Julius And Marcellus

1. EOMIA 1.30, 50, 51, cf. Hanson, Search (1988), 217.

2. Julius praises his role at the council most warmly (Apol. c. Ar. 23.3,32.2). No work is transmitted under the name of Marcellus except for the quotations in Eusebius (CPG 2800) and his letter to Julius (CPG 2801), but modern scholars have made a strong case for regarding him as the author of several works attributed to other writers of the fourth century: of these, the De sancta ecclesia, which is transmitted under the name of Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia early in the century (CPG 2802), was probably written c. 340 in the West: see A. H. B. Logan, 'Marcellus of Ancyra and anti-Arian Polemic,' Studia Patrística 19 (1989), 189-197.

4. Eusebius, Contra Marceilum 1.1.3, 1.4.3-65, 2.4.29.

5. Eusebius, Contra Marceilum 2.4.29; CSEL 65.50.18-51.15; Sozomenus, HE 2.33.1/2, cf. 'Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems,' A]AH 3 (1978), 53-75, at 64/5; Constantine (1981), 240-242.

7. Constantine (1981), 263-265.

9. Marcellus had been in Rome for one year and three months before he submitted a written statement of his theological views to Julius (Epiphanius, Pan. 72.2.3).

11. The number of bishops present is given by Hilary, Syn. 28 (PL 10.502); Sozomenus, HE 4.22.22. On all aspects of the 'Dedication Council,' see the magisterial study of W. Schneemelcher, 'Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341,' Donner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. October 1977

dargebracht von Kollegen und Schülern {Bonn, 1977), 319-346. It is unfortunately neglected by Hanson, Search (1988), 270-293, who follows earlier writers (such as Simonetti, Crisi [1975], 146-160) in making Julius* letter (Apol. c. Ar. 21-35) precede the 'Dedication Council,' to which it is in fact a riposte.

12. The day is known only from a Syriac chronicle written in 724 (ed. E. W. Brooks, CSCO, Scriptores Syri3 4 [1903], 130.21-24, with Latin translation by J. B. Chabot [Versio 102.3-5)), bur it derives from a source written in the 360s (Philostorgius, Anhang VII, p. 212 Bidez, cf. Chapter I, at nn. 57-59) and deserves to be accepted: see W. Ehestem 'Die Kirchen Antiochias im IV. Jahrhundert,' ZNW 36 (1937), 251-286, at 254-256.

13. J. T. Lienhard, 'Acacius of Caesarea's Contra Marcellum: Its Place in Theology and Controversy,' Studia Patristica 19 (1989), 183-188. Only a long fragment survives, quoted by Epiphanius, Pan. 72.6-10 (CPG 3512). On Acacius' career, see J.-M. Leroux, 'Acace, évêque de Césarée de Palestine (341-365),' Studia Patristica 8 (Texte und Untersuchungen 93,1966), 82-85.

14. W. Schneemelcher, Bonner Festgabe (1977), 331-339.

16. On the nature and theological motivation of this creed (which are disputed), see Kelly, Creeds3 (1972), 268-271; W. Schneemelcher, Bonner Festgabe (Bonn, 1977), 340-346.

17. Marcellus frag. 96 Klostermann = Eusebius, Contra Marcellum 1.4.33/4.

18. Kelly, Creeds3 (1972), 266. Observe Hilary, Syn. 28 (PL 10.502): 'exposuerunt qui adfuerunt episcopi nonaginta septem, cum in suspicionem venisset unus ex episcopis quod prava sentiret.'

19. See now M. Tetz, 'Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien (341) und Marcellus von Ancyra: Zu der Glaubenserklärung des Theophronius von Tyana und ihren Folgen,' Oecumenica et Patristica: Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag (Geneva, 1989), 199-218. This article proposes an important and convincing emendation in Syn. 24.5 (Opitz 250.19-21).

20. Sozomenus, HE 3.8.4-8. Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 297-300, conveniently prints together the summary of Sozomenus and the quotations and allusions in Julius' letter: for comment, see Girardet, Kaisergericht (1975), 157-162.

21. It is implausibly argued by L. W. Barnard, 'Pope Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Council of Serdica: A Reconsideration,* Revue de théologie ancienne et médiévale 38 (1971), 69-79, reprinted in his Studies in Church History and Patristics (ANAAEKTA BAATAAQN 26 IThessaloniki, 1978]), 341-353, that Julius was more conciliatory than the council, which compelled him to take a hard line.

22. Bishops of, respectively, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Antioch, Neronias, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Mopsuestia, and Heraclea. The fact that Dianius' name comes first may indicate that he had presided over the council: according to the Synodicon vetus 42, he was accompanied by the sophist Asterius.

23. H. J. Sieben, Die Konzilsidee der Alten Kirche (Paderborn, 1979), 31-34. Julius' letter has often beer, discussed for its relevance to the claims of the Roman see to primacy, as recently by P.-P. Joannou, Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im 4. Jahrhundert (Päpste und Papsttum 3 [Stuttgart, 1972]), 36-70; W. de Vries, 'Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im IV. Jahrhundert,' Orientalia Christiana

Periodica 40 (1974), 114-144, at 121-129; Girardet, Kaisergericbt (1975), 87-105; Pietri, Roma (1976), 189-207; V. Twomey, Apostolikos Throws: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and the Historico-apologetical Writings of Saint Athanasius the Great (Münster, 1982), 398-425.

24. Opitz on 103.24 correctly compares 35.3 and notes that Julius implicitly appeals to the fifth Nicene canon—which provides only that a provincial council of bishops may review the cases of excommunicated clergy and laity, but says nothing whatever about deposed bishops. A more pertinent precedent would have been the read-mission of Eusebius, Theognis, and Arius by the Council of Nicomedia in 327/8 (Urkunden 29-32). But Athanasius studiously avoided any explicit mention of that council (Chapter III, at n. 25).

25. Reiterated in his recapitulation of the whole case (31.1).

26. For Athanasius' use of the same collection of documents in 338 and in his Defense against the Arians, see Chapter III, at n. 31; Chapter IV, at n. 19.

27. Opitz on 109.1 aptly cites the Itinerarium Antonini 147.1-154.5 Wesseling (p. 21 Cuntz), which confirms the figure exactly. Like so much in Julius' letter, this complaint comes from the mind of Athanasius, who makes the same polemical point in reference to the appointments of eastern bishops to western sees in the 350s (Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya 7; Hist Ar,; 74.5).

28. Epiphanius, Pan. 72.2.1/2, cf. M. Tetz, 'Zum altrömischen Bekenntnis: Ein Beitrag des Marcellus von Ancyra,' ZNW 75 (1984), 107-127.

30. Opitz on 113.1ff. aptly comments: 'Der Urheber dieser Argumentation kann nur Athanasius sein.'

31. For the identifications in the text, see Opitz on 111.11, citing C5EL 65.55/6; Fug. 3.3; Hist. Ar. 5.1/2; Socrates, HE 1.24.3; 2.15.2.

0 0

Post a comment