Shared Events in Philostorgius and Other Historia Ecclesiastica Writers

Event in Philostorgius (in Phil’s narrative order; year approx.)	Philostorgius	Eusebius VC	Gelasius	Rufinus	Socrates	Theodoret
305–306: Constantius made emperor in the West; dies in Britain; Constantine arrives, buries him, and is at once proclaimed successor (Phil. I.5–6).	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
312: Vision and battle at the Milvian Bridge; cross in the sky with the Latin slogan “In hoc signo vinces”; Constantine defeats Maxentius (Phil. I.6).	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
325: Council of Nicaea; Alexander of Alexandria vs Arius; homoousios imposed; only Secundus and Theon refuse; Eusebius of Nicomedia and others sign under protest, reading ὁμοιούσιος under ὁμοούσιος (Phil. I.7–9).	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
c. 328: Death of Alexander of Alexandria; Athanasius’ succession, with Arian version of an irregular, forced episcopal ordination (Phil. I.9).	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	yes
c. 330 / 334: Foundation / dedication of Constantinople put in Constantine’s 28th year (glossed as 334); episcopal succession compressed so that on Alexander of Constantinople’s death, Eusebius of Nicomedia is simply translated to the new see (Phil. I.9–10).	yes	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*
c. 336–337: Arian rehabilitation at court; prominence of Eusebius of Nicomedia; crisis around Arius and Alexander of Constantinople in the last phase of Constantine’s reign and into the succession of his sons (Phil. I.10).	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	yes
Endpoint claim: Eusebius “brought down his Church History to the period when Constantine the Great was succeeded in the empire by his sons” (Phil. I.2).	yes	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*

Explanation of the markings (assuming Philostorgius used Eusebius's longer ending):

“yes” = the author has essentially the same narrative block at roughly the same chronological point as Philostorgius, even if the theology is reversed.

“no” = the author either omits that narrative as a narrative block or only alludes to it so vaguely that it cannot be said to parallel Philostorgius in any meaningful way.

“yes*” = the author has the same basic story, but in a re-timed or structurally altered way relative to Philostorgius’ sequence, which is exactly where we can argue “orthodox” (or at least non-Arian) redactional manipulation of an originally different dossier.

The clearest “yes*” cases, where the chronology looks massaged against Philostorgius, are:

– The foundation / dedication of Constantinople and the episcopal succession there: Philostorgius’ year “28 of Constantine” (glossed 334) and tight Metrophanes → Alexander → Eusebius chain versus the more familiar 330-dating and longer lists in the orthodox historians and in the way VC is usually read.

– The endpoint of Eusebius’ Church History: Philostorgius explicitly puts it at the succession of Constantine’s sons, whereas Socrates, Rufinus, Theodoret, and Gelasius all speak as if the genuine Eusebian HE ended earlier, around Constantine’s victory over Licinius and the first peace of the Church, and then retrofit their own continuations on top of that shorter limit.