What if Philostorgius's Understanding of the Nicene Period Was Weighted Heavier?

 I’ve reworked the comparison table so that it follows Philostorgius’ order as reflected in those footnotes, and then, for each narrative item, notes whether the story (or a close version of it) appears in Eusebius’ Vita Constantini (VC), Gelasius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.

“yes” = clear parallel

“yes*” = similar story but clearly altered in detail or chronology

“no” = absent / contradicted in the standard account

“—” = not attested in the material your footnotes are comparing (i.e. the notes do not bring this writer in at this point)

Philostorgius event / claim (as signalled by the notes)	Approximate year	VC	Gelasius	Rufinus	Socrates	Sozomen	Theodoret	Comment (from the footnotes)
Arius as priest of the church of Baucalis in Alexandria, resentful of Alexander’s promotion, accusing him of Sabellianism and formulating “there was when he was not,” with the Son as a creature and similar teachings.	c. 318	no	—	yes*	yes	yes	yes*	Philostorgius and Socrates clearly share the Baucalis dossier. Rufinus has Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria without the Baucalis detail. Theodoret knows the controversy and Arius’ formula “there was when he was not,” but the Baucalis label is not in the transmitted text.
Constantius as emperor in the West (and his death), Constantine proclaimed emperor at York, and the basic outline of the tetrarchic succession.	305 / 306	yes	—	yes*	yes	yes	yes	All the historians give essentially the same sequence and approximate dates. Rufinus compresses events into his Latin narrative frame, but he does not contradict the outline preserved by the others.
Constantine’s conversion vision: a cross of light above the sun with the legend “By this thou shalt conquer,” followed by a night vision of Christ and the command to make the labarum, including a detailed description of the monogrammed standard.	312	yes*	—	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	Philostorgius and VC share the same broad vision and labarum tradition, though details differ (Latin slogan, exact form of the sign). Socrates and Sozomen explicitly depend on VC. Rufinus translates and adapts the VC material, and Theodoret follows the same chain, hence all marked “yes*”.
Composition and outcome of Nicaea, especially the number of bishops who refused to sign; Philostorgius gives only Secundus and Theon, while Socrates says five, though the conciliar letter supports Philostorgius’ lower count.	325	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	All later historians narrate Nicaea. Socrates’ report of “five” dissenters is flagged as a mistake in light of Philostorgius and the council’s own letter. Gelasius and Rufinus use the same pro-Nicene dossier but with their own numbers and emphases.
Meletius in the Nicaea story confused with Meletius of Sebaste; Philostorgius ties Meletius to the Egyptian schism, but translators note the onomastic confusion between different Meletii.	325	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	All the “orthodox” historians know of a Meletius problem, but there is cross-confusion between Meletius of Lycopolis (Egypt) and Meletius of Sebaste or Antioch. Philostorgius is not alone in muddling the names; the others correct or shift the identification.
Anti-Arian songs or ἄσματα ἐπιθύμια in Alexandria after Nicaea; Philostorgius does not mention the notorious “Thalia” song of Arius that Athanasius explicitly distinguishes.	post-325	no	—	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret know of popular songs connected with the Arian conflict, sometimes citing Athanasius. Philostorgius’ silence on the Thalia is singled out as significant in the note.
Crispus and Fausta put to death by Constantine; Philostorgius sides with the secular tradition that these executions occurred.	c. 326	no	—	no	no	yes*	no	Philostorgius agrees with secular historians about the executions. Eusebius’ VC and Socrates omit them entirely. Sozomen mentions the story only to question or discredit it, and Evagrius behaves similarly.
Conversion of the Goths and the mission of Ulphilas (Urphilas), who later adopts Arianism; his Gothic Bible translation and the spread of Arianism “over the East” through the Gothic missions.	mid-4th century	no	—	no	yes	yes	yes	Philostorgius and the “orthodox” historians share a common Ulphilas dossier. All three major Greek continuators narrate Ulphilas’ role; they diverge mainly in their evaluation of his Arianism and its legacy.
“The Indian” (perhaps Aëtios) as a dark-skinned or Blemmyan-type miracle worker; Theophilus likewise ordained by Arians and reputed for miracles, functioning as Arian holy men.	4th century	no	—	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	Philostorgius’ Arian miracle workers have parallels in Theodoret and in Socrates and Sozomen, but the latter present them with orthodox framing and sometimes different ethnonyms (Indian versus Blemmyan and similar shifts).
Banishing of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis at or after Nicaea and their recall; Philostorgius’ chronology, especially his making Eusebius quickly translated to Constantinople, differs from other historians.	325–334	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	All the historians record the exile and recall pattern. Philostorgius and Theodoret fall into a similar chronological “error” about the timing of Eusebius’ translation. The others push that translation later and tie it to more complex Antioch–Constantinople politics.
Agapetus of Synada, a wonder-working bishop credited with miracles up to raising the dead; Suidas wrongly ascribes him to Eusebius.	A.D. 334	no	—	no	no	no	no	Philostorgius is essentially alone among the church historians in this level of detail about Agapetus. The note stresses that Eusebius does not mention him, against Suidas’ later claim.
Series of calumnies against Athanasius, including the alleged murder of Arsenius and the magical severed hand, which the note identifies as stock Arian slanders refuted by Athanasius’ own Second Apology and the synod of Alexandria.	330s	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	Philostorgius relays the accusations as if they were true. The “orthodox” historians transmit the very same episodes but explicitly as false calumnies. Athanasius’ own dossier supplies their corrective perspective.
Gregory of Cappadocia as intruded Arian bishop in Alexandria; Philostorgius makes him die immediately upon Constantine’s death, before Athanasius’ return, whereas other historians place his ordination in 341.	c. 337 versus 341	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	The event of Gregory’s usurpation is common ground, but Philostorgius’ dating is flagged as wrong. Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret tie Gregory firmly to the council of Antioch in 341 and place his career accordingly.
Foundation of Helenopolis on the site of Drepanum, in honour of Helena, dated to A.D. 327.	327	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes*	yes	yes*	Philostorgius’ date and identification of Drepanum as Helenopolis match Sozomen closely. The others either presuppose the city or mention it briefly. VC celebrates Helena and her foundations without the same chronographic precision.
Lucian’s creed phrase ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, “an unvarying image,” later used in Arian formulas; Philostorgius links the wording to Lucian’s theological circle.	pre-312, then re-used later	no	—	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	Socrates and Sozomen also know of Lucian’s influence and this formula, but they deploy it within an anti-Arian narrative. Bull and Baronius try to rescue Lucian from heresy. Philostorgius treats the phrase and its provenance more positively.
Cultic reverence for Constantine’s statue, including the allegation of sacrifice offered to it; the note calls this a “gross falsehood” but allows lamps, candles and healing prayers at the site.	post-337	no	—	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	Philostorgius exaggerates this into outright sacrificial worship. Theodoret and others admit a quasi-cultic practice around the statue (lamps, candles, intercessory prayer) but do not concede pagan-style sacrifice.
Quarrel and war between Constantine’s sons; Philostorgius makes Constans the one who provokes Constantine II, whereas other historians say Constantine II initiated the quarrel and attacked Constans.	340	no	—	no	yes*	yes*	yes*	The basic event is common to all, but Philostorgius reverses the aggressor and victim roles. Socrates and Sozomen explicitly contradict him on who started the war and hold Constantine II responsible.