MALCHIONE. — According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 29, 2), he was head of the school of Greek rhetoric and grammar at Antioch. Eusebius’s explicit formulation suggests that M. did not have a private school, like Libanius, but was head of a corporation of rhetoricians or head of a municipal school (the Museion?). It is interesting that a Christian at this time could hold such an important position at Antioch.
Alongside this profession of his, he had, according to Eusebius, been invested with presbyteral dignity on account of his orthodoxy. Indeed, in the discussion with Paul of Samosata he is designated as a presbyter. The coexistence of a rhetorical profession and presbyteral dignity is nevertheless surprising (G. Bardy, [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 279-281). And this difficulty is also revealed by the fact that M. appears at the second Council, convened against Paul of Samosata (268), as the principal person in the discussion with the heretic. The examples invoked by Bardy ([V. BIBLICA.], p. 305 ff.) to explain M.’s role in the Synod do not hold up. P. Batifol is perhaps right to compare the work performed by M. with that of the adsetor (legal consultant) among the Roman magistrates (Origines du règlement des conciles, in Etudes de liturgie et d'archéologie chrétienne, Paris 1919, p. 94); and if M. is called a “sophist,” one must remember the political work that the “sophists” carried out for the magistrates. In any event, M. was a man of Greek culture who, by introducing Greek philosophical terminology into the dispute, knew how to convince the heretical bishop. It is almost certain that the Malchione who signed the synodal letter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 2) is not identical with the sophist M. (likewise Bardy [V. BIBLICA.], p. 298).