ABSTRACT The Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret Scott A. Rushing, Ph.D. Mentor: Daniel H. Williams, Ph.D. This dissertation analyzes the transposition of the apostolic tradition in the fifth-century ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. In the early patristic era, the apostolic tradition was defined as the transmission of the apostles’ teachings through the forms of Scripture, the rule of faith, and episcopal succession. Early Christians, e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, believed that these channels preserved the original apostolic doctrines, and that the Church had faithfully handed them to successive generations. The Greek historians located the quintessence of the apostolic tradition through these traditional channels. However, the content of the tradition became transposed as a result of three historical movements during the fourth century: (1) Constantine inaugurated an era of Christian emperors, (2) the Council of Nicaea promulgated a creed in 325 A.D., and (3) monasticism emerged as a counter-cultural movement. Due to the confluence of these sweeping historical developments, the historians assumed the Nicene creed, the monastics, and Christian emperors into their taxonomy of the apostolic tradition. For reasons that crystallize long after Nicaea, the historians concluded that pro-Nicene theology epitomized the apostolic message. They accepted the introduction of new vocabulary, e.g. homoousios, as the standard of orthodoxy. In addition, the historians commended the pro- Nicene monastics and emperors as orthodox exemplars responsible for defending the apostolic tradition against the attacks of heretical enemies. The second chapter of this dissertation surveys the development of the apostolic tradition. Chapter Three reviews recent developments in modern scholarship on the ‘Arian controversy’ and briefly summarizes the events of the fourth century. The focus then turns to the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates and Sozomen, both of whom relied primarily on the polemical writings of Athanasius. Theodoret departs from the narrative of his predecessors, which allows him to chronicle a more nuanced development of the Nicene party. Chapter Four analyzes the monastic theologies of the historians, while Chapter Five examines the apostolic vocation of the Christian emperors. Copyright © 2013 by Scott A. Rushing All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi DEDICATION vii Chapter ONE INTRODUCTION 1 New Witnesses 6 The Historians 10 Chapter Summaries 28 TWO HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION 31 Tradition in the Apostolic Era 32 Irenaeus 37 Tertullian 42 Origen 45 Eusebius of Caesarea 48 Orthodoxy and Heresy 51 Creeds 54 THREE NICAEA IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES 60 Modern Scholarship 64 Historical Review of Theological Developments 70 Nicaea in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates and Sozomen 89 The κανών of Truth 132 Summary 134 Nicaea in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 136 Review of Recent Scholarship on the Development Of Nicene Theology 145 Conclusion 159 FOUR THE APOSTOLIC ROLE OF NICENE MONASTICS 162 History of Asceticism 164 Evolution of Monasticism 171 The Apostolic Heritage of Early Monasticism 180 Monasticism in Socrates’ Historia Ecclesiastica 183 Monasticism in Sozomen’s Historia Ecclesiastica 198 Monasticism in Theodoret’s Historia Ecclesiastica 212 iv FIVE THE APOSTOLIC VOCATION OF THE CHRISTIAN EMPEROR 222 Eusebius of Caesarea 223 Socrates of Constantinople 228 Sozomen of Constantinople 242 Theodoret of Cyrus 252 SIX CONCLUSION 264 APPENDIX 271 BIBLIOGRAPHY 272 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been finished without the assistance, support, and encouragement of numerous people. I am grateful to my adviser, D.H. Williams, for his patience and guidance in reading patristic texts. I am also thankful for Marty Bell and Patout Burns, who nurtured my burgeoning enthusiasm for the literature of historical theology. DaySpring Baptist Church has been a refuge for those seeking contemplative worship that is sacred and simple. I would like to thank all the DaySpringers through the years who have come and gone: they have “been church” to me and Jennifer, a home away from home. Special recognition goes to Wes and Holly Eades, who have embodied hospitality by hosting Jennifer and myself for dinner and encouraging conversation on their front porch on Wednesday nights for many years. I am grateful to my fellow graduate students for their friendship and support. Kalvin Budimann, Rick Brumback, Jangho Jo, David Nydegger, Jesse Hoover, and Andrew Selby: together we have traveled the country and shared many meals. Finally, without the encouragement of my family this project would not have been possible. Thanks to my parents, Rann and Diane Rushing, and my siblings, who have filled my e-mail inbox. We may live at a distance geographically, but you all have stayed very near to me in spirit. To my wife Jennifer: only by your encouragement did I enter graduate school, and you have been my faithful bride in this endeavor. “Where you go, I will go.” vi To Jennifer vii CHAPTER ONE Introduction Between the years A.D. 438-450, three Greek historians – Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret – penned ecclesiastical histories that chronicled the epochal events of the fourth and early fifth centuries. Their stated purpose in writing these proceedings was a collective interest in continuing the work begun by Eusebius of Caesarea, whose own church history narrated ecclesial progress from the ascension of Christ to the accession of emperor Constantine.1 Eusebius’ successors shared many similarities in their respective accounts; all three historians chronicled Constantine’s pro-Christian legislative agenda2 and the mercurial bond between Church and Empire that emerged during this period. Most importantly of all, the dominant motif of the ‘Arian controversy’ governed the organization and composition of these later histories, which narrated the resultant rise of Nicene orthodoxy that is found to be the apostolic solution to the divisions that fractured the perceived unity of the one, holy Christian Church. The ecclesiastical historians appealed to the wisdom of the Fathers who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 as the inheritors of the apostolic tradition; they asserted that the Nicene creed was the logical doctrinal telos of biblical revelation. 1 Rufinus of Aquileia (and possibly Gelasius of Caesarea) also wrote ‘continuations’ of Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history. 2 Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica (HE) 1.18; Sozomen, HE 1.8-9; Theodoret, HE 1.2.3; HE 1.2 (NPNF 2:3, 33). The chapter numbers in the Sources Chrétiennes volumes of Theodoret do not align correctly with the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) volume. Henceforth, all citations of Theodoret’s HE will be listed with the SC chapter divisions, followed by the corresponding NPNF chapter divisions. 1 Within a century of their respective publications, these three works came to be known collectively as the tripartite history. In the early decades of the sixth century, Cassiodorus commissioned an abridged version that translated the Greek histories into Latin; they were condensed into a single twelve volume compilation, the Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita (HT).3 Cassiodorus’ project was the primary means by which the tripartite histories were read in medieval Europe. 4 The HT offered no original material, i.e., it was a select narrative of the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Socrates’ work served as a prototype upon which excerpts from Sozomen and Theodoret were added or substituted as needed. The primary value of the HT to modern scholarship is due to its use as a standard reference work for medieval scholars, viz. it established the texts of the three Greek histories for those who could only read Latin.5 In this dissertation I propose to analyze the transposition of the apostolic tradition in the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. In this context, ‘transposition’ is analogous to the operation in musical theory whereby a collection of notes is reproduced in a different key, by raising or lowering in pitch. C.S. Lewis argued 3 James J. O’Donnell, Cassiodorus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 216, 246. Cassiodorus wrote the preface to the work, and either advised or edited the volume. Theodore, a reader at St. Sophia in Constantinople, compiled and abridged the materials into the twelve volume edition. Epiphanius Scholasticus penned the Latin translation at Vivarium at the direction of Cassiodorus. The Latin translation was widely read in Western Europe during the medieval era. References to the work can be dated as early as 560-566. 4 M.L.W. Laistner, “The Value and Influence of Cassiodorus’ Ecclesiastical History.” Harvard Theological Review 41.1 (1948): 51-67. Laistner explains that the Historia Tripartita increased in value in the west beginning in the ninth century for two reasons. First, the HT covered the period from 395 to 439. Rufinus’ Latin continuation of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica concluded with the events of the fourth century. Thus, the HT was the only work that offered detailed information about the Eastern Church in the 40 years following the death of Theodosius I. Second, the HT was a Greek history. Besides the fascination which the Latins had with eastern events, tensions were becoming increasingly heated between Eastern and Western Christians. The HT could be cited for refutations