The Background for Arius According to "Nicene" (= 381 CE "Theodosian") Sources

Period	Topic	Socrates	Athanasius	Epiphanius	Sozomen	Philostorgius	Theodoret
Background to Arius	Identity & post	n/a (bios not his focus)	n/a	Pan. 69.1 (Gr.): «Ἄρειος… Λίβυν τῷ γένει… πρεσβύτερον… τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς Βαυκάλεως… ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου… καθελεῖν… ἐξέβαλε τῆς ἐκκλησίας τε καὶ τῆς πόλεως…» – Libyan by birth, presbyter of Baucalis, deposed and expelled by Alexander after a synod. Frank Williams (Panarion p. 323) notes Epiphanius draws on Athanasius’ Apologia secunda but also oral sources; he is more sympathetic to Meletius and probably uses Athanasius’ De morte Arii for Arius’ death. Yet Epiphanius mangles basic history: he says Arius was “born in the reign of Constantine, son of Constantius,” and makes Constantius the son of Valerian, co-ruling with Diocletian and Maximian. All this is demonstrably wrong; Arius must have been born decades before Constantine.	n/a	n/a	HE 1.1–1.3; 1.4. Arius and Achillas “sprout” the formulae “from non-beings” etc. Arius is presbyter, deposed by Alexander: «Ἄρειος… πρεσβύτερος ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου καθαιρεθείς» (sense of I.4.1, 11–12).
Background to Arius	Appearance / character	n/a	n/a	Pan. 69.1: «ἦν… ὑπερμήκης, κατηφὴς… γλυκὺς τῇ προσηγορίᾳ…» – very tall, downcast look, gentle and ingratiating in address. Also Pan. 64.4.2: “Arius took his cue from Origen, and so did the later Anomoeans.”	n/a	n/a	n/a
Background to Arius	Following & allies	n/a	De sententia Dionysii: Athanasius complains the Arians “slander the Fathers,” claiming Dionysius of Alexandria as their ally – co-opting sober figures when under fire («τὸν μακαρίτην ∆ιονύσιον… ὡς ὁμόδοξον ἑαυτῶν… λοιδοροῦσιν», 1.1–1.3). Athanasius never himself appeals to the Alexandrian “lineage,” but is forced to admit: – There was already a Rome–Alexandria dossier in Dionysius’ time; Rome condemned both Sabellianism and the “Word as creature” thesis – i.e. an Arian-type position – “from of old” («δείκνυται… ἔκπαλαι… ἀναθεματισθεῖσα… ἡ αἵρεσις», 13.3). – Dionysius died in communion and is remembered among the Fathers, so he cannot have been truly “Arian” (3.4: «μήτε… κατεγνωσθεὶς… μήτε… ἐξῆλθε τῆς ἐκκλησίας…»). He likens the Arians’ genealogy-claim to the Jews saying “we have Abraham as father.”	Pan. 69.1.3–2.1: Arius draws a large following; Epiphanius gives the stock figures («ἑπτακοσίας παρθενεύουσας… πρεσβυτέρους ἑπτά, διακόνους δώδεκα… Σεκοῦνδον Πενταπόλεως…»).	n/a	n/a	HE 1.3–1.4: Arius boasts of his episcopal supporters: «Εὐσέβιος… Θεόδοτος… Παυλῖνος… Ἀθανάσιος… Γρηγόριος… Ἀέτιος…»; «συνήχθησαν… οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀνατολήν». A court-party around Eusebius develops in I.6–7.
Background to the Arian conflict	Alexandrian parish map	n/a	n/a	Pan. 69 (passim): many titled congregations – of Dionysius, Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Annianus, Baucalis, etc. – under a single archbishop, each with its own presbyter.	HE 1.15: notes presbyters attached to distinct churches under one city-bishop; explains how Arius can have “his own” congregation while still under Alexandria.	n/a	Alexander’s circulars presuppose the same map: «συνόδῳ… ἀποκηρυχθέντος… Ἄρειός τε καὶ Ἀχιλλᾶς…» (I.4.1–3, 11–14).
Diocletian–Maximian persecution	Meletian seedbed	HE 1.6: Mentions Meletian schism in Egypt as backdrop; Meletius is bishop in Thebaid, contemporary with Peter of Alexandria, in the persecution.	cf. Acts of Peter of Alexandria	Panarion De Melitianis 3.141–143 (Gr.): Meletius in Thebaid; prison conflict with Peter; “Church of the Martyrs” vs “Catholic Church.” Epiphanius frames Meletius as orthodox in faith but schismatic.	HE 1.24; 2.21: Meletians are admitted at Nicaea under conditions; later re-ignite discord and ally tactically with Arians in Egypt.	Fragmentary HE (via Photius): stresses the Meletians’ later alignment with Arians from an Arian-leaning perspective.	After Nicaea Theodoret summarises the settlement on Meletius (I.9–10): Peter had deposed him; he “troubled Thebaid and Egypt”; Nicene canons limit his clergy.
Pre-Arian conflict	Peter deposes Meletius	HE 1.6: Peter the martyr deposes Meletius; Meletius leads a schism parallel to the Great Church.	Acts of Peter: Peter “by letter” separates Meletians from communion; Meletius portrayed as a repeat violator of canons and primary schismatic antagonist.	Pan. De Mel.: confirms the same schism line, but with a friendlier tone to Meletius than Athanasius.	HE 1.24: Nicaea’s settlement curbs Meletius and ranks his ordinands below Catholic clergy.	n/a	HE I.9–10: «ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πέτρου ἐλεγχθείς… καὶ καθαιρεθείς…»; then Nicene limitations on Meletian clergy («ὁρίζει ἡ σύνοδος…»).
Pre-Arian conflict	Meletian parallel churches (“Church of the Martyrs”)	HE 1.6–1.7: notes the separate Meletian communion alongside the Catholic churches.	n/a	Pan. 3.143 (Gr.): «…ᾠκοδόμει ἐκκλησίας ἰδίας… “ἐκκλησία μαρτύρων”» – Meletius builds separate houses labelled “church of the martyrs.”	HE 2.21: later Meletians in Egypt “are generally called Arians” as they adopt Arian doctrine.	n/a	Theodoret focuses on the Nicene decree and on Meletian agitation against Athanasius (I.10; II.1–2), not on the “church of the martyrs” language itself.
Pre-Arian conflict	Factional presbyteries in Alexandria	Seen only implicitly in later dossiers.	Acts of Peter: Meletius ordains secretly; Arius appears first as a layman dear to Meletius, then “as if deserting” him he approaches Peter, is ordained deacon at others’ request, and is finally cut off as a “putrid limb.” Peter’s torn-tunic vision prefigures Arius and binds Achillas/Alexander to keep him out.	Pan. 69: names Colluthus, Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius – rival exegetical lines; proto-parties form around presbyteral teachers.	HE 1.15: Alexander allows debate; presbyters lead distinct circles though one bishop presides over all.	n/a	I.4: a presbyter nicknamed “Baucalis” (Alexander) stands second after Arius and “begins the cause” of the quarrel with Bishop Alexander; Theodoret emphasizes factional presbyteral figures in the run-up to the dispute.
Succession after Peter	Achillas & Alexander; Meletians side with Arius	HE 1.6–1.7: After Peter’s martyrdom Achillas, then Alexander, succeed; Meletians back Arius against them; many nonetheless defend Alexander’s decision.	Acts of Peter: Peter names Achillas and Alexander as successors and forbids them to commune Arius; Arius “in sheep’s clothing” seeks re-entry through them after Peter’s death.	Pan. 69.4.1: Epiphanius has Meletius “report” Arius’ heresy to Alexander – a tendentious re-framing of the Meletian role.	HE 2.21: Meletius first returns churches to Alexander, then on his death-bed unlawfully appoints John (Archaph), re-igniting discord; Meletians later ally with Arians.	HE 1.3: Philostorgius (via Theodoret’s epitome) says that when votes for the bishopric were going to Arius, Alexander preferred Alexander to himself and “went round and secured them” – i.e. Arius actually helped Alexander’s election.	Achillas appears only within Alexander’s dossier (I.4.2); Meletians later serve as tools against Athanasius («Μελετιανοὶ… δωροδοκούμενοι… κατηγόρουν», II.1–2).
c. 318–319	Arius’ theses & Alexander’s initial handling	HE 1.5: Arius’ core theses – the Son “there was when he was not,” made from non-existents; charges Alexander with Sabellian tendencies.	n/a	Pan. 69.2: Epiphanius rewrites Alexander as immediately opposing Arius and promptly excommunicating him. Later he laments that Meletians, once “absolutely correct in faith,” communicate with Arius and are defiled by his heresy, though some retain the true faith “in the slime of filthiness” (τῆς βορβορώδους ῥυπαρίας) – probably alluding polemically to the dunghill terrain of the Boucolia.	HE 1.15: Alexander at first holds Arius “in high repute” as a logician and allows free discussion; only later does he side with homoousios and order Arius to conform; on refusal he ejects Arius and names the clergy expelled with him.	2.3: Arius insists God is “unknown and incomprehensible” not only to humans but even to the Only-Begotten – Philostorgius’ compressed doctrinal summary.	Alexander’s synod letter: Arius’ theses as «ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων», «ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν», «κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα», «τρεπτῆς φύσεως» (I.12.1).
c. 319–321	Spread of the controversy	HE 1.6: Quarrel spreads from Alexandria through Egypt, Libya, Upper Thebaid; Eusebius of Nicomedia emerges as chief outside supporter.	n/a	Pan. 69.4–6: Arius’ circulars; Epiphanius preserves the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia.	HE 1.15: Palestinian and Phoenician bishops (Paulinus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Patrophilus) permit Arius to assemble but instruct him to seek reconciliation; Sozomen explains this by the Alexandrian custom of multiple presbyteral churches under one city-bishop.	2.2: Philostorgius adds the “Arian songs”: Arius writes sailors’ songs, mill-chants and travel ditties, setting doctrine to catchy tunes to “steal” hearers into impiety.	Theodoret echoes Alexander’s and Eusebius’ letters: «Ἔγραψε… Ἀλέξανδρος… ἐγκύκλια» (I.4.11–14); «Ἄρειος… πρὸς Εὐσέβιον…»; «Εὐσέβιος… πρὸς Παυλῖνον…» (I.5–6).
c. 320–321	Who triggers the formal split in Alexandria	HE 1.6: Alexander convenes a synod; Arius is deposed; circulars announce the decision.	De sententia Dionysii 1.7: Athanasius notes Alexander “by synodal votes” repudiated Arius («συνοδικαῖς ψήφοις… τὸν Ἄρειον ἀποκηρύξασθαι»).	Pan. 69.2–3: Alexander questions Arius; presbyterium convened; Arius is publicly proclaimed excommunicate in the city.	HE 1.15: Sozomen describes two phases of debate; Alexander eventually sides with homoousios, commands Arius to accept; on refusal he ejects him and lists the presbyters and deacons expelled.	1.4: Philostorgius focuses not on Arius personally but on a presbyter nicknamed Baucalis, “second after Arius,” as initiating the quarrel.	I.4.11–12: Theodoret stresses Alexander’s pre-warning (“he had previously told [Arius]”) before deposing him.
After deposition	Arius’ letters & partial toleration	HE 1.5–1.7; 1.9: Socrates notes duelling letter-collections of Arius and Alexander, later mined by different parties.	n/a	Pan. 69.4–6: Arius’ circulars across Palestine & Phoenicia; preserves the Nicomedia letter; notes a Bithynian synod of allies.	HE 1.15: Sozomen notes Palestinian bishops allow Arius to assemble a congregation but require him to seek peace with Alexander; explains all this by the Alexandrian presbyteral-parish system.	n/a	HE I.5: Arius’ self-defence: he is “unjustly persecuted” for saying the Son has a beginning and is from non-beings («ἀδικῶς διώκομαι… ὅτι εἴπομεν ἀρχὴν ἔχει ὁ υἱός… ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων…»).
c. 325	Constantine’s reaction to the Alexandrian quarrel	HE 1.5–1.8: Socrates narrates the Alexandrian conflict, Alexander’s synod, the letter-war; Constantine, distressed, sends Hosius of Cordova with a letter urging both sides to drop speculative questions and restore peace.	n/a	Pan. 69.9: Constantine interrogates Arius and issues an anti-Arian encyclical (Epiphanius gives the incipit: «Κωνσταντῖνος… Ἀρείῳ καὶ Ἀρειανοῖς· κακὸς ἑρμηνεύς…»).	HE 1.16: Sozomen has Constantine rebuke both Alexander and Arius for publicizing speculative questions and pair the Arian conflict with the Paschal dispute; Hosius is sent to reconcile both, and Constantine even abandons a planned eastern journey out of grief.	1.7: Philostorgius insists that even before Nicaea Alexander contrived a synodal confession of homoousios and repudiation of Arius.	HE 1.7–1.8: Theodoret summarises imperial peacemaking and Hosius’ role; cites Arius’ self-defence (as above).
325	Council of Nicaea	HE 1.8: Socrates – Creed with anathemas, Arius condemned and exiled; Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis later submit to the creed but refuse to sign Arius’ deposition. Acesius vignette; burning of complaint-memorials.	n/a	n/a	HE 1.17–1.21: Sozomen – Arius summoned and examined; c. 320 bishops; Julius of Rome absent but presbyter-legates present; Constantine speaks Latin with interpreter; philosophers’ set-pieces; only about 17 initially back Arius; lists disciplinary penalties, Meletian terms, Pascha decision, Acesius and Paphnutius stories; omits the Creed text citing disciplina arcani.	2.3: Philostorgius says that apart from Secundus, Theonas, and Lucian’s pupils, the rest of the “heretical cohort” drifted to this opinion; he also claims homoiousios was “smuggled” under homoousios at Nicaea.	I.7; I.12: Theodoret adds color – Constantine enters on a “small throne” (echoing St Mark’s cathedra), lists dissenters (Menophantus, Patrophilus, Theogonius, Narcissus, Theonas, Secundus), and notes an Arian draft creed torn up as “bastard and counterfeit.”
325	Aftermath at Nicaea	HE 1.9: Thalia repudiated; synodical letter stresses unanimity; Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais condemned with Arius.	n/a	n/a	HE 1.20–1.21: Sozomen emphasizes the “about seventeen” initial pro-Arians; Secundus of Ptolemais signs the Creed but then shares Eusebius’ and Theognis’ exile for refusing Arius’ deposition; no Theonas cited.	1.9: Philostorgius claims the Arian phalanx “shifted” to the council, in deceit, slipping homoiousios into the homoousios language while accepting the decrees.	I.12.5: Theodoret notes those who “first repudiated Arius,” presenting Nicaea as the definitive break.
Post-Nicaea	The rise of Athanasius	HE 1.23–1.35: Socrates tracks charges and dossiers against Athanasius (Arsenius’ hand, broken chalice, linen levy, grain), the Synod of Tyre, appeal to Constantine, and exile to Trier; stress on procedural history.	n/a (in this table)	n/a	HE 2.18: Sozomen frames Athanasius’ “reputation by resistance”; reports Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote to threaten him if he refused Arian communion; highlights the “homoousios” quarrel (Eusebius Pamphilus vs Eustathius).	n/a	Book I end and II.1–3: Theodoret narrates Alexander’s death, Athanasius’ election, and ensuing plots.
325–328	Recalls & “repentance” letters	HE 1.14; 1.23: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis send a libellus, are recalled, and reclaim their sees; Socrates infers they accepted Nicene faith but balked at condemning Arius, and that Arius had been recalled earlier yet still barred from Alexandria.	n/a	n/a	HE 2.21: Sozomen adds Meletius’ death-bed nomination of John, the Meletian–Arian tactical alliance, the note that Meletians in Egypt came to be called “Arians,” and the accusation that Eusebius and Theognis bribed the imperial notary to erase their Nicene signatures.	n/a	HE I.13–I.20; II.1: Theodoret weaves the recall motif into his wider story of prosecutions and imperial letters rather than isolating it.
c. 330–332	Campaign to reinstate Arius	HE 1.23–1.24: Socrates – Eusebian court runs two tracks (hostility to Athanasius + sympathy to Arius); Eusebius writes Athanasius, cajoling and threatening him to admit Arians; Athanasius refuses.	n/a	n/a	HE 2.18; 2.22: Sozomen names Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis as prime movers, detailing strategy at court to recall Arius and depose Athanasius.	n/a	HE I.13–I.20: Theodoret traces court pressure under Eusebius of Nicomedia as part of the same push.
c. 332	Imperial summons of Arius	HE 1.25: A court presbyter close to Constantia persuades Constantine that Arius was wronged; the emperor summons Arius with a promise of favour.	n/a	n/a	HE 2.27: Sozomen adds Constantia’s death-bed scene that moves Constantine and leads to Arius’ recall and demand for a written profession of faith.	n/a	HE I.38.1–2 (via Athanasius): Theodoret quotes Constantine’s oath-formula to Arius in connection with this recall.
c. 332–333	Arius’ “faith/repentance” to Constantine	HE 1.26: Arius and Euzoïus deliver a scriptural-sounding formula; Socrates judges it feigned agreement with Nicaea.	n/a	n/a	HE 2.27: Sozomen reproduces the full “scripture-only” text without Nicene technical terms and notes many judged it artful and ambiguous.	n/a	HE I.38.1–2: Theodoret notes Arius bringing a written confession “from the Scriptures” and Constantine’s oath-warning.
c. 333–335	Return bid at Alexandria; pressure on Athanasius	HE 1.27: With imperial support Arius seeks communion at Alexandria; Athanasius refuses; Eusebian party escalates accusations to remove him.	n/a	n/a	HE 2.22–2.25: Sozomen gives Constantine’s threat (admit all or be removed), failed calumnies (linen-tunic tax; gold casket), exposes the Melitian “Arsenius’ hand” plot, and details Tyre: broken chalice, woman ruse, Arsenius produced alive, Athanasius spirited away, condemnation in absentia, and circulars forbidding communion with him.	n/a	HE I.33–I.35: Theodoret recounts the charges and councils leading to Athanasius’ first exile as part of the Arius-rehabilitation campaign.
c. 335	Athanasius expelled from Alexandria	HE 1.33–1.35: Socrates – Eusebian party accuses Athanasius of threatening Constantinople’s grain supply; Constantine exiles him to Trier.	Hist. Ar. (passim): Athanasius insists the charges are fabricated; stresses Meletian–Arian agitation behind repeated exiles.	n/a	HE 2.21–2.22; 2.28: Sozomen ties the Meletian–Arian alliance and John (Archaph) to renewed turmoil and Athanasius’ displacement; preserves Constantine’s long summons-letter and the names of Eusebian witnesses.	n/a	HE I.35; II.1–2: Theodoret follows the same arc, presenting exile as the outcome of intrigues and imperial pressure.
335	Tyre & Jerusalem	HE 1.33: After Tyre and the Jerusalem dedication, bishops – citing imperial letters – receive Arius and his circle into communion and notify Alexandria that peace is restored, while Athanasius remains exiled.	Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 21.2–7: Athanasius quotes the Jerusalem synod’s circular urging acceptance of Arius’ statement since Constantine approved it.	Pan. 69 context only	HE 2.25; 2.27: Sozomen gives Tyre in detail and then Jerusalem’s restoration of Arius and Euzoïus, with circulars to Egypt, Thebaid, Libya, and Alexandria.	Epitome: Philostorgius affirms Jerusalem’s judgement and uses it to vindicate Arius against Athanasius.	HE 1.27–1.28: Theodoret acknowledges Jerusalem’s reconciliation of Arius, undergirded by imperial favour, while keeping Athanasius’ exile in view.
Late 335	Exile of Athanasius (grain charge)	HE 1.35: Eusebians accuse Athanasius of threatening Constantinople’s grain supply; Constantine exiles him to Trier.	Hist. Ar. 8–10; Apol. ad Const.: Athanasius treats the grain-charge as calumny, highlighting his roadside appeal and court intrigue.	Pan. 69: notes slander but not the technicalities.	HE 2.28: Sozomen quotes Constantine’s summons-letter to Tyre, names the Eusebian witness-line (Theognis, Maris, Theodore, Valens, Ursacius), and specifies Treves as the place of exile.	Epitome: Philostorgius approves the exile as just, painting Athanasius as seditious.	HE I.35; II.1–2: Theodoret narrates the exile and resumes the story in Book II.
335–336	Push for communion at Constantinople	HE 1.37: Arius, newly favoured, comes to Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia presses Bishop Alexander; Alexander fasts and prays; a public reception is scheduled.	Hist. Ar. 3.1–2: Athanasius parallels Alexander’s public prayer – that either he or Arius be taken before communion, lest the heresy seem to enter with him.	Pan. 69.10: Epiphanius makes Alexander’s vigil decisive in precipitating the “divine judgement.”	HE 2.29: Sozomen gives the full sequence Jerusalem → failed Alexandria communion → Constantinople pressure; underlines Alexander’s refusal and prayer before the appointed day.	Epitome: Philostorgius downplays Alexander’s resistance and presents the reception of Arius as just.	HE I.13–I.14; I.38: Theodoret aligns with Socrates: court pressure, Alexander’s stand, appointment for reception that never happens because of the death.
336	Location & circumstances of death	HE 1.37–1.38: On the eve of his scheduled reception, Arius suddenly dies in a public latrine near the Forum of Constantine; Constantine reads this as a sign vindicating Nicaea.	Hist. Ar. 3.3: «εἰσῆλθεν εἰς θάκας… πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησε μέσος… ἀπέψυξεν.» Public convenience, just before the communion service; emphasis on the “burst in the middle.”	Pan. 69.10: «μέχρι τοῦ ἀφεδρῶνος… καθεζόμενος εὑρέθη λακήσας καὶ ἔκπνους.» Explicit ἀφεδρών; links the moment to Alexander’s vigil.	HE 2.29–2.30: Sozomen – Arius seized with stomach pain, retires to a public place “set apart for necessities,” and is found dead, still seated; reports competing explanations (divine judgement, natural collapse, magic) then quotes Athanasius’ oath/perjury version.	n/a (death scene not central in Philostorgius’ epitome)	HE I.38.3–4: Using Athanasius, Theodoret stresses the catastrophic rupture («ἀναγκαίων χρῆσιν… καθήμενος ἔτι… μέσος διεῤῥάγη»).
336	Theological underpinning & moralizing note	HE 1.37–1.38: Socrates reads the death as providential confirmation of Nicaea and of Alexander’s refusal to admit Arius.	Hist. Ar. 4.1–3: Athanasius – the Lord himself condemned the Arian heresy and showed it unworthy of ecclesial communion.	Pan. 69.10: Epiphanius turns the death into acted exegesis of Mt 15:17 / Mk 7:19 and Acts 1:18 – what is “unclean” (Arian κακοπιστία) is vomited out into the ἀφεδρών; the Judas-lexicon λακᾶν underlines divine judgement.	HE 2.30: Sozomen balances reportage of three views but privileges Athanasius’ oath-judgement line and adds folk-memory (shunned seat; property later bought by an Arian) to stress notoriety.	Epitome: Philostorgius denies the “sign” logic, portrays Arius as unjustly treated and the Nicenes as aggressors.	HE I.38.4–5: Theodoret treats the episode as a divine check on heresy, authenticating Nicene faith.
General	Other notable Socrates judgements	Socrates repeatedly notes that Eusebius and Theognis accepted Nicene faith but balked at Arius’ personal deposition; he treats Arius’ later statements as “feigned repentance” and uses the death to close the rehabilitation arc as providentially blocked (HE 1.14; 1.23; 1.26; 1.37–1.38).	Athanasius leans heavily on the oath/judgement logic to claim divine closure of the Arian question at Constantinople (Hist. Ar. 4).	Epiphanius builds a scriptural tableau (Mt 15/Mk 7; Acts 1) to catechize against Arian teaching via the mode and place of Arius’ death (Pan. 69.10).	Sozomen stitches politics and providence – Jerusalem’s rehabilitation, Alexandrian refusal, Constantinopolitan pressure, and the death, framed by Constantine’s oath – into a single arc revealing God’s verdict (HE 2.27–2.31).	Philostorgius maintains an Arian apologetic: Arius is unjustly treated, his death not a sign, Nicenes are aggressors; he offers an alternative synodal history to blunt Nicene claims.	Theodoret uses the episode to edify: God prevents profanation of communion and confirms Nicene orthodoxy; he mirrors Socrates’ structure while adding his own documentary excerpts (HE 1.14; 1.38).