Marcellus of Ancyra Fragment 9

Fragment number Klost. 35 -- Rettb. 30 -- Vinz. 9
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).




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.

Translated by Daniel Noonan under the supervision of Prof. Glen L. Thompson

Marcellus Fragments:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 36 47 106

Created by JRZ
Last updated: 5/18/07 JRZ
Copyright 2006 Wisconsin Lutheran College
Fourth-Century Christianity Home