Omitting this group altogether, and the whole school omitting Apoc. Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 380) gives the two lists, Eusebian and Antiochene, as alternatives.
The Eusebian list only wanted the complete admission of the Apocalypse to be identical with the Athanasian; and Athanasius had one stalwart supporter in Epiphanius (ob.
During the persecution under Maximian (304) he relapsed into paganism, and thus, though received again into the church by Lucian and supported by the Eusebian party, never attained to ecclesiastical office.
For as Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra appeared on the scene, and the Western bishops declined to exclude them, the Eusebian bishops of the East absolutely refused to discuss, and contented themselves with formulating a written protest addressed to numerous foreign prelates.
Sofia in Bulgaria) formed themselves into a synod, and naturally declared in favour of Athanasius and Marcellus, while at the same time they anathematized the leaders of the Eusebian party.
But the whole question of the Eusebian chronology is very confused and difficult, and the text of the Chronicon is not certain.
The first part (edited by Tullberg, Upsala, 1850) reaches to the epoch of Constantine the Great, and is in the main an epitome of the Eusebian Chronicle.2 The second part reaches to Theodosius II.
It is quite possible that an error of a few years has crept into the Eusebian chronology, which is probably largely based on early episcopal lists, and therefore many scholars are inclined to think that 64 is a more probable date than 67.