Paul of Samosata edict of amnesty;^118 and, on the other side, Jerome records the name of an ap-
parently Antiochene commander who fought at the battle of Immae against
Zenobia.^119 These statements certainly make it reasonable to ask whether the
career of a controversial figure in Antioch at this time can be explained in
terms of divided political loyalties. Whether this was so in the case of Paul
must depend on a detailed examination of the evidence about him.
Paul in Antioch
By far our most reliable and valuable evidence comes from book of Euse-
bius’EcclesiasticalHistory, which gives substantial excerpts from the letter sent
by the synod which deposed Paul, addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome,
and Maximus, bishop of Alexandria. It is noteworthy that both in his own
remarks and in his choice of excerpts Eusebius concentrates (conveniently
for our purposes) on the externals of Paul’s conduct, and is almost entirely
silent on the precise heresies as to the nature of Christ of which he was held
guilty. For Paul’s views—he affirmed the unity of God and the Word (using
the termhomoousios) and denied the divinity of Christ—we have to rely on
late reports and quotations of the dialogue between himself and Malchion
(see below) at his examination.^120 Eusebius’ delicacy on this point can hardly
be unrelated to the fact of his own involvement with Arianism;^121 that the
historical connection between Paul’s doctrines and Arianism has sometimes
been denied by modern scholars is less relevant than the fact that it was vig-
orously asserted by a contemporary, Peter, bishop of Alexandria.^122
The chronological framework is crucial to our understanding of the ca-
reer. Firstly, Eusebius (HE, , ) records the election of Dionysius to suc-
ceed the martyred Xystus as bishop of Rome: Xystus was executed on Au-
gust ,^123 and Dionysius was consecrated on July or .^124 In the
. Zos. , , .
. Jer.,Chron., ed. Helm, : ‘‘In this battle Pompeianus, nicknamed Francus, held
command against her. His family survives to this day in Antioch. Eugarius, a priest, most
dear to us, is a descendant of his.’’
. See H. de Riedmatten,Les Actes du procès de Paul de Samosate; étude sur la Christologie
du IIIeau IVesiècle().
. For a survey, D. S. Wallace-Hadrill,Eusebius of Caesarea(), chap. VI.
. See the letter of Alexander to his namesake, bishop of Constantinople, Theodoret,
HE, , –.
. Cypr.,Ep. , . Cf. L. Duchesne,Le Liber PontificalisI (), .
. See Duchesne (n. ), ; C. H. Turner, ‘‘The Papal Chronology of the Third
Century,’’J. Th. St. (–): ; E. Caspar,Geschichte des PapsttumsI (), –.