A participat episcopul de Tomis la Sinodul I Ecumenic?
Did the Bishop of Tomis attend the First Ecumenical Synod?

Summary/Abstract: The matter of the Bishop of Tomis’ participation in the first Ecumenic Synod from Nicea is still one of the most controvertial problems of the Romanian Christian history. The main causes of this reality consists in the small number of the wills which can offer us information about the participant bishops in the Ist Ecumenic Synod from Nicea, the bad conditions of the copies made after the genuine list with the bishops who took part in that event’s signatures and in the ambiguous information offered by the Byzantine chroniclers from the IVth – VIth centuries. Moreover, it must be seen from the beginning that in none of the wills that refer to the developing of the Ist Ecumenic Synod is the Tomis bishop’s who wrote in participation at this mentioned synod. Some pieces of news, both vague and ambiguous are invoked though by some historians to support this work. The most important piece of news according to this is considered to be the one offered by Eusebiu of Cezareea, who wrote in ”Happy Emperor Constantine’s Life”, referring to the bishops who had taken part in the synod that ”not even the Scyths’ was missing from the group”… This piece of information is considered by most of the Romanian scientists and especially of the theologists but not only, as being the most representative proof in favour to the Tomis bishop’s presence at this synod. Most of their opinion is that the term ”Scyth” names the bishop from the Scythia Minor provence. Other scientists, analisying the way Eusebiu enumerated the provences from the Empire and the regions outborder this which were represented by bishops at the Synod, noticed that this respected the principle of enumeration in alphabetical order, thus, summing up that the Scyth represented an area out of the Empire, known as North-Pontic Scythia. Although it seems plausible, these hypotheses raise some problems. The most important is represented by the fact that in the list with the names of the participants at the Nicean Synod there was no bishop to be identified as being that region representative, as in the Persian case, represented by John. There is also the question how much was the Christianism spread at the beginning of IVth century in those territories, so there was a bishropic and a bishop, unlikely that such a church structure to exist, where exactly was that Episcopal chair located. Taking into consideration, firstly, the geographical order enumeration of the provinces represented by bishops at the I st Ecumenic Synod and, secondly, the fact that at the II nd Ecumenic Synod from Constantinople, the chair of the bishop Aeterius of Kersones from Crimeea was located in Scythia provence, thus it becomes more plausible the identification of the Scyth mentioned by Eusebiu with the bishop Cadmus of Bosfor from Crimeea. Another piece of information that seemed interesting to the scientists, raising also some other controverses according to the Tomitan bishop’s presence at the Nicean Synod, is provided by the lists with the names of the bishops taking part in this synod. In some of these documents there is the signature of one bishop Marcos of Tomeon, Marcostomes, in some others Qoumeon, Komeon itoi Kavaris or Comeonsis/Comeensis. According to the toponym, some scientists identified the bishropic which was represented by the bishop Marcos at the synod with the one of Tomis, considering that the toponyms Komeon/Comeensis are derivations from Tomeon/Tomeensis caused by the negligence of some clerks. The researchers think that the correct name of this toponym is Tomea and not Komea/Comea, locating this in the Mediterranean Dacia. In fact, it seems that the whole argument created around this Marcus Comeensis is a false one. Some researchers concluded that, sustained by the texts, the so called bishop Marcus Comeensis did not exist in reality, and thus there was no Comean bishropic in the Mediterranean Dacia. His presence between the sygnatories of the decisions from the Nicea Synod being an interpolation caused by the negligence of the Latin clerks as a result of some errors caused by the name Marcus worn by other two bishops, of Calabria and of Euboea, inscribed in the final part of the lists with the names of the Synod’s participants. Trying to fix the problem of Tomitan bishop’s participation at this synod maybe there are not to lack importance the data about the religious situation from Scythia Minor in the following period. Thus, there mustn’t be neglected the fact that in Scythia Minor the Niceean faith was intercepted and respected, while in other Danubian provinces the Arianism was adopted by some bishops whose predecesors had subscribed to the blaming of this heresy in Nicea. The Scythia Minor Christians’ devotion towards the Niceean confession of faith and their resistence to the Arian offensive can be explained through the fact that they received the Niceean faith directly from one of the participants at the synod, that pleads indirectly for the presence of the bishop of Tomis at the synod. Moreover, the importance of the Scythia Minor provence, which was situated at the border of the Empire with the barbarian peoples from the North of the Danube, both from the eclesiastical-missionary aspect and from the military strategical one, imposed the participation of the Tomis bishop at the synod. On the other hand, there must be emphasised the fact that Scythia Minor province was not represented at the synods developed in Sardica, in 343, and in Sirmium, 348-358. This indicates the issue of presence of a hierarch in the Episcopal chair of Tomis 325-368, when the Betranion bishop was certified. Taking all these into consideration, the bishop holiday would be the most plausible cause, if perhaps only which can explain the absence of the Tomitan hierarch from the Ist Ecumenic Synod from Nniceea. This idea seems to be confirmed by a funerary inscription discovered at Tomis/Constanta from where we can conclude that the bishop of Tomis received a martyr’s death under Liciniu, 319-324. Thus, there being a high probability that in the Ist Ecumenic synod from Niceea, the Episcopal chair of Schythia Minor, being thus vacant. Taking into consideration all the above mentioned and the the importance that Scythia Minor provence had for the Empire, could this have been represented at the Synod in the absence of its holder by the bishop Teophil of Gothia, whose Episcopal chair was found most probably in Pietroasele (the Buzau Mountains)? We consider that this hypothesys should not be ignored having some arguments in its fovour. Firstly, it would be the geographical closeness of the two provinces, under which we can assume the existence of some relationships between the bishops of the two churches since that period, these relationships being confirmed by the correspondence between Saint Basil the Great with the governor of the Scythia Minor provence, Iunius Soranus and with the bishop Betranion of Tomis, half of the century later. Through this correspondence, he requested mediation referral to Cezareea of Saint Sava from Buzau’s relics. Moreover, the itinerary of the bishop Teophil of Gothia to Niceea would have passed most probably through Tomis, where he would be embarked on a ship, the journey by ship being more confortable, safer and faster. On this occasion, the Tomitan Church representatives could have authorised him to take part on the behalf of Scythia Minor Church at the Synod, if not officially, at least formally, and at the end of it at his return Teophil would give as a precious gift profession and keeping truthful faith decided by the Niceean Synod. Thus, the presence of the bishop of Scythia Minor at the Ist Ecumenic Synod from Niceea in 325 cannot be confirmed as there is no evidence to prove this fact until now. In the extent, that future archaeological discoveries from Scythia Minor area will prove that in 325 the Episcopal chair of Tomis was not vacant there will be entitled to support the Tomitan bishop’s attendance in the Ist Ecumenic Synod.

• Details
• Contents