CURRENT THEOLOGY

MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA IN MODERN RESEARCH

J O S E P H T. L I E N H A R D , S.J.
Marquette University

Marcellus of Ancyra—contemporary and friend of Athanasius, de-

fender of the Nicene faith, and for Basil of Caesarea and many others a
dangerous heretic—has never attracted much attention in English-lan-
guage research in patristics and the history of dogma. German Protestant
research, on the other hand, has long been fascinated by Marcellus. Adolf
von Harnack (1851-1930) chose a text from Marcellus, along with one
from Goethe, as the epigraph for his history of dogma.1 The text reads:
For the concept "dogma" is a product of human thought and human insight. That
this is the case is sufficiently demonstrated for us by the dogmatic method of the
physicians; and the so-called dogmas of the philosophers also bear witness to it.
And I believe that everyone knows that the decrees of the Senate are even now
still called dogmas of the Senate.2

Later in his history of dogma Harnack devotes a long footnote to

Marcellus, in which he calls him "a most interesting phenomenon in the
history of dogma."3 Of the other two great German historians of dogma,
Reinhold Seeberg (1859-1935) calls Marcellus "one of the most indivi-
dualistic theologians of the ancient Church."4 But it was Friedrich Loofs
(1858-1928) for whom Marcellus took on heroic stature, as one of the last
defenders of the better way. Loofs will be considered at length below.
After a short sketch of Marcellus' Ufe, I would like to review, in
summary form, the literature on him which has appeared in the last
century, especially since World War II. There is a particular reason for
this date. Before the war all studies of Marcellus were based exclusively
on the fragments of his early writings preserved under his name by
ancient authors.5 Beginning in 1949, however, several works previously
1
A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 1 (5th ed., reprint of the 4th ed. of
1909; Tübingen: Mohr, 1931) 2.
2
Marcellus of Ancyra, fragment 86. This and all translations (except some biblical texts
from the RSV) are the author's. The critical edition of the extant fragments of Marcellus'
writings is in Eusebius Werke 4: Gegen Marceil. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die
Fragmente Marcells, ed. E. Klostermann (GCS 14; Leipzig, 1906) 185-215.
3
Harnack, Lehrbuch 2, 242.
4
R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 2 (4th ed., reprint of the 3rd ed. of 1923;
Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1953) 95.
5
Most of the extant fragments were preserved by the church historian Eusebius of
Caesarea in his two works against Marcellus, written between 336 and 341: Contra Marcel-
lum and De ecclesiastica theologia (GCS 14,1-182). Some other fragments were preserved
486
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 487
considered anonymous or pseudonymous have been attributed to Mar­
cellus and, in some cases, dated in the latter part of his life. If the
attributions are correct, then material is available for a much more
thorough study of Marcellus' development and influence than was pre­
viously possible, and his place in the history of theology in the fourth
century needs a thorough re-evaluation. In any case, the traditional
picture of Marcellus and his teaching should be questioned.
LIFE

Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (now Ankara) in Galatia, personally

witnessed most of the Arian controversy.6 The date of his birth is
unknown; it was probably ca. 280. His name first appears in the list of
participants in the Synod of Ancyra in 314,7 which dealt with the lapsi of
the persecution of Diocletian; he was therefore already a bishop in that
year. More significantly, he was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325,
where he was among the most ardent opponents of Arius. After the
council he was, along with Eustathius of Antioch, one of the earliest
defenders of that council and its use of homoousion.8
by Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 72 (Ancoratus und Panarion 3, ed. Κ. Holl [GCS 37;
Leipzig, 1933] 255-67). These fragments are collected and ordered by Klostermann in GCS
14, 185-215, as noted.
6
Good biographical sketches of Marcellus are found in M. D. Chenu, "Marcel d'Ancyre,"
DTC 9 (1927) 1993-98, and W. Gericke, Marceli von Ancyra: Der Logos-Christologe und
Biblizist. Sein Verhältnis zur antiochenischen Theologie und zum Neuen Testament
(Theologische Arbeiten zur Bibel-, Kirche- und Geistesgeschichte, 10; Halle: Akademischer
Verlag, 1940) 6-27. General histories of the Arian controversy are also helpful; see especially
H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1900); M.
Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Studia Ephemeridis "Augiistimanum" 11; Rome:
Institutum Patristicum "Augustinianum," 1975); and T. A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-
Arianism (2 vols.; Patristic Monograph Series 8; Cambridge [Mass.]: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1979). E. Schwartz, "Zur Kirchengeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts," ZNW 34
(1935) 129-213, reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften 4: Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche
und ihres Rechts (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960) 1-110, is also useful, although marked by
Schwartz's conviction that Athanasius was a politician rather than a theologian. On varying
interpretations of Athanasius (politician, theologian, ascetic), see M. Tetz, "Zur Biographie
des Athanasius von Alexandrien," ZKG 90 (1979) 304-38. And recently, A. M. Ritter,
"Arianismus," Theologische Realenzyklopädie 3 (1978) 692-719.
7
C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907)
298-326.
8
On Eustathius see especially R. V. Sellers, Eustathius of Antioch and His Place in the
Early History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: University Press, 1928). There is a
growing consensus that Athanasius began his literary activity much later than had formerly
been assumed. Contra gentes and De incarnatione, his earliest writings, are now generally
dated 335-37, during his exile in Trier, and not in 318, before the outbreak of the Arian
controversy. See Ch. Kannengiesser, "La date de l'apologie d'Athanase 'Contre les païens*
et 'Sur rincarnation du Verbe/ " RSR 58 (1970) 383-428; and idem, "Le témoignage des
Lettres festales de saint Athanase sur la date de l'apologie Contre les païens sur
488 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Many Eastern bishops, however, while rejecting Arms' doctrine, saw in

the Nicene homoousion the threat of Sabellian modalism. This faction,
basically Origenist and led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, soon moved against
the Nicene party. Under its influence Eustathius of Antioch was deposed
in 330 (a more probable date than 326 or 331), and Athanasius in 335. In
336 a synod in Constantinople deposed Marcellus and named Basil as his
successor in Ancyra.9
The reason for Marcellus' deposition was a book which he had written
in 335 or shortly before. The book (its title is unknown and it exists only
in fragments) was a refutation of a letter written by the Arian Asterius
the Sophist in defense of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and in particular of a
letter which Eusebius had written to Paulinus of Tyre.10 Asterius had
represented a moderate Arian position. In his answer Marcellus presented
a theological system which differed radically from the Origenism which
was prevalent in the East. Marcellus' book (or its fragments) is the
classical source, for both ancient and modern authors, of knowledge of
his theology or heresy, depending on one's point of view. It is known
principally through the two refutations of it which the church historian
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote after Marcellus' deposition in 336 (and before
his own death in 341): Contra Marcellum and De ecclesiastica theolo-
gia.n
In contrast to the Arian theology of Asterius, Marcellus stressed
absolute monotheism,12 taking the Nicene homoousion as tautousion, or
"numerically identical in essence." God, for Marcellus, is a Monad; in
technical language, Marcellus insists on one ousia, one hypostasis, and
one prosôpon in God. The Monad may be called "God" and "Lord," but
not "Father." The Word exists eternally, as the dynamic element in the
Godhead, but it is identical with the Monad;fromall eternity it reposed
in God, and was not spoken until creation. Marcellus understands the
Trinity in a strictly economic sense. It is in connection with creation and
redemption that an expansion (platysmos) of the Monad into a Dyad,
Vincamation du Verbe" RSR 52 (1964) 91-100. J. C. M. van Winden, "On the Date of
Athanasius' Apologetical Treatises," VC 29 (1975) 291-95, argues again for the early date.
On Eustathius see also R. Lorenz, "Die Eustathius von Antiochien zugeschriebenen Schrif-
ten gegen Photin," ZNW 71 (1980) 109-28.
9
On the Synod of Constantinople, see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1, 667-78.
Basil of Ancyra was to achieve notoriety in 358-59 as the leader of the Homoiousian party.
He was himself deposed by the Homoian party in 360.
10
For this detail see Simonetti, La crisi ariana 131, η. 102. The extant fragments of
Asterius* letter (excerpted from the fragments of Marcellus' refutation) are printed by G.
Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son école (Paris: Beauchesne, 1936) 348-
54. See also idem, "Astérius le Sophiste," RHE 22 (1926) 221-72, where he too states (238)
that Marcellus was refuting Asterius' letter, not his Syntagmation.
" GCS 14,1-182.
12
References to the fragments of Marcellus would unnecessarily encumber this summary.
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 489
and then into a Triad, takes place. Marcellus seems to think in terms of
three economies. The first is at the moment of creation, when the Word
proceeds from the Father (here he uses the title "Father"), without
becoming a distinct hypostasis, and creates the world. The second econ-
omy is the Incarnation: when the Word becomes flesh or man, it also
becomes Son. (Marcellus never speaks of a begetting within the Godhead
itself, and generally avoids the title "Son" for the pre-existent Word.)
Before the Incarnation, the Word had no other name but Word; after the
Incarnation, it or the Incarnate receives all the other titles of Christ:
Way, Life, Resurrection, Bread, Door, and so on. The third economy is
the expansion of the Godhead into a Triad, which takes place on Easter
night with the sending of the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22). It is only then that
the Spirit is distinguished from the Word. Since the expansion of the
Monad into a Triad exists for the economy, or the order of redemption,
it is not eternal. At the end, Marcellus believed, the Word and the Spirit
would return into the Godhead, and God would again be an absolute
Monad. In this connection he made extensive use of 1 Cor 15:24-28,
where Paul writes that at the end Christ will deliver the kingdom to God
the Father, the Son will himself be subjected to Him who put all things
under him, and God will be all in all.13
This view was a particularly effective refutation of Arianism. The
Arians had used many passages from the New Testament (and the Old)
to show that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For Marcellus, the
title "Son" applies only to the incarnate Word, and all the difficulties
with the subordinationism of the NT are solved with one stroke. But it
is not primarily as a refutation of Arianism that Marcellus' thought is
interesting. As will be shown below, it is his system itself and its prece-
dents that have attracted the most attention.
Following the death of Constantine, Marcellus returned (in 337 or 338)
to his see, but within a year was again deposed. In 339 he went to Rome,

They are readily available in Gericke, Marceli von Ancyra 103-30.

13
The assertion that the duration of Christ's kingdom is finite is the teaching which
made Marcellus notorious. The Creed of Constantinople (381) contains the clause "of whose
kingdom there will be no end" in refutation of Marcellus. Marcellus drew on 1 Cor 15:24:
"Then comes the end, when [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father"; the bishops
at Constantinople used Lk 1:33: "Of his kingdom there will be no end." See E. Molland,
"'Des Reich kein Ende haben wird': Hintergrund und Bedeutung einer dogmatischen
Aussage im nicäno-constantinopolitanischen Glaubensbekenntnis," in his Opúsculo patris-
tica (Bibliotheca theologica Norvegica 2; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970) 235-53, and G.
W. H. Lampe, "Some Notes on the Significance of BASILEIA TOU THEOU, BASILEIA
CHRISTOU in the Greek Fathers," JTS 49 (1948) 58-73. A.-M. Ritter, Das Konzil von
Konstantinopel und sein Symbol: Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des IL ökume-
nischen Konzils (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 15; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 192, n. 1, lists other anti-Marcellian passages in Eastern creeds.
490 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

as did Athanasius and other deposed bishops. The Eusebian party had
sent letters ahead, calling into question Marcellus' orthodoxy. Julius of
Rome invited the Eusebians to participate in a synod at Rome, but they
never came. Before the synod took place, Marcellus addressed a letter to
Julius in which he confessed his faith in the form of the Roman baptismal
creed.14 In October or November of 340, the synod took place and
acquitted Marcellus and Athanasius of all charges of heresy.15
Julius informed the Eastern bishops by letter of the rehabilitation of
Athanasius and Marcellus, and probably included, at Marcellus' request,
the latter's confession of faith.16 The Easterners resented Julius' action
and at the Dedication Council of Antioch in 341 condemned Marcellus
by name in the so-called third creed.17 The division was sharpened at the
Synod of Sardica (Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343 (or perhaps 342), where the
Eusebians refused to tolerate the seating of Athanasius and Marcellus, as
the Westerners wished. The synod split into two parts, and the Eastern-
ers, probably gathered at Philippopolis, condemned Marcellus as
"haereticorum omnium exsecrabilior pestis."18 The Westerners again
14
The letter is printed in GCS 14, 214-15, and GCS 37, 256-59. Marcellus omitted the
word "Father" in the first article and added "eternal life" in the third. The omission of
"Father" can be explained by Marcellus' denial of the eternal generation of the Son.
15
The synod is sometimes dated in 341. On this synod see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des
conciles 1, 699-702.
16
Julius' letter is cited by Athanasius in his Apologia contra Arianos 21-35 (critical ed.
by H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 2/1 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938] 102-13). See also W.
Gessel, "Das primatiale Bewusstsein Julius' I. im Lichte der Interaktionen zwischen der
Cathedra Petri und den zeitgenössischen Synoden," in Konzil und Papst: Historische
Beiträge zur Frage der höchsten Gewalt in der Kirche. Festgabe für Hermann Tüchle (ed.
G. Schwaiger; Munich: Schöningh, 1975) 63-74. Gessel's concern is Julius' exercise of the
Petrine office. He analyzes Julius' letter to the Eusebians and, on the basis of a change in
tone, suspects that he can detect an echo of an aversion toward Marcellus on Athanasius'
part (73). L. W. Barnard, "Pope Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Council of Serdica: A
Reconsideration," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 38 (1971) 69-79, reviews
the events of 340 and 343 from a Western viewpoint, with particular use of Hilary of
Poitiers' De synodis as a source.
17
Text in Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, ed. A. Hahn
(3rd ed. by G. L. Hahn; Breslau: Morgenstern, 1897) 186-87. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early
Christian Creeds (2nd ed.; London: Longmans, 1960) 263-74. On the Dedication Council
(council en tois enkainiois, in encaeniis) summoned at Antioch to celebrate the dedication
of the golden church begun by Constantine and completed by Constantius, see Hefele-
Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1, 702-33.
18
The text of the decree of the Eastern delegates to Sardica is extant only in Latin; it
was included by Hilary of Poitiers in his Opus historicum aduersus Valentem et Vrsacium.
This work is extant only in fragments, printed in S. Hilarii episcopi Pictauiensis opera 4,
ed. Alfredus Feder (CSEL 65; Vienna, 1916); the decree is on pp. 48-78, the phrase cited on
p. 49. The Eastern bishops also added some anti-Marcellian anathemas to the Fourth Creed
of Antioch. See Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 274-77. The full text of the creed is also in
Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole 190-91 (in Latin).
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 491
acquitted Marcellus.19
Finally, in 345, Eastern bishops gathered at the third Synod of Antioch
again condemned the teaching of Marcellus (which they lumped together
with that of his disciple Photinus) in the Ekthesis makrostichos or
"Creed of the Long Lines."20 A synod at Milan, presented with this
formula, acquiesced in the condemnation of Photinus, but not of Marcel-
lus.21 Hilary of Poitiers writes that Athanasius broke with Marcellus in
345 or 34Ö.22 With this, Marcellus apparently vanishes from history for
twenty-five years.
Around 370, however, a group of clergyfromAncyra who were loyal to
Marcellus, led by the deacon Eugenius, sent a letter to Athanasius
confessing their faith and asking for his recognition.23 They accepted the
title "Son" for the pre-existent Word and laid stress on the one hypostasis
of the Godhead and on the homoousion. An Egyptian synod under
19
The text of the (Western) synodal letter of Sardica is found among the fragments of
Hilary's Opus historicum (CSEL 65,103-26). For the events at Sardica and Philippopolis,
see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1, 737-823. On the Western Creed of Sardica,
called by Harnack "the most unambiguous expression of Western thought on the subject"
of the Trinity {Lehrbuch 2,246, η. 1), see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 277-79. Specifically,
the Westerners insisted on one hypostasis in the Godhead. The text of the creed (in Greek)
is in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole 188-90.
20
Text ibid. 192-96; commentary in Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 279-80. The creed
avoided the phrase "three hypostases" in an attempt to conciliate the Westerners. See also
Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1, 847.
21
Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 280-81; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1, 847-
48. The narrative is among the fragments of Hilary, Opus historicum (CSEL 65, 142-43).
Photinus, Marcellus' disciple and deacon, and later Bishop of Sirmium, seems to have gone
far beyond Marcellus and taught pure psilanthropism.
22
Among the fragments of Hilary's Opus historicum (CSEL 65,146). The text in question
reads: "But the same Athanasius separated Marcellus from communion with himself before
Photinus was condemned [i.e., at Sirmium in 347]. [Marcellus] had been restored to his see
by the decision of the Synod of Sardica, after he read the book which he had written and
published [But Marcellus] tried to introduce some other new [doctrines] and in
ambiguous sermons to follow the way of teaching into which Photinus had fallen." No other
evidence suggests that Marcellus ever took up Photinus' teaching. Schwartz, "Zur Kirchen­
geschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts" 145-46, thinks that Athanasius dropped Marcellus in order
to win permission from the emperors to return to Alexandria; this is fully in line with
Schwartz's interpretation of Athanasius as a politician. Gericke, Marceli von Ancyra 21-22,
suggests that Marcellus acquiesced in Athanasius' rejection of him in order to help
Athanasius return to Alexandria. He interprets the split as a temporary measure, not as a
rejection on theological grounds. This interpretation seems almost too benign; but Athan­
asius did remain friendly to Marcellus. See Athanasius' Historia Arianorum ad monachos
6 (PG 25, 700C-701A), written in 358.
23
Eugenius Diaconus, Expositio fvdei ad Athanasium pro causa Marcelli Ancyrani;
critical ed. by M. Tetz, "Markellianer und Athanasios von Alexandrien: Die markellianische
Expositiofideiad Athanasium des Diakons Eugenios von Ankyra," ZNW 64 (1973) 75-121;
text, 78-84.
492 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Athanasius accepted this confession.24 Marcellus died in 374, probably

over the age of ninety.25
Opposition to Marcellus, however, had not died out. In particular, Basil
of Caesarea was strongly opposed to him, both before and after Marcellus*
death.26 Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, quite unlike his older
brother, appears to have been sympathetic to Marcellus.27 The difference
may be traced to Basil's emphasis on the three hypostases in the Godhead
in contrast to Gregory's emphasis on the one ousia. In the year after
Marcellus' death, his disciples at Ancyra composed another confession,
in which Marcellus' distinctive positions were further blurred.28 The end
of the Marcellian faction came with the Council of Constantinople in 381,
which in its first canon condemned "Mareellians" among other heretics
and in its seventh canon declared their baptism invalid.29
Marcellus' biography exemplifies some of the differences between East
and West. Marcellus was one of the earliest opponents of Arianism after
Nicaea. He was deposed ten years after the council, and by 345 his
teaching had been condemned by name by three Eastern synods. But the
West remained sympathetic to him and never accepted the condemna-
tion. This was quite in line with the long-standing Western emphasis on
the divine unity and its uneasiness with expressions like "three hypos-
tases.'9 The Easterners consistently feared Sabellian modalism (although
by the fourth century SabeUius' authentic teaching was practically un-
known), while the Westerners suspected the East of an inclination to
tritheism.
24
Ibid. 118.
25
The date is provided by Epiphanius, Panarion 72,1.
26
This is evident from Basil's letters. In Ep. 69 (371) he wanted Athanasius to condemn
Marcellus, but apparently Athanasius never answered the letter. In Ep. 125 (373) he wanted
Eustathius of Sebaste to subscribe to a condemnation of Marcellus. In Ep. 207 (375) he
warned the clergy of Neocaesarea against Marcellus' errors. In Ep. 239 (376) he accused the
West of being sympathetic to Marcellus, and in Ep. 263 (377), addressed to the Westerners,
accused Paulinus of Antioch of sympathy for Marcellus' teachiigs. In Ep. 265 (also 377) he
warned exiled Egyptian bishops not to receive Marcellus' followers into communion too
easily.
27
See R. Hübner, "Gregor von Nyssa und Markeil von Ankyra," in Ecriture et culture
philosophique dans la pensée de Grégoire de Nysse (éd. M. Harl; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 199-
229. Hübner's hypothesis (206) is that Gregory wrote his treatise Ad Graecos ex commu-
nibus notionibus in 379 to facilitate the reconciliation of the Mareellians; Gregory is at
pains to show that "three hypostases" is not tritheistic. Hübner also points out that between
381 and 384 Gregory wrote the tract In Mud: Tunc et ipse filius (on 1 Cor 15:28) on
Marcellus' favorite passage, using Origen and Marcellus as sources. Moreover, in Ep. 5,
Gregory has to answer the accusation that he receives Mareellians into his church too
easily.
28
Preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion 72, 11-12. Specifically, eight clerics of Ancyra
wrote to eleven bishops exiled in Diocaesarea.
29
Text, e.g., in Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. J. Alberigo et al. (3rd ed.;
Bologna: Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1973) 31, 35.
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 493
MODERN RESEARCH
Modern historical research on Marcellus began with the rise of the
historical-critical method. Nineteenth-century historians of dogma dis-
cussed his teaching and made him the subject of several monographs.30
But the most significant moment in research on Marcellus was the
publication of a monograph on him by Theodor Zahn (1838-1933) in
1867.31 Zahn set out to change the categories under which Marcellus is
considered, and specifically to avoid simply labeling him heretical or
orthodox—which until then had been the principal concern of those who
wrote about him.32
Positively, Zahn saw Marcellus as a "more reactionary than revolu-
tionary phenomenon"33—that is (for Zahn), Marcellus deliberately broke
with the prevailing Origenism of the fourth century and returned to
biblical norms for Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.34
To the extent that Marcellus granted that Christ was God's Son since he—
although he existed from eternity—had a beginning of human life through God's
particular action upon the Virgin Mary, he returned to the oldest forms of
Christology of the postapostolic age. To the extent that he chose the name
"Logos" as the most appropriate expression for the prehuman existence of the
one who, as incarnate, is Christ and the Son of God, and designated that immanent
activity of the divine being which creates the world as a procession of the Logos
and onlyfigurativelyas its begetting, he returned to the more perfect forms of the
Logos doctrine of the second-century apologists, while excluding théogonie notions
found in these authors. In his total theological perspective he is a faithful disciple
of Irenaeus. The development which lay between Irenaeus and himself, especially
the Alexandrian theology, could only have seemed to him an aberration.35

When he attempts to classify Marcellus* theology, Zahn uses a category

favored by some historians of dogma, namely, "the theology of Asia
Minor" (kleinasiatische, vorderasiatische Theologie), in contrast to
philosophical or Alexandrian theology. The "theology of Asia Minor," as
Zahn and others see it, is rooted in the Johannine writings and is in this
sense biblical. This tradition lays emphasis on the historical Christ and
his salvific work. While it uses the term "Logos" to designate the pré-
existent Christ, it does not speculate about the origin of the pre-existent
or his preincarnate functions. All of its Trinitarian speculation is eco-
nomic. The theological tradition of Asia Minor is found in most of the
Apostolic Fathers (particularly Ignatius of Antioch) and Melito of Sardis;
it is expressed most clearly in Irenaeus and preserved, to some extent at
30
The older literature on Marcellus is reviewed by Gericke, Marceli von Ancyra 28-69.
31
Marcellus von Ancyra: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Theologie (Gotha: Friedrich
Andreas Perthes, 1867).
32 M
Ibid. 3. Ibid. 7.
33
Ibid. 217. » Ibid. 216-17.
494 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

least, in Marcellus of Ancyra. The counterpart to the theology of Asia

Minor, the philosophical tradition, begins with Justin Martyr, who intro-
duces a true "doctrine" of the Logos. Justin (in Zahn's view) understands
the Logos as a power which goes forth from God through a precosmic
origin (emanation or begetting). The incarnation of the Logos in Jesus is
preceded by a series of theophanies and angelophanies of the Logos.
Jesus is called "Son of God" not because of the virgin birth but because
of the precosmic generation of the Logos. This theology, for Zahn, is
unbiblical and unhistorical. After Justin it is found, for example, in Origen
and Arius. Zahn leaves no doubt as to his own judgment: it is Irenaeus
and not Origen who is the father of a healthy theology.36
As already mentioned, of the three great German historians of dogma,
it was Friedrich Loofs who was particularly fascinated by Marcellus. In
his earliest writings on Marcellus37 he followed Zahn and concluded that
the basis of Marcellus' theology is "the economic-Trinitarian monotheism
of the traditions of Asia Minor."38 In his later writings39 Loofs replaced
"Asia Minor" with a more general "Antiochene" as the designation for
Marcellus' thought and lost some of his enthusiasm for Marcellus.
In a book on Paul of Samosata published in 1924, Loofs asserted that
this Antiochene tradition is found in Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and
Eustathius of Antioch, as well as in Tertullian, and can be traced back to
Irenaeus. It is characterized by economic Trinitarianism, an unphilosoph-
ical doctrine of the Logos, the restriction of the title "Son" to the
historical Jesus, a Dyophysite Christology, and strict monotheism.40 But
in the same work Loofs stated that Marcellus departed from the eco-
nomic-Trinitarian schema and called the Logos "Son" before the Incar-
nation. The Logos was in fact, for Marcellus (Loofs asserts), the subject
of the incarnate Christ; this results in a Monophysite Christology and a
tendency toward a pluralistic conception of the Trinity. Loofs attributed
these foreign elements in Marcellus* Antiochene system to the influence
of church orthodoxy and popular piety.41
36
Ibid. 216-45.
37
"Die Trinitätslehre MarcelTs von Ancyra und ihr Verhältniss zur älteren Tradition,"
SPAW (1902) 1, 764-81; "Marcellus von Ancyra," RE (3rd ed.) 12 (1903) 259-65; Leitfaden
zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte (2 vols.; 4th ed.; Halle a. S.: Niemeyer, 1906).
38
Leitfaden 245. The development of Loofs's views is presented in detail by Gericke,
Marceli von Ancyra 59-69.
39
Paulus von Samosata: Eine Untersuchung zur altkirchlichen Literatur- und Dog-
mengeschichte (TU 44, 5; Leipzig, 1924); Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem
und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (TU 46, 2; Leipzig, 1930).
40
Loofs, Paulus von Samosata 311-22.
41
Gemeindeorthodoxie, Volksfrömmigkeit (ibid. 239,318). In Theophilus von Antiochien
Loofs developed his thesis further: Spirit-Christology is the oldest form of the Trinitarian-
Christological schema; Theophilus of Antioch is the originator of this schema; besides
Spirit-Christology, this schema identifies God's revelation with the historical Jesus. Loofs
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 495
Wolfgang Gericke's important monograph on Marcellus (1940) grew
out of a seminar on Friedrich Loofs and is essentially a re-examination
and reconfirmation of Loofs's views: Gericke agrees with Loofs that
Marcellus combined Antiochene and Alexandrian traditions, but rejects
Loofs's final negative evaluation of Marcellus. Gericke believes that,
through the thesis that the Logos is God's operative energy (energeia
drastikë), Marcellus succeeded in uniting the Antiochene, economic
doctrine of the Trinity with Alexandrian, henprosopic Christology.42
In the early 1950's José M. Fondevila, a Roman Catholic, wrote on
Marcellus' Trinitarian and Christological thought.43 His small monograph
concentrates on Christology, and he concluded that for Marcellus Christ
is a union of flesh or humanity with the Word, or an assumption of
humanity effected by the Word. The flesh or humanity always remains
distinct from the Word. Marcellus accepted the communicatio idioma-
tum. The union was not merely "dynamic." The "dynamic dilation" of
the Godhead at the Incarnation, of which Marcellus speaks, is meant only
to exclude any substantial division of the divine being.44 Marcellus
emerges as quite orthodox. Fondevila does not come to grips with the
central issues of Marcellus' theology, and his work has received little
attention.
Gericke's and Fondevila's monographs are the last based exclusively
on the fragments of Marcellus' writings. In the past three decades or so,
work on Marcellus has taken an entirely new turn, through the attribution
to Marcellus of works previously considered anonymous or pseudony-
mous.

found two conflicting interpretations of Phil 2:5-11 in the early Church. One understands
Phil 2:6 as referring to the unified person of the historical Jesus, the other as referring to
the Logos. The former is found in Tertullian (with echoes of Theophilus) and Paul of
Samosata, the latter in the Alexandrian tradition, particularly Origen. In this book Loofs
sees both traditions mixed in Marcellus. See also idem, "Das altkirchliche Zeugnis gegen
die herrschende Auffassung der Kenosisstelle (Phil. 2, 5-11)," TSK 100 (1927-28) 1-102.
There is an interesting presentation of Spirit Christology by P. J. Rosato, "Spirit Christol-
ogy: Ambiguity and Promise," TS 38 (1977) 423-49.
42
Gericke, Marceli von Ancyra 183, n. 13. Gericke's book includes a translation of all the
fragments of Marcellus into German, the only modern translation ever done. Unfortunately,
it is rife with errors, according to F. Scheidweiler, "Marceli von Ancyra," ZNW 46 (1955)
202-14. Scheidweiler proposes corrections of Gericke's translations, and emendations of the
text of the fragments, and ends by calling Marcellus. in conscious opposition to the later
Loofs, "the most interesting theologian of the fourth century" (214). Gericke's earlier
publication, Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Marceli-Forschung von Rettberg bis zur
Gegenwart (1794-1930) (Halle [Saale]: Klinz, 1939) is simply an excerpt from his monograph.
43
J. M. Fondevila, Ideas trinitarias y cristológicas de Marcelo de Ancyra (Madrid:
Gregoriana, 1953), an excerpt from a dissertation written at the Gregorian University, and
idem, "Ideas cristológicas de Marcelo de Ancyra," Estudios eclesiásticos 27 (1953) 21-64.
44
Idem, "Ideas cristológicas" 64.
496 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Marcel Richard was the first to identify a work as Marcellus', namely,

the little treatise De sancta ecclesia discovered and published by Cardinal
Giovanni Mercati in 1905.45 The two extant MSS attribute the work to
the bishop and martyr Anthimus of Nicomedia (died 302), but this is
impossible. The work is distinctly anti-Arian and criticizes in particular
Asterius the Sophist and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Richard observes that
Marcellus' denial (in the fragments already recognized as authentic) of
the generation of the Word (or Son) before the Incarnation distinguished
himfromother anti-Arian writers, who admitted the personal distinction
between Father and Son and the eternal generation of the Word.46
Marcellus did not argue against Arian subordinationism, or the assertion
that the Word (or Son) is a creature; he rather attacked Asterius for
ditheism and objected to any division within the divine Monad.47 The
point of view of the author of De sancta ecclesia is identical with
Marcellus'. He objects to the confession of three hypostases or three
persons, to the idea of a generation of the Word before the ages, and to
the term "unbegotten" (agennëtos) applied to God. (He cites two passages
from Plato's Timaeus which he claims are the source of this usage.48)
Richard concludes that Marcellus of Ancyra is the sole author of the
De sancta ecclesia, that he wrote it in the third quarter of the fourth
century, that it was probably originally a letter, and that it proves that
Marcellus remained true to his (erroneous) theses and was never con-
verted to Athanasius' views.49
In 1954 Felix Scheidweiler attributed a much larger work to Marcellus,
the Sermo maior de fide (which is better called the Epistola ad Antioch-
enos).50 Scheidweiler's attribution is based principally on points of exe-
45
M. Richard, "Un opuscule méconnu du Marcel évêque d'Ancyre," MScRel 6 (1949) 5-
28, reprinted in his Opera minora 2 (Turnhout: University Press, 1977) no. 33 (no continuous
pagination). The Greek text in G. Mercati, "Anthimi Nicomediensis episcopi et martyris de
sancta ecclesia," in his Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi 5; Rome:
Vatican Press, 1905) 87-98. Richard provides a French translation.
46
Richard, "Un opuscule méconnu" 9.
47
Ibid. 10, 13.
48
Ibid. 14-18,21. Ps-Anthimus (or Marcellus) wants to prove that Asterius* and Eusebius
of Caesarea's doctrine is pagan. Besides Plato, he cites Hermes Trismegistos. On the latter
passage, see P. Siniscalco, "Ermete Trismegisto, profeta pagano della revelazione cristiana:
La fortuna di un passo ermetico (Asclepius 8) nell'interpretazione di scrittori cristiani," Atti
della Academia delle Scienze di Torino 101 (1966-67) 83-113.
49
Richard, "Une opuscule méconnu" 22, 24, 27-28.
50
F. Scheidweiler, "Wer ist der Verfasser des sog. Sermo major de fide?" Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 47 (1954) 333-57. The extant Greek fragments were published by E. Schwartz,
"Der s. g. Sermo maior de fide des Athanasius," Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften (1924) 6 (Munich, 1925). R. P. Casey discovered a more complete
version in Armenian and published it in English translation: The Armenian Version of the
pseudo-Athanasian Letter to the Antiochenes (Sermo maior de fide) and of the Expositio
fidei (SD 15; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1947).
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 497
51
gesis and style. In light of the author's opposition to radical Arians
(Anomoians, Exoukontians), Scheidweiler dates the Epistula in 358.52 He
presupposes, however (as Gericke also does, but Richard does not), that
Marcellus gradually gave up his more radical opinions and adapted his
thinking to that of Athanasius. In particular, the Epistula uses the
important term ho kyriakos anthröpos for the humanity of Christ, a term
first used by Athanasius; Scheidweiler believes that Marcellus continued
to study the works of his old friend and learnfromthem.53
In the same article Scheidweiler also attributed two other works to
Marcellus. The first is a confession of faith entitled Contra Theopaschl·
tas, which Scheidweiler dated, on internal evidence, before 340.54 The
second is an Expositio fidei {Ekthesis písteos), to which he assigned a
later date (358 or after).55
It is Martin Tetz, however, who has been particularly productive in
research on Marcellus. A recent series of articles has not only discussed
the attribution of anonymous or pseudonymous works to Marcellus but
also deepened the understanding of Marcellus* theology.
Tetz begins the first article with the interesting observation that,
without knowing it, Friedrich Schleiermacher, in his understanding of the
Trinity, took the side of Marcellus of Ancyra.56
51
Scheidweiler, "Wer ist der Verfasser" 348-53.
52
Ibid. 357.
53
Ibid. 353, 357. See J. Lebon, "S. Athanase a-t-il employé l'expression ho kyriakos
anthröpos?" RHE 31 (1935) 307-29, who shows that Athanasius first used it in 356. The
expression is also found in the short recension of Athanasius' De incarnatione; see
Scheidweiler, "Wer ist der Verfasser" 333. See also A. Grillmeier, "Jesus Christ, the
Kyriakos Anthröpos" TS 38 (1977) 275-93, and idem, "Ho kyriakos anthröpos: Eine Studie
zu einer christologischen Bezeichnung der Väterzeit," Traditio 33 (1977) 1-63.
54
Scheidweiler, "Wer ist der Verfasser" 353-54. The Contra Theopaschitas (ps.-Athan-
asius, Epistula ad Liberium) is in PG 28,1444-45. It was edited by H.-G. Opitz, Untersu-
chungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte
23; Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1935) 211-12. Scheidweiler had earlier attributed it to
Eustathius of Antioch ("Ein Glaubensbekenntnis des Eustathius von Antiochien?" ZNW
44 [1952-53] 237-49, where the Greek text is also reproduced). M. Richard, "Bulletin de
patrologie II," MScRel 6 (1949) 129, suggested that the confession came from "the dissident
Nicene church of Ancyra." The most recent critical edition is by M. Tetz, "Zur Theologie
des Markeil von Ankyra III," ZKG 83 (1972) 152-54.
55
Scheidweiler, "Wer ist der Verfasser" 356-57. The text is in PG 25, 200-208, and more
recently in Athanasiana: Five Homilies, Expositio fidei, Sermo maior, ed. H. Nordberg
(Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes humanarum litterarum 30, 2; Helsinki,
1962) 49-56.
56
M. Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markeil von Ankyra I: Eine Markellische Schrift 'De
incarnatione et contra Arianos,'" ZKG 75 (1964) 215-70, at 218. In 1822 Schleiermacher
published the article "Über den Gegensatz der Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen
Vorstellung von der Trinität" in the Theologische Zeitschrift 3, 295-408, in which he made
extensive use of the pseudo-Athanasian fourth oration against the Arians. Schleiermacher
believed that the oration was an authentic work of Athanasius against Sabellius, and took
498 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Tetz attributes another, lengthy writing to Marcellus, namely, the

pseudo-Athanasian De incarnatione et contra Arianos.51 After an ex-
amination of the relevant literature, he reaches the preliminary conclu-
sion that the De incarnatione is a unified work, and not by Athanasius.58
After reviewing the transmission of the text, Tetz compares the work
with the authentic fragments of Marcellus, under several headings. There
is little point in summarizing all of his highly detailed and technical
arguments here, but a few theologically interesting points merit attention.
One is a peculiar formula for introducing biblical quotations, namely,
ek prosöpou tinos with a verb of saying, as for example: "And as it says
in Joel in the person of the Father, Ί will pour out from my spirit upon
all flesh ' " 59 The author assigns texts variously to the Father, the Son,
the Holy Spirit, the Church, and "us"—that is, to Christians as Christ's
body. The word prosöpon in the De incarnatione is not an established
theological term but remains a tool for the interpretation of Scripture.
The author never speaks of three prosdpa but only of one prosöpon at
any time, namely, the one God who speaks.60 As Tetz sees it, this formula
tends to keep the economies distinct; and this is clearly MarceUian.
The author of the De incarnatione also devotes a chapter (20) to 1 Cor
15:24-28, the passage which was the basis of Marcellus* eschatology. This
chapter presents a refinement of Marcellus* teaching. He had earlier
taught simply that the reign of Christ would have an end and the Logos
would return into God. In ch. 20 he explains that it is as the (human)
head of his own members that Christ will be subjected to the Father.
The Lord "received the human throne of David, his father according to
the flesh, to rebuild and restore it, so that, when it was restored, we might
all reign in him; he will hand over the restored human kingdom to the
Father, 'so that God might be all in all' [1 Cor 15:28] and reign through
him as through God the Word after He reigned through him as through
a man, the Savior."61 God's kingdom exists forever; the "human king-
the position of the opponent. Athanasian authorship is now universally rejected and the
opponent—if Tetz and others are correct—is not Sabellius but Marcellus of Ancyra. A
critical edition of the fourth oration was published by A. Stegmann, Die pseudoathana-
sianische "IVte Rede gegen die Arianer** als "kata Areianon logos," ein Apollmarisgut
(Rottenburg: Bader, 1917).
57
The Greek text is printed in PG 26,984-1028. See also G. M. Rapisarda, "La questione
dell'autenticità di De incarnatione Dei et contra Arianos de S. Atanasio: Rassegna degli
studi," Nuovo Didaskaleion 23 (1973) 23-54.
58
Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markell I" 231.
59
De incarnatione et contra Arianos 9 (PG 26, 997A-B).
60
Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markell I" 252-53. C. Andresen calls this "prosopographical
exegesis" and sees in it the roots of the Trinitarian concept of "person"; see his article "Zur
Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffs," ZNW52 (1961) 1-39.
61
PG 26, 1020C-1021A; Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markell I" 257-58. The emphasis on
the human kingdom of Christ and the double instrumental reign appear to be a somewhat
lame revision of Marcellus* earlier views.
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 499
dorn"—Marcellus' peculiar term—passes away.
Thirdly andfinally:Athanasius had applied the famous text Prov 8:22
LXX ("The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works")
to the incarnate Christ; the author of the De incarnatione and Marcellus
apply the verse to the Church.62 Tetz concludes: "Athanasius is not the
author of De incarnatione et contra Arianos. The only one among the
theologians of the fourth century who can seriously be considered as the
author is Marcellus of Ancyra."63 With considerable hesitation he suggests
a date around 360.64
In his second article65 Tetz believes he can confirm Marcellus' author-
ship of the Epistula ad Antiochenos (Sermo maior de fide) already
proposed by Scheidweiler. The principal emphasis of the article, however,
lies elsewhere: on the examination of a peculiar and important role
assigned to Adam in Marcellus' works and in works which Tetz attributes
to Marcellus. De incarnatione et contra Arianos 8 (a work which Tetz
believes he has established as Marcellus') speaks of Adam as "the fleshly
father of the Son of God." The Epistula ad Antiochenos 25 traces Jesus'
genealogy back to Adam, following Lk 3:38, with the explanation: "He
said 'and AdamfromGod' in order to show both the body, which he had
from Adam, and the deity, which he had from the Father."66 Further, an
anonymous document called the De doctrina67 is cited by Athanasius in
De decretis Nicaenae synodi 4-5 as "the tradition of the fathers." Tetz
shows that the De doctrina comes from the Jewish-Christian milieu of
the pseudo-Clementine writings, and even states that it is the only extant
work which can be considered a source for the pseudo-Clementine writ-
ings.68 The De doctrina understands Adam as the first true teacher and
prophet; further, it identifies Jesus' body with Adam's body and considers
Adam, as Jesus' father, to be sinless.69 Marcellus, in Tetz's opinion, was
influenced by the traditions represented in the De doctrina and the
pseudo-Clementine writings. Specifically, Marcellus retained some of the
interpretations attached to Adam in these writings but brought them
more into line with orthodox teaching: Adam, for Marcellus, is the father
of the human race, and thus the archetypal man who is to be redeemed;
62
Ibid. 258-61.
63
Ibid. 270.
64
Ibid.
65
"Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra II: Markeiis Lehre von der Adamsohnschaft
Christi und eine pseudoklementinische Tradition über die wahren Lehrer und Propheten,"
ZKG 79 (1968) 3-42.
66
Fragment 71 in Schwartz, "Der s. g. sermo maior" 28-29; in Casey's translation from
the Armenian, no. 25.
67
The document was transmitted independently and is printed in Athanasius Werke
2/1 (ed. Opitz) 4. Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markell II" 6-7, reprints the Greek text.
68
Ibid. 27.
69
Ibid. 14.
500 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Jesus' body, descended from Adam, is in this sense Adam's, and Jesus is
70
Adam's son. The true teacher is Jesus. This corresponds to a particular
interest in Marcellus' theology. The emphasis on Adam and other
prophets as teachers avoids the Apologists' preincarnational theophanies
and Logophanies. Further, the importance of Adam-Christ typology for
71
Irenaeus is well known, and Marcellus stands in this tradition.
Tetz's third article deals with the confession of faith Contra Theopas-
chitas (less correctly called the Epistula adLiberium), already attributed
to Marcellus by Scheidweiler and to Marcellian circles by Richard.72 In
an extensive word-by-word commentary Tetz compares the Contra Theo-
paschitas with other Marcellian writings and reaffirms Marcellus as its
author. He observes that while both Marcellus and Athanasius strongly
defended the Nicene doctrine, they differed in their methods. Athanasius,
with the passing decades, insisted more and more on the Creed of Nicaea
as a fully adequate confession of faith, while Marcellus attempted new
formulations—as for example in fragment 121, in his Epistula ad lulium,
and now in the Contra Theopaschitas. Tetz ends with a consideration of
Marcellus' attitude toward the regula fidei.
In a fourth article73 Tetz examines the Expositio fidei ad Athanasium
of the deacon Eugenius of Ancyra. On the question of the development
of Marcellus' thought, he concludes that the Expositio is an indirect
witness to the theological thought of Marcellus at the end of his life.
Marcellus respected the homoousian (Western) Synod of Sardica (343)
and the Synod of Alexandria (362); the latter led to a rapprochement
between Marcellus and his followers in Ancyra and the Eustathians at
Antioch under Paulinus.74 Tetz dates the Expositio in 372 but considers
371 and 373 also possible.75
Most interesting is the result of Eugenius' mission to Athanasius, as
Tetz sees it. Basil of Caesarea was a violent opponent of the Mareellians,
as is clear from (among other places) his Ep. 69 to Athanasius. Tetz
believes Eugenius' mission was a success: the aged Athanasius refused to
condemn his old friend Marcellus and left Basil's letter unanswered.76
70
Ibid. 38-39.
71
See especially J. T. Nielsen, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons:
An Examination of the Function of the Adam-Christ Typology in the "Adversus haereses"
of Irenaeus, against the Background of the Gnosticism of His Time (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1968).
72
M. Tetz, "Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra III: Die pseudathanasianische
Epistula ad Liberium, ein Markellisches Bekenntnis," ZKG 83 (1972) 145-94; Scheidweiler,
"Wer ist der Verfasser" 353-54; Richard, "Bulletin de patrologie Π" 129.
73
Tetz, "Markellianer und Athanasios."
74
Ibid. 115-16.
75
Ibid. 119.
76
Ibid. 121. Tetz's later article, "Über nikäische Orthodoxie: Der sog. Tomus ad Antioch-
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 501
The attributions of these works to Marcellus are not, however, unani-
mously accepted. In 1973 Manlio Simonetti published an evaluation of
them.77 He deals with three works: De sancta ecclesia, Epistula ad
Antiochenos (Sermo maior de fide), and De incarnatione et contra
Arianos. He accepts Richard's attribution of De sancta ecclesia to
Marcellus, and Richard's dating of it. From this he concludes that
Marcellus did not develop or soften his doctrine but maintained it in its
early form. On this ground he concludes that the other two works are not
by Marcellus. Neither, for example, speaks of one hypostasis in the
Godhead, which in Simonetti's eyes is an essential point of Marcellus'
teaching. Simonetti situates the Epistula ad Antiochenos in an area of
Antiochene influence and dates it 440-50, and suggests that De incar-
natione was written in an area of Athanasian influence.78
Recent authors have also proposed that several other works come from
Marcellian or anti-Marcellian circles.79 They show at least that Marcellus
and his followers attracted considerable attention.

enos des Athanasios von Alexandrien," ZNW 66 (1975) 194-222, deals only indirectly with
Marcellus. It is an analysis of the document issued by the synod at Alexandria in 362, held
under Athanasius' presidency, which for the first time made the acceptance of the Creed of
Nicaea the test of orthodoxy but left the question of one hypostasis or three in the Godhead
open. Tetz does not see an attack on Marcellus in the Tomus (p. 201, n. 25). The Tomus
was later cited by Eugenius in his confession of faith addressed to Athanasius (p. 211).
77
M. Simonetti, "Su alcune opere attribuite di recente a Marcello d'Ancira," Rivista di
storia e letteratura religiosa 9 (1973) 313-29; idem, "Ancore sulla paternità dello ps.-
atanasiano 'Sermo maior de fide,'" Vetera christianorum 11 (1974) 333-43.
78
Idem, "Su alcune opere" 322, 329.
79
F. Refoulé, "La date de la lettre à Evagre [PG. 46,1101-1108]," RSR 49 (1961) 520-48,
discusses a letter (Ep. 243) wrongly attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus and also found
among the spuria of Gregory of Nyssa as Epistula xxvi ad Euagrium monachum. Refoulé
believes that it is addressed to Evagrius Ponticus, who asked the author whether the physis
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is simple or composed. The letter is anti-Eunomian, since
it denies that there is a proper name for God or for intelligible realities. The author supports
modalistic theses close to Marcellus' and uses Marcellus* technical vocabulary. Refoulé
concludes that the letter may come from the circle around Gregory of Nyssa; it^is "in the
spirit of Marcellus of Ancyra" and was written between 380 and 382. F. de P. Sola, "Texto
patristico sobre la controversia cristológica [PPalau Rib. inv. 68]," Studia papyrologica 9
(1970) 21-33, prints a papyrus fragment of a writing against Arius and Sabellius, which
he dates in the fourth century. He thinks it might be by Marcellus, but this is unlikely. M.-
J. Rondeau, "Le 'Commentaire des psaumes' de Diodore de Tarse et l'exégèse antique du
psaume 109/110," RHR 176 (1969) 5-33,153-88; 177 [1970] 5-33), as part of a history of the
patristic exegesis of this psalm, studies (Vol. 176,161-72) Marcellus' interpretation of it. He
accepts Tetz's attribution of the Epistula ad Antiochenos and De incarnatione et contra
Arianos (both of which contain an exegesis of the psalm) to Marcellus. Briefly: since
Marcellus rejects an eternal generation of the Word, he takes v. 3 as applying to the
Nativity: "Out of [Mary's] womb before the daystar [of the Magi] I begot you [on
Christmas]." And Marcellus takes the "until" of v. 1 ("The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my
502 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

CENTRAL PROBLEMS

From this review of literature on Marcellus it becomes clear that two

problems are central: one from patristics, the other from the history of
doctrine.
The problemfrompatristics is the accurate understanding of Marcellus
himself. If the works attributed to him are in fact authentic, then he is
more than a passing episode of the 340's, and a new synthesis of Marcellus'
thought and its development needs to be written.
But acceptance of the attributions depends on one's views of the
development of Marcellus' thought and on one's evaluation of his ortho-
doxy; and this is a problem for the history of dogma. Richard and
Simonetti deny a development of his thought and consider Marcellus
heretical. They stress Athanasius' breaking off communion with him in
345 or 346, and assume that this break was permanent. This view guards
(and tends to harmonize) the orthodoxy of Athanasius and that of the
Cappadocians. Tetz and the majority of Protestants are less concerned
with protecting Athanasius and (far less) the Cappadocians. Tetz, in
particular, has to presuppose (or prove) a development in Marcellus'
thinking for his attributions to be possible. Protestant historians of dogma
have tended to emphasize the disjunction between Athanasius and the
Cappadocians: Athanasius (and Marcellus) preferred to speak of one

right hand until I place your enemies as a footstool under your feet'") as indicating (with 1
Cor 15:25 and Acts 3:21) an end to Christ's reign. Diodore explictly rejects this interpretation.
Finally, F. J. Leroy, "Une homélie nouvelle, origéno-arienne, issue de milieux anti-marcel-
liens: BHG 1076z, in Le 1, 31-44" in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal
Jean Daniélou (ed. J. Fontaine and Ch. Kannengiesser; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972) 343-53,
has the editio princeps of a homily with an anti-Marcellian emphasis on Lk 1:33 ("Of his
kingdom there will be no end"). Leroy guesses that the homoiousian Basil of Ancyra might
be the author, but this remains pure conjecture.
For the sake of completeness, four other articles might be mentioned here. Macholz,
"Der Dichter Prudentius in den Spuren Marcelle von Ancyra," TSK 82 (1909) 577-92,
analyzes Prudentius' Trinitarian doctrine and finds that it is like Marcellus', but he does
not claim that Marcellus influenced Prudentius. G. W. H. Lampe, "The Exegesis of Some
Biblical Texts by Marcellus of Ancyra and Pseudo-Chrysostom's Homily on Ps XCVI,"
JTS 49 (1948) 169-75, studies the two kingdoms of Christ in this homily and in Marcellus.
(The homily [PG 55, 611-16] is now attributed to Severian of Gabala; see Clavis patrum
graecorum 2 §4190.) P. Hadot, "Typus: Stoïcisme et monarchianisme au IVe siècle d'après
Candide l'Arien et Marius Victorinus," RTAM18 (1951) 177-87, discusses the expansion of
the Godhead in Marcellus' thought on the basis of references to Marcellus and his disciple
Photinus in these two Latin authors. He concludes that Marcellus' God is the Stoic pneuma.
These Latin references to Marcellus are generally overlooked. And T. E. Pollard, "Marcellus
of Ancyra: A Neglected Father," in Epektasis 187-96, offers a theological appreciation of
Marcellus. He concludes that for Marcellus "God is the living, active, dynamic God of the
Bible, not the abstract 'Being' of philosophical theology" (195), and draws parallels between
Marcellus on the one hand and "process theology" and the thought of Teilhard de Chardin
on the other.
 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 503
hypostasis, as of one ousia, in the Godhead; Basil of Caesarea, depending
in fact on the homoiousian Basil of Ancyra, preferred to speak of three
hypostases.
The older German historians of dogma were still influenced by, or
reacting against, Ferdinand Christian Baur (and therefore Hegel). They
looked for two grand streams or schools which are eventually resolved
into one: thus Loofs's biblical, Antiochene theology and philosophical,
Alexandrian theology, or Harnack's vision of Christianity being gradually
replaced by dogmatic Catholicism until it re-emerged in the Reformation.
Tetz and more recent authors no longer use these categories, although
Tetz wants to see Jewish-Christian influence on Marcellus.
Epiphanius of Salamis (died 403), author of the Panarion or "Medicine
Chest," a long and dreary book which professed to offer the cure for
eighty different heresies, relates a curious anecdote from his own expe-
rience:
I myself at one time asked the blessed Pope Athanasius about this Marcellus,
what his opinion of him was. He neither offered a defense nor was he angry with
him, but with a smile on his face he implied that he was not far from error, but
he considered him excused.80
Epiphanius, Panarion 72, 4 (GCS 37, 259).