MALCHIONE. — According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 29, 2), he was head of the school of Greek rhetoric and grammar at Antioch. Eusebius’ explicit formulation suggests that M. did not have a private school, like Libanius, but was head of a corporation of rhetors or head of a municipal school (of the Museion?). It is noteworthy that a Christian could occupy such a prominent position in Antioch at this time.
Alongside this profession, he had, according to Eusebius, been invested with the presbyteral dignity on account of his orthodoxy. Indeed, in the debate with Paul of Samosata he is referred to as a presbyter. Yet the coexistence of a rhetorical profession with presbyteral dignity is surprising (G. Bardy, [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 279–281). This difficulty is also evident in the fact that M. appears at the second Council, convened against Paul of Samosata (268), as the principal figure in the debate with the heretic. The examples adduced by Bardy ([V. BIBLICA.], pp. 305 ff.) to explain M.’s role in the Synod do not hold. Perhaps P. Batiffol is right to compare the work performed by M. to that of the assessor (legal advisor) among Roman magistrates (Origines du règlement des conciles, in Études de liturgie et d’archéologie chrétienne, Paris 1919, p. 94); and if M. is called “sostina,” one must recall the political work performed by the “sostini” in the service of magistrates. In any case, M. was a man of Greek culture who, by introducing Greek philosophical terminology into the dispute, was able to convince the heretical bishop. It is almost certain that the Malchion who subscribed to the synodal letter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 2) is not identical with the sostina M. (so also Bardy [V. BIBLICA.], p. 298).