{"slug":"khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","title":"Expositio fidei","title_source":"Expositio fidei","author":"Marcellus Ancyranus","genre":"commentary","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:35:26Z","cost_usd":0.003291},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","work_id":"khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Marcellus%20Ancyranus_PG%2018/Expositio%20fidei.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":5,"english_words":1313,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":4925,"commentary_units":30,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":9,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","abstract":"The Expositio fidei is a systematic exposition of Nicene orthodoxy attributed to Marcellus of Ancyra, composed around 340 CE. It defends the homoousian doctrine against Arian and Sabellian interpretations through doctrinal argument and scriptural citation. The text survives only in fragments preserved by later authors, notably Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis; no complete manuscript is extant. Its register is polemical and doctrinal, reflecting the theological controversies of the mid-fourth century. The work was cited by both supporters and opponents of Marcellus in the 4th–5th centuries but was never included in later patristic collections as a standard authority. The edition is based on reconstructed fragments, so the original sequence and completeness of the argument cannot be verified.","historical_context":"The Expositio fidei was likely written by Marcellus of Ancyra around 340 CE, after his deposition at the Council of Constantinople (336) and before his condemnation at the Council of Serdica (343). Marcellus was a prominent defender of Nicene orthodoxy in the Greek East, but his theology was controversial for its alleged Sabellian tendencies. The work was composed in Greek, probably in Ancyra or a nearby region, within a community engaged in the post-Nicene trinitarian debates. The text survives only in fragments quoted by later authors, especially Eusebius of Caesarea (who opposed Marcellus) and Epiphanius of Salamis (who preserved some material). No complete manuscript is extant, and the original sequence and completeness of the argument cannot be verified. The work was cited in the 4th–5th centuries by both supporters and opponents of Marcellus, but it was never included in later Greek or Latin patristic collections as a standard authority. Its transmission is thus fragmentary and mediated through hostile or selective sources.","significance":"The Expositio fidei is significant as a key witness to the development of Nicene orthodoxy in the mid-fourth century, particularly in the Greek East. It reflects Marcellus's attempt to articulate a non-subordinationist trinitarian theology while avoiding Sabellianism, and it was cited in later debates about the Son's likeness to the Father. The work's fragmentary survival illustrates the challenges of reconstructing lost patristic texts from quotations in later authors.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 340 CE","event":"Composition of the Expositio fidei by Marcellus of Ancyra, after his deposition at Constantinople (336) and before his condemnation at Serdica (343)."},{"date":"4th–5th centuries","event":"The work is cited by both supporters and opponents of Marcellus, including Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis."},{"date":"4th–5th centuries","event":"The text is never included in later Greek or Latin patristic collections as a standard authority."},{"date":"Modern period","event":"The work is reconstructed from fragments by scholars, but the original sequence and completeness remain uncertain."}],"relations":[{"work":"Nicene Creed","relation":"Defends and expounds the homoousian doctrine of the Nicene Creed against Arian and Sabellian interpretations.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Against Marcellus (Eusebius of Caesarea)","relation":"Quoted and opposed by Eusebius of Caesarea in his polemical work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Panarion (Epiphanius of Salamis)","relation":"Fragments preserved by Epiphanius of Salamis in his heresiological work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De decretis Nicaenae synodi (Pseudo-Athanasius)","relation":"Sometimes attributed to Marcellus; shares similar anti-Arian and anti-Marcellan polemic.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date of composition is uncertain; the notes suggest around 340 CE, but this is based on historical inference rather than direct evidence.","The work survives only in fragments preserved by later authors; the original sequence and completeness cannot be verified.","Attribution to Marcellus of Ancyra is traditional but not entirely secure; some scholars have questioned it.","The edition is based on reconstructed fragments, so some doctrinal nuances may be lost or misrepresented."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000553,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:35:26Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Marcellus%20Ancyranus_PG%2018/Expositio%20fidei.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-marcellus-ancyranus-expositio-fidei","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":5,"translated":5,"commentary_passages":5,"commentary_units":30,"english_words":1313,"source_letters":4925,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a systematic exposition of Nicene orthodoxy, likely composed to counter Arian and Sabellian interpretations. Its register is doctrinal and polemical, with frequent scriptural citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives only in fragments preserved by later authors, notably Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis. No complete manuscript of the Expositio fidei is extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Marcellus wrote the Expositio fidei around 340 CE, after his deposition at the Council of Constantinople (336) and before his condemnation at the Council of Serdica (343).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work was cited in the 4th–5th centuries by both supporters and opponents of Marcellus, but it was never included in later Greek or Latin patristic collections as a standard authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition is based on reconstructed fragments; the original sequence and completeness of the argument cannot be verified. Some doctrinal nuances may be lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: commentary in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 5 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":5},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Τοῦ Ἀθανασίου, ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἔκθεσις πίστεως. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα ἀγέννητον θεόν, πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ποιητὴν ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων, τὸν ἔχοντα ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸ εἶναι. καὶ εἰς ἕνα μονογενῆ λόγον, σοφίαν, υἱόν, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνάρχως καὶ ἀϊδίως γεγεννημένον, λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον, οὐκ ἀπόρροιαν τοῦ τελείου, οὐ τμῆσιν τῆς ἀπαθοῦς φύσεως οὔτε προβολήν, ἀλλ' υἱὸν αὐτοτελῆ, ζῶντά τε καὶ ἐνεργοῦντα, τὴν ἀληθινὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρὸς ἰσότιμον καὶ ἰσόδοξον. \"τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι\", φησί, \"τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός,\" \"ἵνα καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα οὕτω τιμῶσι καὶ τὸν υἱόν.\" θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, ὥς φησιν Ἰωάννης ἐν καθολικαῖς· \"καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.\" παντοκράτορα ἐκ παντοκράτορος· πάντων γάρ, ὧν ἄρχει ὁ πατὴρ καὶ κρατεῖ, ἄρχει καὶ κρατεῖ. ὅλος ἐξ ὅλου. ὅμοιος τῷ πατρὶ ὢν ὥς φησιν ὁ κύριος· \"ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα.\" ἐγεννήθη δὲ ἀνεκφράστως καὶ ἀπερινοήτως· \"τὴν γὰρ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται;\" ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐδείς. ὃς ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων κατελθὼν ἐκ τῶν κόλπων τοῦ πατρός, ἐκ τῆς ἀχράντου παρθένου Μαρίας τὸν ἡμέτερον ἀνείληφεν ἄνθρωπον, Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν παθεῖν παρέδωκεν ἰδίᾳ προαιρέσει, ὥς φησιν ὁ κύριος· \"οὐδεὶς αἴρει τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπ' ἐμοῦ.","english":"Of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Exposition of the Faith. We believe in one unbegotten God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, who has his being from himself. And in one only-begotten Logos, Wisdom, Son, born from the Father without beginning and eternally, a Logos not prophoric, not endiathetic, not an emanation from the perfect, not a division of the impassible nature, nor a projection, but a self-complete Son, living and active, the true image of the Father, equal in honor and equal in glory. \"For this,\" he says, \"is the will of the Father,\" \"that just as they honor the Father, so they also honor the Son.\" True God from true God, as John says in the Catholic Epistles: \"And we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.\" Almighty from Almighty; for of all things over which the Father rules and holds sway, he also rules and holds sway. Whole from whole. Being like the Father, as the Lord says: \"He who has seen me has seen the Father.\" He was born ineffably and inconceivably; \"for who shall recount his generation?\" meaning no one. Who at the consummation of the ages, descending from the bosom of the Father, from the immaculate Virgin Mary took up our humanity, Christ Jesus, whom he delivered to suffer for us by his own choice, as the Lord says: \"No one takes my soul from me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον","severity":"info","text":"The terms 'προφορικός' and 'ἐνδιάθετος' distinguish between uttered and internal logos, a Stoic distinction used by early Christian authors to reject subordinationist views of the Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ","severity":"info","text":"This quotation is not from the canonical Johannine epistles but from a non-canonical source; it is attributed to 'John in the Catholic Epistles' but does not appear in the received text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα","severity":"info","text":"This saying is not found in the canonical Gospels; it resembles John 14:9 but is a variant or apocryphal logion used here to support the Son's likeness to the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Τοῦ Ἀθανασίου, ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἔκθεσις πίστεως","severity":"info","text":"The attribution to Athanasius is traditional but contested; the work is often assigned to Marcellus of Ancyra due to its distinctive anti-Arian and anti-Marcellan polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγέννητον θεόν","severity":"info","text":"The term 'ἀγέννητος' (unbegotten) was a key point in fourth-century trinitarian debates, distinguishing the Father from the Son; its use here reflects post-Nicene theological precision.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐδεὶς αἴρει τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπ' ἐμοῦ","severity":"caution","text":"This quotation is incomplete in the manuscript; the Greek breaks off mid-sentence, and the intended scriptural reference is unclear, possibly a paraphrase of John 10:28 or a lost source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The attribution to Athanasius is uncertain; the work may be by Marcellus of Ancyra.","The quotation from 'John in the Catholic Epistles' does not match any canonical text.","The final scriptural citation is truncated, leaving its source ambiguous."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν.\" ἐν ᾧ ἀνθρώπῳ σταυρωθεὶς καὶ ἀποθανὼν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀνελήφθη εἰς οὐρανούς, ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν κτισθεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ γῇ ὢν ἡμῖν ἔδειξεν ἐκ σκότους φῶς, σωτηρίαν ἐκ πλάνης, ζωὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, εἴσοδον ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, ἐξ οὗ ἐκβέβλητο Ἀδάμ, εἰς ὃν πάλιν εἰσῆλθε διὰ τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ κύριος· \"σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ,\" εἰς ὃν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος εἰσῄει· ἄνοδόν τε εἰς οὐρανούς, \"ὅπου πρόδρομος εἰσῆλθεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν\" ὁ κυριακὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ᾧ μέλλει κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Πιστεύομεν ὁμοίως εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντα ἐρευνῶν \"καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ,\" ἀναθεματίζοντες τὰ παρὰ τοῦτο φρονοῦντα δόγματα. οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν. οὔτε τὸ παθητὸν σῶμα ὃ ἐφόρεσε διὰ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου σωτηρίαν, ἀνατίθεμεν τῷ πατρί. οὔτε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις μεμερισμένας καθ' ἑαυτάς, ὥσπερ σωματοφυῶς ἐπ' ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ λογίσασθαι, ἵνα μὴ πολυθείαν ὡς τὰ ἔθνη φρονήσωμεν, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐκ πηγῆς ποταμὸς γεγενημένος οὐ διῃρέτη καίτοι δύο σχήματα καὶ δύο ὀνόματα τυγχάνοντα. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ υἱός ἐστιν οὔτε ὁ υἱὸς πατήρ ἐστιν. ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ υἱοῦ πατήρ ἐστι καὶ ὁ υἱὸς πατρὸς υἱός ἐστιν. ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ πηγὴ ποταμὸς οὐδὲ ὁ ποταμὸς πηγή· ἀμφότερα δὲ ἓν καὶ ταυτόν ἐστιν ὕδωρ τὸ ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν μετοχετευόμενον, οὕτως ἡ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τὸν υἱὸν θεότης ἀρρεύστως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως τυγχάνει. φησὶ γὰρ ὁ κύριος·","english":"I have authority to set it down and authority to take it back again.” In which man, having been crucified and having died for us, he rose from the dead, was taken up into the heavens, having been created a beginning of ways for us, being on earth he showed us light from darkness, salvation from error, life from the dead, an entrance into paradise, from which Adam had been cast out, into which he again entered through the thief, as the Lord said: “Today you will be with me in paradise,” into which also Paul entered; and an ascent into the heavens, “where the forerunner entered for us,” the Lord’s man, in whom he is about to judge the living and the dead. We believe likewise in the Holy Spirit, which examines all things “and the depths of God,” anathematizing doctrines that think otherwise. For we neither hold a Father-son doctrine as the Sabellians do, saying one-in-being and not of-the-same-being, and in this abolishing the existence of the Son. Nor do we attribute the passible body which he wore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Nor do we hold three hypostases divided in themselves, as it is possible to conceive in a bodily manner in the case of humans, so that we may not think polytheism as the pagans do, but as a river generated from a source is not divided, although they happen to be two forms and two names. For neither is the Father the Son nor is the Son the Father. For the Father is father of a son and the Son is son of a father. For just as the source is not the river nor the river the source, but both are one and the same water channeled from the source into the river, so the divinity from the Father to the Son flows without flux and without division. For the Lord says:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ","severity":"info","text":"This is a citation of Jesus' words to the penitent thief (Luke 23:43). The text adapts the canonical verse to support the theology of redemption and re-entry into paradise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ὅπου πρόδρομος εἰσῆλθεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Hebrews 6:20, where Christ is the 'forerunner' who enters heaven on behalf of humanity. The term 'πρόδρομος' is a Christological title.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"μονοούσιον","severity":"info","text":"The term 'μονοούσιον' (one-in-being) is contrasted with 'ὁμοούσιον' (of-the-same-being). Marcellus rejects the Sabellian formula that collapses Father and Son into a single hypostasis, affirming instead a distinction within unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Σαβέλλιοι","severity":"info","text":"Sabellius (early 3rd c.) taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes of a single divine subject. Marcellus here distances himself from Sabellianism, though his own theology was often accused of it by opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐκ πηγῆς ποταμὸς","severity":"info","text":"The image of a river flowing from a source without division is a standard anti-Arian analogy for the relationship of Father and Son, found also in Athanasius and later in the Cappadocians. It illustrates consubstantiality without subordination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν κτισθεὶς","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν κτισθεὶς' (having been created a beginning of ways) is obscure. It may reflect a liturgical or exegetical tradition (cf. Proverbs 8:22?) but the syntax is awkward; the translation 'beginning of ways' is tentative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν κτισθεὶς' is syntactically ambiguous: it could mean 'having been created as a beginning of ways' or 'having been created as a beginning of roads' (perhaps a reference to Christ as the way). The exact referent is unclear.","The clause 'εἰς ὃν πάλιν εἰσῆλθε διὰ τοῦ ληστοῦ' is ambiguous: it may mean that Adam re-entered paradise through the thief (i.e., Christ's redemption retroactively restores Adam), or that the thief himself entered paradise. The Greek grammar allows both readings."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"\"ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω.\" παρὰ δὲ τῷ πατρί ἐστιν ἀεὶ ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός. οὐδέποτε δὲ ἐκενώθη ὁ κόλπος τοῦ πατρὸς τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος. φησὶ γάρ· \"ἐγὼ ἤμην παρ' αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα.\" οὐ φρονοῦμεν δὲ κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸν τοῦ παντὸς κτίστην θεόν, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱόν, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ὄντα, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ μόνου μόνον, ὡς συναπεγεννήθη ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀϊδίως ἡ ὁμοία δόξα καὶ δύναμις. \"ὁ\" γὰρ \"ἑωρακὼς τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακε.\" τὰ πάντα δηλονότι διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκτίσθησαν, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὸς κτίσμα, ὥς φησιν ὁ Παῦλος περὶ τοῦ κυρίου· \"ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα\" καὶ \"αὐτός ἐστι πρὸ πάντων.\" οὐ λέγει δὲ ὅτι πρὸ πάντων ἐκτίσθη\"3, ἀλλ' ὅτι πρὸ πάντων ἐστί. τὸ\n\nγοῦν ἐκτίσθαι ἐπὶ πάντων κεῖται· τὸ δὲ ἔστι πρὸ πάντων μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ ἁρμόζει. Γέννημα τοίνυν κατὰ φύσιν ἐκ τελείου τέλειόν ἐστι. \"πρὸ πάντων βουνῶν\" γεννηθέν, τουτέστι πρὸ πάσης λογικῆς καὶ νοερᾶς οὐσίας. ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ φησὶν αὐτὸν ὁ Παῦλος \"πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως.\" ἀλλὰ πρωτότοκον δηλῶν μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν κτίσμα ἀλλὰ γέννημα τοῦ πατρός. ξένον γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ τὸ λέγεσθαι κτίσμα. τὰ γὰρ πάντα ἐκτίσθησαν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς μόνος ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀϊδίως ἐγεννήθη. διὸ \"πρωτότοκός ἐστι πάσης κτίσεως\" ὁ θεὸς λόγος· ἄτρεπτος ἐξ ἀτρέπτου. ἔστι τοίνυν τὸ ὃ δι' ἡμᾶς ἐφόρεσε σῶμα κτίσμα. περὶ οὗ λέγει ὁ Ἰερεμίας κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἑρμηνευτῶν ἔκδοσιν·","english":"I came forth from the Father and I am here.” But the Son is always in the bosom of the Father, being with the Father. Never was the bosom of the Father emptied of the Son’s divinity. For it says: “I was with him, fitting together.” We do not think that the Son of God, the creator God of the universe, is a creature or a product or from non-existent things, but that he is from the one who is, the only from the only, as the like glory and power were co-generated from the Father eternally. For “he who has seen the Son has also seen the Father.” All things were evidently created through the Son, but he himself is not a creature, as Paul says concerning the Lord: “that in him all things were created” and “he is before all things.” He does not say that he was created before all things, but that he is before all things. For “to be created” is said of all things; but “is before all things” belongs to the Son alone. A offspring according to nature is perfect from perfect. “Born before all hills,” that is, before every rational and intellectual substance. As also in another place Paul calls him “firstborn of all creation.” But “firstborn” indicates that he is not a creature but an offspring of the Father. For it is foreign to his divinity to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally generated from the Father. Therefore “the Word of God is firstborn of all creation,” unchangeable from the unchangeable. So the body which he wore for our sake is a creature. Concerning this Jeremiah says, according to the edition of the Seventy interpreters:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω","severity":"info","text":"This phrase is not a direct biblical quotation but echoes Johannine language of the Son's procession from the Father (cf. John 8:42).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"γέννημα","severity":"info","text":"Marcellus uses γέννημα ('offspring') to distinguish the Son from κτίσμα ('creature'), emphasizing eternal generation from the Father's substance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως","severity":"info","text":"Paul's phrase 'firstborn of all creation' (Colossians 1:15) is cited to argue the Son is not a creature but an offspring.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"ἑβδομήκοντα ἑρμηνευτῶν","severity":"info","text":"Reference to the Septuagint (Seventy interpreters) indicates Marcellus uses the Greek Old Testament as authoritative for Jeremiah's prophecy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a citation of the Son's words to a theological argument against Arian subordinationism, then to scriptural proof from Paul and Jeremiah.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐγὼ ἤμην παρ' αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα","severity":"caution","text":"The feminine participle ἁρμόζουσα ('fitting together') is unusual; possibly a quotation from a lost source or a misattribution; the referent is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the speaker in 'I was with him, fitting together' is ambiguous; the feminine participle may refer to Wisdom or a personified attribute."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"\"κύριος ἡμῖν ἔκτισεν εἰς καταφύτευμα σωτηρίαν καινήν, ἐν ᾗ σωτηρίᾳ περιελεύσονται ἄνθρωποι.\" κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀκύλαν περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ῥητοῦ κεῖται· \"ἔκτισε κύριος καινὸν ἐν τῇ θηλείᾳ.\" ἡ δὲ κτισθεῖσα ἡμῖν εἰς καταφύτευμα σωτηρία καινὴ καὶ οὐ παλαιά, ἡμῖν τε καὶ οὐ πρὸ ἡμῶν, Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος. ὃς ἑρμηνεύεται πῇ μὲν σωτηρία, πῇ δὲ σωτήρ. ἔστι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡ σωτηρία ὃν τρόπον ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς ὁ φωτισμός. ἡ οὖν ἐκ τοῦ σωτῆρος σωτηρία κτισθεῖσα καινὴ καθὼς λέγει Ἰερεμίας \"ἔκτισεν ἡμῖν σωτηρίαν καινὴν\" καὶ ὡς Ἀκύλας φησὶν \"ἔκτισε κύριος καινὸν ἐν τῇ θηλείᾳ,\" τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ Μαρίᾳ. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐκτίσθη καινὸν ἐν τῇ θηλείᾳ εἰ μὴ τὸ ἐκ Μαρίας, τῆς παρθένου, τεχθὲν ἄνευ συνουσίας κυριακὸν σῶμα. ὡς καὶ ἐν παροιμίαις ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγει· \"κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ.\" οὐ λέγει δὲ πρὸ ἔργων ἔκτισέ με, ἵνα μή τις εἰς τὴν θεότητα τοῦ λόγου ἐκλάβοι τὸ ῥητόν. Ἑκάτερα τοίνυν τὰ περὶ τὸ κτίσμα ῥητὰ σωματικῶς εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν γέγραπται. ἀρχὴ γὰρ ὁδῶν ἐκτίσθη ὁ κυριακὸς ἄνθρωπος, ὧν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡμῖν ἐφανέρωσε. διὰ τούτου γὰρ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἔχομεν προσαγωγήν. αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ὁδός, καθὼς λέγει· \"ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς\" ἡ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἀνάγουσα ὑμᾶς. ὁδὸς δὲ σωματικόν τί ἐστι θέαμα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ κυριακὸς ἄνθρωπος. τὰ πάντα γοῦν ἔκτισεν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος οὐκ ὢν κτίσμα ἀλλὰ γέννημα. οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν κτισμάτων ἔκτισέ τι ἴσον ἢ ὅμοιον ἑαυτῷ. πατρὶ δὲ ἔοικε τὸ γεννᾶν, τεχνίτῃ δὲ τὸ κτίζειν.","english":"The Lord planted for us a new salvation as a plantation, in which salvation men will go about.” And according to Aquila, concerning the same passage it stands: “The Lord planted a new thing in the female.” The salvation planted for us as a plantation, new and not old, for us and not before us, is Jesus, who according to the Savior became man. He is interpreted sometimes as “salvation,” sometimes as “savior.” And salvation is from the savior, in the same way that illumination is from light. Therefore, the salvation from the savior, planted as new, as Jeremiah says, “He planted for us a new salvation,” and as Aquila says, “The Lord planted a new thing in the female,” that is, in Mary. For nothing new was planted in the female except the Lord’s body born from Mary the virgin without intercourse. As also in Proverbs, from the person of Jesus it says: “The Lord planted me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” But it does not say “he planted me before works,” lest anyone take the passage as referring to the divinity of the Word. Therefore, both passages concerning the creation are written corporeally about Jesus. For the Lord’s man was planted as the beginning of ways, which he revealed to us for salvation. For through him we have access to the Father. For he himself is the way, as he says: “I am the way” that leads you to the Father. And a way is something corporeal to behold, which is the Lord’s man. Therefore, the Word of God created all things, not being a creation but a offspring. For none of the creations created anything equal or similar to itself. For begetting is like the father, while creating is like the craftsman.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἔκτισεν ἡμῖν σωτηρίαν καινήν","severity":"info","text":"Jeremiah 31:4 LXX: 'He planted for us a new salvation.' Marcellus adapts the verse to argue that the 'new salvation' is Jesus' human body, not the divine Logos.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ","severity":"info","text":"Proverbs 8:22 LXX: 'The Lord planted me as the beginning of his ways.' Marcellus reads this as referring to Jesus' human body, not the pre-existent Logos.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"κτίσμα","severity":"info","text":"κτίσμα ('creation') is contrasted with γέννημα ('offspring'). Marcellus insists the Logos is a γέννημα (begotten) not a κτίσμα (created), preserving the distinction between Father and Son.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἀκύλας","severity":"info","text":"Aquila of Sinope produced a literal Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (c. 130 CE). Marcellus cites Aquila's version of Jeremiah to support his reading of 'new thing in the female' (Mary).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from scriptural citation (Jeremiah, Aquila) to interpretation (Jesus as 'salvation'), then to a second citation (Proverbs) and a caution against misreading it as referring to the Logos' divinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐ λέγει δὲ πρὸ ἔργων ἔκτισέ με","severity":"caution","text":"Marcellus warns that Proverbs 8:22 must not be read as 'he planted me before works,' which could imply the Logos is a creation. The text is deliberately ambiguous to avoid Arian misinterpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek phrase 'ἐν τῇ θηλείᾳ' (in the female) is ambiguous: Marcellus identifies it with Mary, but Aquila's original context may refer to a generic female figure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"ποίημα γοῦν ἐστι καὶ κτίσμα τὸ ὃ δι' ἡμᾶς ἐφόρεσε σῶμα ὁ κύριος, \"ὃ ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν\", ὥς φησιν ὁ Παῦλος, \"ἀπὸ θεοῦ σοφία καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις.\" καίπερ πρὸ ἡμῶν καὶ πάσης κτίσεως σοφία τοῦ πατρὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἔστι. τὸ δὲ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐκπόρευμα ὂν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀεί ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ τοῦ πέμποντος πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ φέροντος υἱοῦ, δι' οὗ ἐπλήρωσε τὰ πάντα. ὁ πατὴρ συνέχων ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ εἶναι ἐγέννησε τὸν υἱόν, ὡς ἔφαμεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔκτισεν ὡς ποταμὸν ἀπὸ πηγῆς καὶ ὡς βλαστὸν ἀπὸ ῥίζης καὶ ὡς ἀπαύγασμα ἀπὸ φωτός, ἃ οἶδεν ἡ φύσις ἀδιαίρετα, δι' οὗ τῷ πατρὶ δόξα, κράτος, μεγαλοσύνη πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.","english":"The body which the Lord wore for our sake is indeed a creation and a thing made, \"which was born for us,\" as Paul says, \"from God—wisdom and sanctification and righteousness and redemption.\" Yet before us and before all creation, the Word was and is the wisdom of the Father. And the Holy Spirit, being an emanation from the Father, is always in the hands of the Father who sends and of the Son who bears, through whom He filled all things. The Father, holding the being from Himself, begot the Son, as we have said, and did not create Him, as a river from a spring and as a shoot from a root and as a radiance from light—things which nature knows to be indivisible—through whom to the Father there is glory, power, and majesty before all ages and into all the ages of ages. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ποίημα","severity":"info","text":"The term ποίημα (poiēma) is rendered 'creation' in the draft, but it specifically denotes a thing made, a product of making, as distinct from κτίσμα (ktisma), which emphasizes the act of creation. The pairing underscores the humanly fabricated nature of the body.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ὃ ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'which was born for us' is attributed to Paul but is not a direct quotation from the canonical Pauline corpus. It likely echoes or adapts themes from Colossians 1:15-20 or 1 Corinthians 1:30, where Christ is described as wisdom and redemption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἐκπόρευμα","severity":"info","text":"The term ἐκπόρευμα (ekporeuma) for the Holy Spirit as an 'emanation' from the Father reflects a subordinationist or procession language common in fourth-century anti-Nicene polemic, particularly associated with Marcellus of Ancyra's theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"ὡς ποταμὸν ἀπὸ πηγῆς","severity":"info","text":"The analogies of river from spring, shoot from root, and radiance from light are standard in early Christian theology to illustrate the indivisible generation of the Son from the Father, paralleling similar imagery in Irenaeus and Origen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"καίπερ","severity":"info","text":"The conjunction καίπερ ('and yet') marks a concessive clause that contrasts the temporal, created body of Christ with the eternal, pre-existent Word, structuring the argument around the dual nature of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀμήν","severity":"info","text":"The closing 'Amen' indicates a liturgical or doxological conclusion, suggesting this passage may have been used in a creedal or prayer context, consistent with Marcellus's Expositio fidei as a confessional statement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ὃ ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν' is attributed to Paul but not found verbatim in the New Testament; it may be a paraphrase or a lost variant reading.","The term 'ἐκπόρευμα' could be interpreted as implying a temporal procession of the Spirit, which was controversial in later Trinitarian debates."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}