Marcellus of Ancyra Fragments

Marcellus was Bishop of Ancyra already by 314. He was in attendance at Nicaea in 325 and spoke out against the teachings of Arius. A decade later he refused to accept the ruling against Athanasius handed down by the Synod of Tyre, controlled by an anti-Nicene group led by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. He subsequently wrote a book Against Asterius, the sophist/philosopher who had written in defense of some of Arius's followers. This led to Marcellus himself being deposed by the Synod of Constantinople (336), and this decision was reaffirmed by several subsequent eastern synods. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote two works, Against Marcellus and On the Theology of the Church in opposition to Marcellus. The deposed bishop went to Rome where he pled his case to Bishop Julius, being cleared of all charges after submitting a letter and profession of faith to a Roman synod (341). This restoration was confirmed by the western Council of Sardica (343), but nagging doubts about some of his theological tenets left him isolated during the coming decades. He died in 374.

While his Against Asterius has not survived as a whole, many excerpts were incorporated into patristic works and have been collected most recently in the editions of Klostermann and Vinzent. No English translation has ever appeared in print. We offer here translations of select fragments.

Fragment number	Klost. 34 -- Rettb. 29 -- Vinz. 2
Ancient Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.4; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), p. 19.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Translator's Note	In this fragment, Marcellus, with the intent of refuting, quotes the writings of Asterius about the manner in which the Father brought forth the Son. According to Asterius, those who are “fleshly” (swmatikhn) and “sensual” (paqhtikhn) claim that he fathered the Son in the normal, human way. Such views, the product of fleshly thinking, are claimed as fact. Since the fragment does not contain Marcellus’ comments concerning this quote, we are uncertain of what exactly he finds wrong with Asterius’ teaching on this point.

Let me remind you of the things Asterius has written commending what Eusebius has incorrectly written, so that you may know that he clearly shrinks from the earlier promise. For he has written in his very own words, “The main point of the letter is to show that it was the plan of the Father to bring about the birth of the Son, and that the offspring of God was not produced by fleshly passion, which the wisest of the fathers showed in their personal writings, guarding themselves against the wickedness of heretics. Yet, certain fleshly and sensual people speak falsely about God as bearing a child, making their proposals into fact.

Fragment number	Klost. 43 -- Rettb. 37 -- Vinz. 3
Ancient Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.2; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), p. 12.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Translator's Note	Basically, Marcellus is arguing that “Word” is the original name and title of the one who is normally referred to as “Jesus Christ,” and that other names such as “Jesus,” “Christ,” “the way,” “the life,” “the bread,” “the door,” etc., were added to him only when he assumed human form. Marcellus makes his argument from the opening of John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word” (1.1). Since this Divine Person is called the Word from the very beginning, “Word” is his first and therefore preeminent title. All other names are merely temporary; they apply only to the Word’s “human dispensation,” which lasts as long as the current age. Once this dispensation has ended, all names except “Word” will cease to be used in eternity.

… so that it is clear in every way that no other name corresponds with the eternity of the Word than that which the holiest disciple of the Lord, the Apostle John, used at the beginning of his Gospel. For since the assumption of the flesh, he was proclaimed as “Christ” as well as “Jesus,” as “the life” as well as “the way” (John 14.6) and “the day” (6.39, 40, 44, 54; 8.56; 12.48; 14.20) and “the resurrection” (11.5) and “the door” (10.7, 9) and “the bread” (6.35, 48, 51), and if the Divine Scriptures call him by any other name, we should not forget that the first name that belonged to him was “the Word.” For this reason, the most holy evangelist and disciple of the Lord, at the very start of his Gospel, being greatly awakened by the Spirit, does not call to mind more recent names, but the original one, saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1.1). He said this to show that if there is any new or more recent name, it belongs to his human dispensation since it is new and recent.

Fragment number	Klost. 1 -- Rettb. 1 -- Vinz. 4
Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.2; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), pp. 9-10.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Notes	The Greek word “Jesus” is used in the Old Testament to translate the name Joshua, and in the New Testament for Jesus of Nazareth. Marcellus declares the name Jesus to be the greatest name upon the earth. To prove this, he quotes the angel’s statement to Mary in Luke as well as a passage in Zechariah. The Old Testament hero Joshua was given the same name as the Savior because he was a type, i.e. one foreshadowing a future person, in this case Jesus who leads true believers into the heavenly Jerusalem.

For there is no other name on earth greater than that of Jesus, as the Gospel [of Luke] witnesses. There the angel said to Mary, “Do not fear, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you will name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1.30-32).

It is also evident from the prophecy of Zechariah, who prophesied long ago concerning this name; for he says, “The Lord showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil standing at his right hand to accuse him. The Lord said to the Devil, ‘The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you!’” (Zech. 3.1-2).

When did he rebuke him? When the man loved by him united himself to his Word. The prophecy uses the words “who has chosen Jerusalem.” Clearly, this refers to our Jerusalem, concerning which the apostle says, “But our Jerusalem is above; for this present one is enslaved with her children” (Gal. 4.25-26). For since he was at that time in the great Jerusalem (i.e., our Church), he rebuked the Devil according to the prophecy, saying, “Get away from me, Satan, for you are a stumbling block to me” (Matt. 16:23).

Therefore this is the "great" (i.e. high) priest, who as a type Jesus saved at that time. For it was impossible for him to be called high priest, for although he was praised by everyone, Moses was not called “great.” But Moses was great in this way, that he was termed a servant of God, and God himself called him the “god of Pharaoh” [Ex. 7.1]).

But if anyone should like to refer to Joshua as "great" because he was considered worthy to lead the people into the holy land and did many other wonders, let him also know on this account that greatness was not attributed to Joshua for a deed that was a type, but rather to him who in a short time was about to lead his own people into this great Jerusalem.

Fragment number	Klost. 48 -- Rettb. 42 -- Vinz. 5
Ancient source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 2.2; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), p. 35.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Notes	In this short fragment, Marcellus claims that only the Word (i.e., Christ’s divine nature) existed before the creation of the world.

Surely then, before he came down and was born of the virgin, he was only the Word. For before he assumed human flesh what else was there that “came down in the last days and was born of the virgin,” as Asterius himself wrote. Nothing existed other than the Word.

So you are hearing the harmonious music of the Holy Spirit which testifies through many varied persons to the eternity of the Word. For this reason, the Apostle John begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1.1). He wants to show the eternity of the Word by using these three phrases testifying one after another.

Fragment number	Klost. 42 -- Rettb. 36 -- Vinz. 7
Ancient Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 2.3; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), pp. 43-44.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Translator’s Notes	Here, Marcellus argues for the preexistence of the Word, but against (in a qualified way) the preexistence of Jesus Christ. The Word has existed from the beginning; at a certain point in history, the Word took on flesh and became a man known as Jesus Christ. This human element, as well as titles such as “Jesus” or “Christ,” is not eternal. Marcellus anticipates the counterargument of his critics and opponents: Since many Old Testament passages refer to the Word as the Anointed One (Christ) and the Son, does that not mean that the Word existed as Christ even before he became human? Marcellus argues that these passages do not speak about the Word’s preexistent form, but rather about prophetic events which occur after the Word has taken on flesh.

The Word was “in the beginning” (John 1.1), being nothing other than the Word. But when the man, which had no prior existence, was united with the Word, he became a man, as John teaches us, saying, “And the Word became flesh” (1.14). Therefore, it is evidently for this reason that he mentions the Word only. Whether the Divine Scripture makes mention of the name “Jesus” or “Christ,” it is evident that it is using these names of the Word of God after he took on humanity and became flesh. But if anyone might claim to be able to show that before the New Testament the name of Christ the Son was applied to the Word alone, he will find that this was spoken as a prophecy. A clear example is the following passage, which says, “The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers are gathered together in one place, against the Lord and against his Christ” (Ps. 2.2).

Therefore, this was reasonably before his descent, which we have declared many times, [when he was] the Word. However, after his descent and assumption of the flesh he met disagreements and accusations, after “the Word became flesh” (John 1.14).

And so Asterius, while desiring to defend the incorrect position which Eusebius took in his writing, has created accusations against himself by bringing up once again “the nature of the Father and the nature of the created* Son.” It would have been much better to leave unexplored “the depth of Eusebius’ thought,” as Asterius wrote, “which is expressed in few words,” than to reveal the craftiness of the expression by such speculation.

* The Greek text has “uncreated Son.” However, because Asterius was an Arian, “created Son” makes more sense. This is how editors such as Klostermann, Rettberg, and Vinzent prefer to read the text.

Now let us examine a specific statement from Asterius’ writings: “The Father, who produced from himself the only-begotten Word, the firstborn of all creation, is different from the Word.” He wrote, “only-begotten and firstborn,” joining these names together, although they very much contradict each other, as even those who have difficulty learning can understand. It is clear that the only-begotten Son, if he really is the only-begotten, can no longer be the firstborn, and the firstborn, as a firstborn, cannot be only-begotten.

Asterius should not think this implausible, that his body, if it was younger than him, would be able to have such a beginning. Rather, let him consider above all that if the human flesh happens to be younger, nevertheless the Word, who thought it best to assume this flesh through the Holy Virgin, uniting his own body to it, not only completed the “firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1.15)—that is, the humanity created by him—but he also desires himself to be the beginning of all things, not only of those on earth, but also of those in heaven (cf. Col. 1.20).

Fragment number	Klost. 2 -- Rettb. 2 -- Vinz. 12
Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1.2; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), p. 11.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Notes	Marcellus focuses his attention on the phrase “firstborn from the dead,” which Paul applied to Christ in Colossians. The question that naturally arises is: Why is Christ called the firstborn from the dead if others were raised from the dead before him? As Marcellus correctly points out, there are at least three other instances in the Bible where people came back to life before Christ’s resurrection (2 Kgs. 4.32-35; John 11.43f; Matt. 27.52f). It is important to note that, unlike Christ, these people died a second time after their resurrection, so that Christ’s resurrection is unique. Nevertheless, the question remains as to why he is called “firstborn from the dead.” Marcellus’s answer, found in this fragment, is that “firstborn from the dead” actually means “firstborn of all creation.”

Therefore, the apostle says that the Word is not only the firstborn of the “new creation” (2 Cor. 5.17; Gal. 6.15) but also “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1.18), for no other reason, it seems to me, than that through the phrase “the firstborn of the dead” one is also able to understand that “the firstborn of all creation” is what is being said (Col. 1.15). For our Lord Jesus Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. Rather, the one who rose through Elisha the prophet (2 Kgs. 4.32-35) rose before him. Lazarus also rose before Jesus’ resurrection (John 11:43f.), and in the time of the Passion “many bodies of those who had fallen asleep” were raised (Matt. 27.52f.).

So then, if the Word himself is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1.15) and “by him all things were created” (Col. 1.16), we ought to understand that the apostle had in mind the Word’s human dispensation.

Fragment number	Klost. 5 -- Rettb. 5 -- Vinz. 14
Ancient Source	Eusebius, Against Marcellus 2.3; GCS: Eusebius vol. 4 (3rd ed.), p. 45.
Modern edition	M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).
Notes	An early heresy called Arianism taught that Jesus was merely a man, not divine, and that the Father created him first before anything else. Those who hold this position are referred to as Arians. Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea, whom Marcellus mentions elsewhere in his writing, were Arians. Thus, when Marcellus talks of some who say the Word “was the first created being” (see the text above), he may be referring to Asterius and Eusebius, or to the Arians in general.

Therefore, the Word was called “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1.15) because of his birth in human flesh, not because he was the first created being, as they* suppose.

* This probably refers to Arians, specifically Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea. See the notes for more information.

Therefore, this most holy Word was not called “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1.15) before the Incarnation, for how is it possible for him who is eternal to be the firstborn of someone? But he is the first “new man” (Eph. 2.15; 4.24), to whom God wanted “all things to be subjected” (Eph. 1.10). Consequently, the divine Scriptures call him “the firstborn of all creation.”

You understand that the things “in heaven and on earth” (Col 1.16), both now and in the past, “are created by him” (Col. 1.16) according to the new creation.

Wishing to plead his case in the letter poorly written to Eusebius, [Asterius] said, “First, I have not opened up the letter he wrote for the purpose of teaching opinion, for the writing was not made to the church nor to those without understanding, but to the blessed Paulinus.” (Asterius called him “blessed” because Paulinus had the same praise for him.) Therefore, since we have discovered Asterius’ “wisest fathers,” I put forth the following [suggestion] to find out the one who has become the teacher of both Paulinus and the others: [the identity] of his teacher may become abundantly clear to us from Paulinus’ letter.

For it is impossible for three natures (if they do exist) to be united into a single being, unless the three had previously originated from that single being. For Saint Paul said that those things which did not belong to the unity of God are “gathered up” (Eph. 1.10) in the single being. For the Word and the Spirit alone belong to his unity.

For when Asterius said, “The Word was begotten before the ages/eons,” the statement itself proves he is lying, in that he not only misses the main point but also the literal meaning. For if the Proverb (8.23) says, “He established me before the age/eon,” how can he say, “He was begotten before the ages/eons”? For one saw he was “established before the age,” and the other that he was “begotten before the ages.”

For the Word did not take on our flesh to profit himself, but to grant our flesh immortality through fellowship with him. This is clear from the assertion of the Savior himself. For concerning the flesh, which he had at the time he was associating with the disciples, he says, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man return to where he was before? The Spirit makes alive; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6.61-63). If he confesses the flesh to be no profit to him, how will that which is earthly and profits nothing also have a place with the him in the ages to come as though it is something beneficial?

For this reason it seems to me that the Almighty God, the Master, says to him, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (Ps. 110.1), seeming to set him apart only in power because of his human flesh, and appointing him to the throne at his right hand for a certain specified time, when he says to him, “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” But the holy apostle, interpreting this prophecy of David more clearly for us, says, “For it is necessary for him to reign until he has made his enemies a footstool for his feet” (1 Cor. 15.25).

Therefore, his human dispensation seems to have some limit, as does his kingdom. He means nothing else than what the apostle said, that he should wait “until he has made his enemies a footstool for his feet.” Then, when he possesses his enemies as a footstool for his feet, he will no longer need this partial kingdom; he will be a king ruling completely over all things. For he reigns “with God and the Father” (1 Cor. 15.24), whose Word he both was and is. The Word did not receive rule over the kingdom for himself, but the man who was deceived by the devil has become a king through the power of the Word, so that being king, he might defeat the devil who once deceived him.

Because of this, concerning this humanity which the Word of God assumed—and he being taken up now sits at the right hand of the Father—the Acts of the Apostles teaches us, saying, “it it necessary for heaven to receive him until the time of restoration” (3.21). This passage, which reads as if setting a certain interval and time limit within which it was fitting for the human dispensation to be united to the Word, speaks like this. For what else does he mean by saying, “until the time of restoration,” except to indicate to us the time when all things must obtain complete restoration?

Therefore, if in the time of restoration of all things even the creation itself will be changed from bondage into freedom—for Paul says “even the creation itself will be set free from the bondage of decay into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8.21)—how might it be possible for what is still the form of a servant, which the Word took on, since it is the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2.7), to still be united with the Word? Clearly and explicitly then, the Word’s human dispensation took place for our sake for a short space of time including both past and future ages, and just as it had a beginning, so it will have an end, as the oracle Paul uttered when he said, “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God and the Father” (1 Cor. 15.24).