ecclesial
communion by supporting the Alexandrian bishop, it may be the case that
his support of Arius was more of a defense of those who, in his think-
ing, held to the Alexandrian theological tradition in which the Laodicean
church had been formed and more of a repudiation of the innovations
of Alexander than a personal defense of Arius as an individual. If this is
correct, then Theodotus’s support of Arius is a defense of Laodicea’s local
ecclesial traditions – traditions that were influenced by and shared with
Alexandria’s – against a contrary impulse. Whatever the exact situation, the
historical links between Alexandria and Laodicea prompted, perhaps even
compelled, Theodotus to react to the controversy in Alexandria; Laodicea
could not be disinterested in what happened in Alexandria.
Theodotus was also active in the Eusebian alliance through his par-
ticipation in councils. We know of at least four councils that Theodotus
attended (Nicaea 325 and Antioch in 324/325, c. 327, and c. 328) and
56
For example G. Feige, Art. Apollinaris of Laodicea, in: S. Döpp/W. Geerlings (eds.),
Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, New York 2000, 39.
57
The first datable event in the life of Apollinarius, his excommunication by George of
Laodicea, occurred in 346, at which time he was already a presbyter. Since the standard
minimum age for a presbyter was 30 (cf. C.Neocaes., can. 11 [Pontificia Commissione
per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale. Fonti 9/1,2, 80 Joannou]).
Apollinarius was likely born in 316 or earlier. There does not seem to have been a
minimum age for readers; cf. can. 16 of the Council of Carthage in 419 (230 J.) which
decrees that readers must choose when they reach puberty (about age 14) whether to
marry or profess celibacy. Though this council took place about a century after the birth
of Apollinarius, it probably reflects earlier practice. The only prerequisite of the readers
appears to have been the ability to perform the service. J.G. Davies, Deacons, deacon-
esses and the minor orders in the patristic period, JEH 14, 1963, (1-15) 10-14 mentions
in passing that some become readers at a very young age, frequently as the first step to
entering the clergy. Therefore, if Apollinarius was born in 316 or earlier, he could have
been a reader by the late 320s or even earlier.
58
Urkunde 1,3 (2,4-8 O.); Ath., syn. 17,1.

in each case he zealously aligned himself with the Eusebians, even getting
himself deposed at the first Antiochene council for his devotion. Hence
Theodotus was one of the most conspicuous exercisers of public ecclesio-
political support for the Eusebian cause. That Theodotus had sufficient
doctrinal agreement with his Eusebian allies is shown by his well-known
dissatisfaction with the Nicene creed. Following the lead of Eusebius of
Caesarea, it seems that Theodotus subscribed to this creed with some res-
ervations, yet even Constantine was aware of Theodotus’s dissatisfaction as
is shown by his threatening letter to him after the banishment of Eusebius
of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. Finally, Theodotus is implicated in
the machinations against the common enemy of the Eusebians, Eustathius
of Antioch. Here he operated in league with his ally Eusebius of Caesarea
in the years c. 327-328 and perhaps even presided over the council that
selected Euphronius as bishop.
In the case of Theodotus, we lack evidence for two possible features
that account for an ecclesial alliance: loyalty to a revered figure and the
performance of ecclesiastical communion. While someone like Eusebius of
Nicomedia participated in the Eusebian alliance at least partly because he
was a Lucianist, there is no evidence for a similar reverence on the part
of Theodotus. Similarly, while Eusebius of Nicomedia received Arius into
communion when he was banished from Alexandria in the early 320s,
there is no record of Theodotus offering refuge and comfort to excom-
municated supporters of Arius. Each Eusebian participated in the alliance
not only because of a unique set of values and agendas, but did so in a
unique way.
While we do not have evidence in Theodotus’s case for the perfor-
mance of ecclesiastical communion and loyalty to a revered figure, we
have ample evidence for a personal friendship between him and Eusebius
of Caesarea. As we have seen, Eusebius has nothing but the highest praise
and affection for his brother-bishop in Laodicea; though we lack extant
writings from Theodotus, it is hard to believe that Eusebius’s esteem was
not reciprocated. In fact, in most cases Theodotus’s Eusebian activities
were undertaken in connection with Eusebius, namely, his participation
in the Antiochene councils, the deposition of Eustathius, and the selection
of his replacements. His reluctant acceptance of the Nicene creed in many
ways mirrors Eusebius’s. Indeed, the co-operation between Eusebius of
Caesarea and Theodotus of Laodicea is a kind of precursor to the joint
activity of the Pannonian bishops Ursacius and Valens in the mid-fourth
century, who rarely are mentioned apart from one another. Accordingly, in
the case of Theodotus of Laodicea we see another factor that contributed
to his participation in the Eusebian alliance: his personal friendship with

Conclusion
The Laodicean church and its bishops had first-hand experience of persecu-
tion. The Laodicean church came into prominence in the Decian persecution
and suffered terribly in the Diocletianic persecution. It was a church that
had been tested twice and deeply wounded and divided through aposta-
sy – Dionysius of Alexandria’s letter to Thelymidres and the Laodicean
church on repentance after sin was no doubt a response to a real crisis in
the church, and it is likely that others beside Stephen apostatized in the
Great Persecution. Yet the Laodicean church was able to heal and even
thrive through the remarkable ministries of bishops like Eusebius (who had
himself experienced the Valerian persecution in Alexandria), Anatolius, and
Theodotus. The experience of persecution in the Laodicean church – as for
so many other churches – had left it with an appreciation for confessing
the Christian faith in the face of opposition.
But the experience of persecution in itself is not unique to the Laodicean
church, particularly in the wake of Diocletian; many other churches had
similar experiences. What stands out, though, is Stephen’s apostasy: the
persecution had, in the minds of his contemporaries, unmasked the leader of
the church of Laodicea for the false Christian that he was. The Laodicean
church could not look to a heroic martyr as, for example, the Alexandrian
church could look to their holy bishop Peter or the Antiochene church could
look to Lucian. But the effusive praise of Eusebius of Caesarea may show
that Theodotus became a kind of living witness of the Christian faith for
the community of Laodicea. Though not a martyr in the technical sense,
the Laodicean church owed its recovery, preservation, and unity to him as
much as to anyone. We have no evidence for internal dissention within the
Laodicean church under Theodotus, even though at the same period the
churches of Alexandria and Antioch were violently divided because of the
Trinitarian controversy. Theodotus provided the Laodicean church with
stability in one of the most unstable periods of church history, and as far
as we know, the transition to his successor, George, was smooth.
The church of Laodicea’s emergence as one of the bastions of Eusebian
theology in the initial stages of the Trinitarian controversy sparked by the
conflict between Arius and Alexander and its bishop’s public leadership
of the movement merely continued the longstanding Laodicean tradition
of their bishop’s prominence in the theological controversies of the day.
We have seen how Laodicea had a tradition of choosing well-educated
and very capable men as its bishops, some of whom were from Alexan-
dria itself. If in fact the theological tradition of Laodicea was rooted in
the theology of Eusebius of Laodicea and Anatolius, which in turn may
have been influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria, it is clear that they and
their successors belonged to the Alexandrian tradition of which Arius was
also a part. Theodotus appears to have embodied this very tradition. His
background must have been similar to his predecessors: we know that he

was educated and that he sympathized with the Alexandrian trajectory of

theology to which Arius held, though we lack evidence for Theodotus’s
direct connections with the Alexandrian church before his consecration.
The election of Theodotus as bishop of Laodicea was nonetheless in con-
tinuity with the longstanding local traditions of that church.
I have argued that Theodotus participated in – indeed he may have
been a catalyst for the formation of – the Eusebian alliance for two main
reasons. First, the historical ties between Laodicea and Alexandria led
Theodotus to side with those in Alexandria whom he deemed to reflect
the authentic Alexandrian tradition that his church shared. This local ec-
clesial tradition of Laodicea made Theodotus sympathetic to Arius and
his supporters in the early stages of the conflict. Secondly, the personal
friendship between Theodotus and Eusebius of Caesarea was a factor in
their co-operation in the ecclesio-political sphere.
I have also outlined how Theodotus operated as a Eusebian: his suf-
ficient doctrinal agreement with other Eusebians that the Nicene creed was
inadequate, his participation in the campaign against Eustathius, the com-
mon enemy of the Eusebians, his defense of Arius, the exercise of public
ecclesio-political support of Arius and the Eusebian agenda in councils.
Theodotus participated in the Eusebian alliance because of a unique set of
values and agendas, and did so in a unique way, but this did not prevent
him from being allied with others who participated in the same alliance
for their own reasons. There was sufficient overlap in their values and
agendas to be allies. Based on the case of Theodotus, then, we may add
two further features, in addition to those listed in the first paragraph of
this paper, that contributed to the formation of ecclesial alliances in the
fourth century: local ecclesial traditions and personal friendship.
Afterward: A Look Forward
The history of the Laodicean church in the remainder of the fourth cen-
tury is paradigmatic of the transformations that occurred throughout the
church in this period: a slow, sometimes torturous, march toward pro-
Nicene orthodoxy59. George, bishop of Laodicea c. 335-359, was active for
nearly forty years in the Trinitarian controversies as a Eusebian, continuing
the legacy of Theodotus. But his brand of Eusebianism differed from his
59
I adopt the usage of ‘pro-Nicene’ from Ayres, Nicaea (see note 1), 236-240. A theologian
may be considered pro-Nicene if he sees the Nicene Creed as a cipher for a Trinitarian
theology in which the three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are irreducible and one
nature, power, and will. The pro-Nicene alliance emerged in the late 350s in the face
of the splintering of the old Eusebian alliance into several mutually opposed alliances,
the Heteroousians, the Homoiousians, and the Homoians. In subsequent decades the
Trinitarian theology of the pro-Nicene alliance attracted more and more support and
received imperial sanction at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

predecessor and he is perhaps best known for the pivotal role he played
in the consolidation of the Homoiousian alliance and its theology in the
late 350s. Homoiousians adapted and developed earlier Eusebian theol-
ogy in ways crucial for fostering a rapprochement with the burgeoning
pro-Nicene movement.
Laodicea steadily advanced toward a full pro-Nicene stance in the
second half of the fourth century, though not without internal strife. Apol-
linaris and Pelagius became rival bishops of Laodicea in c. 360, the former
the pro-Nicene bishop and the latter the Homoian bishop. Apollinaris
definitively broke with the pro-Nicenes in 376 when he ordained Vitalis
bishop of Antioch in opposition to Meletius, establishing a separate clerical
hierarchy. Subsequent condemnations of Apollinarians at Rome in 377, at
Antioch in 379, and at Constantinople in 381, and imperial anti-Apollinar-
ian decrees from 388 onward, placed them officially outside the church.
Apollinaris remained bishop of Laodicea, at least nominally among his
own followers, until his death in c. 392.
Pelagius was consecrated as bishop by Acacius of Caesarea in the af-
termath of the Council of Constantinople in 36060, and was one of the
Homoians who along with Acacius subscribed to the Nicene Creed at the
Council of Antioch in 36361. He emerged as one of the leading pro-Nicenes
in the years leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 38162. At this
council he was entrusted with the superintendence of the churches of the
East (along with Diodore of Tarsus)63 and was named as one of eleven
bishops with which all other bishops must have communion to demonstrate
their orthodoxy64. The church of Laodicea had come full circle: no longer
a center of vehement opposition to Nicaea as under Theodotus, the see
was now a standard of pro-Nicene orthodoxy.
We do not know how long after Constantinople Pelagius lived, but by
394 Elpidius was bishop of Laodicea65. He had been a presbyter under
Meletius in Antioch66, and as bishop was a close ally of John Chrysos-
tom67. For his fidelity to Chrysostom, Elpidius was deposed in 406 and
restored only in 414. But by this point a new ecclesial reality had come
into existence. As the affair of John Chrysostom shows, the ecclesial rela-
tions between Laodicea under Elpidius and Alexandria under Theophilus
60
Cf. Philost., h.e. V 1.
61
Cf. Socr., h.e. III 25,18.
62
Cf. Bas., ep. 92 (c. 372) and ep. 254 (c. 376). Emperor Valens exiled Pelagius to Arabia
in 367 (Cf. Thdt., h.e. IV 13,2).
63
Cf. Soz., h.e. VII 9,6; cf. Socr., h.e. V 10.
64
Cf. Cod. Thds. XVI 1,3.
65
E. Venables, Art. Elpidius (8), Dictionary of Christian biography and literature 2, 1911,
100f.
66
Cf. Thdt., h.e. V 27,2.
67
See the warm letters John wrote to him from his exile in Cucusus, ep. 25.131.138.142
and 230.

bear little resemblance to the close communion that obtained between the
churches a century earlier.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Der Artikel untersucht am Beispiel der sog. Eusebianer um Euseb von Nikomedia
die Hintergründe kirchlicher Allianzen im 4. Jahrhundert. Die jüngste Forschung hat
darauf hingewiesen, daß der Zusammenhalt der Eusebianer weniger das Resultat einer
Vielzahl gemeinsamer theologischer Grundüberzeugungen war als vielmehr dadurch
zustande kam, daß man sich gegen die Angriffe gemeinsamer Gegner verteidigte und
sich wechselseitig auf Fehler hinwies. Eine vergleichbar kleine Menge übereinstimmender
theologischer Überzeugungen spielte demgegenüber nur eine nachgeordnete Rolle. Der
vorliegende Beitrag greift diese Grundthese auf und führt sie weiter aus, indem er zwei
Faktoren aufzeigt, die zur Formierung der eusebianischen Allianz beigetragen haben: den
Einfluß lokalkirchlicher Traditionen und die Bedeutung persönlicher Freundschaften. So
wird zum einen gezeigt, wie der Hintergrund und das Handeln der Bischöfe von Laodicea
dazu führte, daß ihre Stadt in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jahrhunderts eine entschieden
eusebianische Haltung in trinitätstheologischen Debatten einnahm. Zum anderen wird
die Freundschaft zwischen dem eusebianischen Bischof Theodotus von Laodicea und
Euseb von Cäsarea untersucht und dabei aufgezeigt, inwiefern Freundschaft ein Faktor
für die Formierung und das Handeln der eusebianischen Allianz darstellte.


The Eusebian Alliance The Case of Theodo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Eusebian Alliance The Case of Theodo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Eusebian Alliance: the Case of Theodotus of Laodicea

It is notoriously difficult to account for the cohesiveness of discrete ‘church

ZAC, vol. 12, pp. 250-266 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2008.017

Brought to you by | Emory University

sarily theological, and by a minimal set of shared doctrinal principles and

The Early Bishops of Laodicea

The city of Laodicea in Roman Syria on the Mediterranean Sea emerged as

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

is even said to have founded an Aristotelian school in Alexandria. But

extensive commentary. They also argue (McCarthy/Breen, Ante-Nicene Christian Pasch

Brought to you by | Emory University

sort of pastoral interest in the church of Laodicea. As Dionysius had

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

ander. The council produced a statement of faith largely consistent with

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

Theodotus’s excommunication of the Apollinarii, as many scholars have

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

was educated and that he sympathized with the Alexandrian trajectory of

Afterward: A Look Forward

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

Brought to you by | Emory University

You might also like