Over the next months, a working translation will appear hear which of the (still unpublished) Manuscript by Hans-Georg Opitz of the introduction to his first volume of the Urkunden zum Arianischen Streit (Athanasius critical works, de Gruyter), an introduction that was never printed (except the small excerpt which appeared in the ZNW 33 : 131-59).
Unfortunately, one manuscript page (dealing with Eusebius of Caesarea Against Marcion) is missing, but there is a chance that I will find it again in the Athanasius archive. Although the editorial team was made aware of the existence of Opitz' manuscript, one can see from the last fascicles of the Athanasius works that the team does neither make use, nor even mention the existence of it, which is especially surprising as in vol. III, part I/3 a full length discussion of the chronology of the events of the Arian debate to the year 328 is given without any mention of Opitz' manuscript. Instead, it is stated that Opitz' death in WWII had prevented the publication of his introduction, which is, of course, correct, yet, nevertheless, the scholarly world has yet to see the full length arguments of the editor of the first volume of the Urkunden, why he opted for these documents, and also why he put them in the order in which they came.
The intention here is to give a mere literal working translation of Opitz' introduction with his notes - an edition of his text with notes that also engage with the present state of the discussion of the chronology of the beginnings of Arianism will follow in print.
Hans-Georg Opitz, The Arian Debate up to the Year 328: Texts and Studies
translated by Markus Vinzent
(work in progress)
Because of the importance of the Arian debate every author dealing with the history of the church of the fourth century wrote extensively about the beginnings of this conflict with its huge impact. And yet, we are disappointed by the scarce information when seeking an exhaustive explanation for the reasons and the trigger of the dispute between the Alexandrian presbyter Arius with his bishop Alexander. The modern scholar will discover that he has at his hands hardly less source material than the authors of the past. At least the ancient authors did not digest more material than what is left to us from other sources. Indeed, there are a few events, we only need to mention the Synod of Antioch of the year 325, where we are better informed then they had been.
The present chapter deals with the reports about the conflict by the church historians. In addition, we will add the occasional notes which can be found in the literature of the fourth and fifth centuries. Likewise, the notes of Athanasius who does not give us a comprehensive account of the time before the year 328 will not need a special chapter. As later authors have often borrowed their material from previous ones, we will offer out assessment in chronological order.
Euseb’s Vita Constantini
In the second and third book of his Vita Constantini, Eusebius narrates the beginning of the conflict. As it derives from the most important historian of its time, it calls for special attention. Eusebius’ account is even more valuable as its author himself was an enormously influential participant of the synods and had some close relations to the court of the Emperor. Eusebius incorporates his report about the most important events of his time into the frame of a panegyric to the Emperor Constantine. The literary genre of an encomion on the Emperor, the nature of the Vita, urged Eusebius to describe the Arian conflict only insofar as the Emperor himself came to the fore and directed the sequence of events. For this reason, the provision of details is informative enough, but the reports are not as exhaustive and clear, as Eusebius had been capable of giving from his intimate acquaintance with the various events.
For example, his narration begins only with Constantine getting involved with the affair after his victory over Licinius (II 61). [[All of Egypt was filled with the fights of bishops, pretending they discussed on dogmatic grounds]]. The time when the conflict began is not given, although Eusebius is not of the opinion that this struggle has come about in the East only after the victory over Licinius. The remark that the conflict started when the church lived in peace, can only relate to the time before Licinius’ persecution.
The conflict in Egypt, called a fight of bishops, was aggravated by the schism of the Melitians. When Constantin received knowledge of conflicts that threatened the unity of the church, he sent ‘a man who shone forth through his witnesses for faith in previous times’ (II 63), provided with a letter to Alexander and Arius of Alexandria. The envoy of the Emperor was the Spanish bishop Ossius of Cordoba, as Socrates informs as, complementing Eusebius’ report. [[Socrates also knows about Ossius’ dogmatic position.]] According to Athanasius, a synod was held in Egypt together with Ossius to deal with the affair of Colluthus. Eusebius adds (II 73) that the envoy of the Emperor had not only delivered the letter, but also expressed the will of his envoyer in person, hence he tried to negotiate with he parties. Ossius seems to have tried to prevent in Alexandria, as later in Antioch, a schism. In III 4 Eusebius reports of the broadening crisis. Even the statues of the Emperor have been destroyed by the mob. Presumably, the Colluthians were the perpetrators, because according to Sozomenus, Athanasius reprimanded the Colluthian Ischyras for it.
III 5. In addition to the Arian and Melitian upheavels, the question of Passah bothered the Emperor, hence, he called a synod to gather in Nicaea.
III 7. Bishops gathered coming from all countries of the East, although Eusebius must mistakenly have believed that a bishop of Persia attended. The error must have already been part of the old lists, or it has been introduced by Eusebius himself, as Nicaea was unknown amongst the Persians during the entire fourth century and only Maruta of Maipherkat asked the bishops at a synod of the year 410 to accept the canones of Nicaea. We find a certain John from the land of Persia in the Nicene subscriptions. As the name jIwavnnh" Persivdo" is mentioned amongst the seats of the province of Mesopotamia, Persiv" seems to be an also otherwise known variant for Pevrrh or Pershnhv (so also the Coptic witness: jIwavnnh" Persenh'"). John was the bishop of the city of Perre in the Commagene. The Scyth, mentioned by Eusebius, cannot be found in the lists. On p. 80,19 a Spaniard, hence Ossius, is mentioned. The bishop of the basileuvousa povli", Silvester is not introduced by name, who was to old to go to Nicaea, was represented by two presbyters, known from the lists, namely Vita and Vincentius.
In III 8 Eusebius gives ‘over 250’ as the number of the bishops gathered. According to Eusthatius of Antioch there were 270. Constantine, Julius of Rome, Athanasius and Hilary give around 300 attendants. The number of 318 can be found first in Liberius’ Letter to the Macedonians together with the explanation of the number according to the slaves of Abraham, then also in Hilary and Athanasius. 250 – 300 seem to be the right indications of the number of those who attended.
III 10 Eusebius, eventually, reports about the crucial session. Already prior to it, negotiations must have taken place. The members of the synod were divided into two parties, the leaders of which apparently were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria. In the presence of the Emperor, the synodal decrees were solemnly voted on. The session took place on 19th June. The chairman addressed the Emperor (III 11). Eusebius simply calls him oJ tou' dexiou' tavgmato" prwteuvwn, hence the spokesman was the leader of the party that sat right to the Emperor. According to the index of chapters of book III he was bishop Eusebius, and one can assume that it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who as the most eminent bishop of the province Bithynia gave the speech. Sozomenus may have found the name of Eusebius already in his copy of the Vita, but he sees in him the Church historian. This one, however, cannot have been among the leaders of the synod, as he had to exculpate himself at the synod.
The tradition about the names of the chairman of the synod is inconsistent. Surely, the synod was chaired by more than one person. And it was Eusebius’ note (II 13) which led to the many names in the tradition. About Ossius, Athanasius says more generally poivai ga;r ouj kaqhghvsato sunovdou. In most of the lists, Ossius comes first. There are many reasons to believe that Ossius was involved in the writing of the creed. According to an indication in the collection of Theodosius diaconus in the Cod. Ver. 60, Alexander of Alexandria has been the chairman of the synod. The name of Eustathius of Antioch has been suggested only, since Athanasius has witnessed for his orthodoxy and Jerome for his fight against the Arians, and is, then, found in Theodoret and John of Antioch. This legend originated as a result of the reunification of the Eustathians with the dominant church. Similarly, Facundus of Hermiane and the Syrians call Eustathius the chairman of Nicaea. In addition, easter writers know Sylvester of Rome as the leading person. Naturally, he takes the first place in western collections of the Nicene acts. Against all these uncertain reports, locally biased, one needs to follow the indications in Eusebius and Athanasius. Ossius, as the senior chairman and in continuous touch with the Emperor led the sessions of the synod, having as support a number of bishops. Members of this committee were surely Eustathius, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius of Nicomedia, for certain also Marcellus of Ancyra who played an important role at the council. We do not know anything for sure about the Roman legates. Perhaps, as indicated by their place on the lists, they were given an honorary position.
III 12. The speech of Constantine harmonizes with what he may have said in front of the bishops, as we know from the letters. Therefore, Batiffol is not wrong in assuming the genuiness of the speech.
III 13. The report breaks off after the narration of the negotiations in the presence of the Emperor and the making of the decrees. Constantine supposedly said at the closing of the synod that he had gained a second victory for the church. Then follows: kata; tou' th'" ejkklhsivai ejcqrou' ejpinivkion eJorth;n tw'/ qew'/ sunetevlei. As the battle of Hadrianople against Licinius took place on 3 July 324, Constantine will have celebrated an anniversary of this victory with the bishops in Nicaea (?). The celebrations in connection with the synod were without end; on 25 July, the Emperor together with all the clerics held a spectacular diner for his Vicennalia in his palace of Nicomedia, displaying all the Emperor’s pomp.
III 16-20 the letter about Easter has been included which does not mention the central topics of the negations of the synod. Here, the question needs to be addressed, whether the acts of the council have been preserved. In III 14 we read: ejkurou'to d j h[dh kai; ejn grafh' di j uJposhmeiwvsew" eJkavstou ta; koinh' dedogmevna. This can only mean that the creed and the canons had been signed. Athanasius mentions the decree about Easter. Eusebius’ remarks do not make it impossible that such a decree existed, even if it is impossible to directly prove that other acts or protocols existed. The decree about Pascha is no longer extant, even if a piece of such a decree has been transmitted a number of times, but this text is only a report about the fact that decisions have been made about the question of Easter, and apparently these lines are but a short summary of Constantine’s Letter.
According to III 21, at the close of the synod, Constantine made a speech. III 23 regarding the second session of the council will be dealt with at a different place.
Eusebius’ work Against Marcellus
Until now, the fragments of Marcellus of Ancyra’s book against Asterius which Eusebius incorporated in his fourth book of his work Against Marcellus have not been exhausted as a source for the earliest history of the Arian debate. Here, Eusebius reports about Marcellus’ attacks against the orthodox authors (4,1). Next to Asterius, against whom Marcellus specifically is writing, Marcellus deals with and excerpts materials from the writings of Paulinus of Tyrus, Narcissus of Neronias, Eusebius the Great, namely the Nicomedian, and eventually Eusebius of Caesarea to demonstrate their non-traditional, wrong teachings. It is generally known that Marcellus quotes from Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Letter to Paulinus of Tyrus. A comparison of Marcellus phrasing and the letter shows that Marcell gives only a report of the source. Marcellus incorporates only important catchwords into a phrase that is created by himself. Already the addition ta;" probola;" dogmativzonte" (sc. oiJ patevre") is not part of Eusebius’ letter and would have been totally rejected by the Nicomedean. To note this fact is important for assessing Marcellus’ way of dealing with his opponents. In addition, Marcellus quotes (4,4ff.) a piece of a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea to his community. The section on p. 18,16-20. 22. 28-9 we meet in Urk. 23 (107,7-8. 12-3.; 108,9-10 Opitz). Here, too, Marcellus only gives a report, although without altering the meaning. These two pieces, however, point to the pre-Nicene period of the Arian debate. Marcellus assembles witnesses of written statements of bishops that sympathized with Arius’ party. This harmonizes well with his aim, to target the entire group of bishops who are friends with Arius by attacking Asterius. From this follows without doubt, how to qualify the fragments of the letters of Paulinus of Tyrus, Narcissus of Neronias and Eusebius of Caesarea which we find in Marcellus’ fragments together with the sentences of the letters from both Eusebii.
First, Marcell quotes a piece of a letter of Paulinus of Tyrus, initiated by a remark of Asterius. Apparently it is a statement of the bishop of Tyrus to which he was pushed by Eusebius of Nicomedia and his letter, because Asterius speaks about the letter of Paulinus in connection with his report about Eusebius’ letter. And he quotes from the letter of Paulinus. In his letter, Paulinus quoted a sentence of Origen, De principiis to support his view (p. 21,13). For Marcellus, the reference of Origen is the reason that he deals with the great Alexandrian. The quote fro Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, however which Marcellus discusses can hardly have been part of Paulinus’ letter. In a later passage in chapter 4,49 and 4,51 Marcellus comes back to Paulinus and quotes a sentence by him which will have derived from his letter. If one takes into account the place of Paulinus’ text in Marcellus’ fragments and the mentioning of the Alexandrian Origen, the conclusion does not seem to be wrong that the fragments have been taken from Paulinus’ letter to Alexander of Alexandria. In addition, these fragments are amongst the most important sources, as in these Paulinus is the first, as far as we know, who refers to Origen as a witness in the pre-Nicene period of the dispute. The one who refers to Origen, however, will hardly and without restrictions call Christ a ktivsma, as Marcellus wants to make his readers believe. How an Origenist interprets Prov. 8:22 that lead to the term ktivsma, can be seen from Eusebius in De eccl. theol. III 2. [[Marcellus of Ancyra also complaints in one of his fragments of his antieusebian work that Eusebius has called Christ a creature.]] In the fragment from chapter 4,38 he complaints that bishops had also adopted teachings that are missing any support from Scripture. As supporting evidence he quotes from a letter [one page = p. LXII missing]
Here, it becomes clear why Eusebius deals so extensively with Marcellus’ attack against Paulinus of Tyrus, Narcissus and against himself. Marcellus has hit the post painful experience in Eusebius’ life, his condemnation through the synod of Antioch. That Marcellus hints at this event is without doubt, as here as well as in Antioch, Eusebius and Narcissus were the two people who were charged.
Now, Eusebius reports about Marcellus making mention of a homily which he, Eusebius, held in Laodicea, on the basis of which Marcellus adds broad accusations against the hardnosed Palestinian. Eusebius’ does not appreciate him being mentioned, he calls the report a chatter which Marcellus has got by hearsay. The aggressive narration of Marcellus and the hardly restrained anger of Eusebius leave the historical events in the dark. But perhaps one can interpret the sayings of the two by concluding that Eusebius remained on his position which he held in Antioch and even made it public in a homily at the see of the third person who had been accused, Theodot of Laodicea.
In addition, Marcellus reports that Eusebius had charged Marcellus of false belief and expounded his own wrong teaching from the pulpit when, on a journey, he paid a visit to Ancyra. It is hardly possible that Marcellus had received this information merely by hearsay, as Eusebius claims. Marcellus was bishop of this place. If these events which Marcellus had mentioned so far, took place before Nicaea, Eusebius’ stay will have taken place on his way home from Nicaea. Paulinus of Tyrus, too, was present, because Marcellus’ note that Paulinus called Christ a creature on his journey through Ancyra has to be linked to that about Eusebius.
Eventually, Marcellus adds a number of phrases from a letter of Eusebius of Cesarea. For the first time, he quotes from this letter, in order to show that Narcissus in his letter rendered Eusebius correctly. Eusebius in his defense uses these quotes alternating with those of Narcissus’ letter. Therefore, they have to be attributed to the same letter. They are the following passages 4,40.41 (p. 26,4-21); 4,50 (p. 28,18-9); 4,51-2 (p. 28,22-30); 4,57 (29,19-24). Now, as the quotes 4,50.51.52 (p. 28,18-30) literally in Urk. 3,1 (p. 15,7) and 3,3 (p. 16b,2f.), they all belong to the letter of Eusebius to Ephrantion, although it it is not clear, how exactly to relate those sentences. The fragments 4,40.41 and 4,57 will be described below and attached as par. 4 and 5.
ZNW 33 (1934): 131-59.
Euseb’s Vita Constantini
 See page ### p. CXXVII.
 Socr., Hist. eccl. I 7,1.
 Socr., Hist. eccl. III 7,12.
 Ath., Aol. C. Ar. 74 (I 190 F) and 76 (I 193 A).
 See Socr., Hist. eccl. III 7,12.
 So also Chrys., Hom. ad pop. Ant. 21 (II 219,6 Montf.).
 Soz., Hist. eccl. II 25,3.
 Labourt, Le christianisme dans l’empire Perse (Paris, 1904), 93-4.
 So the Syriac list in Schulthess p. 7 no. 82; in Gelzer I 82, II 82, III 81, IV 78, V 82, VII 98, VIII 82 IX 85, XI 76. In the list of the Cod. Sinait. Gr. 1117 s. XIV nr. 37; see also the latin lists in Turner, Monumenta I 54-55. 97. 98 no. 83.
 Steph., s.v. Pevrsa.
 See Georgius Cypr., Descriptio, ed. Gelzer, no. 878 and the commentary by Hoffman.
 It is unclear whether it is the same as Gelzer V no. 202: Bavdio" Bospovrou.
 Socrates, Hist. eccl. I 8,9 who quotes Eusebius corrects the number to ‘over 300’.
 Theod., Hist. eccl. I 8,1.
 Urk. 26 (137,1; 138,9 Opitz).
 Ath., Apol. c. Arian. 23 (I 143D).
 Ath., De decr. Nic. 3 (I 210D) and Anhang Urk. 25.
 Hilar., Coll. Antiar. B II 9,7 (CSEL 65, 149,23 Feder).
 318 Fathers are also mentioned in the previously unknown list of the Cod. Sinait. Gr. 1117 (s. XIV), edited by Benečevič, Bulletin de l’academie imperial des sciences de St Pétersbourg (1908), 6th series, 2,1, pp. 281-306. This list, without the commentary by Benečevič, has been printed by Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach den orientalischen Quellen (Leipzig, 1925), 258ff. The list needs a new, broad investigation (see further below), as it is the source for those lists that are not part of the Socrates-Theodosius tradition. In addition to this list and the one published by Gelzer, one also needs to add the lists, the Latin one published by Turner, and the one by Michael Syrus to explore the names of those present in Nicaea. According to a note in the Byzantinischen Neugriechischen Jahrbüchern 8 (1931) 450, Benečevič has discovered a Syriac-Greek repertory of the Fathers, dated to the 9th century. This list seems to be essentially the same as the one by Michael Syrus. Unfortunately, Benečevič had his study printed in Christianskoje Vostok 7 (1923), but because of the Russian political circumstances it had not been published. More on the number 318 can be found in Tillemont VI 805 and Hefele-Leclerq, Histoire des Conciles I 409ff. The oriental material can be found in full and with commentary in Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach den orientalischen Quellen (1925), 248ff.
 Socr., Hist. eccl. IV 12,28-29.
 Hilar., Coll. Antiar. B II 10 (CSEL 65, 150,5 Feder).
 Ath., Ep. ad Afros 2 (I 892B).
 The division of the synod are attested by Euseb. Caes., Hist. eccl. III 13 (83,16.19). III 10 (81,13) gives pagh'n eJkavtero" tauvthn a[gwn is incomprehensible. On the basis of III 13, the conjecture of Schwartz (Pauly-Wissowa VI 1413,40ff.) ‘to; tavgm’ for tauvthn certainly correct. It follows, that two leaders fought for the cause of their respective parties, presumably Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria.
 See below.
 Soz., Hist. eccl. I 19,2.
 Similarly, but independent of Sozomenus, Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus V 7 (PG 139,1367B). Niketas also knows a note by Theodor of Mopsuestia (see Parmentier in his edition of Theodoret, p. XCI): ‘Ut autem Theodorus Mopsuestiaeus scribit, Alexandro Alexandrino pontifici id honoris (sc. the address to the Emperor) ultro delatum est, quippe qui synodi cogendae dux et auctor exstitisset. Hunc in synodi consessu omnia ut se habeant ordine narrasse subjicit’, see p. LVI, note 3.
 So Urk. 18 (103,16 Opitz).
 See Euseb., Caes., Vita Const. II 13 (83,14).
 Ath., De fuga 5 (I 322D); see Opitz, Review of Haynes and Haynes himself.
 See also Ath., Hist. Arian. 42 (I 369B) th;n ejn Nikaiva/ pivstin ejxevqeto. Phoebadius, Adv. Arianos 23 (PL 20,30C). Irrelevant is Theodoret, Hist. eccl. II 15,9.
 Maassen, Geschichte der Literatur und der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts im Abendland (1870), I 547. Turner I 104. The same is found in the Arabic acts in Mansi II 1061-1062, see on the manuscripts Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien par. 26a, p. 178.
 Ath., Ep. ad epp. Aeg. et Lib. 8 (I 278C).
 Jerome, Ep. 73,2 (CSEL 55, 14,15 Hilberg).
 Theod., Hist. eccl. I 7,10; on John see Acta conc. oec. I 5 (312,15).
 See Schwartz (Pauly-Wissowa VI 1413,58).
 Fac., Pro defensione VIII 1 (PL 67,711A) and XI 1 (795A).
 So Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach den orientalischen Quellen (1925), 256.
 Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach den orientalischen Quellen (1925), 256.
 Maassen, Geschichte der Literatur und der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts im Abendland (1870), I 40.
 So, with good reasons, R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I 443 A.3 about the position of Ossius. In the list of Serdica (Ath., Apol. c. Arian. 50 [I 168A; similarly Turner, I 546]), Ossius takes the first place, followed by the Roman legates. As his chairmanship of the western synod of Serdica is assured, the same we can deduct from his place in the lists of Nicaea.
 Ath., Apol. c. Arian. 23 (I 143E); 32 (I 150E); and Marcellus himself in Epiph., Haer. 72,2,1 (III 256,16 Holl).
 See below.
 P. Batiffol, La paix constantinienne (1914), 332.
 Jerome, Chron. ad ann. 326 (231,10 Helm); see J. Maurice, Numismatique Constantienne I p. CXXXIII; III 51-2.
 Euseb. Caes., Vita Const. III 15.
 Urk. 27 Opitz.
 Ath., De syn. 5 (I 719D); also Rufinus, X 6 (969,7). See also the remark by Atticus of Constantinople in the year 419 at the end of the copy of the acts sent to Carthage, Turner I 142 col. b.
 G. Loeschke, Das Syntagma des Gelasius von Kyzikus, 45 looked into this problem. But, based on Gelasius, there is no direct proof for the existence of acts. And yet, Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus V (PG 139, 1367A-B) and V 7 (1367C) says that he found information about Metrophanes of Constantinople and about the number of opponents of the Nicaenum in the acts of the synod that were handed around. However, Niketas had only consulted an anonymous copy of the History of the Church by Gelasius of Kyzikos. Bot passages of Niketas derive from Gelasius, Hist. eccl. II 5,4; 28,13; 27,11-12.
 Chaine, La chronologie du temps chrétienne de l’Egypte et de l’Ethiopie (1925), 49 A.1. where the various publications of this piece are given. The Greek text is printed in Pitra, Juris eccl. Grace. Hist. et Monumenta I 435-6. His old age is witnessed by the old Syriac collection of Cod. Par. Syr. 62 where the piece is part of the so-called introduction to Nicaea (Schulthesss, Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicäa bis Chalcedon, 158-9). The Arab writer, too, seems to have known the passage, see Mansi II 1048A-B.
 Urk. 27 Opitz; see Hilgenfeld, Der Passahstreit der alten Kirche, 367. The note on the three parts of the Empire that celebrate Easter on the correct date is as general as in Urk. 27 (147,9ff. Opitz). That Constantine mentions Cilicia amongst the provinces that celebrate Easter on the right day, while Athanasius in De syn. 5 (I 719B) and Ep. ad Afros 2 (I 892D) counts this province amongst the judaizing parts, then, following Duchesne, Révue des questions historiques 28 (1880), 26 one can explain this discrepancy with the fact tat Cilicia was at the border of the Dioceses of Asia and Oriens and, therefore, was divided between the two ways of celebrating Easter.
 Only E. Schwartz used the notes for his article on Eusebius of Cesarea in Pauly-Wissowa VI 1411ff.
 See below.
 In Euseb. Caes., C. Marc. 4,9-10.
 Urk. 8 Opitz.
 Urk. 23 Opitz.
 Urk. 8 Opitz.
 The numbering of the fragments [by Klostermann] by which the fragments on p. 20,32ff. and p. 21,3ff. are widely set apart are not relevant. On the basis of our argument, it will be good to group fragments 87.88 (p. 204,1ff.) with frg. 32ff.
 28,7ff. and 28,19-20.
 Chapter 4,45.
 Chapter 4,49.
 Chapter 4,40, p. 26,14ff.
 In a deleted passage, Opitz stated: ‘It is not impossible to conclude that this letter of Eusebius is connected with the negotiations in Antioch. Perhaps the sentences derive from the creed that Euseb handed out to the synod of Antioch. These passages are 4,40; p. 26,4-21; 4,50; p. 28,16-9; 4,57, p. 29,21ff. 30-1. P. 30,2ff.’