Some Later Traditions

As authentic records of the events that took place at Nicaea, the above traditions contain little to commend themselves. However, as records of the reception of Nicaea and of the conciliar process in general, they speak volumes about how particular authors construed the role of disputation in settling Christian theological differences.^[137]

Our multiform story was to enjoy a long and varied life beyond the fifth century. It resurfaced in various compilations, including Theodore the Reader's Historia tripartita , an "ecclesiastical history from the time of Constantine to the reign of Justinian," according to the Suidas.^[138] In this writing, Sozomen's second story has completely usurped the place of the Nicene debate: Alexander, the bishop of Byzantium, confronted by one of several philosophers who wished to debate () him concerning his faith (), silenced his challenger with the words, "In the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, I command you to be silent and not to utter a sound ()."^[139]

In the Chronicon of Georgius Monachus the Sinner (), the role of the simple intervener is played by none other than Spyridon, the Cyprian bishop.^[140] He also appears as a refuter of heretics at Nicaea

[136] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.14 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 64).

[137] See Ehrhardt, "Constantinian Documents."

[140] In C. de Boor, ed., Georgii Monachi chronicon (Leipzig, 1904), 506. See Paul Van den Ven, La légende de Saint Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte (Louvain, 1953). He discusses mostly earlier sources: Athanasius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Gelasius of Caesarea (whom he accepts as "Rufin-grec ," 31) and Gelasius of Cyzicus (30-33). See 27-30 on whether or not Spyridon was a confessor. The ambiguity caused by the confessors lack of a concrete rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is now resolved in the story; see also E. R. Hardy, "The Decline and Fall of the Confessor-Presbyter," SP 15 (1984): 221-25; Apostolic Constitutions 8.23.

in the illuminated manuscript of the London Psalter.^[141] In the Chronicon , Spyridon commanded the philosopher to listen, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to the doctrines of truth (). As before, the dogmata turned out to be a credal formula.

The identification of the simple confessor with Spyridon only made concrete a connection hinted at in Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica , where the debate was placed adjacent to stories of charismatic confessors, signifying the natural alliance between Christian virtue and holy simplicity against the empty sophistry of words. In contrast, Spyridon's status as a bishop suggests a shift from a world of freewheeling charismatic Christians to a more settled and hierarchical Christian empire.

In the west, the story was preserved not only through Rufinus but also in Cassiodorus' Latin Historia tripartita , comprising excerpts from the works of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Understandably, Cassiodorus juxtaposed Sozomen's two stories with Socrates' markedly different version without trying to harmonize them,^[142] separating them by "fertur enim et aliud."^[143]

Why is this interesting episode absent from Theodoret's Historia ecclesiastica , and what can explain his decision to omit it from his account of Nicaea? It may be that he was suspicious of the story's authenticity; more likely, he did not share the bias against public debate that was a hallmark of all versions of the story. Theodoret, the author of a treatise that demonstrated the truth of Christian dogma with syllogisms, reported that Eustathius of Antioch attributed the Council of Nicaea's failure to condemn the Eusebians to the absence of thorough discussion.

[141] London Psalter folio 107v. See C. Walter, L'iconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine , Archives de l'Orient Chrétien 13 (Paris, 1970), 256-57 and fig. 121.

[142] Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 2.3.1-2 (CSEL 71:87) (= Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8):

Cumque plurimi disputationis delectatione traherentur, unus quidam ex confessoribus laicis simplicem habens sensum dialecticis obviavit dicens: "Audite igitur, Christus et apostolici non nobis artem dialecticam tradiderunt vanamque verborum fallaciam, sed puram scientiam fide et operibus bonis observandam." Haec dicente iuvene et animo sene praesentes quidem mirati sunt dictumque probaverunt, dialectici vero satisfactione suscepta cessarunt rationem quippe simplicem veritatis audientes.

[143] Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 2.3.3 (CSEL 71:87).

This was because, we are told, crypto-Eusebians at the council, "under the pretext of maintaining peace, silenced all who were deemed to be the best speakers ()," for fear that a rational discussion would expose their heretical ideas before a hostile "majority."^[144] This attitude blamed the ability of the Eusebian party to evade detection at Nicaea, and ultimately the failure of the conciliar process, on a lack of serious and critical debate.

The many versions of this Nicene tradition on be explained in part by the authors' different narrative strategies and redactional biases. Yet a remarkably consistent theme emerges—a matrix linking the Christian bias against public disputation to stories about charismatic ascetics, to irreducible credal formulations, and to the ideology of Christian unity () expressed liturgically through vocal expressions of consensus ().

Another consistent theme that surfaces in these variants is a hint that perhaps theological and philosophical differences were given insufficient opportunity for discussion at Nicaea. Such a suspicion would certainly not be unjustified in light of Constantine's opening address urging unanimity and harmony: "Having forsaken contentious dispute (), let us find the solution to the matters under investigation from the inspired words."^[145]

Even our incomplete records make dear that the Council of Nicaea was no meeting of a debating society; as Mushy points out in his study on Rufinus, debates most likely did not take place at Nicaea in a "democratic" fashion.^[146] Subsequent councils were even less "democratic," the more so because they emulated traditional Roman senatorial proceedings with their emphasis on correct procedure, seniority in the offering of sententiae, written documents such as creeds and hupographai , traditional authorities, and even acclamations.^[147]

The fear that a single dialectician could disrupt imperial Christian council by engaging the assembled bishops in disputation may well have

[144] Theodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.8.3 (Parmentier and Scheidweiler, eds., 34).

[145] Teodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.7.12 (Parmentier and Scheidweiler, eds., 32). See also Constantine's letter to Alexander in Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2.64-72. After the synod, Constantine emphasized in a letter (with perhaps too much zeal to be convincing) that all the controverted points had indeed (rumor notwithstanding) been given careful consideration. For a discussion of Constantine's prominence at the council and his many interventions in the process, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius , 215-19.

[146] See Mushy, Rufinus of Aquileia , 345-411.

[147] See H. Gelzer, "Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente," in idem., Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), 142-55. For a fuller exposition of these conciliar trappings, see Chapter 7.

appeared reasonable in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, a transitional period when much was uncertain. Once a consensual conciliar tradition was firmly rooted, the bishops were able to hold their own, and the temporary services of a charismatic confessor were no longer required to confront an equally charismatic dialectician-philosopher. In this respect, one might say that, although the bishops in the story lost, the victory ultimately belonged to them. As if to drive this point home, a letter of Ambrose, himself a vocal advocate of the dangers of relying on dialectic in Christian disputes,^[148] was read at the Council of Ephesus in 431 as part of the patristic testimonia . In it, the bishop of Milan freely paraphrased I Corinthians 2:4:

Sileant igitur inanes de sermonibus quaestiones, quia regnum dei, sicut scripture est, non in persuasione verbum est, sed in ostensione virtutis.^[149]

Let the empty questions regarding speech cease now, for the Kingdom of God, as it is written, consists not in the persuasion of words but in the exhibition of virtuous deeds.

[148] See Palladii Ratairensis fragmenta (R. Gryson, ed., Scholies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée , SC 267 [Paris, 1980]), where Ambrose discussed the character of Arian Christians, including the Anomoeans: "Omnem enim vim venenorum suorum in dialectica disputatione constituunt, quae filosoforum sententia definitur, non adstruendum habentes studium, sed studium destruendi. sed in dialectica conplacuit d(e)o salvum facere populum suum."

[149] ACO 1.2, 17.25 (Schwartz, ed., 56). Latin text from Collectio Veronensis ; Greek text from Collectio Vaticana in ACO 1.1.2, 54 (Schwartz, ed., 42-43).