Wolfram Kinzig

A History of Early Christian Creeds

De Gruyter Textbook
Wolfram Kinzig

A History of Early
Christian Creeds
ISBN 978-3-11-031852-4
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-031853-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-038215-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2024930852

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Cover image: Laurent d’Orléans, Somme le Roi, cod. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Département des manuscrits, Français 938 (a. 1294), f. 6r, © Bibliothèque nationale de France,
ark:/12148/btv1b84478782
Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com
To my wife, Carmen

At non formosa est! at non bene culta puella!

at, puto, non uotis saepe petita meis!
Ovid, Amores 3,7,1–2
Preface
This work was to be written in the years 2014–16 when I was on a two-year sab-
batical leave, generously supported by the Volkswagen Foundation. However,
when I set out to write it, I quickly realized that not only would I first have to
finish my collection Faith in Formulae, but that some of the topics which I wished
to cover in my history needed further investigation. Over the years this history
kept being postponed, because the research involved proved to be so complex
and extensive that I had to publish its results in separate studies and even an-
other monograph, on the Creed of Constantinople. This additional research was
made possible by a fellowship at the Heinz Heinen Kolleg of the Bonn Center for
Dependency and Slavery Studies in 2020–2021 for which I am very grateful.
Only now am I able to conclude the work for the time being. Originally, I had
planned a monograph of the size of J.N.D. Kelly’s famous Early Christian Creeds
which in its third edition runs to 458 pages. In the end, I have overshot that target,
not least because the number of relevant sources has increased enormously over
the last fifty years. Nevertheless, I hope that the book can serve both as an aca-
demic textbook and as a reference work for those who wish to find out more
about specific creeds and their history. For this purpose, I have translated all
Greek and Latin texts into English such that this work can also be used by those
who possess no or little knowledge of these languages (although some knowledge
would be preferable). I have also tried to design it in such a way that it can be
used independently from Faith in Formulae – important creeds and credal pas-
sages are always cited in full. Some readers might have liked to see source texts
cited more, but this would simply have made the book bulkier than it is already.
In writing this book I have plundered my own earlier scholarly work, espe-
cially the three volumes of Neue Texte und Studien zu den antiken und frühmittel-
alterlichen Glaubensbekenntnissen. I felt entitled to this ruthless act because much
of what I have written on the subject is published in German and may not be eas-
ily accessible to an English-speaking audience. I therefore ask my German-
speaking readers for indulgence for certain repetitions – however, I have brought
everything up to the latest state of my knowledge, given that over the years my
views on the history of the creeds have developed further. Most importantly, I no
longer think that the Roman Creed as a declaratory formula stems from the
fourth century or began with Marcellus of Ancyra. In addition, the discovery of a
shorter version of the Creed of Constantinople which is more than a simple ab-
breviation of that creed forced me to reconsider its history.
The secondary literature on the subjects which I touch upon in this book is
simply enormous. In order to keep footnotes to an absolute minimum, I have ab-
stained from extensive engagement with ideas of others that deviate from my

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-202
VIII Preface

own. Experts will notice where I disagree, and non-experts probably won’t care
in any case.
A book such as this by necessity leads its author unto fields usually ploughed
by specialists in biblical studies, ancient history, law, art, music, papyrology,
Christian liturgy, and the history of the oriental churches. When stumbling across
such fields I have been comforting myself with the thought that in all probability
no single person possesses the kind of comprehensive expertise which would re-
ally be necessary to study the subject in all its ramifications. In other words, this
book could never have been written without a certain scholarly impudence. I
hope my critics will take into account this predicament when pointing out my
mistakes and shortcomings in areas that are not my own.
On a technical note, I have not tried to attain overall uniformity in the spell-
ing of Latin and Greek texts. In general, I have reproduced that of the editions
used, but in Latin often altered ‘v’ to ‘u’ to be as consistent as possible.
I wish to express my gratitude to a number of organizations and individuals.
The Volkswagen Foundation and the Bonn Center for Dependency and Slavery
Studies kindly supported sabbatical leaves which gave me sufficient room to pon-
der some of the problems that are dealt with in this book. Prof. Dr Dr Hubert
Kaufhold (Munich) generously took the time to read my chapter about the recep-
tion of the creeds in the oriental churches, saving me from a number of blunders.
Dr Matthias Simperl (Augsburg) kindly sent me his as yet unpublished doctoral
dissertation on the Synod of Antioch (325) and shared valuable information re-
garding the textual tradition of its synodal letter. Susanna Kinzig (Tübingen) gave
me good advice on reshaping the introduction and proofread some chapters with
a sharp eye for inconsistencies. Dr Thomas Brüggemann (Bonn) read the chapter
on Nicaea, offering some helpful suggestions. Dr Maria Munkholt Christensen
(Bonn) not only read the entire book but helped me in many ways which would
take too long to detail here. Nathalie Kröger (Bonn/Bordesholm) carefully went
through every chapter and assisted me with preparing the manuscript for publi-
cation as well as with compiling the indexes. Johanna Schwarz (Bonn) also gave
invaluable support in indexing. Thomas Jibin Abraham (Bonn) carefully proof-
read chapter 9. Anna-Lena Steuckart and Michael Ehret very diligently and effi-
ciently ensured that I would not run out of books, which involved a lot of legwork
to and from the many libraries in Bonn. Anke Grimm-Haddouti (Bonn) was as re-
liable as ever in all administrative matters.
A special word of gratitude goes to my brilliant language editor Dr Kathrin
Lüddecke (Oxford) who not only turned my clumsy English into a readable book,
but with her expertise in classics even pointed out some inconsistencies in my
translations from Greek and Latin.
 Preface IX

Dr Albrecht Döhnert (De Gruyter) graciously accepted considerable delays in

the completion of the manuscript. The team at De Gruyter headed by Jessica
Bartz and Anne Stroka (Integra Software Services) once more turned my manu-
script into a wonderful book.
To all of them: Herzlichen Dank!

This book is dedicated to my wife, Carmen. She endured my mental and physical
absence during its writing; she never complained about weekends cut short be-
fore and during the editing process; and she encouraged me and gave me comfort
when I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel: muchas gracias.

As we approach the anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, it is my sincere

wish that this book may serve as a useful starting point for the history of the
early Christian creeds, may stimulate further research on these fundamental
texts, and may help in promoting ecumenical fellowship.

Oberdollendorf, Epiphany 2024

Wolfram Kinzig
Contents
Preface VII

Abbreviations XVII

1 Introduction: What is a Creed? 1

1.1 Preliminary remarks 1
1.2 The scope of this book 8
1.3 Some remarks on nomenclature 10

2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari 13

2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 15
2.1.1 From Caspari to Lietzmann: The age of historicism 15
2.1.2 From Haußleiter to Kelly: The role of baptismal questions
in the emergence of the creeds 23
2.1.3 Beyond Kelly: Widening the scope 26
2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 31
2.2.1 From Hort to Schwartz 31
2.2.2 Lietzmann – Kelly – Ritter 33
2.2.3 The critics of the Ritter-Kelly hypothesis 35
2.2.4 Other shortcomings of Kelly’s book 38
2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque) 39
2.4 The task ahead: Some methodological reflections 46

3 Symbolum and Related Terms for the Creed 50

4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds 54

4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New
Testament 55
4.1.1 ‘Believing’ in God/Christ 58
4.1.2 ‘Confessing’ God/Christ 64
4.1.3 Conclusions 69
4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 70
4.2.1 Worship 72
4.2.2 Mission and conversion 74
4.2.3 Paraenesis and praise 75
4.2.4 Martyrdom 76
XII Contents

4.3 The development of homological building blocks 80

4.3.1 Homologies and christological summaries in the New
Testament 81
4.3.2 Dyadic and triadic homologies in the second and third
centuries 89
4.3.3 Christological summaries in the second and third
centuries 96
4.4 The rule of faith 101
4.4.1 Preliminary remarks 101
4.4.2 Third Letter to the Corinthians 102
4.4.3 Irenaeus 103
4.4.4 Tertullian 110
4.4.5 Novatian 113
4.4.6 Later authors 116
4.4.7 Conclusions 119
4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 120
4.5.1 Rome 121
4.5.2 North Africa 132
4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 133

5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants 145

5.1 The Creeds of Rome 145
5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 157
5.3 The general endorsement of T in the Carolingian Reform 189
5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed 192
5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 200

6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople 213

6.1 Arius and Alexander of Alexandria 213
6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 219
6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church 235
6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 242
6.4.1 The prehistory of the council 243
6.4.2 The creed of Eusebius and N 244
6.4.3 The rule of faith underlying N 251
6.4.4 The biblical basis of N 254
6.4.5 The theological cause of discontent: homooúsios 255
6.4.6 The anathemas of N 263
 Contents XIII

6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 268

6.5.1 The creeds associated with the Dedication Council in
Antioch (341) 270
6.5.2 The Council of Serdica and its creeds (343) 283
6.5.3 The Macrostich Creed (344) 291
6.5.4 The First Creed of Sirmium (351) 294
6.5.5 The Expositio fidei attributed to Athanasius 297
6.5.6 The Second Creed of Sirmium (357) 299
6.5.7 The formation of the Homoiousians in Ancyra (358) 302
6.5.8 A union failed? The so-called Third Creed of Sirmium
(358) 305
6.5.9 The victory of the Homoians: The Fourth Creed of
Sirmium (359) and its successors 307
6.5.10 Debates about the sufficiency of N among Nicene
theologians 323
6.5.11 The Roman Synod of 377/378 338
6.5.12 The Synod of the Meletians in Antioch (379) 344
6.5.13 The text and theology of the ‘Romano-Nicene Creed’
(NAnt) 346

7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds 355

7.1 The council’s origin and history 355
7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 363

8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches until the
Time of Charlemagne 379
8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of
Chalcedon (451) 379
8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 397
8.2.1 Reception in the east 398
8.2.2 Reception in the west 404

9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches 414
9.1 Syriac Christianity 414
9.1.1 Baptism and the creed 414
9.1.2 Miaphysites (‘Jacobites’) 416
9.1.3 Dyophysites (‘Nestorians’) 420
XIV Contents

9.2 Armenia 432

9.2.1 N and cognate creeds 433
9.2.2 Liturgical use of the creeds 438
9.2.3 Creeds other than N 439
9.3 Coptic Egypt 441
9.4 Ethiopia 446
9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 450
9.6 Georgia 460

10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation 465

10.1 The bishops, the synods, and the creeds 465
10.2 The emperors and creeds 472
10.2.1 First Phase: Appeal to the creed as a means of Church
discipline 473
10.2.2 Second phase: The confession as part of imperial
legislation 475
10.2.3 Third phase: The emperor’s personal confession 478
10.2.4 Reasons for the emperors’ new confessional focus 481

11 Creeds and the Liturgy 485

11.1 The creed at baptism 485
11.1.1 The development of the Traditio and Redditio symboli 485
11.1.2 The creed at the baptism of infants 502
11.2 The creed in the mass 507
11.3 The creed in the liturgy of hours 516

12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year 518

13 Preaching the Creed 523

14 Creeds in Daily Life 535

15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles 540

16 The Controversy over Filioque 549

17 The Apostles’ Creed, the Creed of Constantinople, and the

Athanasian Creed as Standard Creeds in the Middle Ages and
Beyond 571
 Contents XV

18 The Creeds in Medieval Art 590

19 The Creeds in Medieval Music 598

20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian

Creeds 606

21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 615

Bibliography 627

Indices

I Biblical Passages 681

II Ancient and Medieval Sources 689

III Inscriptions, Papyri, Parchments, Ostraca, Wooden Tablets 727

IV Manuscripts 729

V Numbers in FaFo 733

VI Ancient and Medieval Names 743

VII Modern Names 751

VIII Credal Content 763

Abbreviations
Most abbreviations follow Schwertner 2014.

Abbreviations of creeds
Ant First creed associated with the Council of Antioch (; FaFo § c; cf. below pp.  f.)
Ant Second creed associated with the Council of Antioch (; FaFo § b; cf. below pp. –)
Ant Third creed associated with the Council of Antioch (); creed of Theophronius of Tyana (FaFo
§ a; cf. below pp. –)
Ant Fourth creed associated with the Council of Antioch (; FaFo § d; cf. below pp.  f.)
Ath Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque; FaFo § a; cf. below pp. –)
C Creed of Constantinople (; version unspecified)
C officially adopted Creed of Constantinople (); largely identical with the creed
attested by Nestorius (cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, (), p. 
and below pp. –)
Note: In Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, () I have also used the provisional
abbreviations NNest (for the fragments of the creed found in the writings of Nestorius (FaFo
§ a–g)) and NHom for the creed attested in the newly discovered homilies by Nestorius
and edited in this article. I have shown there that NNest, NHom, and C are largely identical
which is why in this book the abbreviations NNest and NHom are no longer used.

C not officially adopted Creed of Constantinople () as first attested at the Third
Session of the Council of Chalcedon (); traditionally called Nicene Creed or
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed; in earlier literature also abbrev. NC or C (FaFo
§ e; cf. below pp. –)
Eus (alleged) Creed of Caesarea as found in Eusebius (FaFo § a; cf. below pp. –)
J Creed of Jerusalem as attested by Cyril (FaFo § ; cf. below pp.  f.)
N Creed of Nicaea (; FaFo § c; cf. below pp. –)
NAnt Antiochene revision of N) (cf. below pp. –)
NAnt Antiochene revision of N as attested by Theodore of Mopsuestia (FaFo § a; cf.
below pp. –)
NAnt Antiochene revision of N as attested by Eusebius of Dorylaeum (FaFo § ) and John
Cassian (FaFo § ; cf. below pp. –)
NAnt so-called ‘Nestorian Creed’ (FaFo § ; cf. below pp. –)
OGS Old Gelasian Sacramentary (and its credal questions; FaFo § c, f; cf. below pp.  f.)
OGSG, OGS*, OGSG various sets of credal questions, reconstructed on the basis of OGS
(cf. below pp. , ,  f.)
R Old Roman Creed; precursor of T (cf. below pp. –)
RM R as attested in Greek by Marcellus of Ancyra (FaFo § ; cf. below pp.  f.)
RM/L, RM/L reconstructions of Latin text (cf. below p. )
RR R as attested by Rufinus (FaFo § b; cf. below pp.  f.)
RL R as attested by Leo the Great (FaFo § g; cf. below pp.  f.)
R/T summary abbreviation for all creeds deriving from R (cf. below pp. –)
T textus receptus (i.e. traditional text) of the Apostles’ Creed (FaFo § ; cf. below pp.  f.)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-204
XVIII Abbreviations

TA Traditio Apostolica, ascribed to Hippolytus (cf. below p. )

TAG reconstructed Greek baptismal questions in the TA (FaFo § c and below pp.  f.)
TAE baptismal questions in the Ethiopic text of the TA (FaFo § c and below p. )
TAL baptismal questions in the Latin text of the TA (= Fragmentum Veronese; FaFo § b
and below p. )

Further abbreviations and explanations

app. ad. l. 00 apparatus referring to line 00 in the indicated critical edition
ex. (saeculo) exeunte, the end of a given century
in. (saeculo) ineunte, the beginning of a given century
fl. floruit, the period of an author’s literary activity
olim formerly
r. rexit (reigned)
sedit term of office of a bishop or emperor
s. saeculo, indicating the century in which a manuscript was written
v.l. varia lectio, variant reading in a source or manuscript

For English translations of the Bible, I have often used the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edi-
tion (NRSVue), as available online, for example, at URL <https://www.biblegateway.com/> (29/11/
2023), while adapting quotations freely according to context.
1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

1.1 Preliminary remarks

The creeds are arguably the most influential non-biblical texts in the history of Chris-
tianity. Most people take the Apostles’ Creed or the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople
(the so-called ‘Nicene Creed’) for granted when they recite it or hear it as part of wor-
ship. Yet these texts have an intricate history. The creeds have evolved over a period
of several hundred years. The aim of this book is to shed some light upon this history.
It is a fascinating tale because it touches upon the very heart of Christianity. But it is
also a complex one, which is why I recommend that any reader who wishes to un-
derstand this development in its broad outline, before studying some of its aspects in
more detail, start by reading the summary in chapter 20.
In this introductory chapter we will begin by asking what it actually is that
we are talking about: what is a creed? The answer is more difficult than it might
seem at first glance because even the names in use today for the creed, and the
processes and actions that we associate with it, need some explanation.
This book’s author is from Germany. Talking about the creed is pretty straight-
forward for him. English ‘faith’ is Glaube or Glauben in German. The corresponding
verb is glauben. A creed in German is a Glaubensbekenntnis (‘a confession of faith’)
or, simply, a Bekenntnis (‘a confession’). At times, Credo is used which derives from
the first word of the Latin creed credo (‘I believe’). In addition, in German academic
parlance the creed is also often called a Symbol, a term which derives from the
Latin word for the creed (symbolum).1 To confess the creed is bekennen.
In English the situation is more complicated. Again, let us begin with ‘faith’.
Generally speaking, ‘faith’ in the religious sense has no verbal form like ‘faithing’2
(although one may say that someone ‘has faith (in God)’). Instead, it is ‘believing’: the
action associated with ‘faith in God’ is ‘to believe in God’. Curiously, however, in

 Cf. below ch. 3. Oddly, although the usage of ‘symbol’ for ‘creed’ is listed in the Oxford English
Dictionary (cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘symbol, n.’; URL <https://
doi.org/10.1093/OED/5373115799> (02/11/2023)), it is not often found in modern English. J.N.D. Kelly,
in his classic account of the history of the creeds (Kelly 1972), does use ‘symbol’ in the sense of
‘creed’, but most often in the context of quoting source texts in which symbolum appears.
 However, the Oxford English Dictionary does list a verb ‘faith’ in both intransitive and transi-
tive usage. Cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘faith, v.’; URL <https://doi.
org/10.1093/OED/2365032708> (02/11/2023). A Google book search has yielded the result that ‘faith-
ing’ occurs in evangelical, pastoral, and therapeutic literature in the intransitive sense of ‘being
in a state of faith’.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-001
2 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

current usage the cognate noun ‘belief’ (again in its religious usage) is not simply
synonymous with ‘faith’ but weaker in its semantic power.3 As J.I. Packer put it:

The word faith [. . .] gets the idea of trustful commitment and reliance better than belief
does. Whereas belief suggests bare opinion, faith, whether in a car, a patent medicine, a pro-
tégé, a doctor, a marriage partner, or what have you, is a matter of treating the person or
thing as trustworthy and committing yourself accordingly.4

‘Faith’ in English is an expression of loyalty and reliability and thus has a mean-
ing similar to ‘trust’. As regards its use in a religious context, the Oxford English
Dictionary defines ‘faith’ as

belief in and acceptance of the doctrines of a religion, typically involving belief in a god or
gods and in the authenticity of divine revelation. Also (Theology): the capacity to spiritually
apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof,
viewed either as a faculty of the human soul, or as the result of divine illumination.5

It is noteworthy that the OED adds:

Earlier evidence refers almost exclusively to the Christian religion, divine revelation being
viewed as contained either in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church.6

We will have to consider this observation in more detail below.

When Christians describe the content of their ‘faith’, such a description is
called a ‘creed’ or a ‘confession’ or a ‘confession of faith’ (from Latin confessio).7
The content of a creed is ‘believed’ and may be ‘confessed’ or, more seldom, ‘pro-
fessed’ (from Latin confiteri/profiteri). However, like its Latin counterpart, the se-
mantic field of ‘confession’ (and its cognate verb ‘to confess’) is wider than that of
‘creed’ and may also, for example, extend to an acknowledgement of sin or sinful-
ness or, before a court of law, of the truth of a statement or charge, such as ‘I am

 This seems to be a modern development. Until the early twentieth century, ‘belief’ in its religious
usage was largely synonymous with ‘faith’ which can be seen from the fact that the Apostles’ Creed
could simply be called ‘the Belief’. Cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘belief,
n.’; URL <https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9976740972> (02/11/2023).
 Packer 2008, p. 26.
 Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘faith, n.’; URL <https://doi.org/10.1093/
OED/7269017364> (02/11/2023).
 Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘faith, n.’; URL <https://doi.org/10.1093/
OED/7269017364> (02/11/2023).
 The distinction between ‘creed’ and ‘confession of faith’ made by Fairbairn/Reeves 2019,
pp. 7–9 does not correspond to the evidence: ancient creeds are often called a confessio fidei in
the sources. Cf. also below ch. 3.
 1.1 Preliminary remarks 3

(not) guilty’.8 By contrast, ‘creed’ is primarily restricted to a ‘statement of faith’

(and in a transferred meaning also to a specific belief system).9
‘Creed’ derives from Old English ‘crêda’ which in turn derives from the first
word of the Latin creed.10 As in German, ‘Credo’, usually with a capital initial, is
also sometimes used for ‘creed’.11 ‘Believing in Christ’ and ‘confessing Christ’ are
almost synonymous, although the latter always implies some sort of verbal ex-
pression in front of someone else. This does not necessarily have to be another
human, but might well be God or even the speaker themselves (in their inner
heart). In other words, in my confession I may not actually be saying it out aloud,
but still express a particular loyalty to and trust in a person which I am, at least
in principle, able to put into words (or else my confession would be without con-
tent). Furthermore, I do not necessarily have to ‘confess Christ’ using the words of
a creed: as we will see, such a confession may simply take the form of saying ‘I
am a Christian’, or it may even be expressed without words such as when I refuse
to sacrifice to the Roman gods (because in my heart I confess Christ as my only
Lord). In other words, without ‘faith in Christ’ there can be no ‘confession of
Christ’, but this transition from ‘faith’ to ‘confession’ may take various forms.
When we turn to the ancient languages, the Greek equivalent for ‘faith’ is πίσ-
τις. The cognate verb πιστεύειν (‘to believe’) is construed with the dative or the
prepositions εἰς or ἐπί to denote the person or object whom I believe in or trust
upon; with accusative case only (‘to believe something’); with infinitive, sometimes
an accusative and infinitive; or with an object clause introduced by ὅτι (‘to believe
that something is the case’). In the context of creeds πιστεύειν is generally con-
strued with εἰς (‘to believe in’). ‘Confession’ in Greek is ὁμολογία (rarely also ὁμο-
λογησία and ὁμολόγησις), its cognate verb ὁμολογεῖν. ‘Faith’ in Latin is fides and
later also credulitas, whereas ‘confession’ is confessio. As with faith in English,
there is no cognate verb to fides in the religious sense we are interested in12 – ‘to
believe’ is credere. Credere plus dative and credere in plus accusative are often
used synonymously, although later an explicit distinction is sometimes made.13 In
addition, we find credere in the sense of ‘to believe that’ with infinitive or with

 Cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘confession, n.’, ‘confess, v.’; URL
<https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1039093600>; <https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/8113292560> (02/11/2023).
 Cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘creed, n.1’; URL <https://doi.org/10.
1093/OED/2719317857> (02/11/2023).
 Cf. Pogatscher 1888, p. 88.
 Cf. Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2022, s.v. ‘credo, n.’; URL <https://doi.org/10.
1093/OED/8057746962> (02/11/2023).
 Its cognate verb (con)fidere (‘to trust’) is never used in the religious sense of ‘to believe’.
 Cf. Becker 1969, col. 828; TeSelle 1996–2002, cols. 120 f. For example, Augustine says that ‘to
believe in someone (credere in eum)’ involves loving the person we believe in whereas ‘to believe
4 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

accusative and infinitive or with a clause introduced by quod. When it comes to

the creeds the vast majority of them use credo/credimus in plus accusative, al-
though in later Latin the accusative is often replaced by the ablative. Which Latin
nouns are used for the creeds is discussed below.14
✶
Since the creed is always an expression of faith, to the extent that in antiquity it
was even often simply called fides (‘faith’), we must inquire into the nature of
faith in Christianity. It is a much-discussed question whether religious ‘faith’ or
‘belief’ existed in antiquity before and outside Christianity.15 ‘Did the Greeks be-
lieve in their myths?’ was the question that guided Paul Veyne’s (1930–2022) fa-
mous monograph of the same title.16 He answered it in the affirmative, claiming
that it was possible to identify a plurality of beliefs in classical antiquity, because
beliefs were an integral part of the condition humaine:

How could people believe in all these legends, and did they truly believe in them? This is
not a subjective question; modalities of belief are related to the ways in which truth is pos-
sessed. Throughout the ages a plurality of programs of truth has existed, and it is these pro-
grams, involving different distributions of knowledge, that explain the subjective degrees of
intensity of beliefs, the bad faith, and the contradictions that coexist in the same individual.
We agree with Michel Foucault on this point. The history of ideas truly begins with the his-
toricization of the philosophical idea of truth.17

Denis Feeney, ‘following in the path of Paul Veyne’,18 concluded that language of
belief among the Romans

is not relating to a constant kernel of agreed and revealed belief, but is part of an ongoing
contestation between different forms of speech over whether and how any particular appli-
cation is going to be made to stick. The criteria of truth and belief remain variable because
they are radically contextual, being always produced from ever-changing conditions of
dialogue.19

Such an argument is difficult to prove or disprove. However, in our context it

may suffice to limit ourselves to the actual use of pístis and fides and cognate
terms in ancient and early medieval texts. Here the evidence is fairly clear: in her

someone’ (credere ei) does not, so that the demons may believe God or Christ, but do not believe
‘in’ him. Cf., e.g., In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 29, 6.
 Cf. below ch. 3.
 For what follows cf. also Harrisson 2013, pp. 2–8.
 Veyne 1988 (French: 1983).
 Veyne 1988, p. 27.
 Feeney 2001, p. 9.
 Feeney 2001, p. 46.
 1.1 Preliminary remarks 5

magisterial monograph on the use of faith language among non-Christians and

Christians Teresa Morgan notes as a general consensus of recent scholarship ‘that
pistis, along with other lexica of belief and related concepts, plays a far less signif-
icant role in either Judaism or Graeco-Roman religions than it plays in Christian-
ity’.20 Or, in the words of Old Testament scholar Anja Klein, faith ‘is a decidedly
Christian concept’.21 Why? I suggest there are two basic reasons: the historical na-
ture of Christianity and Christian monotheism.
As we will see, right from the start Christians undoubtedly believed in a fairly
fixed set of propositions relating to historical events: that Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, had become incarnate, died, rose again, and ascended to heaven. These events
were believed to have happened in the past, at a given point in time, whose chro-
nology could be exactly determined. They began under the reign of Emperor Au-
gustus (r. 31 BC – 14 AD) during the governorship of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
(Lk 2:2),22 and they ended during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (r. 26–36). In-
deed, Pilate was even included in the Apostles’ Creed in order to underline this his-
toricity. Augustine later spilt much ink discussing how one could believe the
veracity (in the sense of factuality) of events or phenomena which one had not wit-
nessed oneself.23 By and large, one might argue about the precise nature or mode
of the incarnation, passion, and resurrection, and the precise ‘status’ or ‘nature’ of
Jesus, but there was no doubt that you could only become a member of the Chris-
tian community if you acknowledged the factuality of these events. And such ac-
knowledgement was only possible by way of ‘faith’, that is, the firm conviction that
these events had (in one way or another) actually happened, that they attested to
the significance of the historical Jesus that was unparalleled in the human sphere
(and which remained to be defined) and that would change the life of anyone who
believed in their historicity.
At the same time, Jesus was associated with a God which Christians considered
matchless and, therefore – regardless of his precise nature24 – the only divine
being. In all other ancient cults one might pledge allegiance to a particular deity
who was consequently accorded due veneration, but nowhere was the existence of

 Morgan 2015, p. 2.
 Anja Klein in Klein et al. 2014, col. 690.
 The census mentioned in Lk 2:2 may date to 6 AD. It does not matter that this dating of Jesus’
birth may in fact be inaccurate, as Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died
in 4 BC; cf. Mt 2) – what matters is that people believed it to be factually accurate.
 Cf., e.g., his treatises Concerning Faith of Things not Seen (De fide rerum inuisibilium, after
420?) and On the Profit of Believing (De utilitate credendi, 391/392). In addition, Confessiones 6,7.
 The heated debates among Christians about the precise nature of their deity could make it
seem to outsiders as if they believed in more than one God; for details about this debate cf. Kin-
zig, ‘Ist das Christentum monotheistisch?’, 2017.
6 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

other – although perhaps not as powerful – gods denied. The only exception was
Judaism – but Judaism did not openly propagate its monotheism. Christianity was
different: Christians acknowledged that there were indeed supernatural beings
that were actually quite powerful, but they had no divine status – rather they were
demons, out to lead the Christians astray from worshipping their god. But Christi-
ans did not stop there: they actively tried to convince non-Christians that the gods
they believed in were, in truth, evil demons. Converting to Christianity was thus
not to prefer one god over another, as more helpful in a certain life situation, but
an ‘either-or’ decision. This decision was to have ‘faith’. It was a decision to trust in
the life-saving power of the one God of Jesus Christ that did not have to be verbal-
ized. However, if expressed in words or corroborated by some form of action such
as martyrdom, it might lead to a (public) ‘confession’ of the existence of one god
only and of the proposition that this one god was absolutely trustworthy and was
going to change one’s life for the better, as he had proven in the past, be it speaking
through the prophets or, recently, having himself come down to earth. This confes-
sion could be summarized in the words of a creed.
✶
What, then, is a creed? Given the sheer number of texts called, or that call them-
selves, ‘creed’, any definition will be imperfect. In this book I will draw on a defi-
nition Markus Vinzent and I developed in an article back in 1999: a creed is

a formal pledge of allegiance to a set of doctrinal statements concerning God and his rela-
tionship to his creation in general and to humankind in particular. Typically, a creed con-
tains the words “I/we believe” or (in interrogatory form) ‘Do you believe?’ to which the
expected answer is: ‘I/we believe’. Whereas a creed’s Sitz im Leben may vary (catechesis,
liturgy, doctrinal debate), its wording usually does not. [. . .] The vast majority of creeds
consists of three articles referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.25

Creeds as defined here only exist in Christianity. Other religions can do without
them. Thus, there are no creeds in either Greek or Roman religion.26 The Shema
Yisrael in Judaism27 or Shahada in Islam28 are sets of doctrinal tenets whose truth

 Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, pp. 540 f. Some time ago, Michael Kohlbacher suggested a helpful ‘typol-
ogy of creeds’ which is based on a much wider definition (Kohlbacher, Das Symbolum Athanasia-
num, 2004). At the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice what importance one attributes
to the introductory phrase ‘I believe/we believe’. Cf. also Gabriel 2016.
 Cf. Harrisson 2013, p. 4.
 Deut 6:4: ‘Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one’.
 ‘I bear witness that there is no deity but God, the One, there is no partner to Him, and I bear
witness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger.’ There are alternative versions, de-
pending on the tradition that is followed. Cf. Padwick 1961(1969), pp. 126–51; Wensinck 1965.
 1.1 Preliminary remarks 7

is declared, or borne witness to, in the form of propositions, but they are not
creeds according to our definition.29 Qur’ān 112 comes close to a creed, and some
scholars have suggested that it is, as it were, a negated Nicene Creed.30 However,
unlike these formulae most Christian creeds do not state that ‘this or that is true’,
nor that ‘I believe (or we believe) that a particular proposition is true’. Rather,
such doctrinal propositions are introduced by the words ‘I/we believe in’ and
thus express a personal relationship. The addition of the preposition ‘in’ indicates
that the individual’s belief goes beyond assent to particular propositions and ex-
presses both confidence in the existence and the power of the divine persons of
the Trinity and in the historical truth of the Christ story (birth – passion – cruci-
fixion – resurrection – ascension). Using the language of dogmatics one could
say: confessional texts are not only about the fides quae creditur, the content of
the confession, but also express a fides qua creditur, a relationship between
human and God based on faith.
At the same time one should bear in mind that, although creeds only exist in
Christianity, even many Christian groups, for example Quakers, Anabaptists, and
Antitrinitarians, have rejected such formulae. Given these facts, neither the existence
of creeds as such nor their trinitarian structure are self-evident but require careful
consideration. In this context we will have to examine why the Christian faith came
to be expressed in fixed formulae at a certain point and why this expression included
assertions concerning the existence and nature of the three trinitarian persons.
When approaching the history of the creeds we must also remember that in
our modern understanding ‘faith’ is often seen as an internalized, personal rela-
tionship to God within the individual believer. But this is quite a modern concept
which owes its existence, on the one hand, to the Pietism of the late seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries which emphasized the ‘heart’ as the seat of faith and of
one’s feelings (which is why we tend to associate a particular ‘pious feeling’ with
‘faith’) and, on the other hand, to the Enlightenment in whose wake the language
of faith was banned from public discourse and largely ‘privatized’. By contrast, in
antiquity ‘faith’ always had both a private and public side. One’s personal alle-

 For Judaism cf. also Michael Satlow in Klein et al. 2014, col. 702: ‘Following the H[ebrew] B[ible],
rabbinic Judaism has no creed or dogma and the rabbis of late antiquity never commanded belief
or faith.’ Klein et al. 2014, col. 703: ‘Faith and belief would become important issues in Jewish philos-
ophy in the early Middle Ages [. . .]. From then to the present there has been a lively controversy
among Jewish thinkers about the proper role of faith in Judaism, not to mention acceptable beliefs.’
Admittedly, with Islam the situation is more complex. But if I am not mistaken, the emphasis of the
Shahada is on ‘bearing witness to’ rather than ‘believing/trusting in’. Cf., e.g., Hermansen 2016.
 Cf. Sura 112 (tr. Ali Quli Qarai in Reynolds 2018, p. 937): ‘Say, “He is God, the One. God is the
All-embracing. He neither begat, nor was begotten, nor has He any equal.”’ For discussion cf.
Hoffmann 2023 and the literature quoted there. In addition, Kropp 2011.
8 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

giance to God was regularly expressed in public, which was initially, for reasons
of safety, largely restricted to the Christian congregation, but later formed part of
everyday life. Moreover, both Greek πίστις and Latin fides originally meant ‘reli-
ability’, ‘trustworthiness’, or ‘credit’, for example in business life, so that ‘faith’
also had a social and even legal connotation. Hence when someone said ‘I believe
in’ they expressed trust in, but also allegiance to a divine overlord into whose
protection they had betaken themselves.

1.2 The scope of this book

Christianity, then, is a credal religion. Yet it is not easy to determine where a history
of the Christian creeds should begin. With the New Testament? In the late second or
early third century when the first dogmatic propositions were assembled to form a
‘rule of faith’?31 Or not before the early fourth century when the Nicene Creed was
composed? In recent decades arguments for all of these beginnings have been put
forward. Ultimately, it depends on what you mean by ‘creed’. The creed which is
most widely accepted in Christendom is the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople or Ni-
cene-Constantinopolitan Creed (traditionally, but inaccurately called Nicene Creed;
usually abbreviated NC or C; in this book for reasons which will be explained
below:32 C2). It is closely followed by the Apostles’ Creed (hereafter: T, short for textus
receptus33), which is not usually recited in orthodox churches, but even more popular
in western Christianity than C2. It may, therefore, make sense to take these two texts
as something of a guideline for a description of the genre, although we must bear in
mind that these creeds had a prehistory reaching back to the beginnings of Christian-
ity and that the genre accommodated many variations and, as it were, ‘borderline
cases’. For example, it is doubtful if the third of the ‘great’ early Christian confessions
in the western churches, the so-called Athanasian Creed (also: Symbolum Quicumque,
abbrev. Ath), can be termed a creed since an actual credal formula (‘I believe’ or ‘we
believe’) is missing. I will, therefore, exclude it from further investigation.34
Likewise, different confessions by no means had a uniform Sitz im Leben. Creeds
were recited not only as part of worship: catechumens learned them by heart before
being baptized, priests and monks chanted them during their offices, bishops sus-
pected of heresy composed them to prove their orthodoxy. Creeds were solemnly
proclaimed at synods to initiate proceedings or, having been developed at them, to

 Cf. below ch. 4.4.

 Cf. below ch. 7.
 The abbreviation was introduced by Kattenbusch 1894, p. 189.
 Cf. below ch. 2.3.
 1.2 The scope of this book 9

then conclude the meeting. Finally, under the Roman emperors of late antiquity,
creeds even acquired the force of law. Orthodox and heterodox Christians alike
amended existing creeds or wrote entirely new ones. Some such confessions were
very brief, containing only a few lines, while others were elaborate tracts, sometimes
running to several pages in modern printed editions. Confessions of faith are like ka-
leidoscopes: the composition of their colours constantly changes, making it difficult
to discern longer-term patterns.
Therefore, how creeds came about varied according to time and place. In
times of calm, older confessions were usually simply repeated. New creeds were
often written when a particular individual or group felt attacked on doctrinal
grounds, although often social and political factors were also involved.
Times of crisis in antiquity and the early middle ages that were prolific in
producing, as well as in prompting debate about, creeds included in the east:
(1) the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, which, by and large, were
resolved at the Council of Constantinople in 381;
(2) the christological controversies of the fifth century, which reached a provi-
sional conclusion at the Council of Chalcedon in 451;
(3) the Miaphysite controversies that followed from 451 to 553; and
(4) the Monothelete debates in the years 630 to 681.

In the west, similar crises included:

(1) the change from Homoian to Catholic Christianity in the Visigothic Kingdom
in 589 and its aftermath; and
(2) the debate on adoptionism in eighth and ninth-century Spain.

However, it is important to note that, in the east, from the fourth century on-
wards, the dogmatic points of reference for all discussions were the Creed of Ni-
caea (N) and later that of Constantinople (C2). Even though other confessions
were written later, they all claimed to be interpretations or clarifications of either
N or C2. In the west, C2 was also considered the ‘dogmatic’ confession. However,
the (Old) Roman Confession (R) and its descendants down to the Apostles’ Creed
(T) were much more important in their impact on the faith and lives of believers
at large, given that these were the creeds primarily used in catechetical instruc-
tion. The changes in wording which ultimately led to the transformation of R to T
are not necessarily an expression of a widespread crisis; rather, for the most part
they are simply variants springing from local usage.35 It would, therefore, be erro-
neous to consider R and T to be two different texts.

 Cf. below ch. 5.2.

10 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

By contrast, the Athanasian Creed is – as already indicated above – a strange

hybrid of confession and dogmatic treatise. While it too was very influential, if I
am not mistaken, it was predominately used to help educate priests, not in
preaching at large (with a few exceptions).
To summarize, more confessions were produced in the east than in the
west – the vast majority of creeds in the Latin Church are variants and expan-
sions of R. The Apostles’ Creed, which became the standard creed in Carolingian
times, is one of these variants. By the time of Charlemagne, the development of
creeds in the west had come to a close. In the east, the same had in fact already
happened with the adoption of N and C2 at the fifth and sixth sessions of the
Council of Chalcedon (451), albeit that N and C2 subsequently continued to com-
pete for supremacy until C2 had largely supplanted the older confession in the
Greek Orthodox Church around the eighth century. (N and its Antiochene variant
NAnt continued to be used in certain Oriental Orthodox Churches.36)
This overview serves to establish both the geographical and chronological ex-
tent of this work. We will begin our investigation in the New Testament, with a
search for theological formulae and summaries containing, in nuce, propositions
that are later included in the declaratory creeds of the fourth century. As we will
see, these formulae and summaries could take many forms which differed from
region to region. They later ‘coagulated’ in those fixed verbal structures that we
call ‘creeds’. By the early middle ages when the ‘great creeds’ C2, T, and Ath had
been widely accepted, the dynamic of credal production began to slacken. There-
fore, this book primarily covers confessional developments in the Latin and
Greek Churches from their beginnings in the first century to the early ninth cen-
tury, although some attention will also be paid to credal developments outside
the Roman Empire.

1.3 Some remarks on nomenclature

In what follows I will use a number of terms which, for the sake of clarity, are
briefly described here:
– Homologies are texts that suggest some kind of confessional Sitz im Leben as
defined below in chapter 4.2 or may in some way be related to such confessions.
My wording is deliberately vague because it is a collective term for all kinds of
texts that make statements about, or express veneration of, God, Christ, and the
Spirit individually or collectively (such as pístis formulae, prayers, acclamations,

 Cf. below ch. 9.

 1.3 Some remarks on nomenclature 11

kerygmatic formulae, doxologies etc.37), sometimes supplemented by summaries

of Christ’s saving work (‘christological summaries’). My use of ‘homology’ is,
therefore, wider than that often found in previous scholarship.38

– Rules of faith are texts that ancient sources expressly called that or ‘rules of
truth’, etc. They consist of a series of dogmatic propositions about the persons of
the Trinity with similar content yet not identical in wording. In a way, they repre-
sent an intermediary stage between homologies and creeds.

– Interrogatory creeds (or credal interrogations/questions) are texts introduced

by ‘Do you believe in?’, typically used at baptism to ascertain the baptismal candi-
date’s assent to a series of faith statements as described in chapter 4.5.

– Declaratory creeds were written either collectively (e.g. by a committee or

synod) or by individuals (often called ‘private creeds’39).
– Collective creeds may take three forms:
– Local creeds were used especially in catechesis without it being pos-
sible to identify their author or origin (similar to modern ‘folk
songs’). Their significance remained largely restricted to a single re-
gion. Classical examples include the Roman Creed in the first phase
of its history and the Creed of Jerusalem.
– However, occasionally the significance of a local creed did not remain
restricted to one region but had an impact on credal developments in
other areas or territories, such that ‘daughter creeds’ developed. We
may call these transregional creeds. Many creeds in the Latin church,
including the Apostles’ Creed, are such ‘daughter creeds’ of the Roman
Creed, developing from the second half of the fourth century onwards.
– Synodal creeds are either documents of a dogmatic compromise or
were imposed by one of the parties at an assembly of prelates. They
were created to settle matters when certain doctrines regarding the
Trinity were controversial. At the same time, they served to ward off

 Cf. Berger 2005, pp. 290–305.

 Cf., e.g., Vielhauer 1975(1985), pp. 23–8; Staats 1999, p. 149; Vollenweider 2017, pp. 506 f., 509 f.
Cf. also Riedl 2004, pp. 89, 164 citing New Testament scholars Günther Bornkamm and Hans Con-
zelmann. For the background of this debate cf. also Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 234 f.; Böttrich
2014, p. 95 and n. 115.
 The term ‘private’ creed (which may have been coined in 1770 by the Göttingen Church histo-
rian Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch (1726–1784; cf. Markschies 2013, p. 260) is not very helpful,
since it suggests that such creeds were not made ‘public’, whereas the opposite is true: such
creeds were almost always written to be made known in public for apologetic purposes (cf.
Markschies 2013, p. 264). It is, therefore, more accurate to speak of ‘individual’ creeds.
12 1 Introduction: What is a Creed?

views deemed heretical by a majority of bishops. In these cases, some-

times solemn condemnations (‘anathemas’) were added, specifically
naming the teachings against which that creed was directed. In terms
of form criticism, such anathemas do not form part of creeds since
creeds containing such condemnations can also ‘survive’ when their
anathemas are omitted (as in the case of N when it was subsequently
revised and ultimately morphed into C2). Nonetheless, if we want to un-
derstand the apologetic and legal nature of synodal creeds, the anathe-
mas also have to be considered. Synodal creeds were often signed
individually by the bishops attending the councils which drafted them.
– Individual creeds were often, although not exclusively, produced by bish-
ops or presbyters in the context of synods either in order to set out and
defend a particular doctrine or to demonstrate one’s view as compatible
with ‘orthodoxy’. In both cases, their function was mostly apologetic (e.g.,
because a particular cleric was facing a charge of heresy). In what fol-
lows I have drawn on such creeds only if they were relevant to my over-
all account.

– Finally, credal texts are texts that are not, strictly speaking, creeds in the way
defined above, but either, though taking another shape, explicitly call themselves
such or integrate credal formulae into a larger theological argument. In both
these instances, reference to a given creed or the quotation of credal phrases is
an indication that the ‘heat is being turned up’. It is often difficult to decide
whether we are ‘really’ dealing with creeds or whether these texts should be as-
signed to other genres. The purpose of these texts is either apologetic or demon-
strative, i.e. they serve to defend a specific doctrinal view or to set out and lend
authority to a particular doctrine – purposes that are not mutually exclusive. In
FaFo I included those texts from this category that the sources called creeds (i.e.
which their authors/users term a pístis/fides or symbolum (fidei)) and/or which
use the verbs pisteúein or credere to signal assent to dogmatic propositions about
God and the Trinity. One particularly tricky case is the Symbolum Quicumque: orig-
inally it did not bear the title of creed but was only termed such at a later stage;
nor does it conform to the structure of a trinitarian creed.40 By and large, this
final category plays only a minor role in the development of the genre; accord-
ingly, in what follows most credal texts are omitted in order not to overburden
my account.

 Cf. below ch. 2.3.

2 A Brief History of Credal Research
since Caspari

Though perhaps not usually the most riveting, overviews of previous scholarship
are nonetheless indispensable. Pointing out both the achievements and the defi-
ciencies of earlier scholarship helps both to place one’s own argument in its his-
torical context and to inform the reader as to what has stood the test of time and
why certain models and theories of credal development have been discarded.
Modern research on the creed is marked by two developments resulting from
the emergence of historicism, entailing as it did a strong interest both in philolog-
ically reliable editions of sources and in the application of a historical-critical
method in studying these sources: first, the discovery and publication of new cre-
dal texts and second, building on these discoveries, the development of new theo-
ries regarding the historical development of the creeds once belief in the early
origin of the Apostles’ Creed in particular had been discredited.
By and large, modern credal research began in the second half of the nine-
teenth century and was mainly carried out by Anglican and Protestant scholars in
Britain and Germany. This was no coincidence: at that time, discussion about the
continuing validity of the theological propositions contained in the creeds had dom-
inated the churches and academic theology in both countries, albeit for slightly dif-
ferent reasons. In England T, C2 (traditionally referred to as ‘Nicene’), and Ath were
mentioned in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562. In art. VIII it is said that they ‘ought
throughly to be receaued & beleued. For they maye be proued by moste certayne
warraunties of holy Scripture’.1 Therefore, they formed an important part of the
liturgy as prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.2 In Germany, the Neo-Nicene
doctrine of the Trinity, as formulated at the Council of Constantinople in 381, was
mentioned in the first article of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1530.3 All
three creeds were later included in the collections of confessional writings of the
Reformation such as the Book of Concord of 1580; even now pastors in the Lutheran

 Articles 1563.
 In the revised version of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 T is said during matins and even-
song (except for thirteen days of the year when it is replaced by Ath). C2 is said or sung at the
communion service.
 Cf. Dingel 2014, pp. 92 f. (ed. Gottfried Seebaß/Volker Leppin). Strictly speaking, the decretum
Nicenae Synodi / ‘Beschluß Concilii Niceni’ referred to seems to be the synodal letter of the Coun-
cil of Constantinople of 382 (Council of Constantinople, Epistula synodalis (FaFo § 566a)).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-002
14 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

churches, as well as in some of those Protestant churches that combine elements of

Lutheranism and Calvinism, still are being ordained using this book.4
However, in the wake of the rise of historical-critical exegesis of the Bible the
veracity of some of the tenets contained in the creeds came to be questioned,
above all the virgin birth, Christ’s descent to the underworld, his resurrection,
and ascension. This led to wide-ranging debates among clergy, academic theolo-
gians, as well as lay people, whether or not the creeds could still be recited, had
to be changed, or to be dropped altogether from daily services, baptismal and or-
dination rites, and from the confessional writings. The details of these debates
need not concern us here.5 What is important, however, is that in this context the
historical study of the creed intensified, because liberal scholars wanted to dem-
onstrate the historical (and hence ‘relative’) nature of the creeds whereas their
orthodox counterparts tried to prove, with regard to T, that it went back to the
times of the primitive Church and even the apostles themselves.
The anti-Modernist stance of the popes of this period largely prevented
Roman Catholic scholars from undertaking such research. Doing so meant risking
one’s academic career, but they were also genuinely convinced such research
was not needed. As the Jesuit Wilhelm M. Peitz (1876–1954) put it very succinctly
in 1918:

For catholic scholarship this question [of the origin and development of T] lacks immediate
urgency. For it is less a matter of the apostolic origin of the wording than of the apostolic
content. However, the apostolic content is warranted with certainty by the infallible
magisterium.6

The renewed interest in the creeds and their development inspired scholars,
whatever their background, to go back to the sources. New credal texts were dis-
covered as a result of the intensified study of medieval manuscripts. Accordingly,
we can observe a surge of first or improved editions of such texts between 1860
and 1930, with scholars such as Carl Paul Caspari, A.E. Burn, C.H. Turner, and
Eduard Schwartz leading the field.7 More recently, since the turn of the millen-
nium, there has been another wave of discoveries of late antique and medieval

 Cf. the critical edition of the Book of Concord in Dingel 2014.

 Cf. the fundamental study of the situation in Germany by Hanna Kasparick (Kasparick 1996)
and Julia Winnebeck (Winnebeck 2016). To my knowledge, no such comprehensive study exists
as yet for the Church of England. Some information is found in Winnebeck 2019. For Switzerland
cf. Gebhard 2003. For the wider background cf. also Staats 1999, pp. 279–93.
 Peitz 1918, p. 555 (emphasis original).
 On these scholars cf. below chs. 2.1 and 2.2.1.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 15

creeds and their explanations, inspired by Susan A. Keefe of Duke University

which is indeed still on-going.8
By and large, three major areas of research have received particular atten-
tion. Unsurprisingly, they revolve around the three major ancient creeds of Chris-
tendom: (1) the history of the Apostles’ Creed which includes the Roman Creed, its
ancestors, and the emergence of Christian creeds in general; (2) the history of the
Nicene Creed and the Creed of Constantinople with a special emphasis on their
precise origins; (3) the history of the Athanasian Creed. In what follows, I will
treat each of these fields in turn, attempting to highlight some major trajectories
along which scholarship has moved in the past 150 years.9

2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds

in general

2.1.1 From Caspari to Lietzmann: The age of historicism

One of the scholars who deserves pride of place in any history of the creeds is Carl
Paul Caspari (1814–1892), a Norwegian Lutheran theologian of German-Jewish ex-
traction. He was engaged in a controversy with the Danish theologian, poet, and
polymath Nikolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872), revolving around the
role and status of the creed in the interpretation of Scripture. This led him to reap-
praise the history of the creed, focussing largely, albeit not exclusively, on the his-
tory of T, and publishing the results in a plethora of monographs and articles from
the 1860s onwards.10 He suggested that the creeds in Marcellus’ letter to Julius of
Rome (FaFo § 253), in Rufinus’ Expositio symboli (§ 254b), in the Psalter of King Ae-
thelstan (§ 295), and in the codex Laudianus Gr. 35 (§ 327) represented a recension
of T earlier than T itself, which he identified with the ancient creed of Rome (R).11
Caspari assumed that local creeds had already come into existence by the second
century. Because of their presumed close resemblance to each other, he believed
that a basic credal pattern could be identified that went back to the apostolic age.

 Cf. also below p. 30.

 For further information cf. Vinzent 2006 who (although focussing on the research on T only)
covers much of the same ground as this chapter. For individual credal texts, see the literature
listed in FaFo.
 Cf. the list in Belsheim 1897, p. 741. Details of the controversy and Caspari’s response in Vin-
zent 2006, pp. 136–147 on which the following account is based.
 Here he partly reproduced an argument which had already been suggested in 1647 by James
Ussher, Bishop of Armagh (1581–1656); cf. Vinzent 2006, pp. 54–6.
16 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

This early creed had originated in Johannine circles in Asia Minor whence it trav-
elled to Rome.12 His theory proved enormously influential, although it contained a
number of serious methodological flaws which were pointed out by his contemporar-
ies.13 Caspari never produced a full-scale history of the early creeds – but the rever-
berations of his ground-breaking research can still be felt in J.N.D. Kelly’s account of
this history.
Caspari’s editions of new texts were at least as important as his studies; most
of these were published in the three volumes of his Quellen zur Geschichte des Tauf-
symbols und der Glaubensregel (1866–1875) and his Kirchenhistorische Anecdota
(1883).14 They received wide currency because they were included in the often-
quoted Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche in 1877, a collec-
tion of creeds whose first edition (1842) had been produced by August Hahn (1792–
1863) and which was later re-issued in an extended version by his son Georg Lud-
wig Hahn (1823–1903), professor of New Testament and Church History at the Uni-
versity of Breslau (modern Wrocław).15 Finally, a third edition with yet more texts
added was published in 1897, again by Hahn jun.16 Furthermore, Adolf (von17) Har-
nack (1851–1930) contributed an appendix entitled ‘Material on the history and ex-
plication of the old Roman creed taken from the Christian literature of the two first
centuries’ (Materialien zur Geschichte und Erklärung des alten römischen Symbols
aus der christlichen Litteratur der zwei ersten Jahrhunderte).18
However, this collection, unrivalled at the time in its comprehensive scope,
did by no means meet with an entirely positive reception in the world of scholar-
ship. One of Hahn’s fiercest critics was Ferdinand Kattenbusch (1852–1935), at the
time Professor of (Protestant) Systematic Theology in Gießen.19 He considered the
collection posed a ‘danger to research’, because its structure and chapter head-
ings presupposed a certain view of the history of the creeds which was far from
proven and in fact, in some instances, plainly false. In addition, he suggested that
Hahn had not made it sufficiently clear where he had adopted the views of other
scholars.20 Nonetheless, in spite of Kattenbusch’s misgivings, the Hahns’ collection

 Cf. Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I, pp. IV–V; vol. III, p. 161; and Vinzent 2006, pp. 138–41.
 Cf. Vinzent 2006, pp. 141–7.
 Cf. Caspari 1866–1875(1964); Caspari 1883.
 Cf. Hahn 1842; Hahn/Hahn 1877.
 Cf. Hahn/Hahn 1897.
 He was ennobled in 1914.
 Cf. Hahn/Hahn 1897, pp. 364–90.
 On Kattenbusch and Harnack cf. in extenso Vinzent 2006, pp. 152–77.
 Cf. Kattenbusch 1894, p. 739 n. 18. Cf. also p. 957 and Kattenbusch, review of Hahn/Hahn 1897,
1897.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 17

remained the standard reference tool for over a century in terms of the sheer
number of texts it contained.
The sharpness of Kattenbusch’s criticism may also have been due to a certain
fear that the work of the Hahns would outstrip his own studies on the creed in
scholarly importance. Kattenbusch felt great admiration for Caspari whose results
he largely adopted and, like him, he had originally planned to write a history of
the creeds, but – again like him – in the end failed as well. Instead, he produced
an enormous study of the history of T only, comprising no less than 1471 pages in
two volumes.21 The sheer size of this work presented a serious problem of organi-
zation: Kattenbusch was simply unable to structure the mass of material available
effectively. Especially in the second volume of his opus maximum he added a
mountain of appendices and footnotes which made his work largely unreadable.
For Kattenbusch, the Roman Creed (which he abbreviated for the first time
as ‘R’22) formed the basis of all western creeds and indeed of all creeds. R had
been drawn up as a formula in around 100, later producing a number of descend-
ants in the western provinces that differed from each other in certain details. Fur-
thermore, Kattenbusch claimed that the first traces of credal texts in the east
were found in the third century in the area of Syria and Palestine, and that this
was due to R’s migration to Antioch. In subsequent centuries the standard text of
T (textus receptus) had developed from R through the (rather haphazard) addition
of further clauses.23 Whereas Caspari had assumed this to have taken place in
southern Gaul, initially, Kattenbusch believed that any such geographical attribu-
tion was impossible, though he later considered a Spanish origin.24
Harnack had closely collaborated with Kattenbusch during his time in Gie-
ßen. He largely agreed with his friend and colleague with regard to the existence
and the great age of R, although he dated it slightly later (around 150). The Roman
Creed had remained unaltered in the capital itself, but started travelling to the
western provinces from the end of the second century; there it received various
modifications and additions until it morphed into T (in Gaul). However, in con-
trast to Kattenbusch, Harnack assumed that in the east confessions had already
existed prior to R, although not as yet in a fixed form, and had influenced its
wording.25 However, from the end of the third century onwards elaborate creeds
were being formulated in Syria and/or Palestine, ‘after the Roman Creed had be-

 Cf. Kattenbusch 1894 and 1900.

 Cf. Kattenbusch 1892, p. 7; cf. Vinzent 2006, p. 138 and n. 282.
 Cf. Kattenbusch 1900, pp. 192–205.
 Cf. Vinzent 2006, p. 160.
 Cf. Harnack 1896, esp. pp. 753 f.
18 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

come known and esteemed’, a process accelerated by the Arian controversy

which led to ‘the formation of fixed creeds’ in the east.26
One of the fiercest critics of previous research was Johannes Kunze (1865–
1927), Professor of (Protestant) Systematic Theology at Vienna and later at Greifs-
wald. A brilliant essay written for a wider audience, published in the Internatio-
nale Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik in 1914, synthesized his
views, which he had detailed in a series of monographs and articles.27 Kunze con-
sidered any attempt to reconstruct an early confessional formula a methodologi-
cal error. To him the Apostolicum was indeed a formula, but it was one that was
not yet fixed because it had not been permitted to write it down. ‘Genuine records
of the baptismal creed’, he wrote, ‘are not found until the middle of the fourth
century.’28 However, this was not to say that it did not exist. On the contrary, it
even helped inform early Christian doctrine before the fourth century. At the
same time, the Apostles’ Creed was not in itself dogmatic. Rather, it was ‘a trini-
tarian confessional formula from the Early Church that was brief and variable in
many ways, but on the whole uniform, reproducing in terms of content and form
the kerygma of the New Testament, which is in some way traced back to the apos-
tles wherever it occurs.’29 As such it differed from the dogmatic creeds such as C2
and Ath. Kunze remained sceptical that the evidence permitted the reconstruction
of a history of the creed prior to the fourth century and claimed that earlier cre-
dal formulae probably never existed as invariable texts. R (or T) was nothing but
a variant of this orally transmitted Apostolicum which predated all existing credal
formulae, both western and eastern, precisely because of its undogmatic charac-
ter, and ultimately derived from the primitive Church.
Kunze’s shrewd observations made no great impact on subsequent research.
In some way, this is surprising as the conservative Lutheran had laid bare the
liberal school of Church historians’ methodological weaknesses: their argument
rested on the overall assumption that (a) faith had been expressed in fixed formu-
lae already at a very early stage in the development of Christianity and (b) that
such formulae had a tendency to ‘grow’ (indeed, botanical metaphors occur quite
frequently in studies of this period).30 Therefore, it was thought that one could
rediscover the oldest version of the creed by, as it were, cutting away later ‘accre-
tions’, words or phrases that disturbed the ‘natural flow’, the ‘original beauty’, or

 Harnack 1896, p. 749.

 Cf. Kunze 1914. Cf. the summary of Kunze’s research in Vinzent 2006, pp. 194–203.
 Kunze 1914, col. 1315.
 Kunze 1914, col. 1316.
 Badcock even entitled one of his chapters ‘How Creeds Grow’, as if there were some kind of
natural law; cf. Badcock 1938, p. 117.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 19

the ‘theological logic’ of a creed. We will see later that both assumptions are ulti-
mately untenable because they do not allow for the orality and thus fluidity of
early Christian confessions and because additions to creeds (as formulae) were
often made deliberately as a result of given theological challenges.
This type of research, which mirrored the rise of form criticism in biblical
exegesis, reached its peak when three German scholars published a series of ar-
ticles in the same volume of the Proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Sciences
in 1919 which built on each other, suggesting that the christological section in R
was a later addition to a much more primitive formula.31 The three were Har-
nack, whom we have already encountered, and two younger German church his-
torians, Karl Holl (1866–1926), also active in Berlin, and Hans Lietzmann (1875–
1942), who at that time taught at Jena and later succeeded Harnack. In Lietz-
mann’s view this original short formula was preserved with minor modifications
in a papyrus originating from Dêr Balyzeh in Upper Egypt which had been edited
for the first time in 1909 (FaFo § 146).32 On the basis of this formula Lietzmann
reconstructed the following primitive version of R (which was considered to have
been composed in Greek, the principal language of the Roman Christians),33
slightly modifying an earlier attempt by Harnack:34

Πιστεύω εἰς (1) θεὸν (2) πατέρα (3) παντοκράτορα

καὶ εἰς (4) Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (5) τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (6) τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν
τὸν μονογενῆ
καὶ εἰς (7) πνεῦμα ἅγιον (8) ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν (9) σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν

I believe in (1) God (2) the Father (3) Almighty

and in (4) Christ Jesus (5) his only-begotten Son (6) our Lord
and in (7) the Holy Spirit (8) the holy Church (9) the resurrection
of the flesh.

The parallel pattern of three members per section was considered an expression
of the skill of the (unknown) authors of this creed. Its Sitz im Leben was baptism
or, rather, pre-baptismal catechesis. It allegedly served as the basic pattern for all
credal production in east and west.

 Cf. Holl 1919(1928); Harnack 1919; Lietzmann 1919(1962).

 Cf. Vinzent 2006, pp. 190–3.
 Cf. Lietzmann 1919(1962), p. 184.
 Cf. Harnack 1919, p. 112.
20 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

In addition, Holl argued that the Roman version of the christological section
was an interpretation of the designations ‘his only-begotten Son’ and ‘our Lord’ in
the above-quoted primitive version of R, as becomes clear from the following table:

καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,

τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα
ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ταφέντα, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα
ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ὅθεν
ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς

‘and in Christ Jesus

his only-begotten Son, our Lord,
who was born from the Holy who was crucified under Pontius Pilate
Spirit and the virgin Mary, and buried; on the third day rose
again from the dead; ascended into
the heavens; is sitting at the right hand
of the Father, whence he is coming
to judge the living and the dead’
Holl described this dual construction as a product of rhetorical artistry intending
to instil ‘clarity’ and ‘confidence’ in Roman Christians.35
Lietzmann, in turn, suggested in a later paper that the christological section
of all eastern creeds likewise derived from a single basic confession which he
termed O:36

Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα ‘I believe in one God, the Father
παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν Almighty, Maker of all things
τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. both visible and invisible.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ. only-begotten Son of God.
Τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ Who was begotten from the Father
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, δι᾿ οῦ before all ages, through whom
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. all things came into being.
Τὸν [διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν] Who [because of our salvation]
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, became human, suffered,

 Cf. Holl 1919(1928); the quotation on p. 119.

 Cf. Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 211 f.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 21

καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and rose again on the third day
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς and ascended into the heavens;
καὶ [πάλιν] ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι and will come [again] to judge the liv-
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. ing and the dead.
Kαὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. And in the Holy Spirit.’

The question as to whether all creeds were ultimately based on a Roman model
(which, perhaps, derived from some ancestor from the Apostolic Age or even the
apostles themselves) was, of course, a highly sensitive issue. Roman catholic
scholars, for obvious reasons, tended to be sympathetic to such an idea, but
Anglo-Catholic patrologists likewise were fascinated by the possible Roman origin
of R. Ironically, however, as we have seen, it was liberal Protestants like Holl,
Harnack, and Lietzmann who did most to develop and establish this theory.
Theirs was an ingenuous idea, but there is no evidence at all that such a basic
creed ever existed.37 As we will see, the similarities between the eastern creeds
can also be explained in another manner which does better justice to the evi-
dence.38 All in all, later generations were much more sceptical and considered the
theory by Holl, Harnack, and Lietzmann as a whole too artifical to be historically
accurate.39
By contrast, the idea that we have to distinguish between a trinitarian for-
mula and a christological section in the early history of the creeds (the latter of
which was later added to the trinitarian formula, but may previously have had a
history of its own) was further developed by Johannes Haußleiter (1851–1928),40
professor of New Testament studies in Greifswald, and the aforementioned Wil-
helm Peitz.41 Haußleiter very succinctly summarized his hypothesis as follows:

We have to distinguish two types [of creeds]: the older type, which was initially also the
dominant one in Rome, was marked by the separate position of a very brief trinitarian con-
fession which had developed from the Great Commission [i.e. Mt 28:19] and of a more exten-
sive confessional formula which derived from the Christ-kerygma and which formed the
basis for the second article of the Apostles’ Creed. The younger type emerged from the older
type in that the extensive confession of Christ was inserted into the trinitarian scheme. This
is the origin of the Old Roman Creed and its descendants, furthermore of the Nicene-

 This might be the place to mention the study by Reinhold Seeberg, Harnack’s conservative
counterpart in Berlin, who thought that the first triadic creed which included a christological
summary originated in Jerusalem in c. 140, whereas R developed in Rome in c. 210; cf. Seeberg
1922. On p. 26 he offers a reconstruction of this creed. Cf. also Vinzent 2006, pp. 201 f.
 Cf. below ch. 6.
 Cf. esp. Kelly’s criticism in Kelly 1972, pp. 123–6, 197–204.
 Cf. Haußleiter 1920.
 Cf. above p. 14 and Peitz 1918.
22 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

Constantinopolitan Creed, of the textus receptus of the Apostles’ Creed, etc. But the older
type did not cease to re-surface in ever new adaptations. It influenced the structure of the
Athanasian Creed and a great number of oriental baptismal and private creeds.42

Today, it is widely accepted that the extended christological section is a later in-
sertion into an older trinitarian formula.43
The fame of the German patrologists could be said to have overshadowed the
important contributions simultaneously made by some of their Anglo-Saxon col-
leagues. C.A. Swainson (1820–1887), Norrisian Professor of Divinity at Cambridge,
wrote an in many ways highly innovative history of the creeds, not only describing
their origins, but also the ways and contexts in which they were transmitted within
the Church down to his own time. Thus he studied, for example, the role of creeds
in conciliar legislation, in collections of sermons, books of devotion, and psalters, as
much as their translations into other languages, not forgetting the reception of, and
controversy about, the creeds in the Church of England of his day.44 J. Rawson
Lumby (1831–1895), who succeeded him from 1879, also produced a book on the
creeds which had little impact on credal research, although it went through two
editions.45 Similarly, A.E. Burn (1864–1927), a distinguished English clergyman, pro-
duced monographs on T and N respectively that failed to influence the course of
credal studies in any noticeable measure. By contrast, his numerous editions of cre-
dal texts are still being used today.46
These scholars all took notice of each other’s work and were often influenced
by it. However, mention must also be made of an outsider whose legacy, as regards
the creeds, remained restricted to the United States: Philip Schaff (1819–1893), a na-
tive of Switzerland who, after he had trained as a theologian in Germany, emi-
grated in 1843 to the States where he taught Church History, first at the German
Reformed Theological Seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, and (from 1870) at
the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Schaff is, above all, remembered in
patristic studies for his edition of the series A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (42 vols., New York 1886–1900). However, he
also developed a great interest in the normative texts of the churches, thus publish-
ing a history of Christian creeds in three volumes in 1877 which subsequently went

 Haußleiter 1920, pp. 5 f. (emphasis original).

 Cf. Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, p. 537 and n. 12 with a list of the relevant literature. Cf. also below
ch. 4.3.3.
 Cf. Swainson 1875.
 Cf. Lumby 1873(1880).
 Cf. Burn 1899; Burn 1906; Burn, Facsimiles, 1909; Burn, Nicene Creed, 1909. Cf. Vinzent 2006,
pp. 131–4.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 23

through various editions and reprints.47 Schaff’s first volume gave a synthesis of the
history of the creeds, aimed at a wider audience, and his second volume collected
the most important texts of the Greek and Latin churches in their original language
with English translations. Since Schaff had little interest in the finer details of the
history of the creed such as the Sitz im Leben of the individual texts and the problem
of their origins and transmission, his collection was mainly consulted by pastors,
theologians, and historians of dogma rather than by specialists in that history.
Incidentally, Schaff was very much aware of the controversies around the
Apostles’ Creed in the Church of England and the Protestant churches of Germany
and Switzerland. Both his wide awareness of contemporaneous developments in
Europe and his ultimately pre-modern view of Church History become apparent
from a telling footnote:

It is characteristic that, while the Church of England is agitated by the question of discontin-
uing simply the obligatory use of the Athanasian Creed, the Protestant Churches on the Con-
tinent are disturbed by the more radical question of setting aside the Apostles’ Creed for
teaching what is said to be contrary to the spirit of the age. [. . .] In the Canton Zürich it is
left optional with the ministers to use the Creed in the baptismal and confirmation services,
or not. It is a singular fact that in the non-Episcopal Churches of Great Britain and the
United States the Apostles’ Creed is practically far less used, but much more generally be-
lieved than in some State Churches, where it is part of the regular worship, like the Lord’s
Prayer. The Anglo-American race has retained the doctrinal substance of old Catholic and
evangelical Christianity, while the Churches of the Continent have been shaken to the very
base by Rationalism.48

2.1.2 From Haußleiter to Kelly: The role of baptismal questions in the

emergence of the creeds

While the lack of sufficient evidence meant the hypothesis by Holl-Harnack-

Lietzmann was losing traction, another series of scholars developed a new theory
about the early history of the creeds. They included Cuthbert Hamilton Turner
(1860–1930), who – late in life – was appointed Dean Ireland’s Professor of the
Exegesis of Holy Scripture at Oxford, Johannes Brinktrine (1889–1965), Professor
of (catholic) Fundamental Theology in Paderborn,49 F.J. Badcock (1869–1944), Fel-
low of St Augustine’s College, Canterbury,50 and J.N.D. Kelly (1909–1997), long-time

 Cf. Schaff 1877. On the history of this work cf. FaFo, vol. I, p. 26 n. 122.
 Schaff 1877, vol. I, p. 20 n. 2. The footnote was omitted in later editions.
 Cf. Brinktrine 1921 and Vinzent 2006, pp. 244 f.
 Cf. Badcock 1938, pp. 17–20, 122–35.
24 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

Principal of St Edmund Hall and, in 1966, even briefly Vice-Chancellor of the Uni-
versity of Oxford.51
Turner was primarily interested in the development of ecclesiastical law. His
opus magnum, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima (often abbrev.
EOMIA, 1899–1939),52 which contained editions of the canons of the early Church
councils, also included important witnesses to the history of N and C2. He had no
specific interest in the history of the creeds as such, but he did publish a lecture on
the History and Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church in
which he drew attention to liturgical texts such as the Old Gelasian Sacramentary
and the Sacramentary of Gellone as sources for credal history.53 In the study of this
and other evidence ‘two fundamental facts’ had to be borne in mind:

the one, that the Creed was closely related from the first to the process of admission to mem-
bership in the Christian Society; the other, that, close as is this relation of the Creed to Baptism,
there are forms that stand in a yet closer relation to the baptismal rite and appear to be at
once simpler and older than the Creed – I mean the baptismal Interrogations and Responses.54

Based on the baptismal formula (Mt 28:19), these interrogations were trinitarian
in form, but were expanded in different areas. The declaratory creed developed
from these interrogations. Its Sitz im Leben was not the baptismal rite, but cate-
chesis.55 Versions of the creed spread from Rome to the eastern part of the em-
pire. By the end of the fourth century, ‘the Creed was in universal use, because it
corresponded to a universal need’.56
Similarly, Brinktrine, who, in many ways, was sceptical regarding the histori-
cist approach as practised by his Protestant colleagues, distinguished between the
symbolum (which he identified with the trinitarian baptismal formula of Mt
28:19) and the credal questions which the catechumens were asked when they ap-
proached baptism. The questions derived from the baptismal formula and were,
therefore, also called symbolum. While they initially referred only to the persons
of the Trinity, their christological and pneumatological sections were later ex-
tended. Finally, the credal questions were then transformed into declaratory

 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 30–52. On Kelly cf. Cowdrey 1999, p. 423.
 Cf. Turner 1899–1939. A good survey of the contents of this unwieldy work is found in URL
<http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/eomia-contents> (02/11/2023).
 Cf. Turner, History and Use, 1910 (first published in 1906).
 Turner, History and Use, 1910, pp. 11 f.
 Cf. Turner, History and Use, 1910, pp. 17 f.
 Turner, History and Use, 1910, p. 20.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 25

creeds. In Brinktrine’s view R was a perfect piece of art, whereas all other creeds
that were not descendants of R were the ‘attempts of beginners’.57
Similarly, Badcock assumed that at first candidates for baptism were required
to profess faith solely in Jesus Christ, in the Lord Jesus, or in Jesus, the Son of God.
The triple formula, deriving from the baptismal formula, only came into use from
the middle of the second century. He traced the development of this triple formula
to the east, beginning with the Epistula Apostolorum (which contained ‘the earliest
Creed known word for word’).58 The creeds then travelled from the east to Africa.
In Rome candidates for baptism were originally simply asked to believe in God,
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In order to combat gnosticism these questions
were gradually expanded so that by the middle of the third century a sevenfold
formula had emerged. By the fourth century, an interrogatory and a declaratory
form had been established. Badcock rejected the often-used evidence of the letter
of Marcellus of Ancyra regarding R, since it – in his view – reflected the practice of
Marcellus’ own diocese, a theory which earned Badcock sharp criticism by Lietz-
mann.59 Badcock considered the fully-fledged Roman Creed to have developed not
before 371, when Damasus held a council in Rome to combat Homoianism.60 He ex-
plained the resemblance between the creed of Marcellus and that of Rufinus ‘by
the enlargement of the Roman creed through the indirect influence of Marcellus’.61
This theory of the development of the earliest creeds was given its final
shape in a book by J.N.D. Kelly. Kelly’s monograph on Early Christian Creeds has
dominated the field since it was first published in 1950 and, even more so, since
the publication of its third edition in 1972. It has been translated into Italian,
Spanish, Japanese, and German, and it has taught generations of students of theol-
ogy to this day (including the present author) the essentials concerning the his-
tory of these fundamental texts of the Christian Church.
Kelly very lucidly described the creed’s origin as a genre and its composition
and use at synods and in worship until the early middle ages. Given the complexi-
ties of doctrinal developments in that period, this is a great achievement and the
result of his endeavours a most elegant book. But Kelly’s view of the history of
the creeds was also far too traditionalist and monolithic. In a way, he conceptual-
ized this history from its end, like most of his predecessors in the subject. He was

 Brinktrine 1921, p. 184.

 Cf. Badcock 1938, p. 25. I refer only to the second edition in what follows. Concerning Badcock
cf. also Vinzent 2006, pp. 245–51.
 Cf. Badcock 1938, p. 63; Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 224 f. In addition, cf. Vinzent 2006,
p. 247 n. 183.
 Cf. Badcock 1938, pp. 142 f.
 Badcock 1922, p. 389.
26 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

primarily interested in those creeds which, as it were, carried the day: the Creed
of Constantinople and the Apostles’ Creed with their precursors. This is in itself,
of course, unproblematic; indeed, I largely follow the same path in this book.
However, Kelly described credal history in such a way that it led by necessity to
the formation of these specific formulae, making it clearly teleological.
Kelly agreed with Turner and Brinktrine that one had to distinguish the earlier
interrogatory creeds (baptismal questions) from the (later) declaratory confessions
and that the baptismal questions in turn derived from the Great Commission (Mt
28:19). Crown witnesses, so to speak, for this hypothesis were the correspondence of
Cyprian, the Old Gelasian Sacramentary, and a reconstruction of the so-called Apos-
tolic Tradition, a Church order that was attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235). It
was thought to date from the early third century and contained a series of questions
which were put to converts at baptism.62 Kelly summarized his ‘study of the use of
creeds in connection with baptism in the first three centuries’ as follows:

Declaratory creeds of the ordinary type had no place in the baptismal ritual of the period. If
in the fourth century and thereafter their role was [. . .] secondary, prior to the fourth cen-
tury they had no role at all. An affirmation of faith was, of course, indispensable, but it took
the form of the candidate’s response to the officiant’s interrogations.63

Kelly saw the interrogatory creed bound up with the act of baptism, whereas the
longer declaratory creeds were ‘a by-product of the Church’s fully developed cate-
chetical system’ and closely connected with the development of the Traditio and Red-
ditio of the creed which belonged ‘to the heyday of the fully mature catechumenate,
that is, to the second generation of the third century at the earliest’.64 We will take a
closer look at the details of his account of later credal development at a later point.65

2.1.3 Beyond Kelly: Widening the scope

Since Kelly’s work, subsequent scholarship has continued to this day to develop
in constant engagement with it.66 His views on the emergence of creeds were crit-
icized by Hans von Campenhausen (1903–1989), (Protestant) Church historian at
Heidelberg University, and his pupil Adolf Martin Ritter (b. 1933), who succeeded

 Cf. FaFo § 89.

 Kelly 1972, p. 48.
 Kelly 1972, pp. 51, 49.
 Cf. below pp. 200 f.
 The surveys by Pelikan 2003 and Fairbairn/Reeves 2019, written for a wider readership, do
not contain any new insights regarding the period we are interested in.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 27

his teacher in 1981. Von Campenhausen had intended to write a new history of
the creeds but his deteriorating eyesight prevented him from doing so. He did,
however, produce a series of preliminary studies which strongly influenced the
further course of research.67 In his extensive article on the creeds in the Theologi-
sche Realenzyklopädie Ritter summarized and substantiated von Campenhausen’s
findings, supplementing them with the results of his own research, especially on
the history of C2 (to which I will return below in chapter 2.2.2).68
These findings (which were widely accepted) may be summarized by four
major points:69
(1) Initially, Christian confession is a public act of recognition, of trust, and of
obedience, especially in situations of oppression and threat and does not con-
sist in reciting a formula. Confession is what makes a person a Christian and
distinguishes them from a non-Christian.70
(2) A distinction must be made between the rule of faith (regula fidei), as it oc-
curs in Irenaeus and Tertullian, and the creed. Whereas the creed is (more or
less) fixed, the rule of faith is a loose and flexible summary of the kerygma of
Christ used as doctrinal norm against dissident groups (such as gnosticism).71
(3) Interrogatory creeds were probably not used at baptism before the third
century.72
(4) Declaratory creeds were probably not used at baptism or during the cate-
chumenate before the fourth century (earliest witness: Cyril of Jerusalem). Even
R as attested by Marcellus of Ancyra was not yet used in a baptismal context.
The emergence of a more elaborate liturgy and the mass conversions of the
Church in the fourth century as a result of the toleration and gradual promotion
of Christianity since Constantine are the reasons for this change at that time.73
(5) The declaratory creeds as a ‘test for orthodoxy’ have their primary Sitz im
Leben in the (unsuccessful) attempt at settling doctrinal dissent at synods, be-
ginning with Nicaea in 325.74

Reinhart Staats (b. 1937) proceeded along similar lines in his book on C2. He saw
five Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confession: martyrdom, apologetics,

 Cf. Campenhausen 1971(1979); Campenhausen 1972(1979); Campenhausen 1975(1979); Campen-

hausen 1976(1979).
 Cf. Ritter 1984. A shorter English version is found in Ritter 1991.
 For what follows cf. esp. Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, p. 539.
 Cf. Ritter 1984, p. 400 (drawing on an earlier definition by Ferdinand Hahn).
 Cf. Ritter 1984, pp. 402–5. On the creed as a summary of the biblical message cf. also Toom 2022.
 Cf. Ritter 1984, p. 406.
 Cf. Ritter 1984, pp. 407 f.
 Cf. Ritter 1984, pp. 411 f.
28 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

worship, baptism, and the struggle against heresy. The pre-Constantinian church
produced both brief homologies, which were often binitarian, and the rule of faith,
but no full-fledged, fixed creeds, because ‘the history of the creed as a codified and
in its wording firmly fixed text’ began not until the time of Constantine.75
Pieter Smulders SJ (1911–2000) who taught dogmatic theology in Maastricht
and Amsterdam defended exactly the opposite position to von Campenhausen.
Smulders not only insisted on R’s venerable age, but also believed that it was
even possible to reconstruct a ‘pre-R Creed’ with the help of the Traditio Apostol-
ica.76 Smulders summarized the results of his research as follows:

When the Church of Rome, towards the end of the second century began to use a Creed
composed of a slightly elaborated triadic pattern in combination with a Gospel summary, it
borrowed the latter from an homologia of Christ’s lordship in act, which was already circu-
lating in Asia. The Creed then is not primarily intended as a summary of teaching, and
much less as a polemical text or a touchstone of orthodoxy. It might be put to such uses. But
its original setting was the homologia of God Father Allsovereign, of Jesus Christ his Son
whom he invested with the eschatological saving lordship, and of their divine Gift, the Holy
Spirit.77

Further research on the creeds oscillated between these two poles. Continuing on
the path which had been charted by von Campenhausen and Ritter, albeit slightly
changing direction, Christoph Markschies (b. 1962), Markus Vinzent (b. 1959), and I
tried to show that the prehistory of the creeds needs to be largely rewritten. In fact,
this school of thought has been arguing that only now it makes sense to speak of a
prehistory in a proper sense, as no declaratory creeds may have existed before the
fourth century.78 Markschies showed that the reconstructions of the Traditio Apos-
tolica produced by Gregory Dix (1901–1952) and Bernard Botte (1893–1980) were
based on unsound methodological assumptions and could, therefore, no longer be
used for credal research, as Kelly and others had assumed. I myself have suggested
that it is possible at least partly to reconstruct the interrogatory creeds of the
late second and early third centuries both for northern Africa and for Rome, with-
out falling back on the problematic Traditio. Finally, Markus Vinzent has explained
how specific doctrinal developments at the beginning of the fourth century led,
fairly abruptly, to the formulation and evolution of synodal creeds. Vinzent also
claimed that R, the ancestor of T, did not predate the fourth century, but probably
originated in the letter which Marcellus of Ancyra sent to Julius of Rome in 340 or

 Staats 1999, p. 157.

 Cf. Smulders 1970/1971/1980; Smulders 1975. Furthermore, cf. Vinzent 2006, pp. 280–4, 287–8.
 Smulders 1975, pp. 420 f.
 Cf. Kinzig/Markschies/Vinzent 1999; cf. also below p. 154.
 2.1 The Apostles’ Creed and the origins of the creeds in general 29

341 (FaFo § 253), thus presenting a modified version of Badcock’s theory. According
to Vinzent, the creed which Marcellus had formulated in this letter (possibly using
earlier baptismal questions) was partly adopted by a synod in Rome and quickly
spread from there to other parts of the Latin Roman empire. At the invitation of
Maurice F. Wiles (1923–2005), Vinzent and I synthesized our findings in a brief arti-
cle for the centenary edition of the Journal of Theological Studies in 1999.79 These
theses by Markschies, Vinzent, and myself triggered an extensive scholarly discus-
sion.80 Some years later, Vinzent reviewed the history of research with regard to
the Apostles’ Creed in an extensive monograph.81 We will have to examine his theo-
ries carefully later, because new evidence has come to light which suggests that the
pre-history of R was more complicated than Vinzent (and I) assumed at that time.82
Among those who disagreed were Martien Parmentier (1947–2021), Gerard
Rouwhorst (b. 1951), Reinhart Staats, Uta Heil (b. 1966), and Liuwe H. Westra (b.
1966). Parmentier and Rouwhorst questioned Vinzent’s view that R was, in reality,
a product of Marcellus of Ancyra, partly because of the wide distribution of var-
iants of R throughout the west.83 Staats called the idea that a private creed would
have been used by the Church ‘anachronistic’ and the late date of R ‘absurd’
(without, however, substantiating reasons for his criticism).84 More recently, Uta
Heil suggested that Marcellus quoted a creed composed by the Roman synod and
not vice versa.85
Following in the footsteps of his teachers Parmentier and Rouwhorst, Liuwe
H. Westra has also remained an advocate of the traditional view regarding an
early date of R and its subsequent development. His 2002 doctoral dissertation
presented a large-scale reconstruction of this text’s origin.86 He defended Kelly’s
explanation that the Roman Creed had, by and large, come into existence in the
early third century.87 At the same time, Westra suggested a new line of research
by exploring the question as to the manner in which the descendants of R from
the fourth century onwards may be explained as regional variants. In addition,

 Cf. Kinzig/Vinzent 1999.

 Cf. the list of reviews in Kinzig 2021(2022), p. 130 n. 59. In addition, Peter L. Schmidt and Mi-
chaela Zelzer in Berger/Fontaine/Schmidt 2020, pp. 19 f. who agree with Vinzent.
 Cf. Vinzent 2006.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022 and below ch. 5.1.
 Cf. Parmentier/Rouwhorst 2001.
 Staats 2011, p. 1562 and n. 27.
 Cf. Heil 2010; cf. already Brennecke et al. 2007, p. 155 n. i.
 Cf. Westra 2002.
 Cf. my short review in Kinzig 2005 and Vinzent’s extensive discussion in Vinzent 2006,
pp. 360–94.
30 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

he edited a number of important explanations of the creed, either for the first
time or in improved versions.
Thus, what came into focus were the later history of the Roman Creed and its
variants throughout the Latin west and the way in which they were expounded
and used. The work of Susan Keefe (1954–2012) of Duke Divinity School gave an
added, important stimulus to their study. Her seminal monograph Water and the
Word provided a new basis for research into the baptismal liturgy of the Carolin-
gian age, both editing a large number of relevant sources and synthesizing the
data gleaned from these new texts.88 In addition, she completed two fundamental
works dealing with the history of the Apostles’ Creed in the early middle ages shortly
before her premature death: a catalogue of Carolingian manuscripts containing
creeds and credal explanations89 and an edition of explanations of the creed culled
from these manuscripts which previous scholars had partly or totally neglected.90
Furthermore, two books which placed a particular emphasis on theological
questions relating to the confessions of faith ought to be mentioned. Frances
Young’s (b. 1939) The Making of the Creeds, first published in 1991, has become a
classic in its own right. Young’s interest was in the theological motives that led to
the formulation of the individual clauses of the creed rather than in the overall
texts as a literary genre.91 Gerda Riedl (b. 1961) suggested a new methodological
approach in her 2004 doctoral dissertation that she called ‘systematic-generative’,
as opposed to ‘historical-genetic’. In its scholarly thrust, her work was, ultimately,
not very different from Young’s monograph, while opening up further perspec-
tives on the theological principles driving, and motives behind, the composition
of creeds.92
Most recently, Peter Gemeinhardt (b. 1970) has produced two substantial ar-
ticles on T and its theology. In the first he concentrates on two major clauses of
the creed, i.e. Christ’s descent to hell and his ascension.93 In the second he shows
that the history of the Apostles’ Creed is neither unilinear nor characterized by a
steady decline, as earlier scholars suggested, but by significant transformations, a
confusing plurality of texts, and also sheer happenstance.94
My own research in recent years has likewise concentrated on the history of
the creed in the west, in particular with regard to religious instruction and

 Cf. Keefe 2002.

 Cf. Keefe, Catalogue, 2012.
 Cf. Keefe, Explanationes, 2012.
 Cf. Young 1991. A similar approach was taken more recently in Ashwin-Siejkowski 2009.
 Cf. Riedl 2004.
 Cf. Gemeinhardt, ‘Sphärenwechsel’, 2020.
 Cf. Gemeinhardt, ‘Vom Werden’, 2020.
 2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 31

preaching, as well as on legal and liturgical aspects. In addition, I have also pub-
lished a series of new relevant source texts.95 My 2017 collection Faith in Formulae
which was compiled with the assistance of Christopher M. Hays makes available
a great number of the sources in both their original languages and in English.96
My most recent studies are on terminology,97 on the pre-history of R,98 and on the
Creed of Jerusalem (J);99 their conclusions will be summarized below.

2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople

2.2.1 From Hort to Schwartz

Discussion concerning the Creeds of Nicaea (N) and Constantinople (C2; in earlier
research usually abbreviated NC or C) has in recent years revolved around two
major questions: (1) the origin of N and (2) the question of whether C2 represents
a revision of N or an independent creed, and if the latter, whether other Vorlagen
may be identified.100 F.J.A. Hort (1827–1892) published a monograph with the un-
assuming title Two Dissertations (1876), so two years before he was appointed
Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.101 In it, he advanced the hypotheses
(1) that N was an extended version of the (presumed) creed of Caesarea which
Eusebius seemingly cites in the letter to his congregation after that council (FaFo
§ 134a) and (2) that C2 was not a revised form of N, as had hitherto often been
assumed, but a revision of the Creed of Jerusalem (J; FaFo § 147), possibly pro-
duced by Bishop Cyril in the years 362–364 for apologetic purposes, but in any
case not the result of deliberations at the Council of Constantinople. One of the
main pillars of (2) was the observation that Epiphanius of Salamis appeared to
have quoted C2 already in his Ancoratus (written in 374, hence some time before
the Council of Constantinople).102 Both hypotheses were accepted by Burn103 and
Harnack.104 Harnack saw in C2 not a revision of N, but an earlier provincial creed

 Cf. esp. Kinzig, Neue Texte I, 2017; Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021; Kinzig, Neue Texte III,
2022.
 Cf. Kinzig, Faith in Formulae, 2017.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, AugL, 2021; Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, RAC, 2021.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022.
 For further details cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 4–11.
 Cf. Hort 1876.
 Cf. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 118,9–12.
 Cf. Burn 1899, pp. 76–80, 101–10; Burn 1925, pp. 29–39, 83–93.
 Cf. Harnack 1902, pp. 14–24.
32 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

whose Nicene ‘sound’ had been achieved by the addition of phrases taken from
N.105 Explanation (2) also seemed to solve the conundrum as to why C2 was never
mentioned as the official creed of the council in the decades after Constantinople.
Johannes Kunze elaborated this point by arguing that C2 might in fact have been
the confession used at the rushed baptism of the future patriarch Nectarius in
Constantinople in the course of the council of 381, who at the time of his election
to the see had been no more than a catechumen.106
In spite of the detailed refutation by Hans Lietzmann and J.N.D. Kelly which
need not be repeated here,107 hypothesis (1) is still being defended by some
scholars today,108 whereas hypothesis (2) – at least as far as it rested on the testi-
mony of Epiphanius – must be considered refuted once and for all through the
appearance of new textual evidence: the Church historian and orientalist Bernd
M. Weischer (b. 1937) discovered that the Ethiopic translation of the Ancoratus
does not offer C2 but the original N, and concluded that C2 in the Greek text must
be a later interpolation.109 (However, this by itself did not yet prove that C2 was
indeed drawn up by the council.) Even before these fairly recent developments
some scholars had been sceptical of Epiphanius’ testimony as proof for an early
date of C2. Among these were Badcock110 and, most importantly, the famous edi-
tor of the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Eduard Schwartz (1858–1940), Pro-
fessor of Classical Philology at Munich. In Badcock’s view the available evidence
left no doubt ‘that the Council of 381 added certain phrases to the creed of the
318 [i.e. N] against heresies which had not arisen when this was composed’.111
Schwartz also questioned the supposed testimony by Epiphanius, while being
more cautious with regard to the origin of C2.112 However, both scholars agreed
that C2 was the creed officially adopted at Constantinople.

 Cf. Harnack 1902, p. 20.

 Cf. Kunze 1898, pp. 32–7 and Kelly 1972, p. 312.
 Cf. Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 250–3; Kelly 1972, pp. 217–20.
 Cf. Holland 1970, pp. 177–180; Simonetti 1975, pp. 83–4; Staats 1999, p. 160; Strutwolf 1999,
pp. 52–3; Roldanus 2006, pp. 80 f. Pietras 2016, pp. 182 f., also seems to suggest that Eus was the
basis of N (cf., however, p. 185 where he states that ‘it may as well be assumed that [at Nicaea]
Eusebius’ formula was replaced by another [. . .] document’).
 Cf. below p. 446 n. 202.
 Cf. Badcock 1915; Badcock 1938, pp. 186–208.
 Badcock 1915, p. 218. Furthermore Kelly 1972, p. 313.
 Cf. esp. Schwartz 1926, pp. 85–8.
 2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 33

2.2.2 Lietzmann – Kelly – Ritter

With regard to the origin of N, Kelly accepted a suggestion made by Lietzmann ac-
cording to which N was based on a model originating from Syria and Palestine
which was similar to, though not identical with, the Creed of Caesarea as attested
by Eusebius in the famous, now lost, letter to his congregation (Eus; FaFo § 134a).
This, they argued, better explained both the differences between both texts (which
excluded the possibility that N had developed from Eus), but also their substantial
similarities. Another representative of this Syro-Palestinian family was preserved
in the Creed of Jerusalem as attested by Cyril.113 By contrast, Harnack, having been
asked to give an opinion on Lietzmann’s suggestion, acknowledged that N was not
based on Eus, but did not accept the Syro-Palestine theory either, because it ex-
plained neither Eusebius’ testimony, according to which Eus was the basis of N, nor
N’s uneven structure. Instead, he suggested that N was a composite produced by a
committee, using various baptismal creeds known to different delegates. ‘If one
imagines such a procedure’, he wrote, ‘then both the present version is explained
and also the claim of Eusebius (and of other bishops) that the Nicene Creed was a
revision of their own local creeds.’114 Harnack’s suggestion was accepted by Hans
von Campenhausen, except that he considered Eusebius’ ‘creed’ to be his own ‘pri-
vate’ composition, rejecting Harnack’s theory of Eusebius’ citing a local creed.115 In
turn, Kelly thought that Harnack had misunderstood Eusebius’ testimony, as the
latter had never actually claimed that N was an extended version of Eus.116 We will
discuss this problem in the appropriate section below. However, I want to flag here
the questions as to why the homooúsios was inserted into the creed, what it actu-
ally meant, and who was behind the insertion. As we will see below, there is no
consensus on any of these questions.117
Moreover, Kelly saw it as proven that N and C2 ‘are really two utterly differ-
ent texts, resembling each other in a broad, general way, but to no greater extent
than any other pair of Eastern formularies’.118 However, Kelly failed to define
what exactly was meant by ‘difference’, given that the other eastern creeds
(which, incidentally, were all younger) displayed a great deal of similarity be-
tween each other. In addition, he denied that C2 was formally adopted under its

 Cf. Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 248–59; Kelly 1972, pp. 227–30. Cf. now also Gwynn 2021,
p. 101.
 Harnack in Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), p. 260.
 Cf. Campenhausen 1976(1979).
 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 227–30. On Eusebius’ letter cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 220–6.
 Cf. below ch. 6.4.
 Kelly 1972, p. 304.
34 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

own name by the council fathers in Constantinople, as earlier scholars, above all
the influential Eduard Schwartz, had assumed.119 There is no mention of this, he
noted, in the surviving documents of the synod and in the reports on it, on the
contrary: canon 1 of the synod (FaFo § 565c) and the letter to Emperor Theodosius
(§ 565b) reaffirmed the faith of Nicaea. Nor is there a single reference to C2 from
the period between 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in which the creed is
associated with the Council of Constantinople. Rather, the standard creed and ref-
erence to this point had always been N. Nevertheless, there must have been some
connection with Constantinople, otherwise at Chalcedon C2 would not have been
attributed to that particular council.120
However, in contrast to Hort and Harnack,121 Kelly did not consider C2 a revi-
sion of a Palestinian creed. He pointed out that we have no information that it
had been presented to the fathers at Constantinople by Cyril of Jerusalem. He also
objected, against Kunze (and Einar Molland),122 that there was no direct evidence
that C2 had been the baptismal creed of Nectarius either. Kelly’s basic methodo-
logical premise (‘a circumstance of immense significance’123) consisted in the as-
sumption – shared by others – that when the fathers spoke of the ‘faith of Nicaea’
it did not necessarily refer to the text of N; rather, this ‘faith’ was also seen as
preserved in C2, which is why C2 had then also been called ‘Nicene’.124 C2 as a
whole was not the result of synodal consultations, but originated in liturgical use
and had been revised in Constantinople:

The council of Constantinople did in fact, at some stage in its proceedings, endorse and use
C [ = C2], but in doing so it did not conceive of itself as promulgating a new creed. Its sincere
intention, perfectly understood by contemporary churchmen, was simply to confirm the Ni-
cene faith. That it should do this by adopting what was really a different formula from that
of Nicaea may appear paradoxical to us, until we recall that at this stage importance at-
tached to the Nicene teaching rather than to the literal wording of N. It is improbable that
the council actually composed C. The whole style of the creed, its graceful balance and
smooth flow, convey the impression of a liturgical piece which has emerged naturally in the
life and worship of the Christian community, rather than of a conciliar artefact.125

 Cf. the scholars enumerated in Kelly 1972, p. 313, esp. Schwartz 1926, pp. 81 f.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 322–31.
 Cf. above pp. 31 f.
 For Kunze cf. above p. 32. Molland had meanwhile supported Kunze’s view; cf. Molland
1970, pp. 236 f.
 Kelly 1972, p. 323.
 Kelly 1972, pp. 322–5.
 Kelly 1972, p. 325.
 2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 35

Kelly saw the necessity for such a revision as arising from the controversy with the
Pneumatomachians.126 In the third edition of his book, he adopted a hypothesis
which Adolf Martin Ritter had outlined in his groundbreaking doctoral dissertation,
published in 1965.127 According to this view C2 was a compromise document drawn
up in order to reach a consensus with those who disputed the (full) divinity of the
Spirit (the so-called ‘Pneumatomachians’, ‘Spirit-fighters’). Therefore, while the
third section (on the Holy Spirit) had been expanded and the Spirit’s divinity em-
phasized, the fathers had stopped short of explicitly including the Spirit’s consub-
stantiality.128 Kelly slightly disagreed with Ritter only insofar as he assumed that
the council had ‘adopted’ C2 (without explaining this process in more detail),129
while Ritter suggested that the confession had never been formally endorsed after
negotiations with the Pneumatomachians had broken down, although it may have
been included in the Tome of the synod.130 As far as the origin of C2 was concerned,
Ritter left it open whether C2 was a new creed or whether the fathers at Constanti-
nople had revised an older formula, perhaps stemming from Palestine, which they
considered ‘Nicene’.131 He also thought that it was possible to detect traces of C2 in
theological writings from Constantinople onwards.132

2.2.3 The critics of the Ritter-Kelly hypothesis

Luise Abramowski (1928–2014), (Protestant) Church historian in Tübingen (inci-

dentally, the first female scholar researching the creeds), remained sceptical of
the Ritter-Kelly hypothesis and suggested another explanation of the origin of C2.
She thought that its basis was an extended version of N, first drawn up at a
Roman Synod under Pope Damasus in around 378 which was revised at an assem-
bly held by the followers of Meletius of Antioch in that city a year later.133 Her
hypothesis that C2 was the creed of the Antiochene Council of 379 (or at least of
Antiochene origin) found widespread agreement.134

 On this group cf. below p. 356.

 Cf. Ritter 1965.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 326–31.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 331.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 196 f.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, p. 187.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 195–202.
 Cf. Abramowski 1992. With regard to the revisions at the synods in Rome and Antioch she
agreed with Reinhart Staats who had made a similar suggestion; cf. Staats 1990; Staats 1999,
pp. 175–9.
 Further details in Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 8 f.
36 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

However, Ritter rejected Abramowski’s thesis, mainly because she provided

no explanation as to why the explicit confession of the divinity and consubstan-
tiality of the Holy Spirit should not have been added in Rome or Antioch (which
could be better explained when one assumed, as Ritter did, that C2 served as a
basis for the well-attested negotiations with the Pneumatomachians in Constanti-
nople). By contrast, Wolf-Dieter Hauschild (1941–2010), (Protestant) Professor of
Church History in Münster, maintained that C2 came from Constantinople and
was basically N with some additions that may have originated in catechesis or
which may have been inserted at the council, even though he did not completely
rule out an Antiochene origin of C2.135
At that point it looked as if the scholarly discussion had reached an impasse.
Therefore, Volker Drecoll (b. 1968) took a step back.136 He suggested that there
had been no revision of N at a Roman council before Constantinople (pace Abra-
mowski). Instead, he allowed for the possibility that the version of the creed
which was attributed to Constantinople at the Council of Chalcedon (451) was not
identical with the confession actually adopted by that synod. The latter version
could no longer be reconstructed. By contrast, the preserved form of the creed
was a revision of that ‘original’ creed of Constantinople which (like the ‘original’
creed itself) was seen as containing the ‘spirit’ of Nicaea and was used as local
baptismal creed in that city.
Simon Gerber (b. 1967), a pupil of Reinhart Staats, described C2 as a revision of
the Antiochene creed as attested by Theodore of Mopsuestia in his doctoral disser-
tation on this theologian’s Catechetical Homilies.137 This creed, in turn, went back to
the Synod of the Meletians in Antioch of 379, which likewise approved the introduc-
tion and anathemas 1–8 of the Tomus Damasi, subsequently also presented in Con-
stantinople in 381.138 In the third article of this Antiochene creed he perceived ‘a
concession to the Pneumatomachians’ and considered the possibility that the Anti-
ochene formulary had already been the ‘basis of an orthodox-Pneumatomachian
religious colloquy’ before Constantinople.139
Reviewing Gerber’s book, Adolf Martin Ritter rejected this hypothesis as well
as that of Abramowski. It presupposed

‘three things: 1. that C [ = C2] should be regarded as an adaptation of Theodore’s creed and
not vice versa; 2. that, in his Ninth Catechetical Homily (§ 1. 14–16), Theodore would consis-

 Cf. Hauschild 1994, p. 449.

 Cf. Drecoll, ‘Wie nizänisch’, 1996.
 Cf. Gerber 2000, pp. 145–58. Cf. already Bruns 1994, pp. 33 f.
 Cf. Gerber 2000, pp. 136–43. On the Tomus Damasi cf. below pp. 333 f.
 Gerber 2000, p. 157.
 2.2 The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 37

tently refer to the Synod of Antioch in 379; 3. that the first part of the Tomus Damasi (canons
1–8) would have to be assigned to the Synod of Antioch in 379, while canon 9, together with
the rest, would have to be assigned to the period after 381’.

All three assumptions were, in Ritter’s view, improbable. Gerber could not ex-
plain (ad 1) why the oneness of the Spirit in the third section had been deleted in
Theodore’s creed in Constantinople. Instead, Theodore’s formula as well as Con-
stantinople’s were ‘independent creeds, which in the main only agreed on the
fact of the (authoritative, primarily pneumatological) addition of N’. Furthermore,
(ad 2) one could not simply ignore Theodore’s assertion that the synod that sup-
plemented N was ecumenical. Finally (ad 3), there was no discernible connection
between canons 1–8 of the Tomus Damasi, which may actually have been dis-
cussed in Antioch, and the Council of Constantinople.140
Finally, based on a remark by Socrates,141 Uta Heil suggested the possibility
that C2 should not be attributed to the Synod of 381, but to that of 383 when Em-
peror Theodosius summoned various theological groups to Constantinople de-
manding that they present their respective definitions of the faith. According to
Heil, it was on this occasion that Nectarius of Constantinople submitted C2, which
was probably even written for that very purpose. By contrast, the Council of 381
did nothing but reaffirm N. Nectarius’ creed was meant to be an interpretation of
N; indeed, was later also regarded as such.142
In order not to bore readers unnecessarily, I will not try to demonstrate the
intrinsic deficiencies of the most recent contributions to the debate, because the
discovery of the authentic creed of Constantinople in 2020 has radically altered its
basis as we will see in the following chapters. Instead, mention must be made of
two major studies dealing with one particular problem of credal history and, in-
deed, of ecumenism in general, i.e. the controversy over the filioque. The ground-
breaking monographs of Bernd Oberdorfer (b. 1961), and of Peter Gemeinhardt
have in many respects modified our traditional view of this controversy and pro-
vide a sound historical basis for all future ecumenical debate. We will return to
their research in the appropriate chapter.143

 Ritter 2004, pp. 139 f. Drecoll raised a number of similar objections in his review of Gerber’s
book (Drecoll 2002). Drecoll still assumed that Theodore’s Catechetical Homilies were delivered
after Constantinople 381 and called the connection between the Antiochene synod of 379 and the
Tomus Damasi doubtful (cols. 63 f.). He also questioned Gerber’s interpretation of Theodore’s
ninth homily. Cf. also below chs. 6.5.11 and 6.5.12.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 5,10,21–6 (FaFo § 163c1).
 Cf. Heil 2019.
 Cf. Oberdorfer 2001; Gemeinhardt 2002 and below ch. 16. By contrast, the book by Siecienski
2010 offers few new insights. Cf. the review in Gemeinhardt 2012.
38 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

Finally, in a remarkable book published in 2018 Mark S. Smith (b. 1984) turned
towards an area of research which had been largely neglected previously, tracing
the reception of N up to the Council of Chalcedon.144 Finally, I have suggested a
new theory about the events at the Constantinopolitan Council of 381 following the
discovery of a sermon by Nestorius about what must be considered the authentic
creed of Constantinople (abbrev. C1) which is similar to, but not identical with, C2.145

2.2.4 Other shortcomings of Kelly’s book

As we have seen, much of the discussion in recent years has been confined to Ger-
man-speaking scholarship. In the Anglo-Saxon world Kelly has continued to domi-
nate the field, although the shortcomings of his approach are obvious. For example,
he never studied the reasons as to when and why N ultimately vanished, once C2
had appeared on the scene at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Instead, he categori-
cally stated that the creed of the 150 fathers (C2) quickly superseded N after Chalce-
don, becoming the standard eastern creed at baptism, although the sources which
he quotes by no means bear out this claim.146
In addition, thorough Anglican that he was, Kelly was particularly interested
in the use of the creeds at synods and in liturgy, having much to say on both ac-
counts. Yet he failed to see that the history of these formulae was determined by
additional factors as well and that, conversely, it influenced other areas of Chris-
tian thought and life. In what follows, I will focus on just two of these areas.
First, Kelly largely ignored the far-reaching legal implications of credal for-
mulae being formulated at synods. He did recognize that the Sitz im Leben of the
creeds changed in the fourth century as a result of their increasingly synodal
character. Thus he claimed that the new synodal creeds of the fourth century
served as a ‘test for orthodoxy’, in contrast to earlier confessions and rules of
faith that had not. At the same time, N was ‘the first formula to be published by
an ecumenical synod: consequently, it was the first which could claim universal
authority in a legal sense.’147 In other words, Kelly described the legal character
of creeds only in relation to their ecumenicity. It was only by virtue of being ecu-

 Cf. Smith 2018.

 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, esp. pp. 93–101 and below ch. 7.
 Details in Kinzig 2021(2022), pp. 164–184 and below ch. 8.2.
 Kelly 1972, pp. 206 f.
 2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque) 39

menical that they could serve as a ‘test of orthodoxy’. As we will see this seems to
underplay what was really happening.148
Furthermore, he largely ignored the interplay between the emperors and the
Church when it comes to the creeds. He failed to address questions such as: what
was the purpose of prescribing a particular type of trinitarian faith or even a par-
ticular creed in an imperial law, as was the practice from Theodosius I onwards?
Why did emperors (or their advisers) such as Justinian later even compose their
own creeds and insert them into laws? Kelly made no mention of these texts
which fit none of the traditional categories, and he took no notice of relevant
scholarship by historians and legal historians, detailing the influence of Roman
law and Roman institutions on the development of synods. In recent studies, this
problem has received increased attention.149
Finally, Kelly showed little interest in what we know of religious education or
in social history. The evidence available to us suggests that creeds were also car-
riers of religious knowledge and served to structure Christian daily life. Kelly had
little to say about the creed as a tool to help impart religious knowledge to the
Christian populace. His fairly narrow perspective had far-reaching consequences.
In praising the theological content of the creeds, Kelly failed to see that this con-
tent was one-sided, compared to the biblical evidence: it was largely comprised of
trinitarian doctrine. For instance, in T Christ’s saving work was nowhere explic-
itly mentioned, and in C2 only in a rather enigmatic shorthand (‘who because of
us humans and because of our salvation descended from the heavens’; ‘was cruci-
fied for us’). This observation applies all the more to Christian ethics which was
(and is) missing in the creeds in its entirety. Finally, there is almost nothing in his
book about the role which the creed came to play as an increasingly ‘sacred’ text
in the everyday life of believers.150

2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque)

The third (and smallest) area of research concerns the Athanasian Creed (Symbolum
Quicumque; abbrev. Ath; FaFo § 434).151 This is a curious text which was attributed to
Athanasius probably as early as the seventh century. Largely following Augustine’s
theology, it sets out Catholic teaching on the Trinity (sections 1–28) and on Christol-

 For details cf. below ch. 6.5.

 Cf. the literature listed in Kinzig 2021(2022), pp. 126 f. In addition, cf. below ch. 10.2.
 Cf. below chs. 14 and 15.
 For more information cf. Kelly 1964, pp. 3–14; Collins 1979, pp. 329–31; Iacobone 1997,
pp. 19–23.
40 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

ogy (sections 29–42) in a very condensed way. At the same time, recent research has
shown that its brief propositional statements reflect a type of common language
found in many credal texts or trinitarian treatises of the early middle ages, so that its
origin is difficult to pin down. In the early middle ages it was so popular that it,
along with T and the Lord’s Prayer, was inserted into psalters and sung as a canticle
in the divine office.152
The study of Ath using a modern approach commenced in earnest153 earlier
than that of the other creeds. It was prompted by the anti-trinitarian views of
controversialists in the Church of England such as Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) and
John Jackson (1686–1763).154 In 1724 the Chancellor of the Church of York, Daniel
Waterland (1683–1740), a staunch defender of the Trinity, published a Critical His-
tory of the Athanasian Creed which subsequently went through several edi-
tions.155 Waterland’s methodology, carefully set out in the introduction, was
exemplary in that it also included an investigation into the transmission of the
text and its early medieval commentaries, as well as a critical edition. He did not
defend the authorship of Athanasius (which by then had long been disproved),
but he did advocate a fairly early composition, attributing it to Hilary of Arles,
suggesting a date of 426/430. In Waterland’s view ‘it was drawn up for the use of
the Gallican clergy, and especially for the Diocess, or Province of Arles’. ‘It was
esteemed’, he continued, ‘by as many as were acquainted with it, as a valuable
Summary of the Christian Faith’.156
This seemed to settle the question until another controversy broke out in the
Church of England in the early 1870s, this time over the liturgical use of Ath.157
E.S. Ffoulkes (1819–1894), erstwhile Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford, the
aforementioned J. Rawson Lumby and C.A. Swainson, G.D.W. Ommanney (1819–
1902), prebendary of Wells Cathedral, and once more A.E. Burn published sub-
stantial contributions to scholarship on this creed, also editing a number of early
medieval commentaries relating to it.158 As regards the mysterious origin of Ath,
much depended on (1) whether one accepted the theory according to which the
bipartite structure of Ath suggested that it was a composite document and (2)

 Cf. also below pp. 571–3, 580, 585, 587.

 For doubts as to the authenticity of Ath from the sixteenth century cf. Kelly 1964, pp. 3–5.
 The background is described in Wiles 1996(2004), pp. 110–34; Ingram 2018, pp. 25–102.
 Cf. Waterland 1724. In 1728 he published a revised and extended second edition (Waterland
1728). The latest edition, revised and corrected by J.R. King, appeared in 1870 (Waterland 1870).
 Waterland 1728, p. 223 (emphasis in the original).
 Cf. above p. 14 and n. 5.
 Cf. Ffoulkes 1871; Lumby 1873(1880), pp. 186–255; Swainson 1875 (here Ath forms part of a
general study of the creeds); Ommanney 1880; Burn 1896; Ommanney 1897; Burn 1918.
 2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque) 41

whether or not similarities with other texts were considered significant enough
to warrant dependency in one way or another.
Ffoulkes considered it a single document and attributed its authorship to Pau-
linus (d. 802), Patriarch of Aquileia, whereas Lumby and Swainson favoured a
‘two-source hypothesis’ on the basis of the evidence available and dated Ath’s
final redaction to the ninth century. However, Ommanney and Burn uncovered
new manuscripts and early medieval commentaries on Ath which proved that
the text as it is handed down must have been written as a single document at a
much earlier stage. They then suggested that it had its origin in the hotbed of
early western monasticism, Lérins Abbey on the island of Saint-Honorat off the
French Riviera, and that its author was either the Abbey’s founder Honoratus (d.
429) or Vincent (d. before 450), who also wrote the famous Commonitory.159
Ever since Waterland it had been assumed that the author of Ath was influ-
enced by Augustine, but Ferdinand Kattenbusch pointed out that also the reverse
was possible in a detailed review of Burn’s book of 1896.160 By contrast, Friedrich
Loofs suggested a scenario of gradual growth over the period 450–600 for Ath,
just as in the case of R.161
In the following decades discussion about the origin of Ath continued un-
abated. Renowned catholic scholars now also joined in the debate. Karl Künstle
(1859–1932), extraordinary Professor of Patristics and Church History at Freiburg
im Breisgau, unsuccessfully tried to place Ath in late-fourth century Spain.162 The
Jesuit Heinrich Brewer (1861–1922), conversely, suggested Ambrose of Milan as its
author who, in his view, had written it in 382/383 to summarize trinitarian ortho-
doxy in order to bring the Arians in Illyricum back into the fold.163 This theory
was accepted by Burn164 and Badcock.165 Another Jesuit scholar, Josef Stiglmayr
(1851–1934), thought that he could pin down Fulgentius of Ruspe (d. 527/533) as
Ath’s author which would have placed the text in North Africa,166 a theory which
did not find many supporters, although it is today acknowledged that Ath also
contains quotations from Fulgentius.167

 Cf. Ommanney 1880, pp. 286–289; Ommanney 1897, p. 390 (Vincent); Burn 1918, pp. 37–42
(Honoratus).
 Cf. Kattenbusch, review of Burn 1896, 1897, esp. cols. 143 f.
 Cf. Loofs 1897, p. 194.
 Cf. Künstle 1905, pp. 204–43.
 Cf. Brewer 1909, esp. p. 130.
 Cf. Burn 1905.
 Cf. Badcock 1938, pp. 222–42.
 Cf. Stiglmayr, “Quicumque”, 1925; Stiglmayr, ‘Vergleich’, 1925; Stiglmayr 1930.
 Cf. Drecoll 2011, pp. 387 f.
42 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

The famous Benedictine patrologist Germain Morin (1861–1946) initially also

favoured a Spanish origin of Ath and dated it to the second half of the sixth cen-
tury, suggesting Martin of Braga (d. 580) as a possible author. In his catalogue of
famous Christian writers (De uiris inlustribus) Isidore of Seville (d. 636) claimed
that ‘Martin, the most-holy pontiff of the Monastery of Dumio, travelled by ship
from the eastern lands to Galicia and there set out a rule of faith and of sacred
religion (regulam fidei et sanctae religionis) for those Suebian tribes that had been
converted from the Arian impiety to the catholic faith’.168 Morin tentatively iden-
tified Ath with this ‘rule’, but ultimately thought that there was not enough evi-
dence to be certain.169 Later he changed his mind while he was preparing his
critical edition of the works of Caesarius of Arles (d. 542), suggesting the bishop of
Arles or someone from his circle, because new manuscript evidence had shown
that Ath appeared at the beginning of a collection of Caesarius’ sermons.170 Thus
the monastic tradition of Lérins (where Caesarius trained as a monk) once more
moved into focus;171 this proposition was further boosted by the fact that, in 1940,
the Spanish Jesuit José Madoz (Moleres; 1892–1953) published a collection of ex-
cerpts from Augustine (CPL 511) which appeared to stem from the pen of Vincent
and displayed close similarities with Ath.172
The theory of Lerinian origin found its most powerful supporter in J.N.D. Kelly.
His monograph on Ath in many ways marked a caesura, as Kelly summarized the
conclusions of previous research, explained the text’s complicated history, and
gave a very useful introduction into its theology. Finally, Kelly scrutinized the evi-
dence for clues that would allow to solve the mystery of Ath’s origin. In the end,
while he definitely excluded Caesarius as its author, he did attribute authorship to
someone close to the bishop of Arles. It is worth quoting the result of Kelly’s careful
argument in full:

The connexion of the creed with the monastery at Lérins, its dependence on the theology
of Augustine and, in the Trinitarian section, on his characteristic method of arguing, its
much more direct and large-scale indebtedness to Vincent [of Lérins], its acquaintance with

 Isidore, De uiris inlustribus 35,45.

 Cf. Morin 1911, esp. pp. 350–9.
 Cf. Morin 1932, esp. p. 219 and CChr.SL 103, pp. 20 f. In addition, Kelly 1964, pp. 35–7.
 Lérins had already been suggested by French patrologist Joseph Tixeront (1856–1925) and
Turner on the basis of an earlier article by Morin; cf. Tixeront 1903, cols. 2184–6; Turner, History
and Use, 1910, pp. 74–7; and Morin 1901. It is a curious twist in scholarship that, in 1911, Morin
maintained a Spanish origin after he had, in 1901, suggested the milieu of Caesarius, only to re-
turn to Caesarius in 1932.
 Cf. Madoz, ‘Tratado’, 1940, esp. pp. 88–90. The critical edition appeared in Madoz, Excerpta,
1940. It was re-edited in 1985 by Roland Demeulenaere (CChr.SL 1985, pp. 199–231).
 2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque) 43

and critical attitude towards Nestorianism, and its emergence at some time between 440
and the high noon of Caesarius’s activity – all these points, as well as the creed’s original
function as an instrument of instruction, have been confirmed or established by our studies.
[. . .] When we consider its structure and rhythm, its closely knit texture and consistent
tone, we must conclude that a single hand was responsible for the final draft. In the view of
the present writer, while this was certainly not Caesarius, there is every probability that the
creed was composed in his milieu, and quite possibly at his instigation.173

Since the publication of Kelly’s book only a few studies dedicated to Ath deserve a
mention here. In 1972 Nicholas M. Haring (1909–1982; Nikolaus Häring, a German
medievalist at the University of Toronto) published an article assembling further
information about the commentaries on Ath and its reception in the middle
ages.174 Roger J.H. Collins (b. 1949) summarized the state of research in his excel-
lent 1979 article for the Theologische Realenzyklopädie, rejecting Kelly’s hypothe-
sis with regard to authorship and instead once more placing Ath in a Spanish
context.175
More recent studies include Pasquale Iacobone’s (b. 1959) doctoral thesis
whose chief emphasis is on the reception of Ath in medieval art.176 In a very
learned article Michael Kohlbacher (b. 1959) sought parallels to the bipartite
structure of Ath in eastern credal documents, suggesting that both Ath and these
eastern parallels might go back to a common Vorlage which he located in Antioch
in the fourth century.177 However, his theory, ingenious though it is, ultimately
does not hold water since the content of Ath is thoroughly western in character.
Volker Drecoll once more pointed out these features and especially Ath’s depen-
dency on Augustine (which Waterland had already noticed). Drecoll called Ath a
‘compilation of Augustinian tradition’, produced in the period 540–630/670 for the
education of clergy.178 Christian Müller accepted Drecoll’s dating in several stud-
ies of Latin translations of Athanasius and, on this basis, thought it possible ‘that
the text had been published under Athanasius’ name from the beginning’.179 He
located its origin in Spain in the context of King Reccared’s conversion from Ho-
moianism to Catholicism (589):

 Kelly 1964, p. 123.

 Cf. Haring 1972 (cf. also the additions in Haring, ‘A Poem’, 1974, pp. 225–9).
 Cf. Collins 1979.
 Cf. Iacobone 1997.
 Cf. Kohlbacher, Das Symbolum Athanasianum, 2004, esp. pp. 155 f.
 Cf. Drecoll 2007. In Drecoll 2011, p. 389 he seems to envisage a date in the second half of the
fifth century.
 Müller 2010, p. 28. Furthermore cf. Müller 2012; Müller 2016.
44 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

Possibly, the ‘Athanasian Creed’ should serve as a kind of catechism, teaching the converted
people the true faith. Being an ‘Athanasian’ work, the text would have insinuated a doc-
trinal change in the light of fourth century role-models, making the converts part of the
‘anti-Arian’ tradition established by the Alexandrian.180

In 2019 Hanns Christof Brennecke (b. 1947) agreed with Drecoll that Ath had been
composed for the education of clergy, but, following Müller, he insisted on a Span-
ish origin and proposed a date of between 589 (conversion of King Reccared) and
633 (Fourth Council of Toledo).181 By contrast, Uta Heil and Christoph Scheerer
(after summarizing the debates so far) are inclined to place Ath in Francia or,
more likely, Spain where it may have been written between 530 and 679.182
Evidently research on Ath has reached an impasse. Certain findings, such as
a dependence on Augustine’s theology and an attestation from c. 633 onwards
may be considered as firmly established which narrows the date of composition
down to c. 430–630. However, Ath’s actual origin and authorship (if indeed there
was a single author183) remain a mystery. A thorough search of existing data
banks and the evolution of new electronic resources may yield more conclusive
evidence in the future. In this context, both the manuscript tradition of Ath and
its reception and commentaries require further investigation. Perhaps a closer
study of the text’s translations into the vernacular (which I have omitted here184)
may also yield fresh evidence.
Interestingly, although pseudonymous authorship of Ath had been largely ac-
cepted in the middle ages, doubts had always existed as to whether the text should
be considered a ‘symbol’ (creed). Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), for example, thought
it was written in the form of a doctrinal treatise rather than of a creed.185 Early tradi-

 Müller 2016, p. 213.

 Cf. Brennecke 2019. Adolf Martin Ritter likewise sees a connection with the Fourth Council
of Toledo (Ritter 2013, pp. 303–6; Ritter 2014, pp. 52–4).
 Cf. Heil/Scheerer 2022, pp. 309–11.
 Cf. Brennecke 2019, p. 319 n. 23, referring to Drecoll 2007, p. 41 who, however, does not deny
a single originator, instead calling him a compiler rather than an original theologian (similarly,
Drecoll 2011, p. 388: ‘eher ein Redaktor bzw. Exzerptor als ein eigenständiger Autor’). This reflects
the judgement of Turner who called the writer of Ath ‘a compiler rather than a creator yet a
compiler of the first order’ (Turner, History and Use, 1910, p. 74; cf. also Ritter 2013, p. 304). Re-
gardless of whether he is called compiler or creator, the person who wrote Ath in its present
form was a learned theologian who knew how to draw together basic trinitarian and christologi-
cal doctrines skillfully in a way that would be easy to remember.
 Cf., however, below pp. 584–7.
 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q1a10 ad3 (Editio Leonina, vol. VIII, 1895, p. 24):
‘AD TERTIUM DICENDUM quod Athanasius non composuit manifestationem fidei per modum sym-
boli, sed magis per modum cuiusdam doctrinae: ut ex ipso modo loquendi apparet.’ / ‘Third we
must respond that Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a creed, but
 2.3 The Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicumque) 45

tion seems to agree with this assessment: the author of the prologue to the homiliary
of Caesarius of Arles (probably not Caesarius himself) saw a summary of the fides
catholica in this text, but he then presented it like a homily.186 The Synod of Autun of
c. 670 referred to it as the fides Athanasii and clearly distinguished it from the sym-
bolum which the apostles had handed down.187 In 966 Bishop Ratherius of Verona
(887–974) admonished his clergy that they urgently ought to memorize the three-fold
faith, i.e. the symbolum (by which he meant T), the creed sung in mass (i.e. C2), and
Ath.188
This reflects the usage of the earliest manuscripts: here the text initially ei-
ther bore no title at all189 or was simply called fides catholica, with the codex
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library, Q I 15 from the second half of the
eighth century adding Sancti Athanasii episcopi Alexandriae.190 In fact, as far as
we know, the earliest evidence for the custom to call it a symbolum and to enu-
merate it as such together with T and C2 stems from the twelfth century.191
There is, therefore, a strong argument to consider Ath not a creed at all, al-
though its christological part uses material from T.192 Most importantly, (a) there
is no convincing evidence that it was originally intended to be recited in any litur-
gical context and (b) there is no ‘credal link’ (‘I believe’ / ‘we believe’) indicating
an immediate personal involvement of the recipient (reader or hearer).193 There-
fore, it will not be given any further consideration in this book.

rather by way of an exposition of a certain doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking.’ (tr.
taken from URL <https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiaiiae-q-1#SSQ1OUTP1> (03/11/2023);
altered). Cf. Ommanney 1897, pp. 41 f.; Kelly 1964, p. 1.
 Cf. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 2 (cod. Z; FaFo § 656). The text of Ath begins: ‘Quicumque vult
salvus esse, fratres, . . . ’ (CChr.SL 103, p. 20). Cf. also Kelly 1964, p. 36.
 Cf. Synod of Autun (c. 670), canon 1 (FaFo § 581).
 Ratherius, Epistula 25 (MGH.B 1, p. 125, ll. 11–18): I admonish you ‘urgently to memorize the
faith itself, that is, the belief in God, in a three-fold manner (ipsam fidem, id est credulitatem dei,
trifarie parare memoriter festinetis): namely [belief] according to the creed (secundum symbolum);
that is, the “collection” of the Apostles (collationem apostolorum) as it is found in the corrected psal-
ters (Psalteriis correctis); and that which is sung during mass; and that of St Athanasius which be-
gins as follows: “Whoever wishes to be saved”.’ In thirteenth-century England Ath was even called a
psalm, because it was sung as such; cf. the references in Ommanney 1897, pp. 89–91.
 This is true for the oldest manuscript containing Ath, the cod. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana,
O 212 sup. from the late seventh century.
 Cf. Turner, ‘Critical Text’, 1910, p. 406. On this manuscript cf. CLA 1618; TM 67783.
 Peter Abelard (1079–1142) refers to Ath as ‘Athanasius in symbolo fidei’; similarly, Anselm of
Havelberg (d. 1158) and Gilbert of Poitiers (d. 1154). Cf. the references in Haring 1972, pp. 248 f.
 Cf. esp. sections 38–9 in FaFo § 434.
 Instead, section 1 requires the following catholic faith ‘to be affirmed’ (ut teneat) and section
42 that it is ‘to be believed’ (nisi quis [. . .] crediderit), each time using an impersonal construction.
46 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

2.4 The task ahead: Some methodological reflections

In my outline of research into the early history of the creeds I have tried to high-
light some of its main points of debate. My choices have necessarily been highly
eclectic: one could, of course, cite many more contributions (also important ones),
dealing, for example, with the history of individual clauses of the creed or with
the theological background of single confessions. Alas, this cannot be accom-
plished within the limited size of this work, and I must refer readers to the bib-
liographical references given in FaFo.194
When we look back over the entire 150 years of modern credal research, we
can see that a new history of the creeds faces three major challenges:
– It must cope with a voluminous dossier of very heterogeneous primary sour-
ces, avoiding being bogged down by minutiae while disentangling the major
threads of credal development.
– It must take into account the major theories regarding credal development as
outlined in this chapter.
– It must reconcile the new evidence which has recently come to light through
the efforts of Keefe, Westra, myself, and others with a general picture of the
emergence and reception of the creeds that takes sufficient account of all
sources available, is historically plausible, and not self-contradictory.

In what follows, I will make some methodological suggestions based on previous

research which, in my view, may assist us in tackling these challenges:195

1. First, the question of what constitutes an ‘independent’ or ‘autonomous’ creed

has caused great confusion. To illustrate the problem with an example: is it ‘inde-
pendence’ such as (1) between different car brands (i.e. Mercedes, Volkswagen,
BMW) or rather (2) further manifestations of the same model (i.e. VW Golf I, II, III
etc.)? In what follows, I consider creeds as ‘independent’ (in the sense of (1)) if
they can be derived neither from a common Vorlage nor from each other (in the
sense of a revision). Strictly speaking, such ‘independence’ within the same liter-
ary genre is never truly possible since any generic definition presupposes some
kind of relationship of that genre’s representatives to each other and thus some
form of dependence; this also applies to the example of car brands: VW and BMW

 Meanwhile, a history of the creeds by Fairbairn and Reeves has been published which in its
patristic section ignores most of modern scholarly research. It is most puzzling that they repeat-
edly quote a ‘protoypical Greek creed’ (which is, in fact, a complete fiction by Hahn/Hahn 1897,
pp. 127–31 (§ 122); cf. Fairbairn/Reeves 2019, pp. 34–36, 58–63 who follow Pelikan 2003, pp. 382 f.).
 The following reflections are based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 12–15.
 2.4 The task ahead: Some methodological reflections 47

are still cars, despite all their differences, and are ultimately descended from the
Benz Patent Motorwagen Nummer 1 (patent motorcar number 1). Leaving aside
this problem (although by no means trivial), in a strict sense, only two credal
forms from among the collective confessions of antiquity were, at least initially,
more widespread, namely: a western type, which exists in its earliest fixed (!) ver-
sion in R, and an eastern type, whose earliest fixed version is the creed of Antioch
325 and the confession of Eusebius of Caesarea.196 Admittedly, R, Antioch 325, and
Eus also display considerable similarities, but there are strong reasons not to as-
sume they were based on a fixed model, which is why we can speak of a (relative)
independence in this case.

2. All western baptismal creeds are derivatives of R, as Liuwe Westra has shown;197
all eastern creeds after 325 (with the exception of J) are revisions of or reactions to
N up to the Homoian imperial creed of Niké/Constantinople (359/360), after which a
movement back to N sets in.

3. As the development of R in the west towards T shows, one must always allow for
local variants of the same creed. Therefore, one should not speak of ‘independence’
of two creeds on the basis of individual deviations, but only on the basis of variant
clusters. The following variants are usually insignificant: singular πιστεύω/credo or
plural πιστεύομεν/credomen, the repetition or omission of πιστεύω/credo or πιστεύο-
μεν/credomen in the christological or pneumatological sections, the placement or
omission of articles or conjunctions such as καί or τε/et, atque, or -que, or of ἐστι/est,
and minor transpositioning of individual words.

4. Local congregational creeds in the sense of fixed formulae used at baptism are
by no means given everywhere in the fourth century – contrary to what scholars
have widely assumed so far.198 In the west, the rite of the Traditio symboli, which
presupposes such a fixation, only appears in the second half of the fourth cen-
tury.199 The creeds used in it vary in detail, but are derivatives of R rather than
independent of each other. In the east, only few local creeds existed in some pla-
ces in addition to the ‘great’ synodal creeds (that are almost all preserved200) up
to the Council of Constantinople; and only rarely (Jerusalem) can these be con-
nected with the practice of baptism.

 This is true, although, as I will explain below, Eus itself probably was formulated ad hoc. Cf.
below ch. 6.3. The creed of Jerusalem is probably a derivative of R; cf. below ch. 5.5.
 Cf. Westra 2002.
 Cf. above p. 26 and below p. 200.
 Cf. below ch. 11.1.1.
 One of the exceptions is the so-called Third Creed of Sirmium (358; FaFo § 156).
48 2 A Brief History of Credal Research since Caspari

5. The assumption that a ‘local creed’ could have been used (for example in Con-
stantinople 381) to express the Nicene faith clearly underestimates the normative
power of N as a formula by the end of the fourth century and leads to new meth-
odological problems. Occam’s razor applies here: it is easier to explain C2 as a var-
iant of N than to regard it as an ‘independent’ creed whose origin would once
again have to be explained by a complex hypothesis.

6. For a long time there was no terminus technicus for symbolum in Greek;201 ac-
cordingly, one must carefully differentiate whether the ‘faith of Nicaea’ (a phrase
often used in our sources) refers to a text or a theological content. Theologically
speaking, the Creed of Constantinople, of course, represented the ‘faith of Nicea’;
however, when the sources refer to a formula of faith, they always mean a creed
that is either identical with N or easily recognizable as a minor revision of
N. Mere theological agreement is not enough. To assume that the exact wording
of a creed was of secondary importance is one of the most widespread errors in
credal research.202 To counter this, it must be remembered that (a) at the councils
of the fourth and fifth centuries, beginning with Antioch and Nicaea, credal for-
mulae were signed by the bishops after long negotiations as legally binding docu-
ments (some of which then also found their way into liturgical practice) and that
(b) Rufinus specifically emphasizes with regard to R that the creed in Rome had
to be reproduced absolutely literally in the Redditio symboli in order to prevent it
from being distorted by heretical formulae.203

7. As a result, when an author speaks of the ‘creed’ or ‘faith of Nicaea’ (in the lat-
ter case applying this to a text), he usually means a fixed confession which, in his
subjective view, has a (more or less unmediated) historical or genealogical con-
nection with this council. This does not mean, of course, that the text cited in
each case is completely identical with N, but simply that it is a direct derivative
(i.e. Na, Nb, Nc, etc.). As we will see, the range of variation is not arbitrary.

 Cf. below p. 50.

 Cf. Gerber 2000, p. 277 citing numerous earlier publications in n. 61. In addition, Heil 2019,
pp. 32 f.
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 3 (FaFo § 638): ‘This [i.e. additions to the first clause], however,
we have not found to be the case in the church of the city of Rome. The reason is, I imagine, that
no heresy has ever had its origin there, and because they also still maintain the ancient custom
that those who are about to receive the grace of baptism recite the creed in public, that is, in the
audience of the faithful, and thus the hearing of those who preceded them in the faith does not
permit the addition even of a single word.’
 2.4 The task ahead: Some methodological reflections 49

8. When our texts speak of a ‘creed’ or ‘faith of the 150 fathers’, while bringing it
in connection with the Council of Constantinople in 381, it must first be assumed
that it has a direct historical connection with this Council.

In terms of methodology, I will draw on form criticism204 in what follows – de-

spite the reservations expressed by Gerda Riedl205 – while supplementing this ap-
proach with insights from social, institutional, theological, and liturgical history.
Only a methodology that embeds the evolution of the genre of the creed in an
overall view of the development of ancient Christianity can overcome certain lim-
itations of older credal research that will be discussed below.

 Cf. the classic accounts in Koch 1969 and Berger 1987. Cf. also the brief surveys in Sweeney/
Dormeyer 2014.
 Cf. Riedl 2004, pp. 1–3. Riedl prefers a ‘systematic-generative approach’ (systematisch-
generativer Ansatz). However, although I find her book very stimulating in many respects, I
think that her criticism that the continuing scholarly disagreements in the history of the creeds
discredit the historical-critical method as such (Riedl 2004, p. 2) misses the point regarding the
achievements and limits of this method. Furthermore, form criticism deserving of the name
must, of course, also keep in mind the ‘context of tradition’ (Überlieferungszusammenhang) in a
wider sense and, therefore, in a way encompasses the ‘systematic-generative approach’ that
Riedl advocates as an alternative. However, there is a difference between a theological tradition
or kerygma (whose continuity is difficult to be determined and verified in historical terms) and
its expression in literary texts (which always possess a certain form which can be discerned and
described), as will be shown below. Having said that, I agree that Kelly’s book displays certain
shortcomings in this respect (cf. Riedl 2004, pp. 16–18 and elsewhere and above pp. 25 f. and
ch. 2.2.4).
3 Symbolum and Related Terms for the Creed

I begin my study of the creeds by examining what the writers of the Early Church
called the different confessions of the faith and what explanations they offered
for these rather peculiar designations.1
Various ancient names for the creed exist. In Greek there appears to be no
fixed terminology. Creeds were usually called ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως (‘exposition of
the faith’) or, more often, just πίστις (‘faith’) or μάθημα (‘lesson, learning, knowl-
edge’2). Σύμβολον was not used as a term for creeds in the east until probably the
fifth century, when it appears to have been introduced from the Latin (on which
below). Still, even then it was rarely used in an absolute sense; instead, τῆς πίσ-
τεως (‘of the faith’) was added. In the west its Latin equivalents fides and later
credulitas were also sometimes used. These terms, however, are not very precise
designations for this specific genre and relate to content rather than to liter-
ary form.
Generally, the situation in the west is both more clear-cut and more blurred
than in the east. It is more clear-cut in that creeds are called symbolum or (less
frequently) fides from the time of their first appearance. Nonetheless, the origin
and precise meaning of symbolum and how it came to be used as a technical term
denoting a creed have remained something of a mystery. Consequently, this lack
of certainty has already given rise to considerable speculation in antiquity.
Symbolum goes back to a Greek word, σύμβολον, which designates a ‘tally’,
‘token’, or ‘seal’ serving as proof of identity and also as guarantee, warrant, offi-
cial document, or receipt in various contexts; the lexeme can also be used as a
term for ‘treaty’ or ‘contract’, thus being partly identical with συμβολή.3
These meanings are also picked up by the Latin fathers. After the emergence
of the genre of credal exposition towards the end of the fourth century, almost
every Explanatio symboli includes an account of the meaning of symbolum. It is
generally said that symbolum means ‘token’ (indicium) or ‘contract’ (pactum) in
Latin, too. In addition, the writers often explain that symbolum is some kind of
‘collection’ (collectio), a meaning which is not found in the Greek usage of the
term but seems to derive from a conflation of συμβολή (which could also be a
contribution of some kind) and σύμβολον.

 The following chapter is based on FaFo I, pp. 3–7. For more information cf. Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’,
Aug-L, 2021; Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, RAC, 2021. The relevant literature is listed in FaFo, vol. I, p. 61.
 Cf. Lampe 1961(1984), s.v. μάθημα, B5.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, RAC, 2021, cols. 381–3.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-003
 3 Symbolum and Related Terms for the Creed 51

Nonetheless, the details pertaining to the origin of the term given in these
western explanations vary widely:
(1) Ambrose4 and Augustine5 say that symbola are used by businesspeople to es-
tablish their trustworthiness and financial credibility.6 Augustine seems to
suggest that symbolum is closely related to or indeed identical with some
kind of business contract (pactum). Symbolum here is a word or a text, but its
precise character remains unclear.
(2) Peter Chrysologus calls symbolum a contract or treaty which is concluded be-
tween two parties in hopes of future gain; such contracts are always pro-
duced in duplicate to prevent fraud.7
(3) According to the anonymous author of the Collectio Eusebiana and Pseudo-
Faustus of Riez, symbola are contributions made by members (sodales) of
an association (collegium) towards the costs of a shared meal (here again
σύμβολον = συμβολή).8
(4) Rufinus says that symbolum was a watchword to be used in times of civil war
to distinguish friend from foe; for reasons of secrecy, it was not to be written
down.9 Augustine also mentions this meaning as a ‘watchword’ and applies it
to the creed. He calls symbolum the ‘faith and pledge of our association’ (nos-
trae societatis fides placita) by which Christians recognize each other.10
(5) Finally, various anonymous credal expositions include an explanation ac-
cording to which symbolum is the sum to be paid for the hire of a ship, which
at the same time must be produced in the captain’s presence that one has
sufficient assets.11 It is difficult to know whether this information (which may
partly be based on a comment by Tertullian12) corresponds to historical
reality.

All explanations in later sources appear to depend on the aforementioned texts.

 Cf. Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 2 (FaFo § 15a1).

 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 212, 1 (FaFo § 19a); 214, 12 (§ 19c).
 Ambrose seems to use symbolum (neuter) and symbola (feminine) synonymously. Peter Chrys-
ologus may also allude to this use of symbolum in Sermo 60, 2 (FaFo § 22e1).
 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 62, 3 (FaFo § 22g).
 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 9, 1 (FaFo § 30); Pseudo-Faustus, Sermo 2, 1 (§ 34).
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18). The explanation is repeated in Pseudo-Maximus,
Homilia 83 (§ 23).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 214, 12 (FaFo § 19c); cf. also 213, 2 (§ 19b).
 Cf. Sermo de symbolo (CPL 1759) 1 (FaFo § 27a); cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 40, I,1–4 (§ 43);
anonymous Apertio symboli (§ 44); Pseudo-Jerome, Explanatio symboli (§ 61).
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 5,1,2 (FaFo § 8b).
52 3 Symbolum and Related Terms for the Creed

In earlier Christian sources symbolum is used in the context of baptism, but it

looks as if the term does not denote an actual text in this context, but a sign such
as that of the cross.13 There is some evidence to suggest that symbolum denoted
the baptismal interrogations from the mid-third century onward.14 By the late
fourth century there is agreement that symbolum designates a specific formula
and that this formula is a declaratory creed.
The fathers consider symbolum to have the following meanings when it is
used to refer to a creed:15
(1) a summary of the Christian faith (often relating to the legend of the apostolic
origin of T; here again σύμβολον = συμβολή);16
(2) token:
(a) summary of the faith;17
(b) a token of recognition among Christians (e.g. in order to distinguish them
from heretics or Jews) or of a true Christian (as opposed to a nominal or
false Christian);18
(c) a token of confession;19
(d) a token of the full knowledge of truth;20
(e) a reminder of the preaching of the apostles;21 and, therefore also
(f) a sign of, or rule for, the true (correct) faith;22

 This is true of Tertullian, De paenitentia 6,12 (FaFo § 8a); Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,1–2 (§ 92a)
and id., Epistula 75, 11,1 (Firmilianus of Carthage; § 85).
 The first extant reference where symbolum is used to designate baptismal interrogations is
probably Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7 (FaFo § 92a). Cf. also Council of Arles, canon 9(8) and the Epistula
ad Silvestrum (§ 11); Council of Laodicea, canon 7 (§ 562a).
 Only a selection of references is listed in what follows.
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18); Augustine, Sermo 213, 2 (§ 19b); 214, 12 (§ 19c);
Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 2, frg. 5 (§ 14a); id., De symbolo 5,13
(§ 14b); John Cassian, De incarnatione 6,3 (§ 21); Fulgentius, Contra Fabianum, frg. 36,1 (§ 35); Col-
lectio Eusebiana, Homilia 9, 1 (§ 30); Pseudo-Faustus, Sermo 2, 1 (§ 34); Venantius Fortunatus, Ex-
positio symboli 1–2 (§ 38).
 Numerous references in Kinzig 2011(2017), pp. 340 f. n. 54.
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18); Augustine, Sermo 212, 1 (§ 19a); 213, 2 (§ 19b); 214,
12 (§ 19c); Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 57, 16 (§ 22b); Pseudo-Maximus, Homilia 83 (§ 23); CPL 1759, 3
(§ 27b); CPL 1762 (§ 29); Isidore of Seville, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,23(22),3
(§ 39a).
 Cf. Isidore of Seville, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,22(21),2 (§ 39a).
 Cf. Expositio super symbolum (CPL 1760) 1 (FaFo § 33).
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18); Isidore of Seville, De origine officiorum (De ecclesi-
asticis officiis) 2,23(22),2 (§ 39a); id., Etymologiarum siue originum libri XX 6,19,57 (§ 39b).
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18); Priscillian, Tractatus 1, f. 2 (§ 16a1). f. 38 (§ 16a2);
Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 61, 2 (§ 22f1); Venantius Fortunatus, Expositio symboli 2–3 (§ 38); Isidore
of Seville, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,23(22),2 (§ 39a).
 3 Symbolum and Related Terms for the Creed 53

(3) contract:
(a) a contract of the believers with one another;23
(b) a contract of the individual believer with God;24
(4) sign = symbol: this interpretation of symbolum as signatura rei uerae (‘sign of
the true thing’) is found only in Priscillian.25 The res uera to which the sym-
bolum refers is the Holy Scripture.

Given this variety there is considerable confusion among ancient Latin authors as
to why precisely the term σύμβολον/symbolum came to be used.
When we look at earlier religious sources, the evidence suggests that the
term σύμβολον/symbolum was current in mystery cults as a secret sign of recogni-
tion among the members of a particular cult.26 It could be some kind of formula,
but also an object or a ‘symbol’ in the modern sense of the term. This custom may
have been transferred to the Christian cult in the third century (yet the details
remain blurred): creeds, then, mainly served to distinguish between those that
were baptized and those who were not (and, consequently, were unable to recite
the creed). As will be shown below, at a later date the congregation reciting the
creed (following the service of the word at the beginning of the eucharist) had
precisely this function, when the doors were closed to the uninitiated.27 Given
this purpose, symbolum in fact refers specifically to the creed used in pre-baptis-
mal catechesis and during baptism, and hence to R and its offshoots such as
T. The fact that a Greek term was used in this context points to the time when
most Christians in the west were Greek-speaking. It does not primarily refer to
the eastern synodal creeds such as N and C2, for which the terms fides or confessio
fidei is much more common.28

 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 212, 1 (FaFo § 19a).

 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,13 (FaFo § 14b); Eucherius, In-
structiones ad Salonium 2,15 (§ 20); Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 58, 2 (§ 22c); 59, 1–2. 18 (§ 22d); Ful-
gentius, Contra Fabianum, frg. 36,1 (§ 35); Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homilia catechetica 12, 27
(§ 635b).
 Cf. Priscillian, Tractatus 3 (FaFo § 16c).
 For further details cf. Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, RAC, 2021, cols. 383–5.
 Cf. below p. 508.
 Cf. also Eichenseer 1960, pp. 42–8.
4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without
Creeds

It was said above that there were no creeds in pagan religion.1 Yet even within the
history of Christianity, the emergence of creeds is by no means a given. Christianity
managed without a declaratory confession for more than two centuries. This does
not mean, of course, that the faith was not confessed (and we will have to consider
how this took place), only that it was not consistently done in fixed formulae. This
fact may surprise the modern Christian who is used to reciting T or C2 in worship,
but it is less remarkable in the context of ancient Christendom when one considers
that Christians worshipped largely without recourse to fixed forms but by extempo-
rizing prayers and other liturgical texts until well into the fourth century.2
This also applies to the ritual elements of the catechumenate and to baptism it-
self: these rites probably varied considerably depending on local circumstances; in-
deed, even in the same place their wording was not yet fixed. In the first three
centuries, the term ‘formula’ should not be understood too narrowly. In this period,
‘confessions’ refer first and foremost to certain confessional topoi which were still in
flux in their individual formulation, albeit not arbitrary, which is why I will call
them ‘homologies’ and ‘rules of faith’. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest a
certain wording of baptismal questions and, later, also of declaratory creeds, as will
be shown below. However, strictly speaking, the first fixed formulae that have come
down to us do not date to before the fourth century. This process of the consolidation
of confessing one’s faith will be traced in more detail in this part of my book.
It is also important to note that confessions always serve to draw boundaries.
The statement ‘I am a Christian’ was required when Christianity first manifested
itself in the lives of believers, when it was ritually remembered, and when Chris-
tian identity came under pressure from the outside. Unlike Islam and Judaism,
Christianity has always had ritual acts of acceptance that everyone had to un-
dergo, and which demarcated Christians from non-Christians.3 In addition, prov-
ing one’s Christian identity was a prerequisite for admission to the eucharist.
Furthermore, Christian identity could be endangered when a certain form of

 Cf. above p. 6.
 Cf. Kinzig 2012(2017), p. 338 and n. 44 listing further literature. In addition, cf. Hammerstaedt/
Terbuyken 1996, cols. 1258–60; Fürst 2008, pp. 10, 36.
 Circumcision does not per se constitute affiliation to Judaism, since men can be Jews even if
they are uncircumcised provided they are descended from a Jewish mother. In Islam, member-
ship of the religion is acquired by birth into a Muslim family.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-004
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 55

Christianity was challenged by another or when being a Christian in general was

called into question. Finally, unlike in other ancient cults (including Judaism), dis-
cussions about the role of doctrine and the theology that developed out of them
were paramount in defining Christian identity.

4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in

the New Testament
Turning to the Bible, our first question would be whether there are creeds in the
Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament. However, there appears to be a broad
consensus among biblical scholars today that this is not the case.4 The beginning
of the aforementioned Shema Yisrael (Deut 6:4), affirming God’s oneness and
lordship, which is said as part of the Jewish morning and evening prayer serv-
ices,5 may be seen as resembling a confession of faith. But we must be careful not
to project a Christian view of the creed onto ancient Jewish worship and its bibli-
cal foundation. In its original setting, in no way does the Shema Yisrael stand out
as a text fulfilling a particular liturgical function such as the Christian creed. In-
stead, it forms part of a section that is thoroughly legal in character (as is all of
Deuteronomy): Yahweh is Israel’s only God and Lord; Israel must, therefore, love
and fear this God: it owes allegiance to its particular divine master and must ful-
fill the legal obligations arising from this relationship of dependence (Deut 6:17–
19). Nowhere is it explicitly said that faith comes into it, although the concept is
based on a trust in God whose care for Israel has often manifested itself in salva-
tion history: God’s existence and lordship are simply stated as a fact that calls for
a certain reciprocal behaviour on Israel’s part.6

 Cf. the literature cited in FaFo I, p. 33.

 Cf. above p. 6 and n. 27.
 Martin Buber has expressed this difference between Judaism and Christianity by distinguishing
two types of faith (Buber 1951, pp. 34 f.): ‘In the period at the beginning of Christianity there was still
no other [Jewish] form of confession than the proclamation, be it in the Biblical form of the sum-
mons to the people, “Hear, O Israel”, which attributes uniqueness and exclusiveness to “our” God, or
in the invocation of the Red Sea song to the King recast into a statement, “It is true that the God of
the world is our King”. The difference between this “It is true” and the other [i.e. Christian] “We
believe and know” is not that of two expressions of faith, but of two kinds of faith. For the first, faith
is a position in which one stands, for the second it is an event which has occurred to one, or an act
which one has effected or effects, or rather both at once. Therefore the “we” in this instance can only
be the subject of the sentence. True, Israel also knows a “we” as subject, but this is the “we” of the
people, which can to be sure apply to “doing” or “doing and hearing” (Exod. xxiv. 3, 7), but not to a
“believing” in the sense of the creed. Where it is said of the people (Exod. iv. 31, xiv. 31) that they
56 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Nonetheless, it would be dangerously anachronistic to overstate the chasm be-

tween knowledge and faith. In Christianity, having faith in God or Christ did not
necessarily mean that the factuality of their existence was considered precarious in
any way and therefore had to be ritually affirmed by reciting certain formulae.
Rather, ‘faith in’ implied a particular personal relationship of the individual be-
liever with the deity, as explained in chapter 1.2, which we do not find as such in
the Old Testament7 and which we must define further. In order to do so, we must
now turn to the New Testament.
✶

Confessing Christ was already one of the central markers of Christian identity at
a very early stage. In Mt 10:32–33 Jesus is quoted as saying,

Everyone, therefore, who will confess me before humans, I also will confess before my Fa-
ther in the heavens; but whoever will deny me before humans, I also will deny before my
Father in the heavens.8

believed, that simple trust which one has or holds is meant, as in the case of the first patriarch.
When anybody trusts someone he of course also believes what the other says. The pathos of faith is
missing here, as it is missing in the relationship of a child to its father, whom it knows from the very
beginning as its father. In this case too a trusting-in which has faltered must sometimes be renewed.’
I owe this reference to Böttrich 2014, p. 67 n. 23. – Previous Christian research on the Old Testament
has also often termed the text of Deut 26:5–9(11) a creed (Gerhard von Rad: ‘short historical creed’; cf.
Rad 1938(1966), pp. 3–13; Rad 1962/1965, vol. I, pp. 121 f., 124 f., 129, 136, 138 f., 166, 176, 187, 281, 296 f.,
397; vol. II, p. 358; Rad 1973, pp. 14, 19–21, 45), but, given its entirely narrative character, it seems
rather flimsy to relate it to later Christian creeds, in terms of literary genre.
 By contrast, ‘Old Testament faith is centred on a bond that is unique in nature, namely the
relationship between Yahweh and the people of his election, which is based on exclusivity [. . .]’
(Brandscheidt 2013, 2.2). This has a strong ethical component: ‘“Turning to God with faith” does
not mean a passive acknowledgement of God’s greatness, but a way of life that challenges the
entire human being in his outer and inner behaviour’ (Brandscheidt 2013, 2.4). This relation of
the individual to God by means of belonging to the People of Israel and the resulting imperative
to act in a manner that is morally acceptable are missing in the Christian creed. Anja Klein is
even more sceptical: ‘Faith is a decidedly Christian concept. However, the H[ebrew] B[ible]/O[ld]
T[estament] contains a few statements about the relationship between humankind to God that
deal with the firm trust in him or the lack thereof’ (Klein et al. 2014, col. 690). By contrast, Levin
calls ‘faith’ ‘a theological key concept from the late period of the Old Testament’ which, although
rare, had a broad impact on the New Testament and beyond (Levin 2018, p. 26).
 Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμ-
προσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς· ὅστις δ’ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς. The trans-
lation ‘before others’ for ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων in the New Revised Standard Version Updated
Edition is erroneous, because the opposition is between humans (in this world) and God (in
heaven), not between the confessor and ‘others’.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 57

Confessing Christ has a salvific function. Conversely, denying Christ means ex-
cluding oneself from salvation and, by consequence, from the Christian commu-
nity (which is why apostasy has always been considered a mortal sin). One’s
‘creed’ or ‘confession’ can be expressed in various ways in daily life, for instance,
by wearing some kind of badge or symbol declaring allegiance to a particular be-
lief, party, or community. We have some evidence that early Christians did just
that. For example, Clement of Alexandria suggested that the images on signet
rings suitable to be worn by Christians should be a dove, a fish, a ship, or a ship’s
anchor.9 However, emblems without text can be equivocal or downright incom-
prehensible; in fact, Clement intentionally exploited such ambiguity to avoid
Christians being identified as such for reasons of personal safety. A dove only
takes on a certain given meaning for sure when accompanied by, or in some
other way securely linked to, some kind of explanation. A confession, therefore,
presupposes or consists in some kind of text explaining what one is confessing.
However, what does it mean when one confesses a person? And why and where
would Christians do that?
There is a tendency in New Testament research to declare anything a ‘confes-
sion’ that looks like some sort of doctrinal proposition. As a consequence, distinc-
tions become blurred and, in the end, different people talk about different things.10
By contrast, as we saw above, patristic scholars have tended to look for fixed con-
fessional formulae that could be understood as ‘germs’ of later creeds in a kind of
‘organic’ approach. This approach implied a ‘growth’ or ‘accretion’ of creeds from
smaller to larger confessional units, which, however, ignored the plurality of early
Christianity when the core of Christian confession was still very much a matter of
debate.11 Therefore, it may be helpful to begin our inquiry into the origins of the
creeds by considering those passages in the New Testament that describe the role
of faith in our relation to God and Jesus Christ, as well as the precise meaning of
‘confession’ in the New Testament.

 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3,59,2.

 Cf., e.g., Wengst 1984; John Reumann in Bochinger et al. 1998, cols. 1248 f. Here ‘confession’
seems to be identical with ‘formula’ tout court, a confused approach. More nuanced Böttrich
2014, esp. pp. 61–4.
 Cf. my survey of previous research above ch. 2.
58 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

4.1.1 ‘Believing’ in God/Christ

The New Testament is full of ‘faith’ language:12 there are 239 occurrences of πισ-
τεύειν (‘to believe’) and 240 of πίστις (‘faith’). Christian faith language builds
upon the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and its Greek translation, the Septuagint.
In the latter, πιστεύειν is a translation of Hebrew he᾽ĕmîn13 (Niphal of ᾽mn) and
must, like the original, be translated into English as ‘to trust’ almost in all instan-
ces, with the object of trust (often God) supplied primarily in the dative. (Interest-
ingly, in the Septuagint πιστεύειν is never used with εἰς.) In some instances
πιστεύειν is followed by ὅτι, expressing a proposition. However, only in Is 43:10
does it come close to a formula (‘[. . .] so that you may know and believe and un-
derstand that I am’.) An interesting case is Judith 14:10 where Achior from the
house of Uzziah is converted to Judaism:

When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God (ἐπίστευσεν
τῷ θεῷ σφόδρα). So he was circumcised and was handed over to the house of Israel until
this day.

Here trust/faith in God serves as a marker of identity: the Ammonite Achior

switches his loyalty from his people’s gods to the God of the Jews. As we will see,
this use of πιστεύειν will become more prominent later.
Both the Septuagint and early Christian writings14 also draw on the pagan
usage of πίστις and its cognates which may denote not only ‘faith’ and ‘trust’, but
also ‘means of persuasion’, ‘confidence’, ‘assurance’, ‘trustworthiness’, ‘credibility’,
‘proof’, and even ‘credit’ in a commercial sense. However, the standard phrases in
later creeds and credal formulae are ‘I/we believe in’, indicating mostly, although
not exclusively,15 faith in the persons of the Trinity, or ‘I/we believe that’ a given
theological proposition is true. We must, therefore, inquire into the origins of this
particular understanding of ‘faith’.
When the noun πίστις occurs in the New Testament, the object of faith is ex-
pressed either by adding the genitive or the prepositions εἰς, πρός, ἐν, or (in one
instance only16) ἐπί. In the majority of occurrences, the object of faith is either
God or Christ/the Lord/Jesus in various combinations. As far as I can see, nowhere

 Cf. Bultmann/Weiser 1968, pp. 187 f.; Becker/Michel 1975; Lührmann 1979, cols. 64–79; Haacker
1985; Barth 1993; Konradt, ‘Faith’, 2014; Morgan 2015; Horn, ‘Glaube – Nicht Weisheit’, 2018.
 Cf. Levin 2018, p. 9.
 Its usage in other writings of Hellenistic Judaism and in rabbinical literature does not appear
to yield further aspects pertinent to our (limited) investigation; cf. Swanson /Satlow 2014.
 A famous exception is C2 which includes faith in the Church.
 Heb 6:1 (God).
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 59

does πίστις denote a formula (unlike in later centuries when it can be used to de-
note the creed17); rather, it always refers to the act of believing (i.e. is an action
noun).18
As regards the verb πιστεύειν, I will briefly examine those passages in the New
Testament in which the lexeme is not used in an absolute sense, but with an object
or person in which one believes, or with an object clause, with an infinitive, or
with an accusative-infinitive phrase.
The Apostle Paul is fairly flexible in that he construes πιστεύειν with εἰς or ἐπί
with the accusative.19 In almost all these instances the object of faith is God or Jesus
Christ – this is even more striking as in the pagan environment from which the New
Testament emerged such faith is nowhere expressed by using πιστεύειν εἰς/ἐπί. A
difference between εἰς and ἐπί appears to be that God/Christ is accompanied by a
participle denoting his actions when ἐπί with the accusative is used. In fact, the par-
ticiple may replace God/Christ altogether: we believe in him (i.e. God) as the one
who justifies the ungodly, or by virtue of his raising Jesus from the dead.20
Thus Paul stands at the beginning of the fundamental idea in Christian litera-
ture that the relation between God/Christ and his worshippers is constituted
through an act of faith in the saving work of God/Christ and thus in God/Christ him-
self as a ‘person’ performing such action. The apostle himself proclaimed this mes-
sage, expecting it to be ‘believed’ by his listeners/readers. They were asked to trust
the divine Saviour, but also the apostolic messenger. As Michael Wolter put it:

[. . .] the people who gathered together because of Paul’s preaching were joined together in
one group by just this one characteristic, that is, that they had agreed with what Paul had
said to them and also kept on agreeing.21

Perhaps the best example for this interplay of God’s/Christ’s action – its proclama-
tion – listening – believing – confessing is found in Rom 10:8–10:

But what does it [Scripture] say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’
[Deut 30:14] (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim), because if you confess with your
mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. For one believes with the heart, leading to righteousness, and one confesses
with the mouth, leading to salvation.

 Cf. above p. 50.

 Cf. Wolter 2015, p. 71.
 For faith in Paul cf. esp. Wolter 2015, pp. 71–94.
 Rom 4:5 (ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα); 4:24 (ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα).
 Wolter 2015, p. 73.
60 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Here the (public) ‘confession’ consists in the clause: ‘Jesus is Lord’, whereas the
resurrection from the dead does not form part of the oral ‘confession’, rather pro-
vides the ‘historical’ justification for this ‘confession’. As opposed to pagan myths,
Christians were asked to believe in the historicity of an event involving one par-
ticular, clearly identifiable saviour figure that had taken place at a certain loca-
tion and at a particular point in time and which would guarantee their future
salvation. Having faith was thus being assured of a historical, but also of a divine
reality.22 This unusual way in which the Christian message was structured meant
that those who sympathized with Paul’s proclamation had to make a clear deci-
sion: they were expected to believe that these events had actually happened and
had been brought about by the carpenter from Bethlehem or Nazareth in Pales-
tine, because doing so was a prerequisite of their salvation. In contrast to Juda-
ism, such salvation did not (primarily) hinge on the fulfilment of a given set of
divine laws, but on choosing to believe that during the governorship of Pontius
Pilate Christ had been executed by crucifixion, had been buried, and had been
raised from the dead, and that unconditionally accepting these assumptions as
historical fact would ultimately guarantee the believer’s resurrection (Rom 6:4).
This change constituted a new Christian identity within and beyond the contem-
porary (Jewish) divide between Jews and Gentiles (cf. Gal 5:6; 6:5).
Furthermore, some basic statements which could easily be memorized sum-
marized the account of these historical events for the practical purpose of preach-
ing and teaching. Paul’s writings already testify to the beginning of this process
which ultimately led to the formulation of creeds. Yet even where Paul includes
such theological propositions, they relate to Christians trusting in some form of
salvific event which originated in God/Christ rather than solemnly agreeing to a
set of doctrinal tenets or norms in a fixed form. Thus the apostle says in Rom 6:8
that ‘if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him’. According
to Rom 10:9 ‘if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’. 1Thess 4:14 also in-
cludes Christ’s death and resurrection as an object of belief:

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring
with him those who have died.23

Belief in these summary statements obviously implied that one also had full
knowledge of the sequence of events which they summarized (such as that they
happened under the governor Pontius Pilate). It is telling that, although these con-

 Wolter 2015, pp. 84–94.

 Cf. also Gal 2:20.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 61

densed narratives formed the core of Paul’s teaching about Christ, there are such
differences in their wording, indicating that this basic knowledge was not yet ex-
pressed in a fixed text. This is why it is erroneous to speak of ‘pístis formulae’ in
these instances as earlier scholarship has done.24
Paul also associates ‘faith’ with baptism (Gal 3:26–27):

So you are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus (διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ), for (γάρ) all of you who were baptized into Christ (εἰς Χριστόν) have clothed your-
selves with Christ.

In Paul’s view, ‘faith in Christ Jesus’ and ‘baptism into Christ’ are intimately con-
nected, although the logic of his argument (γάρ) and its metaphorical structure
(descendance vs. clothing) of the verses (in which traditional liturgical formulae
may be referenced25) remain opaque.
A similar picture emerges from the Deutero-Pauline corpus and Hebrews. They
also include the statement that ‘Christ is believed/trusted in’ (ἐπιστεύθη, 1Tim 3:16),
as well as one explaining that Paul’s testimony requires faith (2Thess 1:10; cf. 2:11–12).
In Hebrews it is emphasized that we must believe ‘that he [God] exists and that he
rewards those who seek him’ (Heb 11:6). In 1 Timothy faith is also associated with
‘teaching’:

If you put these [instructions] before the brothers and sisters, you will be a good servant of
Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching (τοῖς λόγοις τῆς
πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας) that you have followed’ (1Tim 4:6; cf. 2Tim 1:13; 3:10).

Here faith is not just an inward ‘attitude’ but is expressed in ‘words’ and as such
can be shared among each other. However, these words are no fixed formulae –
instead the author seems to refer to what he wrote before (cf. 1Tim 2:1–4:4).
At the same time, in Eph 4:4 we find faith once more associated with bap-
tism: ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’. Unfortunately, again the precise nature
of this association is not spelled out. However, the insistence on the oneness of
faith suggests that ‘faith’ is no longer just a matter of the heart, but also outwardly
expressed in a way which demonstrates that there is indeed unanimity in the
Christian congregation.
When we turn to the remainder of the New Testament, the Johannine corpus
and Acts provide the most extensive evidence for πιστεύειν/πίστις in the sense we

 Cf. Horn, ‘Glaube – Nicht Weisheit’, 2018, pp. 44 f. referring to Vielhauer 1975(1985), pp. 9–22
and Hahn 2011, vol. II, pp. 459 f. Hahn’s list of pístis formulae also includes Rom 1:3b. 4a; 4:24b.
25; 5:8; 1Cor 8:6; 15:3–5. These are all summaries, but not formulae (i.e. fixed sets of a sequence of
words). In addition, Vollenweider 2017, pp. 506–9.
 Cf. the discussion in De Boer 2011, pp. 242–7.
62 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

are interested in while the Synoptic Gospels add nothing new. In the Johannine
writings πιστεύειν, referring to God/Christ, is construed with the dative only, or
with εἰς, as well as, perhaps, once with ἐν.26 There appears to be no discernible se-
mantic difference. The object of faith can be God/the Father, the Son/Son of Man/
Jesus Christ, or his ‘name’. We also find πιστεύειν followed by propositional state-
ments. Propositions to be believed include the claim that Jesus is the ‘Holy One of
God’ (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ; Jn 6:69), the Christ (20:31), and that he came from God.27
Those who believe in the ‘only-begotten Son (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ)’ ‘may not per-
ish but may have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον)’ (3:16), whereas those who do not be-
lieve ‘are condemned already (ἤδη κέκριται)’ (3:18). Martha believes that (ὅτι) the
Lord is ‘the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world’ (11:27). Likewise,
the author of 1 John underlines the importance of the belief that Jesus is the Christ
(5:1) and promises that those who believe in Jesus being the Son of God will ‘over-
come the world’ (νικῶν τὸν κόσμον; 5:5; cf. also 5:10). In a way, these postulations
are more abstract than those in Paul because they primarily point to Jesus’ ‘nature’
or ‘status’. What is central here is his divine origin which lies at the heart of his
messiahship, not his death and resurrection.
In the Book of Acts πιστεύειν is construed with the dative only, with εἰς, or with
ἐπί plus the accusative, the object of faith being in most cases Christ. (Acts feature
no instances of propositional clauses.) Missionaries such as Peter impart the mes-
sage relating to these ‘Christ’ events of the past, a message whose veracity and accu-
racy must be believed (as it cannot be verified). Acts 15:7 illustrates this very well:

After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know
that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through
whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.’

The Book of Acts also refers to ‘faith’ several times in the context of the ritual of
baptism: Simon Magus and the crowd following him, Paul’s and Silas’ anonymous
jailor, and the Archisynagogos Crispus, together with many Corinthians, believe and
are then baptized (the jailor and Crispus with their entire households).28 ‘Faith’ is
therefore a precondition of baptism which also has to be ascertained in some way
by the baptizer, although Acts provides no information as to how this is done.
Finally, in 1Peter, the addressees of the letter are called ‘believers in God’
(πιστοὺς εἰς θεόν) who raised Christ from the dead and gave him glory.29

 Cf. Jn 3:15; there is, however, some textual uncertainty.

 Cf. Jn 16:27. 30; 17:8. 21; furthermore, cf. 8:42; 13:3.
 Cf. Acts 8:12–13; 16:31–3; 18:8. Cf. also 19:4 and the secondary ending of Mark: 16:16.
 1Pet 1:21.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 63

Although conceding that ‘the ultimate origins of Christian pistis [. . .] remain

mysterious’, Teresa Morgan observes on the basis of this rich evidence:

What we can say with confidence is that for the Greek-speaking communities within which
and for which the texts of the New Testament were written, the idea of pistis proved to be so
rich, and so adaptable to developing understandings of the relationship between God, Christ,
and humanity, together with understandings of human life and activity within that relation-
ship, that pistis is everywhere involved with the early evolution of those understandings.30

Contrary to what one might expect, the opposition between ‘believing’ and ‘seeing’
(in the sense of visual evidence) or ‘knowing’ does not play a major role in the New
Testament (although it can be glimpsed here and there31). What is more important
for understanding pístis in the New Testament is, first, its meaning of ‘trust’ in the
salvific historicity of the events which the Christian message relates (with impor-
tant implications for the future of every individual believer), and, second, the idea
that Christians invest all their hope for salvation in one particular divine person,
categorically denying not only the efficacy of other gods but their very existence. In
this context, Jas 2:19 provides an important clue:

You believe that there is one God; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.

Whether or not the epistle’s author is being sarcastic here, he agrees with his oppo-
nent that faith language implies trust in one God/Saviour to the exclusion of others.
Human welfare and salvation are not the result of a kind of mosaic of actions by a
pantheon of gods, let alone any cooperation between them as is often found in pagan
cults. Faith language is necessary because it implicitly denies the existence of other
gods and, as such, establishes a shared identity for the Christian congregation.32 Such
language relates to a historical event of the utmost consequence both for the future
of humankind as a whole and for every individual believer.
The evidence, then, clearly shows that belief in Christ’s incarnation, death,
and resurrection and their significance for humankind, which confirmed his di-
vine origin and status, constituted the core of ‘faith’ in the New Testament; how-
ever, the phrasing of this propositional content has not yet been fully formalized
or standardized.

 Morgan 2015, pp. 502 f.

 Cf., e.g., Jn 20:29; Rom 8:24; 1Cor 13:12; Heb 11:1; 1Pet 1:8.
 For the communal aspect cf. Morgan 2015, p. 506.
64 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

4.1.2 ‘Confessing’ God/Christ

Rom 10:8–10 quoted in the previous section appears to indicate that there is a dif-
ference between faith in God/Christ and confessing God/Christ. In that passage
both actions (ὁμολογεῖν, ‘confessing’; πιστεύειν, ‘believing’) entail certain proposi-
tions: Christians confess that Jesus is Lord, and they believe that God raised him
from the dead. Crucially, the former proposition is said out aloud. Moreover, it
expresses a specific allegiance which is performed in the speech act, rather than
simply involving cognitive consent. By contrast, the latter action of believing is
restricted to one’s ‘heart’. This does not reduce it to some kind of ‘feeling’ or ‘emo-
tion’ only, but denotes that it is an inward expression of trust in the historicity and
the salvific nature of Jesus’ resurrection.33 In Paul’s view these propositions are
closely interlinked: Jesus is confessed as Christ because he was raised from the
dead. In addition, it is not sufficient simply to believe quietly – Christians are ex-
pected to acclaim Jesus as the Lord in public in order to attain salvation.
Thus, the act of ‘confessing’ is part of the language of faith; indeed, it played a
significant role in the life of the earliest Christian communities. We will, therefore,
take a closer look at the use of ὁμολογία and ὁμολογεῖν in the New Testament.34 In
most cases, they denote certain spoken, public revelations, an agreement to a state-
ment perceived as factual which is being disclosed. Ὁμολογεῖν (26 occurrences) indi-
cates the act of utterance, whereas ὁμολογία (6 occurrences) denotes the act itself,
but also the result of such action. The content of this disclosure can differ as does
the context in which it is made. Sometimes this relates to a confession of sins.35
Often it is used to express a public confession to God/Christ. In this context it comes
close to ‘praise’ (which is the primary meaning of ἐξομολογεῖσθαι).36 This is fre-
quently done in a context of outside pressure: confession requires courage and may
have negative repercussions,37 but is rewarded with eternal life. This becomes clear
from 1Tim 6:12–14:

 Similarly, in Jn 12:42 the Jewish leaders believe, but are afraid to confess their faith in public.
 Cf. Michel 1967, pp. 207–12, 215–17; Hofius 1991.
 Cf. Mt 3:6; Jas 5:16; 1Jn 1:9.
 The primary meanings of the Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament are also both ‘confes-
sion of sins’ and ‘praise’. The Septuagint translates yāḏâh (hiph., hith.), nāḏar, and šāḇa῾ with
ὁμολογεῖν, and neḏāḇâh, nēḏer, and tôḏâh with ὁμολογία. For details cf. Michel 1967, pp. 204 f.;
Fürst 1975.
 The negative repercussions are emphasized in Jn 9:22 and 12:42: the confession of Christ leads
to expulsion from the synagogue.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 65

Fight the good fight of/for the faith (ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως); take hold of
the eternal life to which you were called and for which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses (καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρ-
τύρων). In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his
testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession (τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν), I charge you to keep the commandment without spot or
blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ [. . .].

Here again ‘faith’ and ‘confession’ occur in close proximity. Both are associated
with the predicate ‘good’. The ‘confession’ may indeed be largely synonymous
with the ‘good fight of/for the faith’. It is an action in front of witnesses which
may in actual fact be required in court.38 To be opposed to making this confession
is tantamount to denial; it may be caused by the antichrist and will be punished
by God.39
Nonetheless, we can discern a difference between faith and confession: ‘faith’
precedes ‘confession’. ‘Faith’ refers to the relation between an individual who be-
lieves and a person or proposition that is the object of belief, whereas ‘confession’ is
always associated with the disclosure of a proposition or a fact (which may be that
of believing something or other). Moreover, a proposition such as ‘Jesus is Lord’ or ‘I
am a Christian’ may be ‘confessed’ without its ‘faith’ character being disclosed.
In what follows I will look first at the use of the verb ὁμολογεῖν and then at
the noun ὁμολογία, going through the writings of the New Testament in roughly
chronological order. The content of confession varies over time. In Paul’s letters
we only find the acclamation of Jesus as ‘Lord’.40 In the Johannine corpus Jesus is
confessed as the Christ (the Messiah; Jn 9:22; cf. 12:42), as the Son of God (1Jn 4:15),
and as the ‘Christ who has come in the flesh’ (1Jn 4:2; 2Jn 741). The emphasis on
the reality of the incarnation introduces a distinction between those who aver its
truth and, therefore, possess the Spirit of God and those who deny the reality of
this event. The latter are consequently called ‘deceivers’ and associated with the
antichrist. Hans-Josef Klauck has expressed the view in his magisterial commen-
tary on the Johannine Letters that this confession of Christ’s incarnation was an
extension of the ‘simple’ confession of Christ. He thinks that we are ‘possibly wit-

 Cf. also Acts 24:14.

 The opposition confession/denial is found in Mt 10:32–33 par. Lk 12:8–9; 1Jn 2:22–23; 4:2–3. 15
Cf. also Jn 1:20; Tit 1:16.
 Cf. Rom 10:9 (κύριον Ἰησοῦν); Phil 2:11 (here construed as a proposition with ὅτι and ἐξομολο-
γεῖσθαι – a praise rather than a confession). Cf. also 1Cor 12:3; 2Cor 4:5.
 Strictly speaking, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί in 2Jn 7 means:
‘those who do not confess that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh’. Cf. Klauck 1992, pp. 53–6 on
this problem.
66 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

nessing the emergence of a rule of faith’, as members of the community or visi-

tors ‘were asked to recite the newly formulated confession in the assembly’.42 Yet
there is no evidence that we are dealing with a fixed formula here. The ‘confes-
sion’ referenced here may very well have been a doctrinal proposition but one
that may have been expressed in various ways in an ongoing controversy within
the Johannine community.
In 1 John the meanings of ‘confession’ and ‘belief’ are nearly synonymous, as
we can see when we place 1Jn 4:15 and 5:5 side by side:

God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God (ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), and they abide in God.

Who is it who overcomes the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (ὁ
πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ)?

Yet in the first case the confession is made in the Christian community (cf. v. 14: ‘And
we have seen and testify (μαρτυροῦμεν – also a public act) that the Father has sent
his Son as the Saviour of the world.’), whereas in the second passage this aspect is
irrelevant to the argument.
By way of summary, we may say that whereas for Paul it suffices to ‘confess
Christ as the Lord’ (where ὁμολογεῖν may also be understood as ‘praise’), in Johan-
nine literature the confession’s theological content is more clearly defined: it con-
tains the avowal that Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh and that he is
the Son of God. But, again, there is no clear indication that we are dealing with any
kind of formula here. In fact, sometimes ὁμολογεῖν simply means ‘acknowledg-
ment’ or ‘affirmation’ and is then construed with the accusative case43 or with ἐν.44
In other writings of the New Testament ὁμολογεῖν is also followed by propo-
sitional clauses, construed either with accusative and infinitive or with ὅτι. An
interesting passage is found in the Book of Acts in Paul’s speech of defence before
the Governor Felix in Caesarea:

But this I admit/confess to you (ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι), that according to the way, which
they call a sect (αἵρεσιν), I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down
according to the law or written in the prophets (πιστεύων πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ τοῖς
ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γεγραμμένοις) (Acts 24:14).

 Klauck 1991, p. 234; Similarly, Klauck 1992, p. 53.

 Cf. 1Jn 2:23 (‘[. . .] everyone who confesses (i.e. acknowledges) the Son has the Father also’). In
2:22 the ‘acknowledgment’ consists in the confession that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). Further-
more 1Jn 4:3 (where the content of the acknowledgment (Jesus as the Christ in the flesh) is men-
tioned in the previous verse).
 Cf. Mt 10:32 par. Lk 12:8 (ἐν ἐμοί): a saying of Jesus from the Q source.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 67

Here it is especially obvious that ‘confession’ in Greek may easily carry forensic
overtones (which is why the NRSVue correctly translates as ‘I admit’). The content
of Paul’s confession in this instance is not a formula or single proposition, but the
admission of a religious act (the worship of the Jewish God) and his belief in the
teachings of the Hebrew Bible. In Tit 1:16 the author claims that his ‘Judaizing’
opponents ‘confess that they know God, but they deny him by their actions’.
✶

Likewise, looking at the noun ὁμολογία, the evidence is fuzzier than previous
scholarship sometimes suggests. Paul uses ὁμολογία only once in the sense of
‘confession of the gospel of Christ’ (τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ
Χριστοῦ; 2Cor 9:13) in the context of his collection for the congregation of Jerusa-
lem. In 1Tim 6:13 it is the ‘good confession (= admission)’ which Christ made be-
fore Pontius Pilate. Here ὁμολογία is an action noun, not a formula.
The situation is different in the Epistle to the Hebrews where the noun is
used three times in such a way that Otto Michel and Dieter Fürst have suggested
in their respective dictionary entries that we are dealing here with ‘a fixed ὁμολο-
γία which sums up the beliefs of the community as a living word and which has
to be held fast’45 or with the word having a ‘fixed liturgical connotation’.46 A look
at the commentary on Hebrews by Craig R. Koester reveals a similar picture. He
writes in relation to Heb 3:1 that a confession such as the one mentioned here
‘summarized the basic conviction of a group’. In his view it is ‘statements like
“Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 5:42; 9:22), “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5), and
“Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20; Rom 1:3–4)’ that are envisaged here, which
‘encapsulated the early Christian preaching that brought people to faith (cf. Heb
2:3–4)’.47 Finally, Erich Gräßer even thinks that this represents the ‘baptismal con-
fession/creed (Taufbekenntnis)’.48 If this were the case, then some kind of creed
would indeed have existed in the late New Testament period, a claim which is
usually denied in modern patristic scholarship on the subject.49
Let us take a closer look at the biblical text. Two of the mentions of ὁμολογία
in question are closely related to each other (identical words in italics):

Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα
τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν, [. . .].

 Michel 1967, p. 216.

 Fürst 1975, p. 346.
 Koester 2001, p. 250.
 Gräßer 1990, p. 163.
 Cf. above ch. 2.1.3.
68 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Therefore, holy brothers, partners in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high
priest of our confession, [. . .] (Heb 3:1).

Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, κρατῶ-
μεν τῆς ὁμολογίας· [. . .].

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son
of God, let us hold fast to the confession. (Heb 4:14).

In the first passage, the genitive case τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν may mean one of two
things: either Jesus’ as apostle and high priest is the addressee (or object) of ‘our
confession’, or Jesus by virtue of being ‘archpriest’ somehow leads the act of con-
fession (which is then not addressed to him but to God) in some cultic context (in
which case ὁμολογία would be an action noun here). The first explanation ap-
pears intrinsically unlikely because it would be difficult to explain why the ‘con-
fession’ would address Jesus as high priest or why Jesus’ office of high priest
would in some way be contained in the ‘confession’ (for which there are no paral-
lels which is why commentators like Koester usually refer to other acclamations).
Furthermore, in 4:14 it is suggested that we are ‘to hold fast to the confession’,
because we have Jesus as high priest who ‘passed through the heavens’ and is,
therefore, particularly efficient as mediator on our behalf (cf. also 5:1. 3). This
strengthens our argument that Jesus’ being high priest does not relate to an ad-
dress or proposition contained in the confession, but rather refers to his cultic
activity in the context of the believer pronouncing such confession.
A further difficulty is posed in 4:14 by the expression κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολο-
γίας. What precisely does it mean when the readers are told, ‘Let us hold fast to
the confession’? Does it relate to some form of verbal content (such as a formula)
whose veracity we are supposed steadfastly to believe? However, there is no indi-
cation that such formula (in the sense of a – more or less detailed – creed) actu-
ally existed. It is at least equally likely that we are called upon constantly to
repeat our confession. In this case, holding fast to the ὁμολογία in 4:14 could be
an action noun (in line with 3:1), denoting the (repeated) act of confessing which
was probably done in a cultic context. In v. 16 the readers are called upon to ‘ap-
proach the throne of grace with boldness (μετὰ παρρησίας), so that we may re-
ceive mercy and find grace to help in time of need’. The use of παρρησία (cf. also
3:6; 10:19. 35) suggests some kind of ‘bold’ speech act such as an invocation or
prayer. This is strengthened by Heb 13:15:

Δι’ αὐτοῦ [οὖν] ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διὰ παντὸς τῷ θεῷ, τουτέστιν καρπὸν χειλέων
ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.
 4.1 Believing in and confessing God or Christ in the New Testament 69

Through him, [then,] let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of
lips that confess his name.

Here God’s name is confessed in a communal speech act which (taking up Jewish
sacrificial terminology) is called ‘a sacrifice of praise’, i.e. some kind of Christ-
centred prayer or hymn.50
This is confirmed by the third occurrence of ὁμολογία in Hebrews (10:23):

[. . .] κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ, πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος· [. . .].

Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is
faithful.

The context in which ὁμολογία is set here is replete with a clearly cultic vocabu-
lary (cf. esp. the sanctuary mentioned in v. 19 and the purification in v. 22) which
suggests a liturgical setting. However, again, nothing is said about the content of
the ‘confession’ nor is a formula of any kind quoted. Κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν
τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ is almost synonymous with κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας in 4:14.
‘Whithout wavering’ (ἀκλινῆ) does not mean that the words of the confession
must always be the same; rather, we are called upon to stick to the ‘confession of
faith’ without doubting.
All in all, the ὁμολογία mentioned in Hebrews might have been one or sev-
eral prayers, hymns, acclamations, and doxologies which would also account for
its liturgical Sitz im Leben. In contrast to the πίστις,51 there is no indication that
such a homology was in any way connected with baptism.

4.1.3 Conclusions

It seems that by the end of the first century a set of core teachings about their
faith had developed in Christian communities, although no elaborate creeds ex-
isted yet. The stories about Jesus were summarized in brief propositions, as well
as in titles and attributes that were ascribed to him:
– Jesus is Lord (Paul)
– Jesus died and rose again (Paul)
– Through his resurrection Jesus anticipated the general resurrection (Paul)
– Jesus is the Son of God (Johannine corpus)
– Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh (Johannine corpus)

 On the Old Testament background cf. Gräßer 1997, pp. 389–92.

 Cf. above pp. 61 f.
70 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Assenting to these propositions was referred to as ‘faith’ or ‘confession’, the for-

mer relating to an inward trust in and knowledge of the veracity of the salvific
divine actions, the latter emphasizing the public admittance or proclamation of
such a faith. Compared to later creeds, neither God nor the Holy Spirit are explic-
itly mentioned as the object of the faith/confession. Likewise, we find no homolog-
ical statements that could be called trinitarian (although Mt 28:19, albeit not
homological as such, is, of course, triadic). We will have to consider the implica-
tions of this observation in more detail later.
One might, of course, further analyze the evidence for the use of πιστεύειν and
ὁμολογεῖν in the so-called Apostolic Fathers and other writings from later periods.
However, we will instead now direct our attention to the objects of faith and confes-
sion. We have already discerned short theological propositions whose content is to a
certain extent fluctuating. In what follows, we will see that further propositions were
added to this core message in a process of crystallization. However, beforehand, we
should take a closer look at the Sitze im Leben in which this core teaching developed.

4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions

In his seminal article on ‘The confession of faith in primitive Christianity’, Hans

von Campenhausen put forward the hypothesis that initially there were no credal
formulae at all. He suggested that the requirement of confessing Christ ultimately
went back to Christ himself, specifically his saying as recorded in Mt 10:32: ‘Every-
one, therefore, who will confess me before humans, I also will confess before my
Father in the heavens.’52 Initially the precise content of this confession had not
been defined further; yet soon the name of Jesus became associated with certain
christological titles, the most important being (a) ‘Jesus is the Christ’ and (b) ‘Jesus
is the Son of God’. Whereas the title of ‘Christ’ placed Jesus in continuity with Jewish
eschatological expectation, the title of ‘Son of God’ took on its proper significance
against a Hellenistic-pagan background.53 The classical example for (a) is Peter’s
confession in Mk 8:29: ‘He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter an-
swered him, “You are the Christ/Messiah.”’ In its parallel in Mt 16:16 this confession
was extended by the addition of (b). Von Campenhausen rigorously denied that
there was a generic link between these early confessional phrases (which were ex-
pressed by individuals) and acclamations which used the title of ‘Lord’ (kýrios), as

 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 220–4. This chapter is partly based on Kinzig 2013(2017), pp.
296–303.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 224–6.
 4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 71

in his view these had their Sitz im Leben in communal worship.54 However, von
Campenhausen also disputed that the Sitz im Leben of the early Christian confes-
sional phrases was baptism as scholars had hitherto assumed.55 He went so far as
to claim that in actual fact these phrases had no Sitz im Leben at all. Instead, they
were, ‘as it were, everywhere at home’. They formed part of a ‘religious jargon’ em-
ployed in ‘sermons, instructions, prayers, controversies, and edifying conversa-
tions’.56 Whereas initially such early confessional phrases had been ‘signs of a
courageous decision’, they gradually morphed into the ‘firm spiritual possession of
the traditional belief of the community’.57 The technical use of the term ‘confession’
in the Letter to the Hebrews is a sign of this gradual solidification.58
Initially, Christian communities had been able to settle controversies inter-
nally. At the turn of the first to the second century, however, the teaching of doce-
tism which denied the physical reality of Christ’s incarnation threatened the very
existence of Christianity. This is why the author of 1 John emphasized the humanity
of Christ (4:1–3).59 Thus a ‘third, quite polemical confession’ was added to the previ-
ous two which emphasized ‘the reality and the essence’ of the person of Jesus.
‘From now on the further dogmatic development was geared almost exclusively to
such “inner-Christian” oppositions.’60 At the same time, those espousing traditional
beliefs rallied around the confession, which consequently turned into a touchstone
of orthodoxy. Those whose views diverged from it were condemned. Examples of
this new use can be found in 1 and 2 John, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Anti-
och.61 Ignatius was the first to insert historical statements into the confession, state-
ments which served to reinforce the polemical intention that was prompting such
innovation. At the same time, he was the last theologian whose confession included
Jesus Christ only. In their struggle against gnosticism later theologians composed a
dyadic or triadic ‘rule of faith’, which ultimately developed into the Apostles’ Creed
as well as the synodal creeds of the fourth century.62
Despite some criticism,63 von Campenhausen’s article, supplemented by two
further studies on the subject,64 has influenced views on the origin of the early

 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 236 f. This view is criticized by Ritter 1984, pp. 400 f.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 237–43.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), p. 244.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), p. 245.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 245–7.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 250–3.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), p. 253.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 253–70.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 270–2.
 Cf. above n. 54.
 Campenhausen 1975(1979); Campenhausen 1976(1979).
72 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Christian confessions to a considerable degree, in particular in patristic re-

search.65 However, in hindsight its almost evolutionary view of the credal devel-
opment in the New Testament period is too neat to be quite true, although it does
contain important insights into the nature of Christian confession. For example, it
is difficult to imagine that the confession to Christ which made someone a Chris-
tian did not have a distinctive shape from the very beginning. (You had to know
what conversion to Christ actually entailed, even if the lived experience of that
act may have gone beyond what might have been possible to express in words.)
In addition, von Campenhausen’s reluctance to accord the confession a distinct
Sitz im Leben does not take the difference between text and meaning sufficiently
into account. One and the same text (a ‘confession’) may take on different mean-
ings depending on its use in different situations, i.e. Sitze im Leben. If it is true
that early Christian homologies were used in various circumstances (and I think
it is), then we must ask what they could have meant in each of these contexts.
Finally, other texts such as Jn 1 and Col 1:15–20 played a vital role in the formula-
tion of creeds, which von Campenhausen omitted to consider in any detail.
It also appears to me that von Campenhausen slightly downplayed the signifi-
cance of the confession of Christ as an act. Although it may be true that the ‘primor-
dial word (Urwort)’ of Jesus as recorded in Mt 10:32 had left the question as to ‘how
such a confession could be given in a concrete situation’ completely unanswered,66
this answer would have been obvious to his early followers. The simple confession
Christianus sum, ‘I am a Christian’, distinguished those Jews and Gentiles who were
followers of Jesus from those who were not. This distinction took on a critical signif-
icance in terms of (a) worship, (b) mission and conversion, (c) paraenesis and praise,
and (d) martyrdom.67

4.2.1 Worship

Since the claim that Jesus was the saviour of humankind was a religious one, it
influenced worship. Affirmation of his claim had to be expressed in a cultic con-
text, and this was no longer possible within the traditional framework. Unfortu-
nately, we know next to nothing about early Christian worship before the second

 Cf., e.g., Ritter 1984, pp. 400 f.; Staats 1999, pp. 123, 145, 149 f. In New Testament studies James
Dunn’s views now appear to be more influential. Cf. Dunn 2006, ch. III; John Reumann, in Bo-
chinger et al. 1998, cols. 1248 f.
 Campenhausen 1972(1979), pp. 223 f.
 For what follows cf. also Staats 1999, pp. 121–42 whose observations are similar to mine, but
whose conclusions differ. In addition, Cullmann 1949, pp. 18–34; Böttrich 2014, pp. 71–81.
 4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 73

half of the second century.68 The most significant piece of information relevant to
the present discussion stems from a famous letter the governor of Bithynia-
Pontus Pliny the Younger sent to the Emperor Trajan in 111/112. In it Pliny men-
tions the fact that Christians came together at a fixed day before dawn in order
‘to say a carmen responsively to Christ as to a god’ (carmenque Christo quasi deo
dicere secum inuicem).69 Carmen may refer to some kind of poem like a pagan
hymn in praise of gods, a cultic acclamation, or a doxology which may have been
recited or chanted.70 It does not mean that Christ was actually called a god – he
may have been called ‘Lord’ (just as in Acts 4:24b–30 God is addressed as ‘Lord’). Be
that as it may, the worshippers felt that they belonged to Christ (whereas others,
some of them close relatives, did not), and this feeling must have been verbalized
in these religious gatherings by ‘confessing Christ’ in some way.71 Presumably on
such occasions, stories about Jesus and his followers were also told. Letters of mis-
sionaries such as Paul were read out, also helping to inculcate some basic theologi-
cal tenets such as the meaning of Jesus’ passion and resurrection and the nature of
the Church. Concomitantly, there appear to have been attempts to exclude Christi-
ans from traditional Jewish worship, although, again, details are unknown. The
condemnation of the ‘heretics’ in the Eighteen Benedictions (birkat ha-minim) will
also have affected them, although probably not specifically directed against Jewish
Christians.72
At the same time, the withdrawal of Gentile Christians from public cults did
not go unnoticed. One example is the revolt of the silversmiths at Ephesus (Acts
19:21–40) where such withdrawal even had economic repercussions. The old anti-
Jewish slander of misanthropy (odium generis humani)73 was now levelled at the
Christians, because they did not ‘fit in’. In the framework of ancient Mediterra-
nean society such ‘fitting in’ always implied participation in some kind of shared
cultic activity.

 Cf., in general, Salzmann 1994; Löhr 2003, pp. 404–35; Fürst 2008, esp. pp. 24–37; Alikin 2010;
McGowan 2014.
 Pliny, Epistula 10,96. For the background of this letter cf. Kinzig, Christian Persecution, 2021,
pp. 45–9.
 On such pagan hymns cf. Berger 1984, pp. 1149–69; Lattke 1991; Thraede 1994; Berger 2005,
pp. 297–9; as regards acclamations and doxologies cf. Stuiber 1959, esp. cols. 212–15; Berger 1984,
pp. 1372–5; Berger 2005, pp. 290–7; Hermut Löhr in Körting et al. 2013, cols. 1136–9.
 Cf. Salzmann 1994, esp. pp. 196 f.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Nazoraeans’, 2007.
 Cf. Tacitus, Annals 15,44,4.
74 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

4.2.2 Mission and conversion

Unlike the Jews, who also advocated monotheism, but very much kept to them-
selves, the Christians were a missionary religion whose adherents went out into
the streets to convert people to their god. In doing so, they had to explain what
Christianity stood for as opposed to traditional pagan cults, and also to traditional
Judaism. The locus classicus for Christian mission in the New Testament is, of
course, Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16–34). For our purposes, it does
not matter whether it is in fact historical or not (I do not think it is), but the scene
at Athens must have carried some kind of plausibility for readers of the Book of
Acts. Paul, we are told, ‘argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout
persons and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be
there’ (17:17). When he finally addressed the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, he
spoke about God as creator and as fixing a day ‘on which he will have the world
judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed’ (17:31), as well as
about the resurrection of the dead, themes that were to belong to the standard
repertoire of early Christian creeds.
Further instruction was offered to anyone who expressed an interest in the
new religion. Unfortunately, we know nothing about early Christian catechesis.74
The evidence from Acts 8:12–13, 16:31–33, and 18:8 suggests that converts were
probably told about Jesus, his birth, life, death, and resurrection, in catechesis
just as in worship (sometimes the two Sitze im Leben may have been identical).75
At some point, they will have been asked whether or not they wanted to join to
the Christian community.
From the very beginning, this act of actual initiation was baptism. It would,
therefore, be completely natural for baptizands to be asked whether they agreed
to some of the confessional statements they had heard about in catechesis. Al-
though we have no evidence from the first century, credal interrogations prior to
baptism or during the rite of baptism itself were in all likelihood introduced early
on, and we will look at them in some more detail below.76 The baptism of the
wealthy Ethiopian in Acts 8:26–40 is certainly a fictitious account. However, the
secondary addition of a baptismal question that implicitly asked whether the bap-
tizand believed in Christ as the Son of God (8:37: ‘And Philip said, “If you believe
with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the

 One example may be contained in chs. 1–6 of the Didache (early second century). Cf. Kinzig/
Wallraff 2002, esp. p. 336 and n. 12 (literature). In addition, cf. Pasquato/Brakmann 2004, esp.
cols. 425–32; Metzger/Drews/Brakmann 2004, esp. cols. 506–18.
 Cf. Salzmann 1994, p. 463.
 Cf. below ch. 4.5.
 4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 75

Son of God.”’) reflects a reality that could be found early on. There is some evi-
dence to suggest that these baptismal interrogations were triadic in form in some
places (such as Rome).77
At the same time, the use of a triadic baptismal formula as well, such as that
preserved in Mt 28:19 and elsewhere, seems to have been very widespread by the
late first century.78 Indeed, this formula may also have been interrogatory. It may
not only have included faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but may
have been expanded to incorporate further statements on the Trinity, the Church,
and other matters. However, one should not expect a high degree of conformity in
this respect. There are indications that various forms of interrogation were being
used even in a single city. Again, we will consider this in more detail below.79

4.2.3 Paraenesis and praise

Christians who had been baptized were expected to attend the new religion’s reg-
ular gatherings where they were taught further details about their ‘faith’. These
instructions may not have formed part of worship, or the boundaries between
‘classroom lessons’ by the bishop or presbyters and cultic activities, such as litur-
gical chants or prayers, may have been blurred. Unfortunately, no such doctrinal
instructions have come down to us from the first three centuries. (The oldest pre-
served homily, 2 Clement, which may have been written around 150, is ethical in
character.) They were later called ‘mystagogies’ (that is, explanations of the mys-
teries of Christian religion).80
Nonetheless, the New Testament contains some evidence. Passages such as
Rom 10:9–10 and Mt 10:32–33 par. Lk 12:8–9 suggest that exhortations firmly to hold
on to one’s confession even under strong outside pressure were common. ‘Confess-
ing’ in this sense was not identical with warding off erroneous doctrines or false
teachings about Christ.81 Rather, ‘confession’ in this context was required precisely
when one was ordered to deny Christ altogether. Such a denial was not a slight
failure that might easily be overlooked, rather it entailed being excluded from sal-
vation. At the same time paraenesis involving ‘confession’ did have more than an

 Cf. below ch. 4.5.1.

 It is mentioned in Didache 7,1. 3 and in Justin Martyr, Apologia prima 61,3 (FaFo § 104a8). Cf.
also Campenhausen 1971(1979); Kinzig 1999(2017), p. 252.
 Cf. below ch. 4.5.1.
 Cf. below ch. 13.
 The New Testament passages dealing with doctrinal deception (e.g. Mt 24:4. 10; 2Thess 2:2–3;
1Tim 4:1–5; Rev 13) do not use the language of ‘confession’.
76 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

exhortatory function, also serving as a consolation: holding on to Christ meant that

Christ would intercede for the believer in the hereafter (Mt 10:32–33 par. Lk 12:8–9).
Finally, homilies summarizing credal content could also be written in a pane-
gyrical style, thus also taking on a homological character. A homily by Melito of
Sardes (160/170?) may give us an idea of what this looked like, even if it is no mys-
tagogy, but a praise of Easter:

This is the one who made the heaven and the earth,
and who fashioned man in the beginning,
who was proclaimed through the Law and Prophets,
who became flesh in the Virgin,
who was hung upon a tree,
who was buried in the earth,
who was resurrected from the dead,
and who ascended into the heights of the heavens,
who sits at the right hand of the Father,
who has authority to save everything,
through whom the Father created everything from the beginning to the end of the ages.82

4.2.4 Martyrdom

Belonging to the Christian community was no walk in the park. Christians tended
to be marginalized. They were subject to harassment in everyday life. Believers
were even threatened with persecution and martyrdom, depending on the cir-
cumstances. A number of New Testament writings describe situations in which
Christians appear to have lived under constant threat of molestation and denun-
ciation.83 In this context Jesus is quoted as saying,

And I tell you, everyone who confesses me (ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοί) before humans, the Son of
Man also will confess before the angels of God; but whoever denies me (ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός
με) before humans will be denied before the angels of God (Lk 12:8–9; cf. Mt 10:32–33).

Alas, the historical situation into which these words were spoken is not described
in any detail, nor does the passage tell us what this ‘confession’ entails.
However, we find a discussion about its correct interpretation in a fragment
taken from the writings of Heracleon, a follower of the gnostic theologian Valenti-
nus around the middle of the second century. Heracleon comments on Lk 12:8–9
as follows:

 Melito of Sardes, De pascha 104 (FaFo § 107).

 Cf. Mk 8:34–38 parr.; Mt 10:16–33; Lk 12:1–12; 2Tim 2:8–13; Rev 3:5.
 4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 77

The confession (ὁμολογία) is on the one hand that made in faith and conduct (ἐν πίστει καὶ
πολιτείᾳ), on the other hand that made with the mouth. Therefore, confession with the
mouth takes place also before the authorities (ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσίων), and this the multitudes
incorrectly consider to be the only confession (μόνην ὁμολογίαν), for even the hypocrites
can make this confession. But it will be found that this word was not spoken in general
terms. For not all who are saved made the confession by mouth before departing, among
whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. The confession by mouth is not
comprehensive, but only partial (καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ με-
ρική). What is comprehensive (and that is here meant by him [sc. Luke/Jesus]) is the confes-
sion in works and actions which correspond to faith in him (ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι
καταλλήλοις τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως). And this confession is followed by the partial one be-
fore the authorities (ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσίων) if it is necessary and reason requires it. That person
will make the confession by mouth who has previously confessed rightly in disposition (ὁμο-
λογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ, ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει).
And of those who confess, he rightly said ‘in me’ (ἐν ἐμοί). But in the case of those who
deny he added a ‘me’ (τὸ ἐμέ). For even if they confess him with the mouth, they deny him
since they do not confess him in action (τῇ πράξει). Only those who live in conduct and ac-
tion according to him confess ‘in him’ (μόνοι δ’ ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ’ αὐτὸν
πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες). In their case he confesses himself, since he has grasped them,
and is held by them. As a result they can never deny him. For those who are not in him
deny him. For he did not say ‘whoever denies in me’, but ‘me’. For no one who was ever in
him denies him.
‘Before humans’ [means] both before those who are saved and before the Gentiles, be-
fore the former also by conduct, and before the latter also by the mouth (παρ’ οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ
πολιτείᾳ, παρ’ οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ).84

This fragment suggests an ongoing discussion whether a true confession guaran-

teeing salvation might only be possible in the context of a trial or suffering for
one’s faith, including voluntary martyrdom. Against such a suggestion, Heracleon
points out that a number of apostles were not martyred (and yet were no doubt
saved), instead arguing for a more comprehensive understanding of ‘confession’
also encompassing an irreproachable Christian conduct. It is possible that a Chris-
tian confession in court may not lead to salvation if it is not accompanied by cor-
responding behaviour. Incidentally, Heracleon makes no mention of ‘confession’
at baptism or in worship.
The Shepherd of Hermas (s. II/1) presents a more radical argument. In his
view, only a confession made at a trial that is made entirely of one’s own free will
is impeccable whereas a confession made under duress or after some hesitation
is ‘less beautiful’:

 Heracleon, frg. 50 (Brooke) = Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4,9,71–72 (tr. URL <http://www.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/heracleon.html> (Peter Kirby; 06/11/2023; altered)).
78 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

All, he says, who were arraigned before the authority (ἐπ’ ἐξουσίαν) and who did not deny
during interrogation, but willingly (προθύμως) accepted suffering, are more glorious (ἐνδοξ-
ότεροί) in the eyes of the Lord – their fruit is superior. But all who were cowards, and
began to have doubts, and considered in their hearts whether they should deny or confess
(ὁμολογήσουσι) and suffered [in the end] – their fruit is less [beautiful], because this sugges-
tion [i.e. to deny] rose up in their hearts; for the mere suggestion that a slave might deny his
own master is wicked.85

Christians were, therefore, expected to confess Christ willingly, even if this would
lead to harsh reactions by both fellow-Jews and the Roman authorities. Harass-
ment by Jews who did not confess Christ as their messiah is, for example, re-
flected in Jn 12:42–46:

Nevertheless many, even of the authorities (ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων), believed in him. But because
of the Pharisees they did not confess it (οὐχ ὡμολόγουν), for fear that they would be put out
of the synagogue, for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God
(ἠγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Then Jesus
cried aloud, ‘Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. And who-
ever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone
who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.’86

The sequence ‘arraignment before the authorities – confession – glory from/be-

fore God’ is similar in both these examples. Yet in John it is specifically the Phar-
isees who are depicted as the opponents of early Christians because Christianity
was making inroads into the Jewish elite, whereas in the Shepherd it is the Roman
authorities. However, in the view of the author of the Gospel of John these new
(and apparently influential) converts did not confess their faith openly because
they feared social and religious repercussions. In our context it is unimportant
whether or not the author is correct in this assumption – the tensions that arose
within Judaism about the success of the Christian mission were real.87
Any denunciations to the Roman authorities could quickly turn into a life-
threatening situation for those being reported. ‘Confessing Christ’ then often
meant confessing him in court, that is being forced to account for one’s beliefs.
1Tim 6:12–14 which I discussed above88 may belong in such a context. However,
the oldest testimony of a Christian specifically confessing his religion in court oc-
curs in the Acta Iustini, documenting the trial of the Christian philosopher Justin
and seven companions held by the praefectus urbi Quintus Iunius Rusticus in

 Pastor Hermae 105 (= Similitudo IX,28),4. Cf. Michel 1967, p. 217.

 Cf. also Jn 9:22.
 Cf. Kinzig, Christian Persecution, 2021, pp. 9–19.
 Cf. above pp. 64 f.
 4.2 The Sitze im Leben of the earliest Christian confessions 79

Rome around the year 165.89 Rusticus first questioned Justin about the content of
his teachings, whereupon the latter made a confession-like statement that is re-
markable in many respects:

[This is] what we piously hold regarding the God of the Christians: we consider him to be
their only Demiurge of the creation of the whole world from the beginning, and [we also
consider] Jesus Christ to be the servant [or: child] of God (θεοῦ παῖδα); he was also foretold
by the prophets as the one who was to stand by humankind as a herald of salvation and a
teacher of good doctrines.90

Justin then went on to emphasize the importance of Christ (now referring to him
as the Son of God (υἱὸν θεοῦ)). Rusticus concluded the interrogation by saying,
‘Are you a Christian?’ (οὐκοῦν Χριστιανὸς εἶ;) to which Justin clearly answered
positively, ‘Yes, I am a Christian.’ (Ναί, Χριστιανός εἰμι.).91 This confession of
Christ was then repeated in unison by Justin’s companions.
The quoted text is noteworthy not only because the awkward formulations
are reminiscent of Justin’s authentic writings, but also because it is obviously
based on a very ancient Christology.92 It suggests that Christians were questioned
in court about the content of their teachings so as to ascertain if the defendants
were members of a known cult, and thus to determine whether they had commit-
ted a crime. According to the famous rescript by the Emperor Trajan of 111/112,
the steadfast affirmation to be a Christian was sufficient grounds for execution –
there was no need for any other evidence.93
Therefore, Christian confession in the pre-Constantinian Church often sprang
from the status confessionis, an existential situation in which an unequivocal con-
fession of Christ was called for in order not to betray one’s religious identity and
thus to commit apostasy.94 Under interrogation the simple confession Christianus
sum could and did result in execution. The sheer number of references in which
the simple confession of being a Christian in front of the Roman magistrate de-
cided one’s fate is startling, even if we acknowledge that not all texts are as old as
they claim to be.95 These statements were then also extended to include confes-

 Cf. Kinzig, Christian Persecution, 2021, pp. 54 f.

 Acta Iustini et septem sodalium 2,5 (recension A; FaFo § 105a).
 Acta Iustini et septem sodalium 3,4 (FaFo § 105a).
 It falls back on the servant songs of Deutero-Isaiah (Is 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12).
 Cf. Pliny, Epistula 10,97 and Kinzig, Christian Persecution, 2021, pp. 48–9.
 Cf. Ritter 1984, p. 400; Reinhart Staats in Bochinger et al. 1998, cols. 1249 f.; Staats 1999, pp. 123 f.
On apostasy cf. Hornung 2016.
 Cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 10,1; 12,1; Martyrdom of Ptolemaeus and Lucius 11–13. 16–18; Martyr-
dom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice 3; 5; 23; 34; Acts of Justin recension A and B 3,4–4,9 (cf. recen-
sion C 3,5; a whole series of confessions during interrogation by the prefect); recension B 5,7; Letter of
80 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

sions to God as the Creator and/or King of Heaven,96 to Christ as the Saviour,97 or
to the Holy Trinity.98 They also could become the starting point for long apolo-
getic speeches, which were presumably inserted secondarily.
The sources cited above clearly demonstrate that one of the Sitze im Leben of
Christian confession was that of the persecution the pre-Constantinian Church ex-
perienced. The simple confession of Christ later became a hallmark of the Chris-
tian martyr and was mentioned in a number of panegyrical homilies on the
feasts of martyrs.99

4.3 The development of homological building blocks

Confessions in the form of homologies and brief summaries of the Christian faith
could be and were used in very different circumstances, as we saw in the previ-
ous section.100 As a result, they varied enormously, which is why they are so diffi-
cult to grasp. Some time ago, Markus Vinzent described the development of
synodal creeds in the fourth century introducing a ‘building-block model’ to

the Churches of Lyons and Vienne in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5,1,20; Acts of the Scillitan Mar-
tyrs 10; 13; Martyrdom of Apollonius 1–2; Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 3,2; 6,4; Martyrdom of
Pionius 8,2; 15,7; 16,2; 18,6; 20,7; Martyrdom of Fructuosus and Companions 2,3; Martyrdom of Dasius
6,1; 7,2; 8,2; 10,2; Martyrdom of Agape, Irene, and Chione 3,2; Martyrdom of Ignatius (Martyrium Roma-
num) 8,4; cf. also 1Pet 4:16; Acts of John 4, ll. 2–3 (CChr.SA 2, p. 867); Pliny, Epistulae 10,96, 3; 10,97, 1;
Justin Martyr, Apologia prima 11,1; id., Apologia secunda 2,10–11; id., Dialogus cum Tryphone 35,2;
96,2; Tertullian, Ad nationes, e.g., 1,2,1; 1,3,2; id., Apologeticum, e.g., 1,4; 2–3; 49,5; id., De corona 1;
Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum 13; Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 56, 4–5; (Pseudo-)John of Damascus, Mar-
tyrdom of Artemius 24 (PG 96, col. 1273B). In addition cf. Ritter 1984, p. 400; Reinhart Staats in Bo-
chinger et al. 1998, cols. 1249 f.; Staats 1999, pp. 123 f.; Bremmer 2017, pp. 3–12 (a list similar to that
above is given on p. 9 n. 30); Bremmer 2020; and FaFo § 105.
 Cf., e.g., Martyrdom of Apollonius 1–2; Martyrdom of Fructuosus and Companions 2,3–4; Mar-
tyrdom of Pionius 8,2–3; 16,2–4; Acts of Cyprian 1,2; Martyrdom of Dasius 7,2; Acts of Euplus B 2,5–
6; Martyrdom of Ignatius (Martyrium Romanum) 8,4. Cf. Martyrdom of Crispina 1,4. 6–7; Latin
Martyrdom of Phileas 3,4.
 Cf., e.g., Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice 5; Martyrdom of Pionius 16,2–4; Acts
of Euplus B 2,5–6.
 Cf., e.g., Martyrdom of Dasius 8,2; Acts of Euplus B 2,5–6; Acts of Donatus, Venustus, and Her-
mogenes (BHL 2309) 2.
 Cf., e.g., Basil of Caesarea, In sanctos quadraginta martyres 3 (PG 31, col. 512B); 4 (512C); 7 (520C);
Ephraem Syrus, Sermo de martyrio sancti Bonifatii (Phrantzolas 1998, p. 192, l. 10); John Chrysostom,
Homilia in sanctum martyrem Lucianum 3 (PG 50, cols. 524 f.).
 On the terms ‘homology’ and ‘christological summary’ cf. above ch. 1.3.
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 81

which I will return below.101 Mutatis mutandis, this model may also be applied to
the first three centuries. We find brief theological propositions relating to the Trin-
ity (which may or may not have been traditional at the time of their first appear-
ance in written form) from the earliest times onwards. Similar to toy bricks, these
were later assembled in various combinations into larger theological ‘construc-
tions’ such as the regulae fidei (cf. below chapter 4.4), ultimately forming the basis
of the fixed creeds of the fourth century. Confession to Christ within the aforemen-
tioned Sitze im Leben produced a whole range of such ‘building blocks’ (homologies
and summaries of the Christian faith) whose content was later mostly transposed
into the ‘rules of faith’ and creeds. Many of them are found in chapters 3 and 6 of
Faith in Formulae. It should suffice here to highlight a few notable examples.

4.3.1 Homologies and christological summaries in the New Testament

Christians shared traditional Jewish views about God regarding his omnipotence and
eternal being, his oneness, immortality, and invisibility.102 These propositions occur
most frequently in the Gospel of John and in Revelation. In John they form part of an
elaborate reflection on the relationship between God and humankind and between
God and his Word.103 In the Book of Revelation God is addressed as ‘almighty’ (παν-
τοκράτωρ) in a hymnic context which may reflect liturgical tradition.104 A similar
doxological statement is also found in 1Tim 1:17: ‘To the King of the ages, immortal,
invisible, the only God, be honour and glory forever and ever. Amen.’
God was, of course, also considered to be the creator of the world. The pro-
logue to the Gospel of John clearly expresses this idea (Jn 1:1–3), alluding to the ac-
count of Genesis.
Problems arose when the early Christians attempted to fit Jesus’ life and
work into this conceptual framework. From the beginning his status was seen by
most Christians as divine or, at least, closely related to the almighty creator God,
for reasons which we can no longer clearly discern. However, this would, in the
long term, raise the question as to what precisely this relation was.
In the view of the Apostle Paul all that mattered in this respect was to confess
Christ as the Lord and to believe that God had raised him from the dead (Rom

 Cf. below p. 213. On the building-block model (Baukastenmodell), cf. Vinzent 1999, pp. 235–40;
Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, pp. 555 f.
 Cf. the references collected in FaFo, ch. 1.2.1.–1.2.2.
 Cf., e.g., Jn 1:18; 17:3.
 Cf. Rev 1:8; 4:8b; 11:17; 15:3b; 16:7b; 19:6b etc.
82 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

10:9–10).105 He did not yet expect Christians to state publicly that Christ had been
resurrected106 – it sufficed to believe it in one’s ‘heart’. Such confession was in
itself the work of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3b). In 1Cor 15:3–4 Paul enumerates the
core of his teaching in a little more detail than in Rom 10:9–10: he taught the Co-
rinthians ‘that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he
was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the
Scriptures’.
Paul appears to once call Christ ‘God over all’ (Rom 9:5), but this passage is
difficult to interpret. Otherwise he carefully distinguishes between God and the
‘Lord’ Jesus Christ (Rom 16:27; 1Cor 8:6). God is ‘Father’ and creator ‘from whom
are all things and for whom we exist’, whereas Christ is a participator in creation.
He is seen as the ‘one Lord’ ‘through whom are all things and through whom we
exist’ (1Cor 8:6).
In other passages Paul describes the incarnation in greater detail, thus pro-
viding additional material that creeds could and did build upon. Interestingly, the
otherwise highly influential pericope Phil 2:5–11 was rarely used in credal dis-
course and left no trace in the classic creeds, probably because the idea that
Christ had descended to take ‘the form of a slave’ raised all sorts of theological
difficulties which made the text unsuitable to be used in credal formulae aiming
at the widest possible consensus.107 Other Pauline utterances created fewer prob-
lems. In Gal 4:4 Christ is described as God’s Son, sent by the Father and born from
a woman under the Law. Paul also repeatedly mentions the resurrection from the
dead as a central Christian tenet.108 In Rom 8:34 he adds Christ’s sitting ‘at the
right hand of God’. Paul does not mention Christ’s return, but in 2Cor 5:10 he does
refer to the Final Judgement ‘so that each may receive recompense for what has
been done in the body, whether good or evil’ (a passage which was later often
quoted in credal texts109).
Repeatedly, Paul adds the Spirit and thus creates a loose series of God – Lord
(Jesus Christ) – (Holy) Spirit in varying order. In these passages certain attributes
and activities are associated with each respective person of the Trinity:
– 1Cor 12:4–6: varieties of gifts (that different people have) – the same Spirit;
varieties of services – the same Lord; varieties of activities – the same God;
– 2Cor 13:13: grace – Lord Jesus Christ; love – God; communion – Holy Spirit.

 ‘Faith’ and the resurrection are also associated in Rom 4:24.
 The Gospel of John makes a similar distinction: Many people in authority ‘believe’ in Jesus,
but do not ‘confess’ him for fear of being put out of the synagogue (Jn 12:42).
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘“Obedient unto death”’, 2024 (sub prelo).
 Cf. Rom 1:4; 4:24; 6:5; 8:34; 10:9; 1Cor 15:4. 12–13. 21; Phil 3:10–11.
 On the earliest history of the proposition that Christ will come again as judge cf. Löhr 2018.
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 83

A very ornate trinitarian passage occurs in the prescript to the Letter to the Ro-
mans (1:1–4):

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which
he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, [the gospel] concern-
ing his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be
Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead,
Jesus Christ our Lord [. . .].

Here the divine Trinity is closely interwoven with the process of the incarnation
and the resurrection.
Finally, dyadic homologies might also form part of doxologies such as the one
concluding the Epistle to the Romans (16:27):

[. . .] to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ (μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), to
whom be the glory forever! Amen.

However, there is manuscript evidence that this conclusion is secondary.110

The Deutero-Pauline letters contain a series of dyadic summaries, some of them

quite brief (such as 1Tim 2:5–6; 6:13), others extended with additional propositions.
The most important such text is Col 1:15–20:

[15] He [sc. the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation (εἰκὼν τοῦ
θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως); [16] for in him all things in the heavens and
on earth were created, things visible and invisible (τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα), whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers – all things
have been created through him and for him. [17] He himself is before all things, and in him
all things hold together. [18] He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν), so that he might come to have first
place in everything. [19] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [20] and
through him [God] was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in the
heavens, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

The description of the Son as God’s ‘image’ and as ‘first-born of all creation’ in
v. 15 was to play a central role in the trinitarian controversies of the fourth cen-
tury. Likewise, the description of the universe in v. 16 was later often quoted in
one form or other (e.g., in the Creed of Jerusalem111). Finally, v. 17 provided a bib-
lical testimony for the idea of Christ’s pre-existence. Here the summary is ex-
tended to include the Church, the (general) resurrection, and the salvation of the

 Cf., e.g., Dunn 1988, pp. 912–13; Wolter 2019, pp. 503–11.
 Cf. below p. 206.
84 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

entire creation ‘through the blood of his cross’ – which as such were not included
in the creeds, not least, because they might have suggested a universal restoration
which later became highly controversial. Clearly, this elaborate summary is a
product of the author of Colossians (who in turn was copied in Eph 1:20–23).
In addition, the Deutero-Pauline corpus also contains christological summa-
ries, again varying from brief mentions of Christ as risen from the dead (2Tim
2:8) to detailed catalogues. 1Tim 3:16 is one such longer text which mentions incar-
nation and ascension while omitting the passion and resurrection:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our godliness is great:

He was revealed in flesh,
vindicated in spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed in throughout the world,
taken up in glory.

In 2Tim 4:1–2 the author refers to God and Christ Jesus ‘who is to judge the living
and the dead’ as his witnesses when urging readers to proclaim the Christian
message. He also mentions Christ’s epiphany and his kingdom, in passing.
As in 1Cor 12:4–6 and 2Cor 13:13 specific attributes and activities are ascribed
to the Trinity in Ephesians, too:
– Eph 3:14–17: glory – Father; power – Spirit; dwelling in hearts through faith –
Christ;
– Eph 4:4–6: one body – one Spirit; one Lord – one faith – one baptism; one God
and Father of all.
Only in the last instance do we find an association with baptism, yet not in such a
way that the triadic formula as such were connected to baptism. Instead, baptism
is associated with the oneness of faith and of Christ.

When we turn to the synoptic gospels the most important christological formula
is Peter’s confession in Mk 8:29: ‘You are the Christ [ = Messiah]’. Both Matthew
and Luke seem to have this brief homology considered insufficient, because they
both extended it:

Lk 9:20: The Christ [ = Messiah] of God.

Mt 16:16: You are the Christ [ = Messiah], the Son of the living God.

In both these gospels Jesus’ messiahship and his divine origin are emphasized,
albeit in different ways. Matthew goes further than Luke in that process, estab-
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 85

lishing an, as it were, ontological relationship with God. The Book of Acts instead
describes this relationship as a form of appointment by which God ‘made (ἐποίη-
σεν)’ the crucified Jesus ‘both Lord and Christ [ = Messiah]’ (Acts 2:36)112 and calls
upon Cornelius and his circle ‘to preach to the people and to testify that he is the
one ordained (ὡρισμένος) by God as judge of the living and the dead’ (Acts 10:42).
However, in none of the gospels is there any evidence to suggest that the homol-
ogy ‘You are the Christ’ is more than Peter’s individual confession.
The key text in the Johannine writings is the prologue to the Gospel of John
which describes at some length not only the relationship between God and his
Word but also the process of the incarnation (Jn 1:1–18). As we will see below this
was no doubt one of the most influential texts with regards to the formulation of
the first two articles of the creeds.113 In particular, verses 1–5 and 14 were later
quoted or alluded to over and over again:

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2]
He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things came into being through him (πάντα δι᾽
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο), and without him not one thing came into being. [4] In him was life, and the
life was the light (τὸ φῶς) of all people. [5] And the light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness did not overtake it.
[14] And the Word became flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) and dwelt among us, and we have seen his
glory, the glory as of a father’s only-born [son] (μονογενοῦς), full of grace and truth.

In this context it was not the Johannine logos theology which became influential
(the Word is not mentioned in T, N, or C2), but (a) the divine origin of the Word/
Son as the ‘only-born’ (cf. also 1:18; 3:16. 18; 1Jn 4:9), (b) its/his participation in the
creation, (c) the Word’s description as ‘light’, (d) the idea that the Word ‘became
flesh’, and (e) the entire dynamic of the Word’s/Son’s descent as the origin and
beginning of the incarnation.
This prologue in itself is, however, not a confession in the strict sense: it does
not represent a public disclosure of Christian belief by an individual. It is not a
‘faith text’ either: readers are not asked to ‘believe’ in it. Rather, it is an elaborate
narration – which shows that the transitions between genres are fluent because
the confessions or credal texts were always based on narrations of ‘historical’
events.114 By contrast, in Jn 6:69 the author of that gospel mentions a brief homol-
ogy which he puts into the mouth of Simon Peter: ‘We have come to believe and

 Yet elsewhere he also calls him ‘Son of God’ (cf. Lk 22:70). Cf. also the secondary addition
Acts 8:37.
 Cf. below ch. 6.4.4. and p. 621.
 This is even true in the case of the confession in court ‘I am a Christian’ (cf. above p. 79)
because it presupposes the Christ story.
86 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

know that you are the Holy One of God.’ This strongly resembles Mk 8:29 parr.,
but both Jesus’ title and the wording of the homology here (πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ
ἐγνώκαμεν) differ from the synoptic version (which is why some textual wit-
nesses have tried to harmonize the Johannine with the synoptic text). Further-
more, John also draws a sharp distinction between Peter’s confession and the
betrayal of Judas (vv. 70–1)115 and, therefore, does not necessarily use a tradi-
tional liturgical invocation.116
Jesus’ address to the Father in Jn 17 also contains a brief dyadic homology:
‘And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom you have sent’ (17:3).

When we turn to the remaining writings of the New Testament, Heb 1:2–3 is a
most influential text:

[. . .] but in these last days God has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all
things, through whom he also created the ages (δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας). He is the
radiance of God’s glory and the express image of God’s hypóstasis (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ), and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he
had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [. . .].

The author first names Christ as a divine heir (clearly alluding to the relation of a
Roman emperor and his sons). He then names the cooperation of God and his Son
in creation and describes the relation between God and his Son as ‘radiance’ and
‘express image’, terms which were often quoted in the fourth century. He also
uses the term ὑπόστασις whose precise meaning here and elsewhere in Hebrews
(3:14; 11:1) is difficult to ascertain,117 but later became one of the keywords in trin-
itarian theology to describe the divine persons. Again, we are dealing with a text
that is, in principle, the narration of a divine ‘event’, but which may nonetheless
easily be condensed into confessional/credal propositions.
An extended dyadic homology occurs in 1Pet 3:21–22:118

Baptism, which this [sc. the great flood] prefigured, now saves you – not as a removal of
dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience (συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερ-

 Cf. Keener 2003(2012), p. 697.

 In 9:22; 11:27 John also mentions the Christ confession; cf. above p. 62. Cf., in addition, 1Jn
2:22.
 Cf., e.g., the discussion in Köster 1972(1995), pp. 585–8. Köster suggests for 1:3: ‘the actuality
of the transcendent reality, i.e. God’ (p. 585).
 Cf. also FaFo § 81.
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 87

ώτημα εἰς θεόν), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is
at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

Here the christological section mentions the resurrection, ascension, and sitting
at the right hand of God. The homology is combined with a mention of baptism,
but this association remains rather vague and allows no conclusions concerning
baptismal practice.
The Epistle of Jude concludes with an extended dyadic homology which is, at
the same time, doxological in character and as such closely resembles Rom 16:27:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to make you stand without blemish in
the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ
our Lord (μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν), be glory, majesty,
power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen (Jude 24–25).

Here only God is called ‘Saviour’; furthermore, nowhere in Jude is Christ called
divine, though the transfer of the title of ‘Lord’ in Jude 14 implies the divine name
is being transferred to him. In Jude Christ may be seen as some kind of divine
mediator through whom the community can direct their praise to God.119

Contrary to what one may think, triadic homologies which form the basis of the
majority of creeds from the fourth century onwards are fairly rare in the New
Testament. The few instances in the Pauline and Deuteropauline letters have
been mentioned above.
Peter’s address to the crowd at Pentecost as reported in Acts 2:32–33 contains
another example:

This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the
right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
has poured out this that you [both] see and hear.

Here the trinitarian statement is combined with the events at Pentecost: ascension
to God’s right hand – promise of the Holy Spirit – outpouring.
Another passage which likewise combines the Trinity with the divine econ-
omy (passion – eschatological restoration) is found in 1Pet 3:18:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to
bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit [. . .].

 On the problems of interpretation cf. Bauckham 1990, pp. 29–37.

88 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Yet the spirit which is mentioned here may not primarily refer to the ‘Holy
Spirit’,120 but rather to Christ’s human spirit121 because of the opposition to the
‘flesh’ (although there is, of course, an intimate connection between the two).
The most famous example of a triadic homology is the Great Commission in
Mt 28:19:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them upon the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit (βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ
τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος).

Here confession of the triune God and baptism seem to be closely connected, but
it is not said what ‘baptism upon the name’ means in liturgical terms. Does it
refer to a formula spoken by the priest (‘I baptize you upon the name . . .’) or
does it refer to one or three baptismal questions: ‘Do you believe in . . .?’, followed
by one or three baptismal immersions (with or without a formula)? All these pos-
sibilities were actually practised in the first centuries. There are good reasons to
think that the words ‘baptizing them upon the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit’, at least, are actually fairly late.122 The Didache (110–120?) twice
mentions baptism ‘upon the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’123
which is identical with the formula in Mt 28:19. It is a matter of debate whether
the author of the Didache quotes the Gospel of Matthew or vice versa or whether
both authors draw from a common (liturgical?) tradition.
Taken together, the New Testament evidence of a confusing plethora of state-
ments suggests that there were many ways to express one’s faith, but that the em-
phasis lay mostly on some kind of confession to Christ. Extended versions of these
homologies could include Christ’s part in creation, the descent, incarnation, cruci-
fixion, resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father, parousia, and
Final Judgement in varying forms, depending on context. These elements were
sometimes combined with a dyadic confession. By contrast, triadic homologies are
rare and by no means uniform.
However, this evidence means that when creeds came to be created one would
have expected a formula centred on Christ (including some or all of the aforemen-
tioned elements) and perhaps some reference to God/the Father. Yet right from the

 Cf., e.g., Feldmeier 2008, p. 201 n. 168.

 Cf., e.g., Elliott 2000, pp. 646 f.
 I can leave it open here whether one might consider the clause a later addition (which in the
view of Ulrich Luz ‘is, appropriately, scarcely advocated any more’; cf. Luz 2005, p. 617 and n. 15) or
whether this points to a late date of the entire gospel (which Luz, on inconclusive evidence, dates to
not long after the year 80; cf. Luz 2007, pp. 58 f.).
 Didache 7,1. 3 (FaFo § 97).
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 89

beginning the ‘classic’ creeds start with the Father, describing his creative activity
(which plays no prominent role in the New Testament, except for Jn 1:1–3 and Col
1:15–20). Nor is it helpful to postulate a reference to the baptismal formula, since we
do not know at what point the triadic formula became widespread as part of that
ritual.124
In the following chapters we will, therefore, consider the reasons why, in the
end, a triadic/trinitarian structure was chosen for the formulation of most creeds.

4.3.2 Dyadic and triadic homologies in the second and third centuries

Dyadic and triadic homologies continued to be produced unabatedly in extracanon-

ical literature from the late first to the third centuries. First Clement, probably writ-
ten at the end of the first century, contains not only dyadic,125 but also two brief
triadic homologies, one emphasizing the oneness of God, Christ, and Spirit, the
other affirming: ‘God lives, the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and [also] the Holy Spirit’.126
Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon (first quarter of the second century?) starts by
mentioning a ‘cup of milk offered to me’ which the author drank ‘in the sweetness
of the Lord’s kindness’ (19,1). The cup and milk are then described as follows:

The Son is the cup,

and he who was milked, the Father,
and [the one] who milked him, the Spirit of holiness.127

Ode 23 concludes with a passage relating to the ‘great tablet that was entirely cov-
ered with writing by the finger of God’ (23,21):

And the name of the Father was upon it,

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
to reign as king forever and ever.
Hallelujah.128

 Cf., e.g., the discussion in Campenhausen 1971(1979); Kinzig/Wallraff 2002, pp. 332–56; Fergu-
son 2009, pp. 132–8; Labahn 2011, esp. pp. 355–7; Hartman 2011; Wischmeyer 2011, esp. pp. 750 f.;
Lindemann 2011, esp. pp. 774 f.; Rouwhorst 2022, col. 986. A list of triadic baptismal formulae is
given in Campenhausen 1971(1979), pp. 208–12.
 Cf. below p. 123.
 First Clement 46,6; 58,2 (FaFo § 93).
 Odes of Solomon 19, 2 (Lattke 2009, p. 268).
 Odes of Solomon 23, 22 (Lattke 2009, p. 325).
90 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Ode 19 may call to mind the eucharist or some kind of ‘milk sacrament’, but the
connection is tenuous.129 The passage from Ode 23 resembles Mt 28:19 and Didache
7,1. 3, but makes no explicit connection to baptism. However, neither of these pas-
sages is, strictly speaking, homological. In the first instance we are dealing with an
allegory, whereas the second passage strongly resembles a doxology.
By contrast, the homologies in the Preaching of Peter (s. II/1?) are dyadic, pri-
marily affirming God’s transcendence and creative activity.130 Tertullian ascribes
a similar brief formula to the modalist Praxeas who is supposed to have said ‘that
one cannot believe [sic] the one God in any other way than by saying that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same’.131
The apocryphal Epistle of the Apostles from about 150 contains an extensive
description of God’s majesty and creative activity and goes on to mention the in-
carnation of the Son of God and Word ‘through the holy virgin Mary’.132 In a later
passage the author describes the feeding of the five thousand. The five loaves (Mk
6:38 parr.; Jn 6:9) are then given a symbolic interpretation (my numbering):

They are a picture [or: symbol] of our faith, which concerns the great Christianity,133 which is
(I) in the Father, the Ruler of the entire world,
(II) in Jesus Christ our Saviour,
(III) in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete,
(IV) in the holy Church,
(V) and in the remission of sins.134

Here the persons of the Trinity are each given additional attributes. God: Father,
omnipotence; Jesus Christ: Saviour; Holy Spirit: Paraclete. But then a fourth and a
fifth element are added because the Church and the remission of sins are also ob-
ject of our faith. It is a matter of debate whether this was prompted by the need to
provide a symbolic interpretation of the five loaves or whether, on the contrary, a
given five-fold rule of faith (or creed?) was applied to the number of the loaves.135

 Cf. Lattke 2009, p. 270.

 Cf. Praedicatio (Kerygma) Petri, frgs. 2a and 2b (Mara; FaFo § 94a, b).
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,3 (FaFo § 110c).
 Epistula Apostolorum 3(14; FaFo § 103a).
 The passage ‘which concerns the great Christianity’ is textually uncertain; cf. discussion in
Hills 1990, pp. 62–4.
 Epistula Apostolorum 5(16; FaFo § 103b).
 Cf. the views supporting either side cited in Hills 1990, pp. 60–5. Hills himself offers a conjec-
ture for the difficult Ethiopic text. Instead of ‘a picture of our faith which concerns the great Chris-
tianity’ he reads ‘a picture of our faith for baptized Christians’ and concludes: ‘If this is so, then
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 91

Triadic homologies are also found in the writings of Justin Martyr (d. 165). In
his Roman congregation they were used both at baptism and at the eucharist, as
the following passages from his First Apology (after 153) show:

Then they are brought by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in
the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, at the name of God, the
Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (ἐπ᾿
ὀνόματος τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου), they then receive the washing with water [cf. Mt 28:19].136
[. . .] in the water the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe (τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς
τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ ὄνομα) is pronounced over the one who chooses to be born
again and has repented of his sins; the one who leads to the laver the person that is to be
washed invokes [God] by this name alone. For no one has the right to give a name of the
ineffable God; and if anyone might dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless
madness. This washing is called ‘illumination’ (φωτισμός) because they who learn these
things are illuminated in their understandings. Anyone who is illuminated is also washed
upon the name of Jesus Christ (ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), who was crucified under Pon-
tius Pilate, and upon the name of the Holy Spirit (ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος πνεύματος ἁγίου), who
through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus.137
Then bread and a cup [of wine] mixed with water are brought to the president of the
brethren; and taking them, he sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe,
through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος
τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου) [. . .].138

It seems that the baptismal formula used by Justin’s congregation at Rome contained
an extended version of Mt 28:19/Didache 7,1. 3. Its first element is identical in both
quotations so must have run like this: ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσ-
πότου θεοῦ (‘at/upon the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe’). Justin
even provides a reason for this extension. Christians were not allowed to pronounce
God’s name, clearly following Jewish custom (indeed, Christians probably did not
even know how to pronounce it139), which is why God must be described by enumer-
ating his status and activity: he is the ‘Father and Lord of the universe’.140 It must
be noted that God’s fatherhood relates to the universe, not to Christ. Christ, in turn,
is called ‘Son’ neither in the first nor in the second passage (although Justin does

“faith” here means, not “trust”, “confidence”, or the like, but “that which is believed”, approximat-
ing to a “rule of faith” or “canon of truth”’ (Hills 1990, p. 64).
 Justin, Apologia Prima 61,3 (FaFo § 104a8).
 Justin, Apologia Prima 61,10–3 (FaFo § 104a9).
 Justin, Apologia Prima 65,3 (FaFo § 104a10).
 There was considerable confusion among the Church Fathers concerning the tetragramm-
aton’s pronunciation (by which God was not usually addressed, following Jewish custom); for de-
tails cf. Kinzig 2008.
 Cf. also Justin, Apologia Prima 44,2.
92 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

call him thus in the third passage and elsewhere). Unfortunately, we do not know
whether the second and third element of the triad were also extended in the actual
baptismal formula, because Justin’s quotations of it in his writings differ from each
other. Finally, the last passage shows that triadic formulae were used not only at
baptism, but also during the eucharist in doxological fashion.
Justin quotes triadic homologies quite frequently in his First Apology. To give
one further example:

Therefore, what sober-minded person will not acknowledge [. . .] that we are not atheists,
since we worship the maker of this universe (τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντός). We will
make known Jesus Christ, our teacher of these things, who also was born for this purpose
and was crucified under Pontius Pilate (who was procurator of Judaea in the times of Tiber-
ius Caesar); we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, and we hold him in
the second place and the prophetic Spirit in the third, because we honour him along with
the Word [or: according to reason, μετὰ λόγου].141

Justin obviously mentions Pilate in order to pinpoint the precise date of the cruci-
fixion (and thus of Christ’s activity).142 Interestingly, he does not blame Pilate for
the crucifixion which he attributes to the Jews.143
In the above-quoted summaries Justin says little about the Holy Spirit, except
that he is ‘prophetic’ – a standard epithet in his writings for the Spirit speaking
through the prophets – and that he ‘through the prophets foretold all things
about Jesus’; nor does he mention the Church or remission of sins.
A very elaborate description of the activities of God and Christ (who are in
fact identified with each other) is found in the Paschal Homily by Melito of Sardes
(160/170?). It contains the following tenets: creation of the world and of humankind –
proclamation through the Law and the Prophets – virgin birth – crucifixion –
burial – resurrection – ascension – sitting at the right hand of the Father – salva-
tion – participation in the creation.144
Origen (d. 254) summarizes the basic teachings which all Christians are sup-
posed to believe at the beginning of his work On First Principles (after 220), in his
Commentary on John (c. 241–243), and his Commentary on Matthew (before 253).
In On First Principles (which has been preserved in its entirety only in Latin in an
adapted translation by Rufinus), he repeatedly calls this the ‘apostolic preaching’

 Justin, Apologia Prima 13,1–3 (FaFo § 104a2). Cf. also 6,2 (§ 104a1); 67,2 (§ 104a11).
 Cf. also Justin, Apologia Prima 46,1; Apologia Secunda 5,6; Dialogus cum Tryphone 30,3; 76,6;
85,2 (FaFo § 104b3) and below pp. 97–9, 135 f.
 Cf., e.g., Justin, Apologia Prima 35,6.
 Cf. Melito, De Pascha 104 (FaFo § 107); the text is quoted above p. 76.
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 93

(praedicatio apostolica) or ‘preaching of the Church’ (ecclesiastica praedicatio).145

This text gives not a brief rule which could somehow be memorized, but a lengthy
description of a variety of doctrines that also embrace the nature of the soul, free
will, the devil, the transience of the world, the divine origin of the Scriptures, the
interpretation of the Law, and other topics.
By contrast, the second passage from the Commentary of John is more suc-
cinct. However, before we study it, we must first take a step back and look once
more at a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas (s. II/1?):

First of all, believe that there is one God [cf. Jas 2:19] who created and ordered all things [cf.
Eph 3:9], brought all things into being out of nothing (ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ
πάντα) [cf. 2Macc 7:28; Wis 1:14], and who alone is able to contain all things, but cannot himself
be contained. Therefore have faith in him and fear him; and fearing him, exercise self-con-
trol.146

Here God’s oneness, his creative activity, and his transcendence are emphasized
in a manner similar to the Preaching of Peter. Yet there is a new element: the cre-
ation from nothing. The passage ‘that there is – out of nothing’ was later quoted
by Irenaeus.147
Origen bases the beginning of his summary in his Commentary on John on this
quotation from the Shepherd, which he had already drawn upon in the above-
mentioned passage in On First Principles when he went on to describe the God of
the patriarchs.148 In the present passage, Origen immediately adds a christological
as well as a pneumatological section:

First of all, believe that there is one God [cf. Jas 2:19] who created and ordered all things [cf.
Eph 3:9] and brought all things into being out of nothing [cf. 2Macc 7:28; Wis 1:14].
It is necessary also to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord [cf. 1Cor 12:3 etc.] and [to believe]
in all the true teaching concerning his godhead and humanity.
It is also necessary to believe in the Holy Spirit and that, being free agents (αὐτεξούσιοι
ὄντες), we are both punished for what we have done wrong and rewarded for what we
have done well.149

Once again we see an extended triadic summary which, however, differs from
the aforementioned examples:

 Cf. Origen, De principiis 1 praef. 4–8, 10 (FaFo § 116a).

 Pastor Hermae 26 (= Mandatum I),1–2 (FaFo § 100).
 Cf. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1,22,1 (FaFo § 109b4).
 Cf. Origen, De principiis 1 praef. 4 (FaFo § 116a).
 Origen, Commentarii in Iohannem 32,16,187–189 (FaFo § 116b).
94 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

God: oneness – creation of the universe – creation from nothing;

Jesus Christ: Lord – teaching concerning godhead and humanity;
Holy Spirit: eschatological rewards and punishment as a result of human
free will.
By contrast another summary contained in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew,
which, again, has only been preserved in a Latin translation, looks much more
‘traditional’ (my numbering):

Certain people, however, do not disagree with the public and conspicuous articles (de publi-
cis quidem et manifestis capitulis), for example,
(I) concerning the one God who gave the Law and the Gospel,
(II) or concerning Christ Jesus, the first-born of all creation (primogenito uniuersae crea-
turae) [cf. Col 1:15], who came into the world [cf. Jn 3:19] at the end of the age according to
the proclamations of the prophets and took upon himself the true nature of the human
flesh such that he even underwent birth from the Virgin; he accepted death on the cross,
rose from the dead, and deified the human nature which he had assumed (deificauit, quam
susceperat, humanam naturam).
(III) Furthermore they also believe with the greatest certitude concerning the Holy Spirit,
since he who was subsequently given in the apostles was himself in the patriarchs and
prophets;
(IV) and [they believe] concerning the resurrection from the dead, as the Gospel teaches,
and everything that is handed down in the churches.150

Here the author adds to God’s oneness his function as Law-giver and revealer of the
Gospel. The christological section contains the following attributes of Christ: ‘first-
born’ – virgin birth – crucifixion and death – resurrection – ascension (‘deification’).
As regards the Holy Spirit, Origen emphasizes the identity of the Spirit active in the
patriarchs and prophets with that active in the apostles. Finally, the resurrection
and the other doctrines of the Church are added at the end.
In the Dialogue with Heraclides (244/249) when Origen presses his interlocu-
tor, a defender of monarchianism, as to the divine nature of Christ, the latter
takes recourse to tradition (a strategy for which he is subsequently rebuked) and
offers a dyadic summary:

But we say that God is the Almighty, God unbegun, unending, encompassing the universe
and being encompassed by nothing; and that his Word is the Son of the living God [Mt
16:16], God and man, ‘through whom all things came into being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6], both God
according to the spirit and man according to his birth from Mary.151

 Origen, In Matthaeum commentariorum series 33 (FaFo § 116c).

 Origen, Dialogus cum Heraclide 2 (FaFo § 120b).
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 95

Here Heraclides mentions God’s omnipotence, eternity, and transcendence which

again calls to mind the Shepherd of Hermas (although he does not quote him ver-
batim). However, he then goes on to describe the Word/Son in a way which is
both traditional (participation in creation, birth from Mary) and innovative: dual
nature God/man. Heraclides thus blends traditional credal building blocks with
his own theology, as the occasion requires.152
Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) offers a dyadic summary in a letter arguing
against Marcionite docetism which includes:
God: Father – Creator
Son/Christ: virgin birth – incarnation – bearing of sins – death – bodily resur-
rection – appearance to disciples.153
Adamantius, the author of an anti-gnostic dialogue (who, according to Ramelli, is
perhaps identical with Origen154), describes his faith as follows (I quote the Latin
version by Rufinus which differs from the existing Greek version and may in fact
be closer to the original Greek text):

I believe that there is one God, Creator and establisher (creatorem et conditorem), and his
Word, consubstantial and coeternal with him (consubstantiuum ei et coaeternum). In the
last days [cf. Heb 1:2] this Word, after having taken on human nature from the virgin Mary,
was born as man, was crucified, and rose again from the dead. Likewise I also believe [sic]
the Holy Spirit, which is coeternal with the Father and the Son. This is my faith.155

This is in some respects a peculiar text. On the one hand, only the Father is called
‘God’, whereas, on the other hand, the christological and pneumatological sec-
tions are extended in such a way that both the Word/Son (who is consubstantial
with God) and the Spirit are described as coeternal with the Father. By contrast,
in the existing Greek text ‘God the Word’ is called ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) and
‘forever existing’ (ἀεὶ ὄντα). Likewise, the Spirit is only called ‘forever existing’.
Further research into the textual history of this treatise is necessary in order to
explain this summary and its different versions.
The final text in this section comes from the Tractatus tripartitus, a document
of Valentinian gnosticism which is only preserved in Coptic and may have been
composed in the third century:

 Two extensive credal statements which tradition ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270/
275) need not detain us here, because the first one, whether or not it is written by Gregory, is an
elaborate individual creed describing the Trinity in highly sophisticated metaphysical language
(Confessio fidei (FaFo § 117)), whereas the second is most certainly inauthentic (Council of Ephe-
sus, Collectio Vaticana 170 (Gregorii Thaumaturgi qui feruntur anathematismi; FaFo § 118)).
 Cf. Cyprian, Epistula 73, 5,2 (FaFo § 122d).
 Cf. Ramelli, ‘De recta in Deum fide’, 2018.
 Adamantius, De recta in deum fide (FaFo § 128).
96 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

As for the baptism which exists in the fullest sense, into which the Totalities will descend and
in which they will be, there is no other baptism apart from this one alone, which is the re-
demption into God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when confession is made through faith in
those names, which are a single name of the gospel; when they have come to believe what
has been said to them, namely that they exist. From this they have their salvation, those who
have believed that they exist. This is attaining in an invisible way to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit in an undoubting faith. And when they have borne witness to them, it is also with a
firm hope that they attained them, so that the return to them might become the perfection of
those who have believed in them and [so that] the Father might be one with them, the Father,
the God whom they have confessed in faith and who gave [them] their union with him in
knowledge.156

This text is opaque in many ways, but it does become clear that again faith in,
and confession of, the Trinity precedes baptism which may have been performed
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet once more we are not
told what this confession looked like in practice.

4.3.3 Christological summaries in the second and third centuries

Christological summaries are texts that condense the story of the incarnation,
passion, and resurrection of Christ. A fragment from the Preaching of Peter con-
tains such a christological summary, mentioning Christ’s ‘coming, death, cross,
and all the other tortures which the Jews inflicted on him, his resurrection, and
assumption into the heavens’.157 Such summaries are also found elsewhere.158
They occur several times in the writings attributed to Ignatius of Antioch (tradi-
tional date: 110–118 or slightly later). Ignatius is a particularly tricky case because
the writings attributed to him survive in various recensions of differing length. In
addition, their authenticity has been questioned in recent years.159 Assuming, as
had been the consensus, that the middle version of these letters is authentic (but
which it need not be), the summary in the Epistle to the Magnesians deserves at-
tention, not least because it mentions Pontius Pilate:

 Tractatus tripartitus (NHC I,5), pp. 127, l. 25 – 128, l. 19 (FaFo § 130).
 Praedicatio (Kerygma) Petri frg. 9 (Mara; FaFo § 94c).
 Cf., e.g., Ascension of Isaiah 3,18 (FaFo § 95a): resurrection, cross, ascension (in this order);
here combined with Mt 28:19.
 Cf. recently Vinzent 2019, pp. 266–464; Vinzent 2023, pp. 248–324. Brent 2018 is more
conservative.
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 97

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not because I know any of you to be in such a
state, but [because], as less than you, I desire to protect you beforehand, that you might not
fall upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you might rest assured in regard to the birth,
passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate
(ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου), being truly and firmly accomplished by Jesus
Christ, who is our hope [1Tim 1:1]. May none of you ever be turned aside from him.160

A very similar summary of the incarnation is found in the Epistle to the Trallians:

Stop your ears, therefore, when anyone speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who
was descended from David and was also from Mary; who was truly born, and both ate and
drank; he was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate (ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου); he was truly
crucified and died in the sight of beings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. He was
also truly raised from the dead, his Father raising him up; whose Father will also after the
same manner raise up in Jesus Christ us who believe him [cf. 2Cor 4:14], apart from whom
we do not possess the true life.161

The third such text occurs in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you
have been furnished with an immovable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ both in flesh and in spirit, and [that] you have been established in love through
the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded about our Lord, that he was truly of the ancestry
of ‘David according to the flesh’ [Rom 1:3] [and that he was] the Son of God according to the
will and power of God; that he was truly born from a virgin, was baptized by John in order
that all righteousness might be fulfilled [cf. Mt 3:15] by him; and that under Pontius Pilate
and Herod the tetrarch (ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ Ἡρώδου τετράρχου) he was truly nailed
[to the cross] for us in his flesh. Of this fruit we [exist] by his divinely blessed passion so
that through [his] resurrection he might forever raise up a standard [cf. Is 5:26; 49:22; 62:10]
for all his holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of
his Church.162

Taking a stance against docetic views, (Pseudo-)Ignatius places the emphasis

firmly on the factuality of these events by repeatedly using the adverb ἀληθῶς
(‘truly’) and naming Pontius Pilate (and Herod) as historical guarantors of this fac-
tuality.163 If genuine, this is the first mention of the crucifixion under Pontius Pi-
late in a credal context. (1Tim 6:13 refers to Christ’s confession before Pilate.)

 (Pseudo-)Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magnesios (middle version) 11 (FaFo § 98b2a).

 (Pseudo-)Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trallianos (middle version) 9,1–2 (FaFo § 98c1).
 (Pseudo-)Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrnaeos (middle version) 1,1–2 (FaFo § 98e1).
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 150.
98 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

However, it would then also be the only mention of Pilate in a christological sum-
mary from the eastern part of the empire before the fourth century – otherwise
the mention of Pilate is typical of the western tradition164 – which strongly sug-
gests that this text was not written (or revised) before the fourth century, in
which case Justin is the oldest witnesses for this clause in credal texts.165
We are on firmer ground with the Letter to the Philippians by Polycarp of
Smyrna, written perhaps around the middle of the second century. Polycarp also
offers us a christological summary which is seen as core Christian belief:

‘Therefore, girding up your loins’ [1Pet 1:13], ‘serve the Lord in fear’ [Ps 2:11] and truth, forsak-
ing the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and believing in him who raised up our
Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory [cf. 1Pet 1:21] and a throne at his right
hand, to whom all things in heaven and on earth are subject [cf. 1Pet 3:22; Phil 2:10], to whom
every spirit is subservient, who comes as the ‘judge of the living and the dead’ [Acts 10:42],
whose blood God will require from those who do not believe in him [cf. Lk 11:50–51].166

Polycarp does not mention the passion here, but there are the well-known ele-
ments resurrection – ascension – sitting at the right hand – coming again – Last
Judgement.
Justin also repeatedly quotes christological summaries. It may suffice here to
cite one such example. In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin quotes his Jewish oppo-
nent as saying:

It remains, then, to prove clearly that he submitted to be born through the Virgin as a
human, according to the will of his Father, to be crucified, and to die. Prove also that after
these things he rose again and ascended into heaven.167

Justin’s summaries168 mostly contain the following elements as a minimum: Son/

Word/Christ – virgin birth – crucifixion (under Pontius Pilate) – death – resurrec-
tion – ascension. The parousia is mentioned in only three passages, all from the
Dialogue;169 the Final Judgement only once.170 In addition, Jesus is sometimes de-

 Cf. Justin Martyr, Apologia prima 13,3 (FaFo § 104a2); 61,13 (§ 104a9); id., Dialogus cum Try-
phone 85,2 (§ 104b3); Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,2 (§ 109b7); Armenian frg. 2 (§ 109c1; authen-
ticity uncertain); Tertullian, De uirginibus uelandis 1,4(3; § 111c). Possible exception: Didascalia
apostolorum 26,8 (§ 121) for which cf. below in the text. In addition, cf. Staats 1987, p. 508.
 Cf. the references in the previous footnote and above p. 92.
 Polycarp, Epistula ad Philippenses 2,1 (FaFo § 102).
 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 63,1 (FaFo § 104b2).
 Cf. also Justin, Apologia prima 21,1 (FaFo § 104a3); 31,7 (§ 104a5); 42,4 (§ 104a6); 46,5 (§ 104a7);
id., Dialogus cum Tryphone 38,1 (§ 104b1); 85,1–2 (§ 104b3); 126,1 (§ 104b4); 132,1 (§ 104b5).
 Cf. Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 38,1 (FaFo § 104b1); 126,1 (§ 104b4); 132,1 (§ 104b5).
 Cf. Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 132,1 (FaFo § 104b5).
 4.3 The development of homological building blocks 99

scribed as ‘teacher’171 and as a healer and miracle worker.172 By contrast, Christ’s

sitting at the right hand is nowhere mentioned. In the end, however, Justin pro-
vides no information as to whether these summaries were used in catechesis or
other contexts.
The aforementioned Heraclides first quotes Jn 1:1–3 in the credal statement
which opens his debate with Origen. But he then expresses agreement with ‘the
faith’, apparently a kind of summary of faith used in his congregation:

Thus we agree with the faith (τῇ πίστει συμφερόμεθα) and accordingly we also believe that
Christ took flesh, that he was born, that he ascended into the heavens in the flesh in which
he rose again, that he sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come and ‘judge
the living and the dead’ [2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5], [as] God and man.173

Here we have, basically, another christological summary consisting of incarna-

tion – birth – resurrection (in the flesh) – ascension (in the flesh) – sitting at the
right hand of the Father – parousia and Last Judgement. The addition ‘God and
man’ is perhaps not traditional because Christ’s precise nature is the subject of
the debate that ensued afterwards.
Although the body of the Didascalia apostolorum belongs to the third century,
the framing chapters were probably written in the fourth century.174 A later date
would also fit the observation that the christological summary in the Didascalia
mentions Pontius Pilate who does not appear in the eastern tradition until the
fourth century.175 (It is probably first attested in the Creed of Jerusalem which is
of western origin.176)
A summary very similar to that of Heraclides is found in a letter by Bishop
Dionysius of Alexandria (sedit 247/248–264/265) to Bishop Stephen of Rome (sedit
254–257):

Or if a man receive not all the mystery of Christ, or alter and distort – [saying] that he is not
God, or that he did not become a man, or that he did not die, or that he did not rise, or that
he will not come to judge the living and the dead [cf. 2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5] – or preach anything
else apart from what we preached, let him be a curse, says Paul [cf. Gal 1:8].177

 Cf. Justin, Apologia prima 21,1 (FaFo § 104a3); 23,2 (§ 104a4).
 Cf. Justin, Apologia prima 31,7 (FaFo § 104a5).
 Origen, Dialogus cum Heraclide 1 (FaFo § 120a).
 Cf. Stewart-Sykes, Didascalia apostolorum, 2009, pp. 49–55; Benga 2018.
 Cf. Didascalia apostolorum 26,8 (FaFo § 121).
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022, p. 196.
 Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistula V 1 (Feltoe; FaFo § 124a).
100 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

We again encounter the series: Christ’s divinity – incarnation – death – resurrec-

tion – parousia – Last Judgement. It is, however, phrased in a negative manner
and combined with the reference to Gal 1:8. This is the first instance in which dis-
agreement with the christological summary incurs an anathema. However, the
condemnation here is not directed against a specific person but against anyone
who holds a particular doctrine (which slightly differs from the use in Gal 1:8–9
where Paul curses those who preach another ‘gospel’ – which must, of course,
also have some doctrinal content). This indicates that the boundaries between or-
thodoxy and heterodoxy (heresy) were being drawn more sharply by the mid-
third century and that those who were ‘unorthodox’ incurred some sort of curse
(whose consequences are not specified). We will consider later what an anathema
may have implied in legal and practical terms.178
We may leave aside the spurious creed against Paul of Samosata (bishop of
Antioch 260/261–268/272) preserved among the acts of the Council of Ephesus (431).179
Its concern with a two-nature Christology must belong to the fifth century. By con-
trast, Eusebius has preserved a christological summary contained in the Legend of
Abgar from which he quotes. Here the Apostle Thaddaeus tells Abgar of Edessa that
he would speak to the citizens of Edessa about Jesus on the following day:

[. . .] I [sc. Thaddaeus] will preach before them and sow the word of life among them, con-
cerning the coming of Jesus, how he came into existence; concerning his mission, for what
purpose he was sent by the Father; concerning his power, his works, the mysteries which
he proclaimed in the world, and by what sort of power he did these things; concerning his
new preaching; and concerning his abasement and humiliation [cf. Phil 2:8], how he hum-
bled himself, died, debased his divinity, was crucified, descended into the underworld,
burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead. He descended
alone, but ascended to his Father with a great crowd.180

The summary is here extended to include Christ’s preaching and miracles, his de-
scent into the underworld, and the release of those imprisoned there.
We will see below in chapter 4.6 how a particular version of the western
christological summary came to be inserted into the triadic rule of faith to form a
‘full-blown’ creed. But first we should take a look at what a ‘rule of faith’ actu-
ally is.

 Cf. below ch. 6.4.6.

 Cf. FaFo § 127.
 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,13,20 (FaFo § 129).
 4.4 The rule of faith 101

4.4 The rule of faith

4.4.1 Preliminary remarks

The ‘rules of faith’ constitute a rather elusive literary genre. Their content is no-
where clearly defined and even their name oscillates: they may be called ‘rule of
faith’ (κανὼν τῆς πίστεως/regula fidei), but also ‘rule of truth’ (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας/
regula ueritatis), ‘rule of the Church’ (κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας or ἐκκλσιαστικός), or
simply ‘rule’.181 Κανών/regula in these instances means ‘standard’, ‘regulation’,
‘maxim’, a κανών/regula originally being a long bar or rod used for measurement.
In a wider sense the ‘rule’ comprises all that is normative within the Church. In Gal
6:16 Paul uses the term to designate the entirety of the Christian kerygma which
the apostle draws on against those who demand circumcision.182 Κανών thus serves
as a rule by which to measure the truth of the Gospel in an apologetic context.
Here, Paul refers to the rule’s content in a summary fashion as the ‘new creation’
(cf. v. 15). Κανών later designates collections of basic theological tenets that are
cited mostly in intra-Christian controversy as the norm by which the orthodoxy of
controversial doctrines is judged. As we will see, their content often resembles
creeds, although we are not yet dealing with fixed formulae but with – often elabo-
rate – constructions made up of homological building blocks of various sizes and
content. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that κανών/regula may
also be used in a wider sense to include standards of Church discipline and thus
later comes to mean ‘church law’. From the middle of the fourth century it is also
used to designate the collection of biblical writings. Finally, rules of faith are pre-
sented as a doctrinal consensus about Christ’s saving work which was handed
down from generation to generation (and is, ultimately, apostolic). The idea behind
this line of argument is that ‘orthodoxy’ goes back to the first-hand witnesses of
Christ’s earthly life, whereas ‘heresy’ crept in at a later stage as a distortion of the
venerable truth.

 Cf. Ohme 1998, esp. pp. 1–295; Ohme 2004; Markschies, ‘Haupteinleitung’, 2012, pp. 11–17;
O’Donnell/Drecoll 2012–2018; Fogleman 2023; and the literature quoted in FaFo, vol. I, p. 165.
 Cf. also 2Cor 10,13–16 (three times) which is irrelevant for us here. Phil 3:16 v.l. may be influ-
enced by Gal 6:16.
102 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

4.4.2 Third Letter to the Corinthians

One of the earliest attestations of such a ‘rule’ which is often overlooked183 al-
ready displays these features. It is found in the Third Letter to the Corinthians, a
pseudo-Pauline epistle which forms part of the Acts of Paul and may date to the
first half of the second century.184 The author turns against Simon and Cleobius
who, according to a (fictitious) letter sent from Corinth to Paul, make the follow-
ing claims:

They say that we must not use the prophets, and that God is not almighty, and that there
will be no resurrection of the flesh, and that there was no formation (τὴν πλάσιν) of human-
kind by God, and that the Lord did not come into the flesh nor was born from Mary; and
that there is no cosmos of God, but of angels.185

These opponents may, therefore, represent some kind of Christian gnostic group
which cannot be clearly identified.186
In order to refute their claims the author first emphasizes that his preaching
was handed down by the apostles ‘who were at all times with the Lord Jesus
Christ’ (section 4). He then enumerates key points which are Jesus’ birth, the re-
demption of all flesh, our resurrection in the flesh, and the creation of the uni-
verse and humankind by God Almighty. In the author’s view God’s redemption is
rooted in his creative activity:

Because man was formed by his Father, so was he sought when he was lost, that he might
be quickened by adoption.187

This is followed by a quick run through the history of salvation: after the Fall,
first the prophets were sent to the Jews, who, however, would not listen under
the influence of ‘the prince of iniquity’. Yet God did not stop there but sent Jesus
into the world in order to overcome the enemy and to save all flesh ‘whereby
that wicked one had triumphed’ (sections 9–18). The author then outlines the po-
sition of his opponents (sections 19–25) and goes on to give examples of a bodily

 Cf., e.g., Kelly 1972 and, most recently, Ayres 2020, who both fail to mention Third Corinthians.
 For what follows, cf. FaFo § 96. The date of composition of the correspondence is uncertain;
cf. also Zwierlein 2013, pp. 214–18: after 180.
 Epistulae mutuae Corinthiorum et Pauli (CANT-211.IV), Epistula Corinthiorum 10–15 (number-
ing according to Hennecke/Schneemelcher 1999, vol. II, p. 231). Cf. also the introduction to this
letter where these claims are mentioned in somewhat divergent fashion.
 Cf. Klijn 1963, pp. 22 f.; Luttikhuizen 1996, p. 91 pace Rordorf 1993, p. 42 who thinks that it is
directed against the teachings of Saturninus.
 Epistulae mutuae Corinthiorum et Pauli (CANT-211.IV), Tertia Epistula ad Corinthios 7–8
(FaFo § 96).
 4.4 The rule of faith 103

resurrection from nature and from the Bible (sections 26–32). The author himself
bears Christ’s wounds on his body in order to ‘attain unto the resurrection of the
dead’ (section 35). He concludes his letter as follows:

Whoever abides by the rule (καὶ εἴ τις ᾧ παρέλαβε κανόνι) which he has received by the
blessed prophets and the holy gospel shall receive a recompense [cf. 1Cor 3:8. 14] from the
Lord, <and when he rises from the dead shall obtain eternal life>. But whoever transgresses
these things, fire is with him and with them that go before in the same way, who are men
without God, a generation of vipers [cf. Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Lk 3:7]. Turn away from them in
the power of the Lord, and peace, <grace, and love> shall be with you. Amen.188

The ‘rule’ here is not clearly defined – it appears to encompass the totality of the
salvific content of the prophets and the gospel. However, the themes which are ex-
pressly mentioned include God’s omnipotence and his creating the world, Christ
being born from Mary (not yet called a virgin!) with the involvement of the Holy
Spirit, the redemption of all flesh, the resurrection of Christ and of all humankind,
and God’s divine economy. Compliance with the ‘rule’ will be rewarded, non-
compliance will be punished by fire. Thus the rule indeed serves as a boundary-
marker separating orthodoxy from dissent.

4.4.3 Irenaeus

The rule of faith in Pseudo-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philippians 1,1–3,3,

will be omitted here as it probably belongs to the middle of the fourth century.189
We are on firmer ground when we turn to Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 200). In his
Epideixis (which is only preserved in Armenian; FaFo § 109a1) he mentions the
‘rule of faith’ (in Greek retroversion: κανὼν τῆς πίστεως) and calls upon his read-
ers to hold to it ‘without deviation’. He then goes on to explain the nature of faith:

[. . .] and the truth brings about faith, for faith is established upon things truly real, that we
may believe what really is, as it is, and <believing> what really is, as it is, we may always
keep our conviction of it firm. Since, then, the conserver [. . .] of our salvation is faith, it is
necessary to take great care of it, that we may have a true comprehension of what is.190

Irenaeus reiterates here the Pauline idea that faith is belief in the salvific nature of
events that took place in the past. He goes on to emphasize that faith has been
handed down by ‘the elders, the disciples of the apostles’. These presbyters are also

 Tertia Epistula ad Corinthios 36–39 (FaFo § 96).

 Cf. Brent 2018. The date in FaFo § 98g is erroneous.
 Irenaeus, Epideixis 3 (tr. Behr 1997, p. 41).
104 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

mentioned elsewhere in Irenaeus’ œuvre and may designate an earlier source

which is perhaps somehow related to Papias of Hierapolis (active c. 100), but which
is now lost.191 The presbyters vouchsafe the truth of the faith. Interestingly, Irenaeus
does not mention that the apostles themselves wrote down and transmitted this
faith, as the later legend claims.192 These ‘things that are’, i.e. ‘historical’ facts, are
then enumerated at the end of the section (my numbering):

So, faith procures this for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down
to us:
(I) firstly, it exhorts us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of
sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, [who
was] incarnate, and died, and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God;
(II) and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and rebirth unto God that we may no
longer be sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God;
(III) and that the eternally existing <God> <is> < . . . > above everything that has come into
being and everything is subjected to him, and that which is subject to him is all made by
him, so that God does not rule nor is Lord over what is another’s, but over his own, and all
things are God’s: and therefore God is the Almighty and everything is from God.193

The structure of this text is threefold. Each section contains a series of elements:
(I) baptism for remission of sins – trinitarian baptismal formula including di-
vine origin, incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ;
(II) baptism: seal of eternal life – rebirth – divine sonship;
(III) God: eternity – transcendence – rulership – creation – omnipotence.
Although this structure is clear, it is difficult to say whether the faith transmitted
by the elders comprised all three sections or only the first one. Looking back
from later developments the answer seems an obvious one: it is the section about
the Trinity which is the object of faith. However, such a post hoc approach may
actually skew our historical vision: we find what we want to find, because it has
become an integral part of later tradition. On the basis of the text itself it appears
impossible to give a definitive answer to this important question.
We may, however, note that in the tradition as reported by Irenaeus faith is
again closely connected with baptism in the triune God. The christological propo-
sitions (divine origin, incarnation, death, resurrection) are inserted into what
must be an allusion to the baptismal formula as it is preserved in Mt 28:19 and
Didache 7,1. 3.194 Whereas the second section was later no longer included in the

 Cf. Körtner 2010, pp. 169 f.; Carlson 2021.

 Cf. below ch. 5.4.
 Irenaeus, Epideixis 3 (tr. Behr 1997, p. 42). In FaFo § 109a1 the extract stops after (I).
 Cf. above pp. 75 and n. 78; 88.
 4.4 The rule of faith 105

creeds, the extensive insistence on God’s omnipotence and creative activity,

which is reminiscent of Third Corinthians, did – in an abbreviated form – become
part and parcel of the creeds.
Irenaeus again recapitulates the principal tenets of the ‘rule of faith’ later in
the Epideixis:

This then is the order of the rule of our faith, the foundation of the building, and the stabil-
ity of our conversation: God, the Father, unmade, immaterial, invisible; one God, the Creator
of all things. This is the first point of our faith.
The second point is: the Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was re-
vealed to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the
method of the dispensation of the Father; ‘through whom all things came into being’ [Jn 1:3;
1Cor 8:6]; who also, in the last days, to complete and ‘gather up all things’ [Eph 1:10], became
human among humans, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death, to display life, and to
produce a community of union between God and humanity.
And the third point is: the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, the fa-
thers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteous-
ness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon humanity in all
the earth, renewing humanity unto God.195

The passage contains elements corresponding to Epideixis 3: the trinitarian struc-

ture and a christological section which includes the divine origin (‘Son of God’)
and the incarnation. However, some elements are missing (death and resurrec-
tion, baptism) whilst others have been added: God’s immateriality, invisibility,
and oneness; the christological titles Word of God and Lord; the revelation to the
prophets; the cooperation in creation; the extensive description of the incarna-
tion; the entire section following the mention of the Holy Spirit.
Clearly, neither section 3 nor section 6 contains a fixed formula. Therefore,
Irenaeus’ call in section 3 to ‘hold to the rule of the faith without deviation’ refers
to a certain, more or less well-defined content rather than to a fixed wording. His
enumerations point to a didactic Sitz im Leben which is no doubt pre-baptismal
catechesis: bishops (or teachers) taught a list of the major tenets which the con-
verts had to memorize without that these items were strictly fixed.
In his opus magnum Against the Heresies (written between 174 and 189) Ire-
naeus mentions the ‘rule of truth’ (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας/regula ueritatis) several
times.196 This one and immutable rule, which was handed down from the apos-
tles, is proclaimed throughout the Church and guarantees its stability. Again the
connection with pre-baptismal catechesis is obvious, but here readers are re-

 Irenaeus, Epideixis 6 (FaFo § 109a2).

 Cf. Aduersus haereses 1,9,4 (FaFo § 109b2); 1,22,1; 2,27,1; 3,2,1; 3,11,1; 3,12,6; 3,15,1; 4,35,4; cf. also
2,25,2; 2,28,1; 3,20,2.
106 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

minded of the rule they have received in order to combat heretics, because it ena-
bles them to distinguish right from wrong in gnostic exegesis.197 It is opposed to the
more recent, arbitrary, and fickle rules of the gnostics which have no apostolic au-
thority, but are, in fact, depravations of the rule of truth.198 A quick survey of the
relevant passages reveals that regula here may not only mean ‘rule’ or ‘ruler’, but
also ‘system of doctrines’ (if the Latin word is actually a translation of κανών199).
The content of this rule is expressly described as such in Aduersus haereses
1,22,1, but we find similar summaries in other places under different designations.
It will be useful to place the individual propositions in a synopsis side by side:

,, ,, ,, ,, ,,

(FaFo § b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b)

Name of summary: Name of summary: Name of summary: Name of summary: Name of summary:
πίστις (‘faith’)/ regula ueritatis (‘rule traditio uetus πίστις (‘faith’)/ firma traditio (‘firm
κήρυγμα of faith’) (‘ancient tradition’) πεισμονὴ βεβαία tradition’)/
(‘proclamation’) (‘firm conviction’)/ fides (‘faith’)
γνῶσις ἀληθής (‘true
knowledge’)/
ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων
διδαχὴ καὶ τὸ
ἀρχαῖον τῆς
ἐκκλησίας σύστημα
(‘the doctrine of the
apostles and the
ancient constitution
of the Church’)
God God God God God
one one one one one and the
same
Father Father
Almighty Almighty Almighty
creation creation from creation creation
nothing
(extensive
description)
cooperation in
creation and
government by
Word and Spirit

 Cf. Aduersus haereses 1,9,4 (FaFo § 109b2).

 Cf. Aduersus haereses 1,31,3; 2, prol. 2; 2,7,2; 2,12,8; 2,18,4. 7; 2,19,8 (twice); 2,25,1; 2,35,1; 3,11,3;
3,16,1. 5; 4, prol. 2 (twice). 3; 4,35,2.
 In Aduersus haereses 1,20,3 regula is a translation of ὑπόθεσις.
 4.4 The rule of faith 107

(continued)

,, ,, ,, ,, ,,

(FaFo § b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b)

Christ Jesus Christ Jesus Jesus Christ

one
Son of God Son of God Son of God Son of God
Lord
cooperation in
creation
incarnation incarnation incarnation
for our because of love
salvation towards his
creation
virgin birth
uniting humanity
to God through
himself
suffered under
Pontius Pilate
resurrection
ascension
coming in glory
Judgement
Holy Spirit Spirit of God Spirit
proclaimed
through the
prophets the
dispensations;
extensive
description of
virgin birth,
passion,
resurrection,
ascension in the
flesh,
coming in glory,
general
resurrection of
the flesh,
Judgement
furnishes us with
the knowledge of
truth
has set forth the
dispensations of
the Father and
the Son
108 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

(continued)

,, ,, ,, ,, ,,

(FaFo § b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b) (§ b)

commandments
constitution of
the Church
advent of the
Lord
salvation of the
complete man

In addition, there are some shorter summaries that are not given any particular
name that are scattered throughout the work.200
Clearly, then, Irenaeus adapts the regula according to context. Thus in 1,22,1
he insists on God’s oneness in order to fend off the gnostics’ distinction between a
transcendent God and a demiurge (cf. 1,21); there is no need in this context to in-
clude information about the Son or the Holy Spirit. By contrast, in 5,20,1 he fo-
cusses on the truth of the incarnation and the work of redemption against gnostic
docetism (cf. 5,1,2) on account of which he omits the passion, resurrection, and
ascension.
In sum, in Irenaeus the terms ‘faith’ and ‘rule of truth’ refer to brief summa-
ries of basic doctrines about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which resem-
ble each other without being identical. In fact, the differences are so considerable
that we are prevented from assuming that a fixed formula forms the basis of
these texts. Yet their similarities do point to a basic teaching used in baptismal
catechesis which comprised lessons about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
and covered God’s oneness, omnipotence, and creative activity, Christ’s divine or-
igin, birth, passion, resurrection, and ascension, and probably some other biblical
narratives. By contrast, no extensive doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems to exist as
yet. Irenaeus himself indicates in 3,4,2 that the regula has an important function
in the mission to the ‘barbarians’ because it can be learned by heart by converts
who do not speak Greek (and are, therefore, unable to read the Scriptures).201
At the same time, we can also see that the rule of faith is not bound to one
single Sitz im Leben in Irenaeus’ work. The Epideixis is, as the author himself

 Cf. Aduersus haereses 1,3,6 (FaFo § 109b1: ‘faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one
[Lord] Jesus Christ, the Son of God’); 3,1,2 (§ 109b6: ‘one God, Creator of heaven and earth, an-
nounced by the Law and the Prophets, and one Christ the Son of God’). In addition, cf. 2,32,3
(§ 109b5); 3,16,5 (§ 109b8); 3,16,6 (§ 109b9); 3,18,3 (§ 109b10); 4,9,2 (§ 109b11); 4,20,4 (§ 109b12).
 Cf. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7).
 4.4 The rule of faith 109

states at the beginning, a ‘summary record’ (κεφαλαιωδὴς ὑπόμνημα) which

serves ‘to demonstrate, by means of a summary, the preaching of the truth, so as
to strengthen your faith’. The idea is to give its recipient Marcianus all that is nec-
essary so that he may ‘understand all the members of the body of the truth and
through a summary receive the exposition of the things of God’ in order to safe-
guard his salvation; that he ‘may confound all those who hold false opinions’;
and, finally, that he ‘may deliver our sound and irreproachable word in all bold-
ness’ to those who are interested to hear it.202
So the work is described as a ὑπόμνημα, a loose collection of notes on a partic-
ular subject.203 Its purpose is threefold: to provide a corpus of basic doctrinal tenets
and to enable the recipient both to defend them against heresy and to spread this
Christian teaching through catechetical or missionary activity. Irenaeus, therefore,
goes beyond what the work’s presumed title Ἐπίδειξις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγμα-
τος (‘Proof/Demonstration of the apostolic preaching/proclamation’) suggests. The
refutation of heretics is only one element of a broader endeavour which also con-
tains catechetical elements. Yet the Epideixis is not, strictly speaking, in itself a cate-
chetical work (there is no indication that Marcianus was a catechumen), but may
well be addressed to a priest or even a bishop, or some kind of missionary, in order
to provide a dogmatic basis (i.e. the ‘rule of faith’) for the instruction of others.204
By contrast the work Against the Heresies belongs to the philosophical-
theological genre of ἔλεγχος (‘proof’, but also ‘refutation’) or ἀνατροπή (‘refutation’)
which is generally well documented.205 Its express purpose is to refute the argu-
ments of the representative of a different school, in this case the gnostic doctrines
of Valentinus and Ptolemy.206 However, in this particular case the institutional set-
ting is not a school. (Irenaeus does not seem to have had formal philosophical train-
ing.207) Instead he reacts to the request from a learned friend who, perhaps living in
Asia Minor, seems to be the head of a circle of individuals interested in theology.208
In other words, we can distinguish three Sitze im Leben for the ‘rule of truth’
as regards Irenaeus: mission and pre-baptismal catechesis, theological instruction
(perhaps of priests), and refutation and polemic. As a result, Irenaeus adapts the

 Irenaeus, Epideixis 1 (tr. Behr 1997, p. 39).

 On this literary genre cf. Eichele 1998; Montanari 2006.
 Cf. Smith 1952, p. 14.
 Cf. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5,7,1 (ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπή τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως;
cf. 3,23,3) = Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 4 prol. 1 (detectio et euersio falsae cognitionis). On this
genre cf. Kinzig 2000, pp. 164–71.
 Cf. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1, prol. 2.
 Cf. Wyrwa 2018, p. 883.
 Cf. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1, prol. 2–3.
110 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

rule according to these literary conventions and may even quote the rule in differ-
ent configurations within one and the same work, according to the need of the re-
spective argument. Returning to the image of building blocks, we can see different
structures being assembled from basically the same blocks.

4.4.4 Tertullian

Tertullian (d. c. 220) was strongly influenced by Irenaeus in his anti-gnostic polemic.
For him the one unalterable ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei)209 had been ‘instituted’ by
Christ for the express purpose of refuting heretics and later propagated by the apos-
tles to whom Christ had revealed its content.210 It was made public by the ‘catholic’
churches, but Tertullian offers no details how this was done.211 By contrast, the
many doctrines of the heretics (which may also be called regula212) have sprung up
later and threaten the one true rule.213
We find three extensive summaries of the faith in Tertullian’s writings that are
expressly called regula fidei.214 Two of them occur in anti-heretical treatises, the
other in a work of a practical nature. De praescriptione haereticorum (203) is di-
rected against Marcion (fl. c. 150) and his pupil Apelles as well as against the gnostic
Valentinus (fl. c. 150). Aduersus Praxeam (210/211) deals with the doctrines of the oth-
erwise unknown and, perhaps, pseudonymous Praxeas whom Tertullian accuses of
monarchianism and patripassianism: in his opponent’s view Praxeas did not distin-
guish sufficiently between the divine persons of Father and Son which could lead to
the idea that the Father had been crucified which was considered heretical.215 In De

 Cf. also the analysis of the term by Braun 1977, pp. 446–54, 716.
 Cf., e.g., Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 13,6 (FaFo § 111b1); 20,1–5 (§ 350b1); 21,1–7
(§ 111b3); 36,3 (§ 111b5); 37,1–7 (§ 111b6; here Tertullian may allude to Gal 6:16); Apologeticum
47,10 (§ 350a; regula ueritatis); id., Aduersus Praxeam 2,2 (§ 111e1); id., Aduersus Marcionem 4,2,5;
4,36,12; 5,3,1; 5,20,2; id., De resurrectione mortuorum 48,2 (nostrae spei regula); id., De uirginibus
uelandis 1,4(3; § 111c); id., De monogamia 2,4; id., De pudicitia 12,3; 15,11.
 Cf. Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 26,9.
 Cf., e.g., Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 1,1,7; 1,20,1 (where regula also seems to have been
used by the Marcionites); 4,5,6; 4,17,11; id., Aduersus Valentinianos 4,3. 4; 30,1; id., De anima 2,5; id.,
De carne Christi 6,4.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Hermogenem 1,1; id., Aduersus Marcionem 3,1,2; 5,19,1; id., Aduersus Val-
entinianos 4,1; id., Aduersus Praxeam 20,3; id., De monogamia 2,3. However, the Montanists destroy
no ‘rule of faith or truth’ (aliquam fidei aut spei regulam); id., De ieiunio 1,3; id., De pudicitia 8,12.
 There are other rule-like summaries or references in Tertullian’s works: Apologeticum 17,1–3;
18,2–3 (FaFo § 111a); De praescriptione haereticorum 23,11 (§ 111b4); 36,5 (§ 111b5); De carne Christi
5,4. 7; 20,1 (§ 111d); Aduersus Praxeam 3,1; 4,1 (§ 111e2); 9,1; 14,1; 20,1; 30,5 (§ 111e3).
 Cf. FaFo § 110 and below pp. 125, 139 f.
 4.4 The rule of faith 111

uirginibus uelandis (205–208?) Tertullian advocates the veiling of young unmarried

women in his hometown Carthage. Here his rigorism betrays his sympathies with
Montanism which had developed some years previously (c. 203). In all cases the con-
tent of the regula is introduced by some form of credere.
In order better to illustrate how flexible these texts are, I will once more pres-
ent their content side by side:

De praescriptione haereticorum De uirginibus uelandis ,() Aduersus Praxeam ,

,– (§ c) (§ e)
(FaFo § b)

Name of summary: Name of summary: Name of summary:

regula fidei regula fidei regula
God God God
one one one
Almighty
creator; creation out of creator
nothing
through his Word
Word = Son Son Jesus Christ Son/Word
proceeded from him
cooperation in creation
seen by the patriarchs; heard
by the prophets
virgin birth (through Spirit virgin birth virgin birth
and
power of God)
being both man and God,
the
Son of Man and the Son of
God
incarnation and birth as Jesus named Jesus Christ
Christ
preaching of the new law
promise of the kingdom of
heaven
miracles
suffered
died
crucifixion crucifixion under Pontius
Pilate
buried according to the
Scriptures
resurrection on the third day resurrection on the third day resurrection
ascension ascension ascension
112 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

(continued)

De praescriptione haereticorum De uirginibus uelandis ,() Aduersus Praxeam ,

,– (§ c) (§ e)
(FaFo § b)

sitting at the right hand of sitting at the right hand of sitting at the right hand of
the Father the Father the Father
sending of the power of the
Holy Spirit
coming with glory coming coming
general resurrection of the general resurrection of the
flesh flesh
Last Judgement Last Judgement Last Judgement
sends Holy Spirit
Paraclete
‘sanctifier of the faith of
those who believe in the
Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit’

Similarly to Irenaeus, these three summaries share a number of common features:

God – oneness – Son – virgin birth – passion (although expressed differently) – res-
urrection – ascension – sitting at the right hand of the Father – coming – Last Judge-
ment. At the same time, it is obvious that the remaining differences would be hard
to explain if a fixed formula had already existed. These differences are occasioned
by the context and the rhetorical strategies of the individual treatises. Thus in De
praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian insists on the oneness of God, the creation by
this God,216 and the revelation of the Word or Son in the Old Testament in order to
argue against the separation of the gods of the Old and New Testament, and under-
lines the reality of the Son’s incarnation (against docetism) in mentioning his
preaching and miracles.217
By contrast, in Aduersus Praxeas the distinction between God and the Son/
Word by ‘procession’ is emphasized (qui ex ipso processerit) in order to combat
the idea that the Father himself suffered in the incarnation. In addition, in order
to leave no doubt that God did not undergo earthly emotions of any kind, Tertul-
lian adds ‘being both man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God’ (hominem

 Cf. also Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 1,21,5.

 According to Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 3,17,5 and id., Aduersus Iudaeos 9,29 Christ’s
preaching and miracles can be seen from the scripturarum regula.
 4.4 The rule of faith 113

et deum, filium hominis et filium dei) in a way that sounds Chalcedonian avant la
lettre. At the end of this rule Tertullian also mentions the Holy Spirit which was
sent by Christ, without, however, being an explicit object of belief. Yet he then
adds a trinitarian formula citing belief in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,
which is ‘sanctified’ by the Paraclete (sanctificatorem fidei eorum, qui credunt in
patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum).
In many respects the regula in De uirginibus uelandis is the most significant
of the three passages. Here Tertullian quotes the rule in order to explain that the
doctrine in the Church is unalterable and thus to affirm his own orthodoxy. Con-
sequently, he is likely to enumerate those tenets which he shares with his oppo-
nents and which constitute the basis of the teaching in his North African church.
At the same time, Tertullian does advocate changes in the disciplina which regu-
lates the life of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Such changes
will gradually lead to an improvement of customs:

As this law of faith is abiding (hac lege fidei manente), the other [succeeding] points of disci-
pline and conduct (disciplinae et conuersationis) now permit the newness of correction, as
the grace of God is of course operating and advancing even to the end. [. . .] What, then, is
the Paraclete’s guidance but this: the direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scripture,
the reformation of the intellect, the advancement towards the better things?218

Strikingly, although the role of the Spirit is thus paramount for Tertullian, he
does not yet include it in his regula. In addition, its christological section displays
such close similarities with the Roman Creed that we will have to consider these
in a later chapter.219 Finally, the relation of the regula to baptism is not empha-
sized in the same way as in Irenaeus’ writings. Baptism is not mentioned in the
context of the regulae just quoted nor is, conversely, any regula quoted or alluded
to in Tertullian’s treatise De baptismo. Nonetheless, it is likely that summaries
such as those quoted above were regularly used in his church, because otherwise
the recourse to them as a an agreed basis would lose its argumentative power.

4.4.5 Novatian

The presbyter Novatian (who was later one of the protagonists of a schism in the
Roman church) refers to the regula ueritatis (‘rule of truth’; he does not use the
term regula fidei) in his book On the Trinity (written perhaps around 240). He ap-

 Tertullian, De uirginibus uelandis 1,5(4). 8(5) (tr. ANF; altered). On the idea of progress in Ter-
tullian, cf. Kinzig 1994, pp. 239–79, esp. 266–9.
 Cf. below ch. 4.6.
114 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

pears to explain its content section by section:220 He first mentions the belief in
‘God, the Father and the Lord Almighty’ and describes his creative activity.221 This
is later followed by a brief christological section:

The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, in addition to the Father, also in the Son of
God, Christ Jesus, the Lord our God, but the Son of God [. . .].222

Here Jesus is called Son of God, Christ, and ‘the Lord our God’ (dominum deum
nostrum). The first two titles are already familiar to us. The final one may have
been taken from Hos 6:1 and may rest on a christological exegesis of this biblical
verse as found, for example, in Tertullian and Cyprian,223 who both see it as
prophesying the resurrection and ascension of Christ. This is the earliest evidence
for dominum deum nostrum in a credal document. (The syntagma is, in any case,
not very often attested.224) Nonetheless, it is obviously traditional in Novatian’s
context because the Roman theologian feels compelled to qualify it straight away,
probably in order to prevent a modalist misinterpretation:

but the Son of God – of that God who is both one and alone, indeed the Founder of all things
(conditor scilicet rerum omnium) [. . .].225

In another passage Novatian again refers to the regula in a credal context:

Therefore we must believe, according to the prescribed rule (secundum praescriptam regu-
lam), in the Lord, the one true God (in Dominum unum uerum Deum), and in him whom he
has fittingly (consequenter) sent, Jesus Christ, who would, as we have said, never have asso-
ciated himself with the Father, unless he had also wanted to be understood as God.226

The regula is here, once more, dyadic. It is uncertain whether the expression
praescriptam regulam actually refers to a written document of some kind – prae-
scribere may also simply mean ‘lay down’, ‘prescribe’, or ‘appoint’ in a wider

 Apart from the references discussed below the regula ueritatis is also mentioned in Nova-
tian, De trinitate 11,10; 21,1; 29,19 (cf. also 16,4; 26,17); id., Epistula de cibis Iudaicis 7,3.
 Novatian, De trinitate 1,1 (FaFo § 119a).
 Novatian, De trinitate 9,1 (FaFo § 119b).
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Iudaeos 13,23; Cyprian, De dominica oratione 35 which give the text
of Hos 6:1 as follows: ‘Eamus et reuertamur ad dominum deum nostrum’. The same version in
Jerome, Commentarii in prophetas minores, In Osee 2, 6.
 For later western attestations cf. FaFo § 171 (Germinius of Sirmium); § 452 (Constitutum Con-
stantini). For dominum et deum nostrum cf. § 154 (The Second Creed of Sirmium); § 186 (Wulfila);
§ 457 (Arian creed). For κύριον θεὸν ἡμῶν we have no reference in a credal text. For κύριον καὶ
θεὸν ἡμῶν cf. § 174f (Basil of Caesarea).
 Novatian, De trinitate 9,1 (FaFo § 119b).
 Novatian, De trinitate 16,5.
 4.4 The rule of faith 115

sense; but it may be significant that Novatian replaces the appeal to tradition by a
term which emphasizes the normative character of the rule. As regards content,
it is not quite clear whether in Dominum unum uerum Deum (which is taken from
Jn 17:3)227 actually refers to the wording of a particular formula.228
In chapter 17 we find a reference to Christ’s participation in creation, ostensi-
bly as part of the regula ueritatis:

What if Moses follows this same rule of truth (regulam ueritatis) and in the beginning of his
writings has given us this: that we may learn that all things are created and founded
through the Son of God (omnia creata et condita esse per dei filium), that is, through the
Word of God?229

This may sound as if omnia creata et condita esse per dei filium (which alludes to
Eph 3:9) somehow formed part of the regula, but there is no proof of that.
Later Novatian proceeds to a chapter on the Holy Spirit which he introduces
as follows:

But indeed, the order of reason and the authority of the faith in the disposition of the words
and in the Scriptures of the Lord (ordo rationis et fidei auctoritas digestis uocibus et litteris
domini) admonish us after these things to believe also in the Holy Spirit, [who was] once
promised to the Church and given in the appointed occasions of times.230

Interestingly, here he fails to mention the regula ueritatis again, instead referring to
the ordo rationis (whose exact meaning remains obscure) and the fidei auctoritas.
What then is the regula ueritatis in Novatian? Cyprian expressly says in a letter
that Novatian baptizes ‘with the same symbol’ (eodem symbolo) which he himself
uses.231 In and by itself the symbolum is not necessarily identical with the regula,
let alone a full-blown creed (symbolum could simply mean the baptismal formula).
However, Dionysius of Alexandria claims in a letter to his namesake at Rome that
Novatian ‘rejects holy baptism, overturns the faith and confession which precede it
(τήν τε πρὸ αὐτοῦ πίστιν καὶ ὁμολογίαν ἀνατρέποντι), and entirely banishes the

 Cf. also Novatian, De trinitate 26,17.

 It is later found in FaFo § 171 (Germinius of Sirmium) and § 486 (Creed of the First Council of
Toledo (400) and its longer version by Pastor of Palencia). The expression in unum solum uerum
deum occurs in § 453 (Auxentius); § 456 (Palladius of Ratiaria); its Greek equivalent ἕνα καὶ μόνον
ἀληθινὸν θεόν formed part of various eastern creeds and credal formulae: the Synod of Niké
(359; § 159); Eudoxius of Constantinople (§ 162); Eunomius (§ 163c2); Basil of Caesarea (§ 174f);
Apostolic Constitutions (§ 182c); and Antioch (§§ 198 and 203).
 Novatian, De trinitate 17,1.
 Novatian, De trinitate 29,1 (FaFo § 119c).
 Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,1 (FaFo § 92a).
116 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Holy Spirit from them’.232 Taking all the aforementioned observations together, we
must conclude that Novatian is referring to some kind of formula which had come
to be used in Rome by the middle of the third century, probably in the context of
pre-baptismal catechesis and, perhaps, during baptism. Just as the liturgy as a
whole was not yet written down,233 this formula may well have been transmitted
only orally and may have formed part of a larger credal context which possibly
still fluctuated to some extent. In particular, it did perhaps not yet include the Holy
Spirit.
In any case, there is no indication that Novatian is referring here to ‘the early
Roman church’s baptismal symbol of faith’234 or ‘the old Roman creed’,235 if that
denotes a fixed single creed. Likewise, we are unable to tell from Novatian’s evi-
dence whether he is quoting the entire regula as used in Rome or just its begin-
ning as a means of structuring his treatise. Themes like Christ’s birth, passion,
resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand also occur later in the work,
but without explicit reference to the regula. Finally, Novatian does not tell us
whether the regula is interrogatory or declaratory. We will later see how one
might best describe the situation in Rome on the basis of the available data.236

4.4.6 Later authors

In his exegesis of Revelation, written in c. 260, Victorinus of Poetovio (d. c. 304)

explains the ‘measuring rod’ (κάλαμος = arundo) of Rev 11:1 in such a way that
one is reminded of the ‘rule of faith’:237 he adds fidei and calls for ‘confessing’ a
number of propositions which he claims to have come from the Lord himself:

The ‘measure’ of faith (mensura fidei) is the command of our Lord to confess (confiteri)
the Father Almighty, as we have said,
and that his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, was begotten by the Father spiritually (spirita-
liter apud patrem genitum) before the beginning of the world and became human; that,
when he had overcome death and was received with his body into the heavens by the Fa-
ther, he shed forth the Holy Spirit [cf. Acts 2:33], the gift and pledge of immortality [cf.
Eph 1:14];
that he (hunc) was announced through the prophets;

 Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistula V 4 (Feltoe = Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 7,8; FaFo
§ 87a).
 Cf. below p. 131 and n. 303.
 Dunn 2002, p. 390, referring to d’Alès 1922, p. 421.
 Papandrea 2012, p. 57.
 Cf. below chs. 4.5.1, 4.6, and 5.1.
 For what follows cf. also Esterson 2015, pp. 51–4, 82 f., 325–41.
 4.4 The rule of faith 117

that he (hunc) was described by the Law;

that he (hunc) was God’s hand [cf. Is 66:2: Acts 7:50], the Word of the Father Almighty,
and founder (conditorem) of the whole world.
This is the ‘reed’ (arundo) and the ‘measure’ of faith (mensura fidei) such that no one
worships at the holy altar except the one who confesses this: the Lord and his Christ [cf.
Acts 4:26].238

The passage enumerates the following propositions:

Father: omnipotence; Son/our Lord Jesus Christ/God’s hand/Word: preexis-
tence – incarnation – death – bodily resurrection/ascension – sending of the
Spirit – announcement in the Old Testament (prophets and Law) – founder of the
world.
The commentary contains another credal statement comprising only christo-
logical tenets:

‘Twenty-four elders and four animals, having harps and cups, and singing a new song’ [cf.
Rev 5:8–9]: <the proclamation of the Old Testament associated with the New shows the
Christian people singing a new song>, that is, [the proclamation] of those who publicly
recite their confession (id est confessionem suam publice proferentium).
It is new that the Son of God became human.
It is new that he was handed over to death by humans.
It is new that on the third day he rose again.
It is new that he ascended into the heavens bodily.
It is new that the remission of sins was granted to humankind.
It is new that humankind was sealed with the Holy Spirit.
It is new to receive the priesthood of intercession and to expect a kingdom of unbounded
promise.
The harp with the chord stretched on its wooden [frame] signified the body of Christ, that
is, the flesh of Christ linked with the passion whereas the cup signifies the confession
(confessionem) and the lineage of the new priesthood.239

The first elements in this series are also found in the aforementioned triadic confes-
sion: incarnation – death – resurrection (here supplemented by the third day) –
corporeal ascension. But in order to reach the number seven (which refers to the
seven seals of the scroll mentioned in Rev 5:1. 5 that Victorinus identifies with the
Old Testament) he adds three more items: remission of sins – seal of the Holy
Spirit – priesthood and kingdom.240

 Victorinus of Poetovio, Explanatio in Apocalypsin 3, ll. 110–19, on Rev 11:1 (CChr.SL 5, p. 204).
 Victorinus of Poetovio, Explanatio in Apocalypsin 2, ll. 190–202, on Rev 5:8 f. (CChr.SL 5,
pp. 170–2).
 In his commentary on Revelation Caesarius of Arles, who clearly knew this exegetical tradi-
tion, only mentions the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and remission of sins which
118 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Taking both these passages together we may conclude that participation in

worship presupposed some kind of confession and that this confession was re-
cited in public. The divergences between both lists further suggest that this con-
fession was not yet a fixed formula, which, in turn, probably means that the
public confession was not one made by the entire congregation. Instead, Victori-
nus may either refer to the baptismal interrogations or to a separate liturgical act
in which key tenets such as those enumerated above were expressed in public (as
answers to credal questions? as a recitation of all or some of the tenets mentioned
by Victorinus?). In any case, there is no indication that Victorinus knew a fixed
formula.

In a synodal letter supposedly sent by six bishops to Paul of Samosata prior to his
deposition in c. 268, its authors begin by stating the character of their letter:

When we conversed with each other we had already displayed our faith (τὴν ἑαυτῶν πίσ-
τιν). But in order that it may be clearer what each of us holds, and that we might have
greater certainty about the disputed points (τὰ ἀμφισβητόυμενα), it seemed good to us to set
forth this written faith (ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν ἔγγραφον τὴν πίστιν), proclaimed from the Law, the
Prophets, and the New Testament, which we received from the beginning and possess,
handed down and preserved in the holy, catholic Church until the present day through the
succession from the blessed apostles, who had become both ‘eye-witnesses and servants of
the Word’ [Lk 1:2].241

One would, perhaps, expect a succinct rule of faith to follow this exposition. Yet
the text itself is a lengthy binitarian treatise which insists on the divinity of the
Son and on his existence distinct from the Father. Those who deny the Son’s pre-
existence and advocate an adoptionist theology are considered ‘alien from the ec-
clesiastical rule’ (ἀλλότριον τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ κανόνος).242 No explanation is
given what this entailed in practice (excommunication?). There is no indication
either that such censure would be identical with an anathema.
In its implicit opposition against theological doctrines as expressed by Neo-
Arians and by Apolinarius of Laodicea, the bishops’ letter better matches the
theological debates of the second half of the fourth century.243 In the end, the six
ask Paul to confirm that he agreed by adding his signature. This too is a proce-

he found in his own creed. Cf. Expositio de Apocalypsi Sancti Iohannis 4,11, ll. 50–2 (CChr.SL 105,
p. 119).
 Pseudo-Hymenaeus of Jerusalem et al., Epistula ad Paulum Samosatenum (FaFo § 126[1]).
 Pseudo-Hymenaeus of Jerusalem et al., Epistula ad Paulum Samosatenum (FaFo § 126[3]).
 Cf. Uthemann 1994, cols. 78 f. and below p. 465 n. 1.
 4.4 The rule of faith 119

dure for which there is no precedent in the third century which is why I consider
the authenticity of this letter spurious.

In the fourth century the κανών/regula comes to be identified with N and C2,244
but it never remains tied to one particular text245 and may indeed later refer to
the teachings of popes and councils.246 There is even one instance where regula
denotes the Lord’s Prayer.247

4.4.7 Conclusions

We do not find a single declaratory creed until the end of the third century. How-
ever, we do find triadic homologies and christological summaries that are assem-
bled to form regulae fidei for missionary and teaching purposes and in order to
combat various kinds of deviant doctrines. As such they are surprisingly homoge-
neous in that they always contain the same set of propositions: God the Father is
termed almighty and is seen as the creator of the world, while Jesus Christ/the Son
of God/the Word is often seen as cooperating in creation. In addition, the christolog-

 Cf., e.g., FaFo § 154c (Phoebadius of Agen: N; perfectam fidei catholicae regulam); § 205[2]
(Definition of Faith of the (eastern) Council of Ephesus (431): N; ‘rule and norm’, κανόνι καὶ γνώ-
μονι); § 498 (Third Council of Braga (675): C2); § 505 tit. (Seventeenth Council of Toledo (694): C2);
§ 569b[944] (Second Council of Ephesus (449): N and C2; ‘rule of piety’, τῷ κανόνι τῆς εὐσεβείας);
§ 570d[6] (Council of Chalcedon: N); § 586 (Synod of Soissons (744): N; ecclesiastica regula); § 688
(Isidore of Seville; N; uerae fidei regula); § 832a (Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini):
C2; secundum uerissimam sanctae fidei regulam).
 Cf., e.g., FaFo § 232b (Cosmas Indicopleustes quoting Gal 6:16); § 255c (Leo the Great: Roman
Creed); § 442[1] (Pope Hormisdas: rectae fidei regulam; Roman Creed); § 448[6] (Pope Agatho:
iuxta regulam sanctae catholicae atque apostolicae Christi; Dyotheletism); § 449[6] (Pope Agatho:
pietatis regula; Dyotheletism); § 451[1] (Pope Leo II: regulis maiorum; Dyotheletism); § 460[15]
(Synod of Milan 680: pietatis regula; Dyotheletism); § 518 (Caelestius the Pelagian: secundum regu-
lam uniuersalis ecclesiae); § 636c, g (Augustine: local creed; identification of regula fidei and sym-
bolum); § 664[32. 33] (Ildefonsus of Toledo: local creed; uerae fidei regulam, apostolicam regulam);
§ 684c4[1], [8] (Mozarabic Liturgical Books: local creed; identification of regula fidei and sym-
bolum; sanctae fidei regulam); § 790[1] (Exhortatio ad plebem Christianam; local creed).
 Cf., e.g., FaFo § 479[4] (Denebeorht, bishop of Worcester); § 491 tit. (Isidore of Seville; here
the regula fidei, i.e. the decisions of the councils, is seen as an addition to the apostolicum sym-
bolum); § 496[2] (Eighth Council of Toledo (653)); § 497[1] (Council of Mérida (666): priorum pa-
trum regulam); § 545 (Fourth Edict Confirming Chalcedon: secundum patrum regulas); § 710 (Arno
of Salzburg: certam et immutabilem catholicae fidei).
 Cf. FaFo § 659 (Ferrandus and Fulgentius: piam regulam dominicae orationis).
120 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

ical summaries usually enumerate Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, as-

cension, and sometimes his sitting at the right hand and his return. Finally, the
Holy Spirit is often mentioned, but there are no consistent tenets attached to the
Spirit yet. Many of these elements were later included in the Roman Creed and the
eastern synodal creeds, whereas others were not adopted, such as the creation
from nothing or references to Christ’s preaching or miracles.
Furthermore, the christological summary and the triadic homologies are
often quoted independently from one another and appear to have had distinct
histories. Triadic homologies are often linked with baptism whereas christological
summaries were used in an apologetic context: over against docetists who denied
the reality of the incarnation in one way or another; over against pagans who
were suspicious about the precise status Jesus had in Christian congregations
(given that he had been executed as a criminal); and over against Jews who de-
nied his messiahship. We will see below in chapter 4.6 where and at what point
these two different traditions were first combined.

4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations

As demonstrated in the previous chapters, triadic homologies, although rare in

the beginning, were quite common by the middle of the third century. In particu-
lar, it appears that the triadic baptismal formula preserved in Mt 28:19 and Did-
ache 7,1. 3 was widely used, although we have no details of how it came to be so
widespread.248 In some places baptism may have even been practised without
any particular formula.249 In addition, baptisms that were performed ‘into the
name of Jesus’ or ‘upon the name of Jesus’ only may also have taken place, but
seem to have played no more than a marginal role.250 We will see in this chapter
that there is some evidence from the second half of the third century onwards
that the baptismal formula was either combined with, or replaced by, questions
about the faith which were posed to the convert either before or during baptism.

 Cf. above p. 75 and n. 78.

 Cf., e.g., Acts 8:38 and Campenhausen 1971(1979), pp. 202–5, who cites non-Christian parallels
for similar ablution rites without accompanying formulae.
 Cf. esp. 1Cor 1:13 where the ‘baptism into the name of Paul’ (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου; rejected
by Paul) may mirror baptism into the name of Jesus; Acts 2:38 (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ);
8:16 (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ); 10:48 (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ); 19:5 (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
κυρίου Ἰησοῦ); cf. also 22:16. Furthermore Jas 2:7; Pastor Hermae 72 (= Mandatum VIII,6),4. This is
not the place to deal with this intricate problem. Cf. esp. Campenhausen 1971(1979) who categori-
cally denies that baptism ‘into the name of Jesus’ ever existed; by contrast, this is affirmed by
Rouwhorst 2022, col. 986.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 121

However, in some congregations the triadic baptismal formula may have sufficed.
The motives for such a change are unknown. Perhaps the baptismal formula was
transformed into questions in order to emphasize the binding character of the
rite; at the same time, these changes may be related to the introduction of the
renunciation of the devil which seems to have occurred around the middle of
the second century.251
The earliest example for such a question about the convert’s faith prior to
baptism probably occurs in Acts 8:37 which in modern editions of the New Testa-
ment is relegated to the apparatus or to a footnote because it is an addition to the
original text. In this addition the deacon Philip says to the Ethiopian eunuch
when the latter asks whether he might be baptized (FaFo § 88):

‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ He replied (ἀποκριθείς), ‘I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God.’

The earliest witness to this text is Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,12,8 (written in
174/189) which perhaps suggests the middle of the second century as its date of
composition.252 Obviously, it was felt at some point in the transmission of Acts
that some kind of ‘faith statement’ was missing. Strictly speaking, this is, of
course, not a question, but, rather, a conditional permission. But the fact that the
eunuch ‘answers’ (ἀποκριθείς) suggests the narration may well have been based
on a preceding question: ‘Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?’
Be that as it may, from the late second century onwards, baptismal questions
were widely used: there is clear evidence from Alexandria,253 Palestine,254 and
Cappadocia;255 but their development is best attested for Rome and North Africa.

4.5.1 Rome

As regards Rome, the best evidence comes from the Old Gelasian Sacramentary
(OGS), a service book whose earliest preserved copy was written in c. 750. The

 The first unequivocal testimony is found in Justin, Apologia prima 49,5 (cf. also 14,2; 25,2;
61,1). Cf. Kirsten 1960, esp. p. 35; Kretschmar 1970, pp. 42–5.
 In 1Pet 3:21 (συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) ἐπερ-
ώτημα is probably not to be translated as ‘question’ but as ‘appeal’: ‘an appeal to God for a good
conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. This is different in the Vulgate which re-
flects later practice: ‘conscientiae bonae interrogatio in deum per resurrectionem Iesu Christi’.
Cf. FaFo § 81.
 Cf. Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistula V 4 (Feltoe; FaFo § 87a); V 5 (Feltoe; FaFo § 87b).
 Cf. Origen, In Numeros homilia 5, 1 (FaFo § 83).
 Cf. Firmilianus of Caesarea in Cyprian, Epistula 75, 10,5–11,1 (FaFo § 85).
122 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

attribution of this worship manual to Pope Gelasius (sedit 492–496), which was
based on ambiguous evidence, is no longer upheld today. It was presumably com-
piled later, in the seventh century, on the basis of textual material that is much
older.256 The questions quoted in this sacramentary may even date from as early
as the second half of the second century.257 The Roman origin of the bulk of this
sacramentary, already indicated by the title of the compilation (Liber sacramento-
rum Romanae ecclesiae ordinis anni circuli), cannot be further substantiated here,
but is considered probable today by most liturgical historians. In it, the following
questions were required to be asked during the baptismal act itself:

Then, after the blessing of the font, you baptize everyone in turn, using these interrogations:
‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’
He answers, ‘I believe.’
‘Do you also believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, [who was] born and suffered
(natum et passum)?’
He answers, ‘I believe.’
‘Do you also believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrec-
tion of the flesh?’
He answers, ‘I believe.’
Then each time you immerse him thrice in the water.258

In a recent article I have tried to show that, through a careful assessment of this
text and other available evidence, we can reconstruct several versions of baptis-
mal interrogations used in Rome in the second and third centuries. We may tenta-
tively assign these to successive periods, and I call these versions OGSG1, OGS✶,
OGSG2, and TAG.259 Readers interested in the details of this process of reconstruc-
tion (which is very technical) may wish to consult this article.260 In what follows I
will not repeat this analysis, but limit myself to discussing these versions in turn.
We have to keep in mind that they are nowhere directly attested and that the fol-
lowing paragraphs are, therefore, highly speculative. However, they may convey

 Cf. Vogel 1986, pp. 64–70; Palazzo 1998, pp. 42–6. The sacramentary has come down to us in
cod. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 316, ff. 3–245 and cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Natio-
nale, lat. 7193, ff. 41–56. Originally, they formed part of the same codex which was probably pro-
duced in the nunnery Notre-Dame-des-Chelles near Paris in the middle of the eighth century. The
extant copies of the sacramentary and its original version must not, therefore, be confused. Cf. also
below p. 503.
 On their reconstruction and the details of dating, cf. Kinzig 1999(2017). For a criticism of this
position (which I do not consider convincing) cf. Stewart-Sykes, ‘Baptismal Creed’, 2009.
 Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 448–449 (FaFo § 675c). Similarly, § 675f.
 In the article the abbreviations were slightly different: OGSG1 = AGSG1; OGS✶ = AS✶,
OGSG2 = ASG2.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 123

a general idea of how the declaratory creeds at Rome (which I will discuss in
chapter 5.1) gradually developed.

First version: OGSG1

The presumably earliest version of the baptismal questions used at Rome may
have been even briefer and was probably in Greek (the language of the Roman
Christian community at that time261):

Πιστεύεις εἰς θεὸν παντοκράτορα; Do you believe in God Almighty?

Πιστεύεις εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν [or: Ἰη- Do you believe in Christ Jesus [or: Jesus
σοῦν Χριστόν], τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ [or: Christ], the Son of God [or: his Son],
αὐτοῦ], (τὸν) γεννηθέντα καὶ παθόντα [who was] born and suffered?
[or: γεν(ν)ητὸν καὶ παθητόν];
Πιστεύεις εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἁγίαν ἐκ- Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy
κλησίαν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν; Church, the resurrection of the flesh?

It seems that a simple triadic formula as preserved in Mt 28:19 and Didache 7,1. 3
was expanded by additional elements. The first addition παντοκράτορα is well-
known from the Septuagint as translating Hebrew ṣeḇā’ȏṯ and šadday and is used
in combination with both κύριος and θεός.262 In the New Testament it occurs
once in 2Cor 6:18 as a quotation of Amos 3:13 and then exclusively in Revelation
in the stereotypical formula ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ.263 In First Clement the phrase
ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεός is also frequently used.264 Here the dyadic formula

Grace be to you, and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ (ἀπὸ παντοκράτορος
θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) be multiplied.265

is especially significant, because it shows that by the end of the first century the
term had come to be used as God’s attribute in greeting formulae in Rome. A simi-
lar greeting is found in the Letter to the Philippians by Polycarp.266 The Jewish
origin of the term is also visible in the writings of Justin Martyr who uses it only

 Cf. below p. 153 and n. 35.

 Cf. Michaelis 1965, p. 914.
 Cf. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7. 14; 19:6. 15; 21:11.
 Cf. First Clement praescr.; 2,3; 32,4; 62,2. Cf. also 8,5; 56,6; 60,4.
 First Clement praescr. Similarly in 32,4.
 Cf. Polycarp, Epistula ad Philippenses, praescr.: ‘Mercy be upon you and peace from Al-
mighty God (παρὰ θεοῦ παντοκράτορος) and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.’
124 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

in his Dialogue with Trypho, combining it repeatedly with ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων (‘cre-
ator of everything’).267
In Justin we may even find an allusion to OGSG1:

And his powerful word persuaded many to abandon the demons whom they used to serve,
and to believe in [or: trust upon] Almighty God through him (καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν παντοκράτορα
θεὸν δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν).268

We have already seen above that God’s omnipotence was by no means undis-
puted. The Third Letter to the Corinthians turned against Christian gnostic groups
that seem to have rejected the idea, and Irenaeus also argued against such
views.269 This may have precipitated the insertion of the title into baptismal inter-
rogations in order to make sure that the creator God was also identified as the
Father of Jesus Christ and that there was no inferior demiurge with limited
power who had created the (evil) world.
Incidentally, the English translation of παντοκράτωρ as ‘almighty’ or ‘all-power-
ful’ is not quite correct as κρατεῖν means primarily ‘to rule’, ‘to conquer’, ‘to master’,
so that a translation as ‘all-ruling’ would probably be more accurate.270 Instead, the
English translation (like the German allmächtig) renders Latin omnipotens. It has
often been said that its Greek equivalent is, strictly speaking, παντοδύναμος.271 How-
ever, when παντοκράτωρ was translated into Latin there simply was no appropriate
adjective available. We find omnipotens for παντοκράτωρ not only in early Latin ver-
sions of the Old Testament,272 but also in Latin translations of 2Cor 6:18.273
The addition τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ/αὐτοῦ needs no further comment as dozens
of examples are found in the New Testament. It was added in order better to de-
fine the relationship between Jesus Christ and God.
The syntagma (τὸν) γεννηθέντα καὶ παθόντα or, alternatively, γεν(ν)ητὸν καὶ
παθητόν is more complex. Some time ago I argued that παθόντα/παθητόν is not a
summary of the entire passion and resurrection of Christ, but that the emphasis
is in fact solely on Christ’s suffering in order to underline the connection between

 Cf. Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 16,4; 38,2. Cf. also 22,4 (= Amos 3:13); 83,4; 96,3; 139,4; 142,2.
 Dialogus cum Tryphone 83,4.
 Cf. above chs. 4.4.2 and 4.4.3. As regards discussions about God’s omnipotence in creation cf. the
surveys in Koeckert 2012, col. 991; Koeckert 2019, cols. 1060–8.
 Cf., however, Hommel 1956, p. 124 f. who translates παντοκράτωρ as ‘all-preserving’.
 Cf., e.g., Kelly 1972, pp. 136 f.
 Cf. Vetus Latina Database. Cf., e.g., Amos 4:13 (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὄνομα αὐτῷ)
which Ambrose translates as dominus (deus) omnipotens nomen est ei; cf. De fide 1,1; 2,4; De spi-
ritu sancto 2,48; De incarnationis dominicae sacramento 10,115.
 Cf., e.g., Lucifer of Cagliari, De non conueniendo cum haereticis 13 (twice); Ambrosiaster, Com-
mentarius in Pauli epistulas ad Corinthios, ad Cor. II, 6,18.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 125

baptism and the crucifixion as it is also found elsewhere.274 Here it may suffice to
mention Calixtus, later bishop of Rome (217–222), who is said to have persuaded
his predecessor Zephyrinus (sedit c. 199 – c. 217) at the beginning of the century to
declare ‘publicly’ (δημοσίᾳ):

I know that there is one God, Christ Jesus, and aside from him [I know] none other who was
begotten or subject to suffering (γενητὸν καὶ παθητόν).275

The creed-like formulation is so striking that one may assume a direct allusion to
the interrogatory creed as preserved in the OGS.
A direct parallel to it is found in Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxeam. In this trea-
tise, Praxeas, who was active in Rome, is sharply attacked by the rhetor from
Carthage because of his patripassianism. In the opening chapter, Tertullian claims
that Praxeas, in his attempt to defend the oneness of the Lord, taught ‘that the
Father himself descended into the Virgin, was himself born from her, himself suf-
fered (ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum), indeed was himself Jesus Christ’.276 And
a little later Tertullian reproduces the views of the Roman heretic in these words:

In the course of time, then, the Father [was] born and the Father suffered (pater natus et
pater passus), God himself, the Lord Almighty, whom they declare to be Jesus Christ.277

Possibly, Praxeas quoted the words pater natus et pater passus from baptismal ques-
tions in use in the Roman community, in such a way as to take the participles natum
et passum from the second question whilst pointedly connecting them to the Father.
Thus we have indications that at least the second of the baptismal questions was
used in Rome in the form here called OGSG1 already in the second half of the second
century.
The addition of the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh may both
be connected to the struggle against Marcionitism and (gnostic) docetism. In the
Shepherd of Hermas the angel of repentance makes the following announcement:

I want to show you all things that the Holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form of the
Church, showed you. For that Spirit is the Son of God.278

Irenaeus repeatedly emphasizes that the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel
is only found in the Church because it contains the Holy Spirit; those who do not

 Cf. Kinzig 1999(2017), pp. 254–60. For wider background cf. also Kinzig 2013.
 Quoted in Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 9,11,3 (FaFo § 112).
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 1,1 (FaFo § 110a). Cf. also below pp. 139 f.
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 110b).
 Pastor Hermae 78 (= Similitudo IX,1),1.
126 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

participate in the Church but continue to teach their false doctrines and to behave
in a depraved way have no part in the Spirit:

For where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there
is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.279

Irenaeus also calls the regula fidei ‘the true knowledge, the doctrine of the apos-
tles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the whole world’.280
Tertullian offers clear evidence that the Church was mentioned in the version
of the baptismal questions known to him:

Moreover, after pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under the
three [witnesses] (sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis), there is of necessity added men-
tion of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three (that is, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit), there is the Church, which is the body of the three [cf. Mt 18:20; 1Jn 5:7–8].281

In other authors of the second and third centuries we also find the attribute ‘holy’
attached to the Church.282 In particular, Cyprian is propagating this attribute which
is also found in the baptismal questions of North Africa.283 North African texts add
it to the ‘Church’, as do many other authors, in order to distinguish this particular
kind of ‘assembly’ (which is the original meaning of ἐκκλησία) from that of all dis-
sidents and schismatics.
Finally, the resurrection of the flesh was mentioned in order to reject all inter-
pretations that saw the resurrection (both of Christ and of humankind) as solely a
spiritual event or denied it altogether.284 Jesus’ fleshly resurrection was not only
rejected by Marcion and the Valentinian gnostics but seems to have been disputed
in many ‘docetist’ circles. Marcion saw matter as something dirty which should be
shed rather than put on once more in the resurrection.285 The Valentinians pre-
ferred to speak of the ‘resurrection from the dead’, instead ‘of the flesh’.286 This be-

 Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,24,1.

 Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 4,33,8 (FaFo § 109b13). Similarly, in 5,20,1 (FaFo § 109b14).
 Tertullian, De baptismo 6,2 (FaFo § 82c). Cf. also 11,3.
 Cf. already Eph 5:27. In addition, Pastor Hermae 1 (= Visio I,1),6; 3 (= Visio I,3),4; 22 (= Visio
IV,1),3; Martyrdom of Polycarp, inscr.; Apollonius in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5,18,5; Theophi-
lus of Alexandria, Ad Autolycum 2,14; 3,12; Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 5,4,8; 5,12,6; Hippolytus,
Contra Noetum 18,10; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7,29,3; 7,87,4; Alexander of Jerusalem in Eu-
sebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6,11,5; Cornelius of Rome in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6,43,6;
Pseudo-Cyprian, Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis 6. 13. 14.
 Cf. Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,2; 70, 1,2. 2,1 (FaFo § 92b); 71, 2,3; 73, 21,3; 75, 19,3 (Firmilianus). Cf.
below pp. 132 f.
 Cf. also Vinzent 2011, pp. 181–91.
 Cf. Vinzent 2011, pp. 111–12.
 Cf. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 2,31,2; Tertullian, De resurrectione mortuorum 18–19.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 127

comes, for example, apparent from a passage, full of faith language, in the Letter to
the Philippians by Polycarp of Smyra:

For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the antichrist
[cf. 1Jn 4:2–3; 2Jn 7; cf. 1Jn 2:18. 22]; and [everyone] who does not confess the testimony of
the cross, is from the devil [cf. 1Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44]; and [everyone] who perverts the words of
the Lord to his own desires [cf. 2Tim 4:3; First Clement 3:4], and says that there is neither a
resurrection nor a judgement, he is the first-born of Satan.287

(Pseudo-)Ignatius time and again emphasizes the ‘truth’ of the fleshly resurrection
in his letters (if genuine).288 Tertullian devoted two entire treatises (De carne Christi
and De resurrectione mortuorum) to rebutting such views and to demonstrate the
material ‘reality’ of the incarnation and of the general resurrection.289

Second version: OGS✶

At a second stage, the oneness of God and the syntagma mundi conditorem were
inserted into the first section, as well as unicum, dominum nostrum added in
the second. We do not know what the third section looked like. (It was probably
identical with OGSG1.) In what follows I give a Latin version, but the language is
uncertain – Greek and Latin versions probably coexisted side by side:

Credis in unum [or: unicum] deum om- Do you believe in the one God Almighty,
nipotentem, mundi conditorem? the Creator of the world?
Credis (et) in Iesum Christum, filium Do you (also) believe in Jesus Christ, his
eius unicum, dominum nostrum, natum only Son, our Lord, [who was] born and
et passum? suffered?
Credis in spiritum sanctum < . . . >? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit < . . . >?290

The precise origin of the addition mundi conditorem in OGS✶, which is found in
Latin authors such as Noetus, Praxeas, and Tertullian, remains unclear.291 Tertul-
lian claims in his treatise De praescriptione haereticorum (written in Carthage in

 Polycarp, Epistula ad Philippenses 7,1.

 Cf. esp. (Pseudo-)Ignatius, Ad Smyrnaeos (middle version) 3,1–3; 12,2.
 Treatises demonstrating the possibility of a bodily resurrection were written by many Chris-
tian authors in the first three centuries. For discussion cf. Bynum 1995, pp. 21–58; Lehtipuu 2015,
esp. 109–57.
 The precise wording of what followed is uncertain.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 1,1; (FaFo § 110a; for Praxeas); id., De praescriptione haereti-
corum 13,1 (§ 111b1); id., De uirginibus uelandis 1,4 (3; § 111c); Novatian, De trinitate 1,1 (§ 119a: rerum
omnium conditorem); 9,1 (§ 119b: conditor rerum omnium).
128 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

203) that the Roman church ‘knows one God the Lord, the Creator of the universe
(creatorem uniuersitatis), and Christ Jesus [born] from the virgin Mary, the Son of
God the Creator (creatoris), and the resurrection of the flesh’.292 If we assume that
mundi conditorem in OGS✶ and creatorem uniuersitatis in Tertullian293 both ren-
der Greek τῶν (ἁ)πάντων/τῶν ὃλων κτίστην/δημιουργόν, Tertullian’s rendering of
the first section is actually quite close to OGS✶.
The additions in the first section were necessary because the Marcionites and
gnostics distinguished between an (inferior) creator God (demiurge) and a supe-
rior God Almighty which in the eyes of many proto-orthodox Christians threat-
ened Christian monotheism294 – perhaps, the addition of ‘almighty’ that had been
made in OGSG1 simply was not enough. By contrast, the addition to the second sec-
tion emphasized the special relationship between God and Christ which excluded
Christologies in which Jesus was seen as an angel who as such belonged to the
created order. In early Latin versions unicus was used to translate μονογενής,
whereas the neologism unigenitus is not attested before the time of Tertullian.295

Third version: OGSG2

The text of the christological summary τὸν γεννηθέντα – ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς was
inserted into OGSG1 in one of the Roman congregations at the beginning of the
third century, resulting in yet another version (OGSG2). This probably was an out-
come of the controversy with both modalist monarchians, who advocated a strict
monotheism,296 and gnostics. It served to clarify, on the one hand, both the divine
origin of Christ and the distinction between God Father and Son and, on the other
hand, the historicity of the incarnation of the Son. We will look below at the ori-
gin of this passage.297

Πιστεύεις εἰς θεὸν παντοκράτορα; Do you believe in God Almighty?

Πιστεύεις εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son
τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος of God, who was born from the Holy
ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Spirit and the virgin Mary; who was

 Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 36,5 (FaFo § 111b5). On the ‘confession’ of or the
‘belief’ in the ‘resurrection of the flesh’ cf. also id., De resurrectione mortuorum 3,4; 48,13; id., De
uirginibus uelandis 1,4(3; § 111c; cf. below p. 137).
 On creatorem uniuersitatis cf. also Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem 5,5,3.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 141 f.; Kinzig 1999(2017), p. 263.
 Cf. Braun 1977, pp. 247–51.
 On the quasi-official monarchianism in Rome at around 200 cf. Hübner 1999; Vinzent 2013; Kin-
zig, ‘Christus’, 2017, pp. 281–7; Kinzig 2017(2022), pp. 148–54.
 Cf. below ch. 4.6.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 129

Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα [or: τὸν crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was
σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου] καὶ buried, and on the third day rose again
ταφέντα καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα from the dead, and ascended into the
ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ heavens, and is sitting at the right hand
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν] καὶ ἀναβάντα of the Father, coming to judge the living
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθήμενον ἐν and the dead?
δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευσό-
μενον] κρίνειν [or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας καὶ
νεκρούς;
Πιστεύεις εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ ἁγίαν Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the
ἐκκλησίαν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν; holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh?

OGSG2 in its original interrogatory or in a secondary declaratory version was

later quoted by Marcellus of Ancyra. We will discuss this evidence when we come
to the Roman Creed.298

Fourth version: TAG

So far we have been dealing with reconstructions. The first complete set of baptis-
mal questions that has been preserved in actuality is found in the Ethiopic and
Latin versions of the Traditio Apostolica, a Church order usually ascribed to Hip-
polytus.299 They go back to a Greek original which may date from the early third
century. TAG must have run like this:

Πιστεύεις εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα; Do you believe in one God Almighty?
Πιστεύεις εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son
τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος of God, who was born from the Holy
ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν Spirit and the virgin Mary; who was cru-
ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα [or: cified under Pontius Pilate, and died,
τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου] and was buried, and on the third day
καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ τῇ rose again alive from the dead, and as-
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ (τῶν) νεκ- cended into the heavens, and is sitting
ρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ at the right hand of the Father, coming
(τῶν) νεκρῶν] ζῶντα300 καὶ ἀναβάντα to judge the living and the dead?
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθήμενον ἐν
δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευ-

 Cf. below ch. 5.1.

 The Latin and Ethiopic versions are found in FaFo § 89b and c and in Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’,
2022, p. 165. The ascription to Hippolytus is uncertain. Cf. below p. 148 and n. 11.
 The origin of ζῶντα is unclear. Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022, pp. 175 f.
130 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

σόμενον] κρίνειν [or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας

καὶ νεκρούς;
Πιστεύεις εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and
(εἰς) ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ (εἰς) σαρκὸς (in) the holy Church and (in) the resur-
ἀνάστασιν; rection of the flesh?

This version is basically identical with OGSG2 but contains (like OGS✶) the addition
ἕνα in the first article and, furthermore, for the first time, the additions καὶ ἀπο-
θανόντα and ζῶντα in the christological summary of the second article, which
perhaps served to underline the reality of both Jesus’ death and resurrection re-
spectively. (These words may, of course, have been added at different times.) TAG
served as the basis for the Latin and Ethiopic translations (TAL and TAE respec-
tively) which we will discuss below in chapter 5.1.

All these considerations lead to the following stemma of the Roman credal
questions:301

 This is an abbreviated version of the stemma printed in Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022, p. 174.
 4.5 The emergence of credal interrogations 131

The aforementioned versions must not be conceived of as a series of successive re-

visions in strict chronological order but may have circulated in Rome (and beyond)
simultaneously.302 At the same time, we are probably not yet dealing with formulae
that had been fixed once and for all (as in the case of the later synodal and baptis-
mal creeds). Just as the liturgy as a whole had not yet been written down,303 the
baptismal questions in the various Roman (house) churches304 will have been
transmitted in an oral tradition in slightly different versions.305 Even in the same
community the questions may have varied from baptism to baptism, although their
basic structure will have remained the same.
Cyprian also offers some testimony for the high degree of flexibility that still
existed at the time. In his dispute with the Roman schismatic Novatian in 253 or 254,
the bishop of Carthage denied his opponents the right to claim the same symbolum
as the catholics. It is clear from the context that he is thinking of the baptismal ques-
tions here. We learn from Cyprian that the Roman symbolum was structured in a
trinitarian fashion. He quotes one of the questions as follows:

Credis in remissionem peccatorum et uitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam? / Do you be-
lieve in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy Church?306

This formulation is similar to, but not identical with, the third question of the
OGS. However, it is uncertain whether Cyprian is precisely reproducing the
Roman version of the question or is following an African custom. This means that
his testimony will probably not provide more than a general indication that
Roman questions of faith existed around 250 and that they were identical with, or
similar to, the version as transmitted by the OGS. We have no evidence of the in-
creased fixation of the credal elements until the second half of the third century,
and therefore no earlier evidence for the origin of the Old Roman Creed as such.

 Cf. already Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 270 f.; similarly, Holland 1965, p. 263 and others.
 Cf., e.g., Vogel 1986, pp. 31 f. and n. 29; Kinzig 2011(2017), p. 338 and n. 44. In our context see also
Kelly 1972, pp. 91 f.
 On the structure of the Roman church in the second century cf. Brent 1995; Lampe 2003.
 Similar questions have also been preserved in the Martyrium Calixti and the Acta S. Stephani
et martyris (FaFo §§ 90, 91) which are probably also of Roman origin, but may date from a much
later period. Pseudo-Cyprian, De rebaptismate 10 (FaFo § 86) also attests to the use of questions.
However, it is not quite clear where this text originated (Italy? Africa?; cf. Antonie Wlosok in Sall-
mann 1997, pp. 579–81).
 Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,2 (FaFo § 92a). Cf. also next section.
132 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

4.5.2 North Africa

The second region from which clear evidence of baptismal interrogations has been
preserved is North Africa. In Carthage Tertullian attests to the rite of renunciation or
Apótaxis, that is, the abjuration of the devil and his pomp, as well as to the recitation
of the faith in interrogatory form. This remained the ‘normal’ ritual sequence in the
west where no corresponding formula of Sýntaxis (‘allegiance’ to Christ) was used.307
The questions were posed individually before each of the three immersions into the
baptismal font.308 Tertullian calls these words sacramenti uerba, comparing them to
a military oath,309 and a testatio fidei (legal deposition).310 We do not know what the
questions and answers were, except that the latter seem not simply to have consisted
in credo, because Tertullian says that the baptizands gave ‘a somewhat ampler re-
sponse than the Lord appointed in the Gospel’ (amplius aliquid respondentes quam
dominus in euangelio determinauit).311
The first direct evidence stems from around the middle of the third century.
Cyprian mentions one baptismal question in two slightly different versions (see
also previous section):
(I) ‘Credis in remissionem peccatorum et uitam aeternam per sanctam eccle-
siam?’ / ‘Do you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the
holy Church?’312
(II) ‘Credis in uitam aeternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam eccle-
siam?’ / ‘Do you believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy
Church?’313
The context of the writings in which these questions occur obviously influenced
their wording. For in both letters, written during the controversy over the bap-
tism of heretics, Cyprian stresses that faith in the remission of sins is only possi-
ble through the (catholic) Church and not through the heretics.314 In this regard,
the sequence of the first two objects of faith (remission of sins and eternal life)
apparently did not really concern him. In this case, too, we can see that what mat-

 Cf. Tertullian, De spectaculis 4,1 (FaFo § 82b). Cf. also Kinzig, ‘“I abjure Satan”’, 2024 (sub
prelo).
 Cf. Tertullian, De corona 3,3 (FaFo § 82e). Cf. also id., De resurrectione mortuorum 48,11
(§ 82d).
 Cf. Tertullian, Ad martyras 3,1 (FaFo § 82a).
 Cf. Tertullian, De baptismo 6,2 (FaFo § 82c).
 Tertullian, De corona 3,3 (FaFo § 82e). The biblical allusion is uncertain (Mt 28:19?). Cf. also
Whitaker 1965, pp. 2 f.; Jilek 1979, p. 126 and n. 4.
 Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,2 (FaFo § 92a).
 Cyprian, Epistula 70, 2,1 (FaFo § 92b).
 Cf. Kinzig 1999(2017), p. 247.
 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 133

tered was not the precise wording of these questions (which were obviously
orally transmitted) but rather whether specific elements (in this case: per sanctam
ecclesiam) were in fact included or omitted.
As mentioned in the previous section, Cyprian suggests that the same baptis-
mal question was also asked at Rome. However, the striking phrase per sanctam
ecclesiam is never attested for Rome, whereas we continue to find it in African
versions of the creed.315 The practice of asking questions about the faith at bap-
tism was not restricted to Carthage. It is also attested for small country dioceses
in the province of Africa Proconsularis.316

4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary

We saw above that at some point a christological summary was inserted into the
baptismal questions (version OGSG2). Let us now take a closer look at this section.317
Except for one small difference the version OGSG2 is identical with the same section
in the Roman creed as attested by Marcellus of Ancyra and Leo the Great.318 Again,
we have to bear in mind that minor differences between versions may be due to
the purely oral transmission of these texts whose wording is not yet fully fixed. It
was already suggested at the beginning of the last century that the tradition history
of this summary is independent from that of the remainder of the confession and
that the summary was secondarily inserted into a relatively brief trinitarian for-
mula (similar to that of Mt 28:19).319
The brevity of the summary is striking. Important data concerning Jesus’ ac-
tivities on earth (miracles, proclamation etc.) are missing. The summary is also
shorter than eastern summaries which are otherwise similar in structure (such as
that of N) and which describe the relationship between Father and Son in some
detail, thereby placing an emphasis on Christ’s eternal birth and his participation
in creation.320 This suggests, first, that the western summary does not depend on

 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 215 (FaFo § 316g); Quodvultdeus, Sermo 3, 13,1 (§ 317c); Fulgentius of
Ruspe, Contra Fabianum, frg. 36,14 (§ 319a2); Pseudo-Fulgentius, Sermo de symbolo (§ 320).
 Caecilius of Biltha mentions it at the council held at Carthage on 1 September 256; cf. Senten-
tiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis (FaFo § 84).
 The following chapter is based on Kinzig, ‘Christus’, 2017.
 The version above has ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευσόμενον] κρίνειν [or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς
whereas Marcellus and Leo read: ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς // unde uenturus est
iudicare uiuos ac mortuos (or: ad iudicandos uiuos et mortuos); cf. Marcellus, Epistula ad Iulium
papam (Epiphanius, Panarion 72,3,1; FaFo § 253); Leo’s creed as reconstructed in § 255g.
 Cf. above pp. 19–21.
 Cf. the synopses in Vinzent 1999, pp. 271–6.
134 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

them. Second, the brevity of the western summary may also point to an early
date of composition. Is it possible to reconstruct how it came about?
The western christological summary contains the circumstances of Jesus’
birth and passion (including the mention of Pontius Pilate), statements about his
resurrection and ascension, his sitting at the right hand of the Father and his es-
chatological return including the Last Judgement. Thus it is made clear that the
Son of God went through a period on earth, in the end ascended to his Father at
whose right he is now sitting, and will eventually return to earth for the Last
Judgement.
Above all, these statements are directed against gnosticism. They were inserted
into the relevant baptismal question so as to safeguard the identity of the pre-
existent Christ with the earthly Jesus.321 It is further strengthened by a particular
christological exegesis of Ps 109(110):1 which is found in the New Testament:322
after his resurrection the same individual who was crucified under Pontius Pilate
is accorded an eminent place of honour by being seated at God’s right hand. This
excludes any kind of docetic Christology. At the same time, the sitting at the right
hand also excludes the Son’s identification with the Father or a ‘dissolution’ of the
Son into the Father – we will later return to this observation.323
The insertion of the christological statement concerning the ‘sitting at the right
hand’ thus already indicates that the summary as a whole is also, but not primarily
directed against docetism. This becomes even clearer when we compare it with the
writings of Ignatius of Antioch (assuming the authenticity of the middle version of
his letters). Throughout his letters Ignatius fights docetism and, therefore, supple-
ments the individual stages of Jesus’ earthly life by adding the adverb ἀληθῶς
(‘truly’) in similar outlines.324 By contrast, the summary under consideration here
does not primarily argue against an incarnation ‘by appearance’ only (which, none-
theless, is clearly denied), but rather both for the identification of the Son of God
with the earthly Jesus and thus against a dualist saviour figure and for the persis-
tent distinction between Father and Son after the ascension.

 Cf. also Kelly 1972, pp. 141–3.

 In the version of the Septuagint: Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν
θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. / ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right
hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Reflexes in the New Testament include Mt
26:64; Mk 12:36 (quotation); 14:62; 16:19; Lk 20:42 (quotation); 22:69; Acts 2:34 (quotation); 7:55; Heb
1:13 (quotation). On the question as a whole cf. Markschies 1993(2000).
 Cf. below p. 207 and n. 264; 282, 286, 352, 622.
 (Pseudo-)Ignatius, Ad Trallianos 9,1–2 (middle version; FaFo § 98c1). Similarly id., Ad Smyr-
naeos 1,1–2 (middle version, § 98e1).
 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 135

This antignostic tendency is strengthened further by the insertion of Pontius

Pilate. Regulae fidei and credal summaries of the first three centuries only rarely
mention the governor of Judaea.325 This is why passages where he is named take
on a particular significance. Thus Irenaeus includes the mention of Pilate in an
argument which is clearly directed against gnosticism:

For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be
necessary, [in that case,] to follow the order of the tradition which they handed down to
those to whom they committed the churches?
Many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent to this [order], having
salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper or ink [cf. 2Cor 3:3; 2Jn 12; 3Jn 13],
carefully preserving the ancient tradition and believing in one God, the Creator of heaven,
earth, and all things therein [cf. Ex 20:11; Ps 145(146):6, Acts 4:24; 14:15], and Christ Jesus, the
Son of God; who, because of his surpassing love towards his creation [cf. Eph 3:19], endured a
generation from a virgin, he himself uniting humanity to God through himself; [who] has suf-
fered under Pontius Pilate, and rises again; and [who], having been received up in splendour
[cf. 1Tim 3:16], will come in glory [cf. Mt 16:27; 24:30; 25:31] [as] the Saviour of those who are
saved and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire [cf. Mt 25:41] those
who transform the truth and despise his Father [and] his advent.326

Passages such as this make it clear that the mention of Pilate aims to historicize
the crucifixion, yet not in such a way that it supplies a particular dating (in which
case the insertion as is would have been incorrect, because it does not refer to
the terms of office of emperors or consuls), but in order to emphasize the histori-
cal and geographical context in which the crucifixion took place: God incarnate
was in fact (and not in appearance only) crucified.
Furthermore, another important observation can be made from a careful ex-
amination of the relevant passages in which Pilate appears within christological
summaries. For the divine dignity of the historical Jesus, who was crucified under
Pilate, is also emphasized (along with the historicity of his incarnation) over
against both pagans and Jews. Such an anti-pagan tendency is particularly promi-
nent in Justin’s First Apology:

Therefore, what sober-minded person will not acknowledge [. . .] that we are not atheists,
since we worship the maker of this universe. We will make known Jesus Christ, our teacher of
these things, who also was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate (who
was procurator of Judaea in the times of Tiberius Caesar); we have learned that he is the Son
of the true God himself, and we hold him in the second place and the prophetic Spirit in the
third, because we honour him along with the Word [or: according to reason, μετὰ λόγου].327

 Cf. above p. 98 n. 164.

 Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,1–2 (FaFo § 109b7).
 Justin, Apologia Prima 13,1–3 (FaFo § 104a2).
136 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

This passage is particularly striking because here a trinitarian mode of speaking

about God is linked to statements regarding the birth and passion of Jesus (which
are, therefore, reminiscent of the early Roman baptismal interrogations such as
OGSG1),328 supplemented by a fairly precise date indicating Pilate and the Em-
peror Tiberius.
From another passage in the same Apology it also becomes apparent that we
are dealing here with material taken from baptismal catechesis:

[. . .] in the water the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe is pronounced over
the one who chooses to be born again and has repented of his sins; the one who leads to the
laver the person that is to be washed invokes [God] by this name alone. For no one has the
right to give a name of the ineffable God; and if anyone might dare to say that there is a
name, he raves with a hopeless madness. This washing is called ‘illumination’ because they
who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. He who is illuminated is also
washed upon the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and upon the
name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus.329

Finally, Justin uses a similar version of this christological summary (also mention-
ing Pontius Pilate) in the anti-Jewish polemics of his Dialogue with Trypho:
For every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God – who is ‘the first-
born of all creation’ [Col 1:15], was begotten through the Virgin, became a human who was
subject to suffering, was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, died, rose again
from the dead, and ascended into heaven – is overcome and subdued [cf. Lk 10:17].330

From these texts it is evident, then, that in the time of Justin the link between
trinitarian formula and christological summary was not yet fully forged. Its out-
lines are discernible in Irenaeus, but there are no hints of the existence of a fixed
formula in the sense of a creed.
This situation changed at the beginning of the third century with Tertullian.
In his treatise Against Praxeas from 210/211, he first quotes his opponent:

In the course of time, then, the Father [was] born and the Father suffered, God himself, the
Lord Almighty, whom they declare to be Jesus Christ.331

He then goes on to summarize his own rule of faith as follows:

Nonetheless, as we always [have done] and now even more so, since we have been better
instructed by the Paraclete [cf. Jn 16:13], who leads men indeed into all truth, we believe
that there is one single God. But under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as we call

 Cf. above p. 123.

 Justin, Apologia Prima 61,10–13 (FaFo § 104a9).
 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 85,2 (FaFo § 104b3).
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 110b).
 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 137

it, [we believe] that there is also a Son of the single God, his very Word, who proceeded
from himself, ‘through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made’
[Jn 1:3]. [We believe] him to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin and to have been
born from her – being both man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and named
Jesus Christ. [We believe] him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the
Scriptures [cf. 1Cor 15:3–4], and, after he had been raised up again by the Father and taken
back into heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father [cf. Mk 16:19]; that he will
come to judge the living and the dead [cf. 2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5]; who sent thence from the Fa-
ther, according to his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith
of those who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [cf. Jn 16:7].332

Praxeas’ view introduces this paragraph in the manner of a hypothesis.333 It is fol-

lowed by extended binitarian statements334 which contain the elements death –
burial – raising from the dead/resurrection – sitting at the right hand (for the first
time!335) – Last Judgement, and which resemble OGSG2,336 although the wording
still differs in detail.
Another version of the regula fidei which occurs in the treatise On the Veiling
of Virgins is even closer to the summary in OGSG2:

The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and irreformable; [that is, the
rule] of believing in one single God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, and his Son Jesus
Christ, born from the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised
again from the dead, received into the heavens, sitting now at the right hand of the Father,
[who will] come to judge the living and the dead even through the resurrection of the flesh.
As this law of faith is abiding, the other [succeeding] points of discipline and conversation
now permit the newness of correction, as the grace of God is of course operating and ad-
vancing even to the end.337

For the sake of clarity I juxtapose the christological summaries found in Tertul-
lian with that of the Roman version:

 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 111e1).

 Cf. above p. 125.
 If the mission of the Paraclete is seen as an explication of faith in the Holy Spirit, we are in
fact dealing here with an actual trinitarian formula.
 But cf. also Melito, De pascha 104 (FaFo § 107) in a hymnic passage (quoted above p. 76).
 Cf. above pp. 128 f.
 De uirginibus uelandis 1,4–5 (3–4; FaFo § 111c).
138 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

Roman version Reconstruction of its Tertullian, De Tertullian, Aduersus

(OGSG) presumed Latin text uirginibus uelandis , Praxeam , (FaFo
(FaFo § c) § e)

εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, et in Christum et filium eius hunc missum a patre in

Iesum, Iesum Christum, uirginem
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, filium dei,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ qui natus est [or: natum ex virgine Maria, et ex ea natum,
πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ natum] de [or: ex] hominem et deum,
Μαρίας τῆς spiritu sancto et Maria filium hominis et filium
παρθένου, uirgine, dei et cognominatum
Iesum Christum;
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixum sub Pontio hunc passum, hunc
Πιλάτου crucifixus est [or: Pilato, mortuum
σταυρωθέντα [or: crucifixum
τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ sub Pontio Pilato]
Ποντίου Πιλάτου]
καὶ ταφέντα et sepultus [or: et et sepultum secundum
sepultum] scripturas
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ et [or: qui] tertia tertia die resuscitatum et resuscitatum a
ἀναστάντα ἐκ (τῶν) die resurrexit a a patre
νεκρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα mortuis; mortuis,
τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ (τῶν)
νεκρῶν],
καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς ascendit [or: receptum in et in caelo
τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ascendentem] in caelis, resumptum
caelos
καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ et sedet [or: sedit or sedentem nunc ad sedere ad dexteram
τοῦ πατρός, sedentem] ad dexteram patris
dexteram patris patris,
[or: in dextera
patris],
ἐρχόμενον [or: uenturum iudicare uenturum iudicare uenturum iudicare
ἐλευσόμενον] κρίνειν uiuos et mortuos. uiuos et uiuos et mortuos.
[or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας mortuos
καὶ νεκρούς.
per carnis
etiam resurrectionem.

 A translation is found above on pp. 128 f.

 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 139

This synopsis clearly shows that every single item of the Roman summary is
found in the version which occurs in De uirginibus uelandis, which raises the pos-
sibility that Tertullian and the Roman summary may be based on a common
Vorlage.
The treatise Against Praxeas may help us to explain these agreements as well
as the Sitz im Leben of the christological summary found in Tertullian which, for
the first time, included both Pontius Pilate and also the sitting at the right hand.
Praxeas was a theologian from Asia Minor, who had come to Rome and reached a
considerable degree of influence due to his status as confessor.339 (His actual iden-
tity is unclear, ‘Praxeas’ perhaps being a pseudonym.) According to Tertullian
Praxeas’ influence (which had even extended to North Africa) had already passed
its peak some time ago, but his doctrine had flared up again at least in Carthage,
thus necessitating the composition of the treatise.340 In order to preserve a strict
monotheism341 – which he may have called monarchia342 – Praxeas claimed that
the Father and the Son were identical, even going so far as to maintain that the
Father had suffered in or with the Son. According to Tertullian he used the word
unicus as the starting point for his argument:

He [sc. Praxeas] maintains that there is a single (unicum) Lord, the Almighty, the Creator of
the world (omnipotentem, mundi conditorem), in such a way that out of this [word] ‘single’
(unico) he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father himself descended into the Virgin,
was himself born from her, himself suffered, indeed was himself Jesus Christ.343

Tertullian later repeats the charge of patripassianism in the passage quoted above:
according to Praxeas the Father himself was born and had suffered.344 In his trea-
tise Tertullian repeats his claim that Praxeas affirmed the identity of Father, Son,
and Spirit as if it were some kind of mantra.345 Yet the position which his opponent
allegedly maintained was probably much more nuanced than Tertullian allowed
for. Praxeas used as his exegetical starting point the passages Is 45:5, Jn 10:30, and
Jn 14:9–11 which for him, and the monarchiani (10,1), proved the strict identity of
Father and Son.346 They claimed that God had differentiated himself into Father

 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 1,4. On Praxeas cf. Handl 2022.
 Cf. Tertullian, De uirginibus uelandis 1,9(6)–11(7).
 Cf. esp. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 19,7. Furthermore 31,1.
 On the term ‘monarchianism’ and its meaning cf. Kinzig 2017(2022).
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 1,1 (FaFo § 110a).
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 110b; quoted above p. 125). Likewise 10,9.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,3 (FaFo § 110c); 5,1; 9,1; 10,1; 11,1. Similarly 11,4; 25,4; 27,2;
31,3 etc.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 20,1.
140 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

and Son without in any way compromising his single identity.347 According to Prax-
eas, the Scriptures spoke of two Gods on the one hand, and of one single God on
the other hand – this contradiction could only be solved if the identity of the Father
with the Son was presupposed.348 Accordingly, the world had been created by one
God only. Praxeas appears to have questioned the creative activity of the Son, but
at the same time also denied the cooperation of other mediator figures such as had
been introduced by the Marcionites and Valentinians.349 Since this identity had
never ceased, the biblical statements about Christ’s lowliness must in actual fact
refer to the Father.350 Likewise, in the New Testament the Father acted ‘in the
name of the Son’ (in filii nomine) and not vice versa.351 The identity of Father and
Son was even supported by Old Testament passages in which God was both visible
and invisible at the same time (just as in the New Testament).352
Praxeas had not maintained a symmetry of the Son with the Father either,
but had placed the Son as a mode of divine appearance beneath the Father. As
the Father alone was almighty, there remained a clear difference between Father
and Son which, however, must not be interpreted as some kind of subordination-
ism since the Son did not possess his own hypóstasis over against the Father.
Praxeas also drew conclusions from these insights with regard to the incarna-
tion. He seems to have named Jesus incarnate as ‘Son’, whereas he called the
‘Spirit’ in the incarnate Jesus ‘Father’ whom he identified with ‘Christ’.353 Accord-
ingly, the Father, too, had been crucified, but only the Son died because of his
human ‘substance’.354 The Father, therefore, was a ‘fellow-sufferer’ (conpassibilis),
but nevertheless ultimately ‘impassible’ (inpassibilis); only the Son suffered in the
full sense of the term.355 Thus apparently Praxeas thought a ‘hard’ patripassian-
ism was to be avoided.
On the basis of the evidence quoted above it seems that he referred to the
Roman baptismal interrogations. They were trinitarian in structure and con-

 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 10,7.

 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 18,1.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 19,1.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 16,6–7.
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 17,1.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 14,5–6. By contrast, Tertullian denies that the Son was visi-
ble in Old Testament times; cf. 14,7.
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 27,1. Cf. already 17,4. He based this claim on Lk 1:35. Cf. Tertul-
lian, Aduersus Praxeam 26,2–3; 27,4.
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 29,3. 5. It remains unclear to what extent we are dealing here
with a docetic Christology – Tertullian does not polemicize against it.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 29,5.
 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 141

tained in their first article the belief ‘in one single God’ (in unicum deum). In fact,
in De uirginibus uelandis Tertullian himself uses such an expression when quot-
ing the regula fidei: in unicum deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem / ‘believing
in one single God Almighty, the Creator of the universe.’356 When we compare
this passage with Aduersus Praxeam 1,1 the first baptismal interrogation may be
reconstructed with some degree of accuracy:

Credis in unicum deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem?

Do you believe in the one God Almighty, the Creator of the world?

This is precisely the version of OGS✶.357 As we have seen above, Praxeas is quoted
as saying that the Father was born and suffered (itaque post tempus pater natus
et pater passus).358 Similarly, Tertullian later claims that according to the twisted
view of the heretics the Father was believed to have been born and to have suf-
fered (natus et passus).359
In order to combat these views Tertullian enlarged the second article in
Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 and, alluding to Jn 1:1–3, emphasized the difference between
Father and Son. This difference also underlies the extended christological sum-
mary that leads up to the resurrection, assumption into heaven and the sitting at
the right hand. Here Tertullian substantiated the difference between Father and
Son by taking recourse to 1Cor 15:3–4 and Mk 16:19.360
Praxeas’ position resembles the one Hippolytus attributed to Noetus, a theolo-
gian who originated from Smyrna, and to his followers who were active in Rome.
Among the latter he mentions a certain Epigonus as well as his pupil Cleomenes.361
Hippolytus creates the impression that the doctrine was being spread in Rome in
particular by those attending the school of Cleomenes, including the Roman bishop
Zephyrinus (sedit c. 199 – c. 217). According to Hippolytus’ account these theolo-
gians, too, identified the creator of the universe with the Father alone. In addition,
they maintained the identity of Father and Son in order to safeguard the divine
monarchy and ascribed birth, passion, and death to the Father. Epiphanius quotes
the following phrase by Noetus: ‘I know one God and no other beside him [cf. Ex

 Cf. De uirginibus uelandis 1,4 (3; FaFo § 111c); cf. also above p. 137.
 Cf. above p. 127.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 110b); cf. above p. 125.
 Cf. Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 13,5.
 On the christological summary and the soteriology which is linked to it cf. Viciano 1986, esp.
101–115.
 For what follows cf. Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 8,19,3; 9,7,1; 9,10,9–12; 10,26–
27,2.
142 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

20:3; Is 45:5], who was born, suffered, and died’362 – a clear allusion to the baptis-
mal interrogation in OGSG1 which resembles the above-mentioned sentence by
Praxeas preserved by Tertullian (itaque post tempus pater natus et pater passus).
Hippolytus ascribes the following statement to Bishop Zephyrinus:

I know that there is one God, Christ Jesus, and aside from him [I know] none other who was
begotten or subject to suffering (γενητὸν καὶ παθητόν).363

Once more the Roman baptismal interrogation is alluded to, just as in the case of
Praxeas and Noetus, but the patripassian thrust of Praxeas (or, rather, of Tertulli-
an’s polemic, for Praxeas possibly only spoke of a ‘fellow-suffering’) and of Noetus
is softened.
Finally, the Roman bishop Calixtus (sedit 217/218–222) held a similar view,
again according to Hippolytus. He maintained the oneness of God and Father call-
ing him the Demiurge of the universe (which may indicate that his doctrine, too,
was directed against gnosticism). The same being was also the Son ‘by name’ (ὀνό-
ματι), a claim which was made too by Praxeas.364 Apparently the rest of his argu-
ment likewise was the result of his attempt to propound a coherent exegesis of the
Gospel of John, in particular concerning the relationship of its prologue to Jn 4:24.
As regards their spiritual nature, God and Logos did not differ from each other in
any respect; rather, they were united by a single ‘person’ (πρόσωπον, the precise
meaning of the term here is unclear). The distinction between Father and Son was
to be understood ‘by name’ (ὀνόματι) only and was, therefore, not one of essence
or substance (οὐσίᾳ). With regard to the incarnation Calixtus introduced a distinc-
tion which, once again, calls to mind Praxeas: the Son alone took on flesh and thus
became tangible; the father ‘dwelt’ in him as a spirit and thus deified him. Conse-
quently, the Father had ‘suffered together’ with the Son (συμπεπονθέναι). Like
Praxeas, Calixtus may have wanted to avoid referring statements relating to suffer-
ing directly to the Father.
There are so many parallels between the doctrine of Calixtus as reported by
Hippolytus and the views of Praxeas that scholars have time and again claimed
their identity. However, serious objections have also been raised.365 What matters
for our purposes is not solving this problem but the fact that we are dealing here

 Epiphanius, Panarion 57,1,8 (FaFo § 108b): Ἕνα θεὸν ἐπίσταμαι καὶ οὐκ ἄλλον πλὴν αὐτοῦ,
γεννηθέντα, πεπονθότα, ἀποθανόντα.
 Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 9,11,3 (FaFo § 112).
 Hippolytus, however, is not altogether clear in this respect. He claims in Refutatio omnium
haeresium 9,12,16, as opposed to 10,27,3, that Calixtus had said the Logos was Son and Father ‘by
name only’.
 Cf. Sieben 2001, pp. 31 f. and, most recently, Handl 2022, esp. pp. 266–70.
 4.6 The emergence of the western christological summary 143

with a controversy between different theological schools over the relationship be-
tween Father and Son. Maintaining a strict monotheism (monarchianism) over
against gnosticism, Noetus, Zephyrinus, Calixtus, and others (such as Sabellius,
whose argumentation nevertheless was somewhat different) had underlined
God’s unity with regard both to the Old Testament (unity of creator and Father,
refusal of intermediate powers such as a demiurge) and to the incarnation (unity
of Father and Son). The latter was necessary to rebut the docetism which was
popular in gnostic circles.366 There are clear indications that the baptismal ques-
tions with their brief second article were referred to in this debate. As explained
above, I suggest that, at the turn of the second and third centuries, these ques-
tions were those of OGS✶.367
Finally, I return to the christological summaries in Tertullian. The summary
in the version preserved in Aduersus Praxeam is clearly directed against monar-
chianism, but its kerygmatic thrust also becomes visible in other contexts such as
in the version cited in De uirginibus uelandis. Christ’s earthly actions are detailed
to such an extent that both a docetic and a patripassian interpretation are ren-
dered impossible. It was unnecessary to include information about Jesus’ teaching
and his miracles since only the exegesis of the gospel passages regarding Christ’s
lowliness were controversial (in particular birth and passion) – this is the reason
why the summary could be kept brief, as I pointed out before.368
In my view, the great similarities between the christological summaries of
Tertullian and of OGSG2 can only be explained if we assume that Tertullian knew
a summary such as that of OGSG2. This must have come into existence at the turn
of the second and third centuries in order to combat modalist monarchianism
and must have been used in baptismal instruction.
This does not mean, however, that the christological summary in R was com-
posed in the form in which it is preserved for the purpose of inserting it into the
creed. As has been shown above, such summaries were current in all kinds of varia-
tions from the early second century onwards. Yet it was a novelty to write down one
particular version of this summary, as it was used in preaching and catechesis, and
to combine it with the trinitarian formula.
It is difficult to imagine, however, that this summary in R – which is unat-
tested in Rome at this time – could have been inserted there, if we consider the
strictly monarchian stance of the major Roman theologians of the late second and

 Details in Hainthaler 1995.

 Cf. above p. 127.
 Cf. above pp. 123 f.
144 4 In the Beginning: Confessing Christ without Creeds

early third centuries.369 At the same time, contrasting trends such as that repre-
sented by Hippolytus will hardly have been responsible either, given that the
christological summary plays no role in Hippolytus’ writings. Instead one must
allow for an influence from North Africa which already was considerable at the
time of Tertullian and even more so at that of Cyprian.
The insertion of the christological summary into the baptismal questions may
thus be considered to have been the result of a theological protest of a North Afri-
can opposition against monarchianism, as is still clearly visible in Tertullian. Unfor-
tunately, the present state of our knowledge leaves the question open when and
how this happened, whether Tertullian himself used such a summary or whether it
was composed by drawing on his own writings (or on the oral tradition recorded
by him). This summary must have ‘migrated’ from North Africa to Rome at a time
when opposition in the capital against strict monarchianism had grown.
Unfortunately, we know little about Roman theology of the mid-third century.
As we saw above, Novatian based his book On the Trinity (c. 240) on the ‘rule of
truth’ (regula ueritatis), but does not mention whether or not it was a fixed text
nor what it may have looked like.370 However, neither he nor Bishop Dionysius
(sedit 259–268) who wrote a letter against both Sabellians and Marcionites371 any
longer represent a strictly monarchian position, but argue against both modalist
and adoptionist views. One might, therefore, speculate that the christological
summary was inserted into the baptismal questions in Rome around the middle
of the third century. As we saw above,372 the information from Novatian’s book
indicates indeed that some form of credal formula was used in Rome, and there is
good reason to believe that it looked like OGG2 or TAG. The baptismal questions
may then have been transformed into propositions which were inculcated in the
catechumens in order to establish an (anti-monarchian and anti-adoptionist) or-
thodoxy. This process may, in turn, have led to the development of the Traditio
and Redditio symboli which we will consider below, a rite which was confined to
Rome until the mid-fourth century.373

 Cf. Haußleiter 1920, pp. 84–124. Cf. also Kelly 1972, p. 128 citing further scholars; Hübner
1999; Kinzig 2017(2022).
 Cf. above ch. 4.4.5.
 A fragment is preserved in Athanasius, De decretis Nicaenae synodi 26.
 Cf. above ch. 4.4.5.
 Cf. below ch. 11.1.1.
5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Our first unequivocal evidence for the existence of fixed declaratory creeds dates
from the fourth century. As we will see, initially they were based on orally trans-
mitted baptismal questions and/or rules of faith that differed from region to re-
gion and that were fluid in their wording. There are two exceptions: the formulae
used at Rome and Jerusalem which were closely interlinked. Although the Old
Roman Creed (R) was probably not the first declaratory creed, it was based on
baptismal interrogations that were already largely fixed. In other words, the ver-
bal ‘coagulation’ of credal content was more advanced in Rome than elsewhere.
In Alexandria we discern this process no earlier than the first decades of the
fourth century whereas such fixed formulae did not emerge in other parts of the
Latin church until several decades later. Therefore, I will first turn to the situa-
tion in the western capital and describe the origin of the R and of cognate formu-
lae as well as the transformation of R into the Apostles’ Creed (T) in the Latin
Church up to the time of Charlemagne. In this context I will also look at Jerusalem
which, I suggest, is an eastern descendant of R.

5.1 The Creeds of Rome

The title of this chapter may mystify some knowledgeable readers, as previous
scholarship claimed that only one Roman creed existed (which scholars called R).
Meanwhile new evidence has come to light which suggests that a variety of credal
texts may have co-existed in Rome in the second and third centuries and, per-
haps, even beyond.1

(1) The Old Roman Creed (R), which is known to be the ancestor of our Apostles’
Creed (T), is first attested in 340/341 by Marcellus of Ancyra in his Letter to Pope
Julius (FaFo § 253) which has been preserved by Epiphanius of Salamis in his
Panarion (72,2–3; creed: 72,3,1). The problem with this quotation (if indeed it is
that) is that it is not easy to discern where it begins or finishes. Indeed, one could
argue that the entire passage 72,2,6–3,3 is Marcellus’ (personal) creed as it is intro-
duced by the phrase πιστεύω δὲ ἑπόμενος ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ὅτι (‘But following
the divine Scriptures I believe that’) and concludes with the following phrase:

 The following chapter is partly based on Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’. 2022. For further details cf. that
article.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-005
146 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Having received this faith from the divine Scriptures and having been taught by our fathers
in God, I both preach it in the Church of God and have now written it to you [. . .].2

However, things are more complicated, because within this passage Marcellus begins
a subsection once again with ‘Therefore, I believe’ (πιστεύω οὖν). He then quotes a
brief text (RM)3 which is (with some minor variations) also attested a century later in
the writings of Pope Leo the Great (FaFo § 255g; RL) and which is usually considered
to be the Old Roman Creed. In addition, fragments of it have been preserved in the
Explanation of the Creed by Rufinus (FaFo § 254b; 404 or shortly thereafter; RR) in
which the author discusses deviations of the creed of Aquileia from that of Rome.

RM RR RL
(FaFo § ) (§ b) (§ g)

Πιστεύω [. . .] Credo in deo, Credo [or: credimus] I/We believe in God

εἰς θεὸν in deum,
patre patrem [the Father RR, RL]
παντοκράτορα omnipotente, omnipotentem, Almighty,
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, < . . . > et in Christum Iesum, and in Christ Jesus,
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν filium eius unicum, his only[-begotten]
μονογενῆ, Son,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, dominum nostrum, our Lord,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ qui natus est de spiritu who was born
πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ sancto et Maria uirgine, from the Holy
Μαρίας τῆς Spirit and the virgin
παρθένου, Mary;
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου crucifixus sub Pontio qui sub Pontio Pilato who was crucified
Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα Pilato crucifixus est under Pontius Pilate,
[et mortuus ?] [and dead RL?]
καὶ ταφέντα et sepultus et sepultus; and buried;
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ <. . .> tertia die resurrexit a [and] on the
ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ mortuis; third day rose
τῶν νεκρῶν, again from the
dead;
ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς ascendit in caelos; ascended into the
οὐρανοὺς heavens

 Marcellus, Epistula ad Iulium papam (Epiphanius, Panarion 72,3,4; FaFo § 253): Ταύτην καὶ
παρὰ τῶν θείων γραφῶν εἰληφὼς τὴν πίστιν καὶ παρὰ τῶν κατὰ θεὸν προγόνων διδαχθεὶς ἔν τε
τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ κηρύττω καὶ πρὸς σὲ νῦν γέγραφα [. . .].
 On a possible Latin reconstruction cf. below p. 159.
 5.1 The Creeds of Rome 147

(continued)

RM RR RL
(FaFo § ) (§ b) (§ g)

καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ sedet ad dexteram and is sitting at the

τοῦ πατρός, patris, right hand of the
Father,
ὅθεν ἔρχεται unde uenturus est whence he is coming to
κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ iudicare uiuos ac judge the living and the
νεκρούς· mortuos [or: ad dead;
iudicandos uiuos et
mortuos];
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον <. . .> credo/credimus [or: et] I/we believe [or:
πνεῦμα, in spiritum sanctum, and] in the Holy Spirit,
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, sanctam ecclesiam the holy [catholic
[catholicam ?], RL?] Church,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, remissionem the remission of
peccatorum, sins,
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, carnis resurrectionem. the resurrection of the
ζωὴν αἰώνιον. flesh,
[eternal life RM].

The same creed (with slight variations) is also found in cod. Bodleian Library, MS
Laud. Gr. 35 (Italy, Sardinia, or Rome, c. 600, f. 226v; FaFo § 3274) and in the Psalter
of King Aethelstan (British Library, Cotton MS Galba A XVIII; s. IX/2, f. 200v; FaFo
§ 2955). The creed in Laud. Gr. 35 was added later and is written in eighth-century
uncial,6 at a time when the manuscript must already have been in Britain, probably
in the Abbey of Wearmouth and Jarrow. How it got there is a matter of scholarly
debate.7 In the Psalter the creed is written in Greek in Anglo-Saxon characters and
forms part of a set of liturgical texts which (together with other material) was
added to the codex by Israel the Grammarian in Winchester in the second quarter

 Cf. URL: <https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/55b2e494-4845-403e-9ba6-d812bda79329/> (08/

11/2023). In the first section patrem is added as in RL. Other differences to RM and RL only concern
Latin style.
 In the first section πατέρα is added as in RR and RL. Other differences to RM and RL only con-
cern stylistic details.
 Cf. Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. II, no. 251 according to URL <https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/cata
logue/570> (08/11/2023); Lai 2011, pp. 33 f.
 For the early history of this codex see TM 61729; Walther 1980, vol. I, pp. 2–6; Parker 2008,
pp. 289 f.; Lai 2011; and Houghton 2016, pp. 52, 167, 233.
148 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

of the tenth century. He, in turn, had taken it from ‘a book or booklet of Greek
prayers which very probably Archbishop Theodore brought with him when he ar-
rived in England in 669’.8 We know that Theodore had lived in Rome in a commu-
nity of oriental monks, probably the monastery of Cilicians (St Athanasius ad aquas
Saluias; today: Tre Fontane), before being appointed to the See of Canterbury.9
There can, therefore, be no doubt that this is the (or: a) creed which was used in
Rome from at least the 340s onwards until at least the seventh century.

(2) For a long time scholars had assumed that before R a creed in interrogatory
form had been used in Rome which was contained in the so-called Traditio Apostol-
ica (TA). However, the text of the TA, which had been attributed to Hippolytus of
Rome (d. 235), has only been preserved in translations and heavily revised versions.
This poses some serious difficulties which I cannot outline here in detail.10 Suffice it
to say that both the authorship of Hippolytus and the provenance of this text which
is supposed to have been composed in Rome are very controversial; more recently,
those scholars who doubt both these premises appear to be in a majority.11
In particular, this is true for the interrogatory baptismal creed which appears
to have been contained in the TA. Earlier scholarship regarded it as the oldest
preserved creed, dating it to the years before 200 or even earlier.12 However, its
exact wording was uncertain: the Sahidic translation and the related Arabic, Ethi-
opic and Bohairic versions as well as the various recensions differ considerably
from each other.13 Accordingly, the reconstructions of the supposedly ‘original’

 Gretsch 1999, p. 313 referring to Lapidge 1991, pp. 13–25 and Bischoff/Lapidge 1994, pp. 168–72.
Cf. also Wood 1999, pp. 178–80; Gneuss/Lapidge 2014, pp. 256–8 (no. 334).
 Cf. Lapidge 1995, pp. 19–26.
 Further details on the complex transmission of the Traditio Apostolica (which only exists in
reconstructed versions that differ from each other) are found in Steimer 1992, pp. 28–48; Mark-
schies 1999; Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, pp. 1–6, 11–15; Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, pp. 15–63; Brad-
shaw, ‘Apostolic Tradition’, 2018; and Bradshaw 2023, pp. 1–12.
 Cf., e.g., the views collected in Kinzig 1999(2017), p. 251 n. 43; in addition, Markschies 1999;
Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, pp. 1–6; Westra 2002, p. 55; Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, pp. 28–38. See
also the controversy between Bradshaw and Johnson on one side and Stewart-Sykes on the
other: Bradshaw 2004; Stewart-Sykes 2004; Johnson 2005; Stewart-Sykes, ‘Baptismal Creed’, 2009;
Bradshaw 2023, pp. 73 f.
 Cf. below p. 153 and n. 36.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 89d–f. The Arab version of the Testamentum Domini (as far as it has been pub-
lished) contains no baptismal questions, but a declaratory creed. Cf. Baumstark 1901, p. 37: ‘Confi-
teor te, Deus, Pater omnipotens, et Filium tuum unicum Iesum Christum et Spiritum tuum
sanctum. Amen. Amen. Amen.’ On the problem of textual transmission of the Arab version cf.
Steimer 1992, p. 97; Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, p. 11.
 5.1 The Creeds of Rome 149

text which have been proposed by Gregory Dix, Bernard Botte, and (largely fol-
lowing Botte) Wilhelm Geerlings must be regarded with some caution14 (and
have, as we will see shortly, meanwhile become out of date). No common wording
could be ascertained with any degree of probability for the second and the third
article in particular. Consequently, editors of the TA no longer offer a reconstruc-
tion but present the textual evidence in synoptic form.15
Up until recent discoveries the earliest witness for the TA and its creed had
been the so-called Fragmentum Veronense in cod. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare,
LV (53; North Italy, s. VIII/2).16 The original Latin text of this palimpsest possibly
dates from the late fifth century. It was probably translated from a Greek Vorlage.
However, it is difficult to determine the date of this translation. Scholars tend to
suggest the second half of the fourth century based on stylistic considerations
and on the fact that the biblical quotations contained in the translation do not yet
stem from the Vulgate; the translator is said to have come from an Arian congre-
gation in Northern Italy.17 Yet this place of origin for the translation is no more
‘than an interesting guess’;18 likewise, the date is by no means certain. For, as Tid-
ner has shown, the biblical quotations in the TA are not found in, or, rather, in a
version of, the Vetus Latina translation of the Bible either but were produced by
the translator himself.19 In the same vein, I have serious doubts as to whether a
date in the fourth century may be securely based on stylistic considerations.
Some distinguished scholars have argued for a later date.20 Moreover, the creed
(abbrev. TAL) is incomplete, owing to a lacuna in the manuscript.

(3) Meanwhile, the situation has changed completely since Alessandro Bausi pub-
lished a new version of the TA which he took from a late Ethiopic codex (s. XIII).
This manuscript which was restored in a complex process (Ms. Təgrāy, ‘Urā Mas-

 Dix/Chadwick 1992 (originally 1937), pp. 35–7 (= FaFo § 89a1); Botte 1989, pp. 49–51 (= FaFo
§ 89a2); Geerlings in Schöllgen/Geerlings 2000, pp. 261–3. Cf., in addition, Kelly 1972, p. 91
(= Botte); likewise Smulders 1970/1971/1980, p. 242.
 Cf. Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, pp. 114–7; synopsis 1 in Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022, pp. 179–85.
But cf. again Stewart(-Sykes) in the second edition of his reconstruction of the TA (2015); Bradshaw
2023, p. 72.
 Cf. CLA 507 (URL <https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/catalogue/857>); TM 66615.
 Cf. Hauler 1896, pp. 4, 33–40; Hauler 1900, pp. VII–VIII; Steimer 1992, pp. 106–13; Bradshaw/
Johnson/Phillips 2002, pp. 7 f.
 Dix/Chadwick 1992, p. f.
 Tidner 1963, pp. XIV–XX.
 C.H. Turner apparently suggested the years 420–430 as date of origin; cf. Dix/Chadwick 1992,
p. LIV. Jean Michel Hanssens even advocated a date as late as 500 (Hanssens 1965, pp. 19–30). In
general, cf. Markschies 1999, pp. 58–60.
150 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

qal, Ethio-SPaRe UM-039 [olim C3-IV-73]21) contains a series of patristic, liturgical,

canonical, and historical documents which Bausi calls the Aksumite Collection, as
it stems from the Aksumite period (s. IV–VII). It also includes the new version of
the TA.22 Its credal interrogations (TAE) are almost entirely identical with the
Latin version TAL. The following shows this version (in Bausi’s Italian translation)
side by side with the Latin version from the Fragmentum Veronense:

Fragmentum Veronense Ethiopic text in Italian translation

(TAL; FaFo § 89b) (TAE; FaFo § 89c23)
[lacuna] Credi in un unico Dio onnipotente?
Credis in Christum Iesum, Credi in Cristo Gesù,
filium dei, figlio di Dio,
qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex nato dallo Spirito Santo e da
Maria uirgine Maria vergine,
et crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato crocifisso sotto Ponzio Pilato,
et mortuus est morto
et sepultus e sepolto,
et resurrexit die tertia uiuus a risorse nel terzo giorno vivo dai morti,
mortuis
et ascendit in caelis e ascese ai cieli
et sedit ad dexteram patris e siede alla destra del Padre,
uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos? che verrà a giudicare i vivi e i morti?
Credis in spiritu sancto Credi nello Spirito Santo
et sanctam ecclesiam e nella santa chiesa
et carnis resurrectionem? e nella resurrezione della carne?

There is a minimal variation in the second article: here TAL reads de spiritu
sancto ex Maria uirgine whereas TAE does not appear to offer this differentiation
(and may, therefore, have preserved an earlier version).24 Likewise, in the third
article the Ethiopic text has faith ‘in’ the Church and the resurrection, whereas a

 A description of the manuscript and its content is found in Bausi/Camplani 2016, pp. 250 f. For
a survey of the process of restoration of the manuscript cf. Bausi 2015.
 A survey of the status quaestionis is found in Bausi/Camplani 2013 and Bausi 2014, pp. 60–4;
Macé et al. 2015, pp. 367–70; Bausi 2016, pp. 134–8; Bausi 2020; Bradshaw 2023, pp. 5–8. Further
parallels to texts contained in this manuscript are found in other manuscripts from Verona; cf.
Bausi/Camplani 2013, pp. 222 f.
 Bausi 2011, pp. 44 f.
 However, my colleague Alessandro Bausi has kindly informed me that there is no clear differ-
ence in Ethiopic between ex and de anyway (email of 19 February 2019).
 5.1 The Creeds of Rome 151

corresponding double in is missing in the Latin version. The basic identity of the
Latin and Ethiopic version of the TA also extends to the remainder of the text (as
far it has been preserved). This has led Bausi to the convincing conclusion that
both versions go back to the same Greek Vorlage and that we are, therefore, deal-
ing with translations in both cases. This should be stressed, because it was once
argued that the creed in the TA as preserved in the fragment from Verona had
been composed in Latin and was inserted into the Traditio Apostolica later, after
the Church order had been translated from the Greek in order to adapt it to the
changed circumstances.25
The text of the Greek Vorlage (TAG) may have run like this:26

Πιστεύεις εἰς ἕνα θεὸν Do you believe in one God

παντοκράτορα;27 Almighty?
Πιστεύεις εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, Do you believe in Christ Jesus,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, the Son of God,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ who was born from the Holy
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, Spirit and the virgin Mary;
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
[or: τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου]
καὶ ἀποθανόντα and died,
καὶ ταφέντα and was buried,
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ [add. and on the third day rose again alive
τῶν ?] νεκρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ from the dead,
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν] ζῶντα
καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς and ascended into the heavens,
καὶ καθήμενον [or: καθεζόμενον] ἐν and sits [or: sat down] at the
δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, right hand of the Father,
ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευσόμενον] κρίνειν coming to judge the living and
[or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς; the dead?

 Cf. Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, p. 126 referring to Kinzig 1999(2017), pp. 251 f. (= 93 f.);
Vinzent 1999, p. 189, but giving an imprecise account of the argument set out in these publica-
tions. Furthermore Markschies 1999, p. 73; Westra 2002, p. 66; Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, pp. 24 f.; Brad-
shaw 2023, pp. 72–5.
 Cf. also the English reconstruction in Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 134 who has likewise used the
Aksumite version, but draws slightly different conclusions with regard to the original text, as he
also includes readings from the Testamentum Domini (cf. Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 138). In my
view, this complicates matters unnecessarily.
 Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 134: ‘Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?’
152 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Πιστεύεις εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα Do you believe in the Holy Spirit

καὶ [εἰς] ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν and [in] the holy Church
καὶ [εἰς] σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν;28 and [in] the resurrection of the flesh?

The reconstruction contains some (minor) uncertainties:

– The wording of the first article is somewhat uncertain, because the Latin text
is missing here.
– Likewise, it is uncertain whether in TAG τὸν σταυρωθέντα was placed after
Pontius Pilate (as in R) or whether it anteceded him. There are parallels for
the position of τὸν σταυρωθέντα before Pontius Pilate both in the east (Anti-
och) and in the west.29
– Furthermore, we do not know whether the text read τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀνασ-
τάντα as in R or, conversely, ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. A possible placement
of ἀναστάντα before τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ is not found among the descendants of
R,30 but is widely attested in the east since Eusebius and could (if at all) have
influenced the Greek text from there.
– Sedit may be translated as either καθήμενον or καθεζόμενον. Καθήμενον (cf.
Mt 26:64) is also found in the Psalter of King Aethelstan whereas καθεζόμενον
does not appear in creeds before 359.31 Nota bene: In Latin versions sedit and
sedet are often used indiscriminately. Therefore, the translations ‘sits’, ‘is sit-
ting’, and ‘sat down’ are all accurate.
– Finally, it remains an open question whether the text contained ἐρχόμενον or
ἐλευσόμενον. The Latin translation uenturus (which may also be translated:
‘will come’) may suggest the latter participle, but the former occurs much more
frequently in other creeds.32

 Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 134: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy church and the
resurrection of the flesh?’
 In the east cf. esp. the Antiochene creeds in Constitutiones apostolorum 7,41,6 (c. 380; FaFo
§ 182c), in Eusebius of Dorylaeum (429–430; FaFo § 198), and in John Cassian (430/431; FaFo
§ 203). Regarding Aquileia (and, thus, perhaps also Rome), it is likewise attested by Rufinus (FaFo
§ 254b); later attestations include Quodvultdeus (437–453; FaFo § 317a) and Venantius Fortunatus
(575–600; FaFo § 329).
 Cf., however, the much younger text CPL 1762 (fifth c. or later; FaFo § 364).
 ‘Dated Creed’ of Sirmium: καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός (FaFo § 157[4]).
 Ἐρχόμενον: cf., e.g., FaFo §§ 135c; 172b1 and b2; 184e, etc. ἐλευσόμενον: §§ 157[4] (translation
from Latin); 160[3]; 427 (translation from Latin).
 5.1 The Creeds of Rome 153

The latest date usually given for the text’s translation into Ethiopic (TAE) is the
sixth century.33 If the Latin manuscript was indeed written in the late fifth cen-
tury, we might want to push back the terminus ante quem of the composition of
the Greek original somewhat further.
As I have shown elsewhere, there is little doubt that TAG is a western creed
which, ultimately, originated in Rome.34 It was not until the mid-fourth century
that a Latin liturgy was introduced there,35 which would point to a terminus ante
quem of around 350 CE for this creed. This is, of course, no conclusive proof for a
Roman origin of TAG, but the similarities with R which I will deal with below
may, I think, permit such an assumption. The hypothesis of a western and, in-
deed, Roman origin of the baptismal questions of the TA (although in versions
such as those reconstructed by Dix and Botte) is not a new one – on the contrary:
many scholars had defended precisely this assumption and had proposed the end
of the second century as a date for the formula (as part of a Church order com-
posed by Hippolytus, i.e. the Traditio Apostolica) – which as we will see, may be a
little too early.36
When we place TAG and RM side by side, we can see how similar both creeds
are to each other:

TAG RM
(FaFo § 253)
Πιστεύεις εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα; 37
Πιστεύω [. . .] εἰς θεὸν παντοκράτορα
Πιστεύεις εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ
τὸν μονογενῆ,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου,

 Cf. Bausi 2009, p. 291; Bausi 2015; Bausi/Camplani 2016, p. 250; Bausi 2020, pp. 41 f.; cf. also
Bausi 2010.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022, pp. 167–9.
 On this complex question cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 111–13; Vogel 1986, pp. 293–7, citing earlier litera-
ture in n. 7; Kinzig 1999(2017), p. 250 n. 36.
 Cf. Capelle 1927; Capelle 1930; Botte 1951; Holland 1965; Kelly 1972, pp. 126–30; Bradshaw/John-
son/Phillips 2002, p. 125. A survey is also found in Westra 2002, pp. 49, 54 f.; Vinzent 2006,
pp. 219–66.
 Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 134: ‘Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?’
154 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα [or: τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα
τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου]
καὶ ἀποθανόντα
καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ [add. καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν
τῶν ?] νεκρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ νεκρῶν,
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν] ζῶντα
καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός,
ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευσόμενον] κρίνειν ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ
[or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς; νεκρούς·
Πιστεύεις εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα,
καὶ [εἰς] ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν,
καὶ [εἰς] σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν;38 σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν,
ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is clear that neither creed can have been the Vorlage of the other, as both texts con-
tain additional material. Instead, they must both go back to older versions of the bap-
tismal questions which must be situated in Rome and which I have discussed above.39
However, this poses a serious problem for the thesis put forward by Markus
Vinzent twenty-five years ago that R is ultimately the product of Marcellus and
that the credal part of his letter was adopted by a Synod in Rome in 340/341, thus
spreading throughout the western part of the empire.40 At the time, I agreed with
Vinzent.41 However, even back then we allowed for the possibility that in formu-
lating his creed Marcellus may have used ‘some Roman baptismal interroga-
tions’.42 Yet this thesis must be reconsidered in the light of my present study of
the christological section of R43 and the emergence of the new witness of the bap-
tismal interrogations in the TA. It now seems certain that Marcellus used an older
set of baptismal questions in the central section of his letter (i.e. RM), questions
which he may simply have transformed from an interrogatory into a declaratory

 Stewart(-Sykes) 2015, p. 134: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy church and the
resurrection of the flesh?’
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022 and above ch. 4.5.1.
 Cf. Vinzent 1999. Cf. already above pp. 28 f.
 Cf. Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, pp. 557–9.
 Kinzig/Vinzent 1999, p. 558.
 Cf. above ch. 4.6.
 5.1 The Creeds of Rome 155

creed. RM (in interrogatory form) must go back to the second half of the third cen-
tury and have developed from earlier versions of the baptismal questions (chiefly
OGSG2 and OGS*).44 TAG is another descendant of these questions and probably
existed simultaneously with RM.
Likewise, given the evidence it can no longer be maintained that the Roman
Synod of 340/341 actually transformed it into a creed by extracting this section
from Marcellus’ pístis (i.e. RM). Rather, RM in its declaratory (i.e. Marcellian) ver-
sion may have been promulgated by the synod, precisely because it was recog-
nized that its content was identical to one set of the older baptismal questions
that was used in Rome.45 Bishop Julius of Rome may actually be alluding to this
fact in his letter to the Antiochene bishops:

With respect to Marcellus, since you have charged him also with impiety towards Christ, I
am anxious to inform you that when he was here, he positively declared that what you had
written concerning him was not true; but when he was nevertheless requested by us to give
an account of his faith (εἰπεῖν περὶ τῆς πίστεως), he answered in his own person with the
utmost boldness, so that we recognized that he confesses (ὁμολογεῖ) nothing outside the
truth. He confessed (ὡμολόγησε) his convictions concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ in an entirely godly fashion just like the catholic Church maintains as well; and he
affirmed that he had held these convictions for a very long time, and had not recently
[adopted them], as indeed our presbyters, who were at a former date present at the Council
of Nicaea, testified to his orthodoxy [. . .].46

It seems that Marcellus was asked to produce a creed which was then examined
and declared orthodox, because it agreed with the ‘catholic Church’ (i.e. the bap-
tismal questions used at Rome) and was thus distributed together with the deci-
sions of the synod.
TAG, however, probably represents a fairly old sideline of this development;
in any case, it is no immediate descendant of R, but also goes back to the Roman
baptismal questions. Yet it does not yet contain the remission of sins although,
according to Cyprian, by the middle of the third century the remission of sins did
form part of the Roman credal questions.47 It may, therefore, be reasonable to
assume that it originated in the first half of the third century after the christologi-
cal summary had been inserted into the trinitarian credal questions,48 but before

 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’, 2022, pp. 169–78. Similarly, Smulders 1970/1971/1980, pp. 244 f.; Westra
2002, p. 67.
 Cf. above pp. 128 f.
 Julius, Epistula ad Antiochenos episcopos (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 41.8) 48–49 (tr.
NPNF; altered).
 Cf. above p. 131.
 Cf. above ch. 4.6.
156 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

the remission of sins had been added. By the middle of the fourth century it must
have been translated into Latin. For the time being, it remains an open question
whether or not TAG originally belonged to the Traditio Apostolica and should,
therefore, perhaps be considered the first ‘official’ record of an earlier, Roman
baptismal creed only transmitted orally, or whether a younger creed was inserted
into an existing order. Likewise, nothing is as yet decided with regard to author-
ship of the TA.
As we will see below, R influenced the western credal development down to
the Apostles’ Creed.49 However, throughout much of the fourth century its use
(and that of TAG) remained confined to Rome. Elsewhere in the west no fixed bap-
tismal creed was used until the late 350s, as is attested by Hilary of Poitiers. In the
winter of 358/359, Hilary wrote a letter to his fellow bishops in Gaul, Germany, and
Britain. He appears to have been living in exile in Asia Minor when he learned
about the doctrinal controversies which shook the eastern churches to their core.
Hilary’s letter informed his western colleagues about these controversies relating
to the creed. In fact, Hilary noted with some astonishment that these controversies
had led to the creation of creeds as written documents, a literary genre which up to
that point had been unknown in the west:

But among these things, O you who are blessed and glorious in the Lord, who preserve the
perfect and apostolic faith in the confession of your convictions, you have hitherto been ig-
norant of written creeds (conscriptas fides). For you, who abounded in the Spirit, have not
needed the letter. You did not require the service of a hand to write what you believed in
your heart [and] professed with [your] mouth unto salvation [cf. Rom 10:10]. You did not
deem it necessary to read as bishops what you held when new-born converts. But necessity
has introduced the custom of setting out creeds and signing what has been set out (exponi
fides et expositis subscribi). Where the meaning of the convictions is in danger, there the
letter is required. Of course, nothing prevents us from writing down that which is whole-
some to confess.50

This testimony is remarkable for a number of reasons. (1) Hilary attests that no
written creeds had previously existed in the dioceses of the west to which his mis-
sive is addressed (i.e. large parts of the western empire) at that time. (The plural
conscriptas fides clearly refers not to a particular creed, but to written credal
texts tout court.) (2) Hitherto western Christians had confessed their faith in a
way which had not required a written text. This may mean that they had memo-
rized the creed which had only been passed on to them orally or, as seems more
plausible to me, that they had simply answered the baptismal interrogations

 Cf. below ch. 5.2.

 De synodis 63 (FaFo § 151d1).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 157

(which in their wording may still have been fairly fluid). (3) The synods mandated
that creeds be written down. (4) Bishops were thereafter required to sign those
texts in order to publicly bear witness to their faith.
Therefore, we have here a first-hand account of the emergence of creeds as
written texts in the west. Whereas in large parts of the western empire no such
texts existed in written form prior to the late 350s, the doctrinal controversies of
the fourth century required that the ‘spirit’ of the faith had to be written down as
the ‘letter’.

5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed

It has long been known that the first approximately datable attestation of T is
found in the Scarapsus (‘Excerpt’), a missionary handbook written by Pirmin be-
tween 725 and 750, perhaps at the Abbey of Hornbach in the Palatinate, a region
in southwest Germany. The handbook cites T three times in basically identical
versions, the third time in interrogatory form.51 We have no direct information
whether Pirmin cites a creed which was used locally (and if so, whether this was
really the creed in circulation at Hornbach52), whether it is his baptismal creed
(noting there is no unanimity among scholars where he came from), or whether
he took it from some literary source. However, the evidence that we will review
below strongly suggests that T originated in Gaul. In addition, the long list of wit-
nesses to T assembled in FaFo § 344 attests to the popularity of this version of R
from the time of the Scarapsus. (We will deal with the reasons for this standardi-
zation of the western creed in chapter 5.3.) This suggests that the final version of
T had been in circulation for some time.
Unfortunately, we are unable to narrow down its date of origin any further.
Two anonymous witnesses may belong to an earlier period. These texts are the
Sermo 242 (FaFo § 276c53) which is found among the works of Augustine and may
have been written in the sixth or seventh century, and another explanation of the

 Cf. Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (FaFo § 376); 12 (§ 610); 28a (§ 298). The three versions are identical,
except for the omission of Amen in 12 and 28a. There are small differences to T: Pirmin reads
sedit instead of sedet and est after uenturus; et after carnis resurrectionem, and Amen are omit-
ted. The confusion sedit/sedet is often found in late medieval manuscripts, the omissions of est
and et are negligible. The final Amen was not always considered part of the creed.
 Or, perhaps, Reichenau or Murbach, the abbeys in which Pirmin was active before coming to
Hornbach. On Pirmin’s life cf. Hauswald 2010, pp. IX–XIX.
 The creed adds huius before carnis (as in the creed of Aquileia (cf. FaFo § 254b)) and omits est
after uenturus and et after resurrectionem. Only the first variant may be relevant.
158 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

creed (CPL 1758; FaFo § 28054) which may be slightly younger. However, in both
these cases there is no hard evidence when it comes to dates.55 As regards Sermo
242 there is also the additional problem that the initial citation of the creed and
its later explanation do not entirely match. Furthermore, the text is not beyond
any doubt either, given that no critical edition of this sermon has so far been pro-
duced. Given these uncertainties, I will leave both these texts aside.
In what follows we will investigate where and how T developed from R. Creeds
that somehow belong to this intermediate period between R and T will summarily
be called R/T. To describe this development is a tricky undertaking. Although it is
fairly easy to point out all those creeds that derive from R, it is much more difficult
to ascertain the contributions of specific regions, churches, or individuals to the
creed. In many instances, we are unable to reconstruct the confession even of
prominent theologians due to a dearth of evidence; for example, Ambrose’s sym-
bolum is only known to us in fragmentary form. In some cases a single bishop used
not one, but several creeds, the most famous case being Augustine.56 There even
are explanations of the faith where the author initially quotes one creed, but then
curiously goes on to explain another, because he has taken his explanation from a
different source than the creed initially cited.57 Creeds may have travelled owing to
the bishops’ mobility or for political reasons such as the relocation of the centre of
the Visigothic Kingdom westwards to the Iberian Peninsula by the early sixth cen-
tury. Finally, there may be variants in the textual transmission of individual creeds
because copyists made mistakes or deliberately replaced the creeds in their exem-
plar with formulae of their own. We must, therefore, be aware that in many instan-
ces the creeds in our printed editions are artificial constructs, reflecting the evidence
available at the time of publication. If an explanation of the creed was, for example,
handed down in four manuscripts, that one text may in fact explain four slightly
different versions of the creed. Conversely, if an ancient work has only survived in a
single manuscript, we must be wary regarding the text of that creed as transmitted,
as it could have been altered or corrupted in the process.
Given the sheer number of attested formulae deriving from R,58 how can a
student of the creeds decide what is important and what is not without getting
lost in the thicket of texts that are, perhaps, irrelevant for the question at hand? I

 The creed omits est after uenturus, et after resurrectionem, and the final Amen. This is not
relevant.
 Cf. Westra 2002, pp. 113 n. 45 (Sermo 242, citing further literature) and 371 (CPL 1758).
 Cf. below pp. 184–7.
 Cf., e.g., Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9 (FaFo § 271a1 in comparison with a2). Furthermore
Westra 2002, p. 85 and n. 43.
 Cf. FaFo, ch. 8.1.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 159

suggest the following procedure. First, comparing R and T we trace significant

changes between these two texts. For this purpose, we will have to decide, of
course, what is significant and what is not. Once this is done, we will briefly look
at additions and omissions that did not make it into T, but nonetheless seem sig-
nificant for one reason or another.
First let us once more consider R as cited by Marcellus (FaFo § 253). When we
look at the versions R/T in their entirety two Latin versions are possible (and at-
tested) for the christological section which differ not in content but in grammar
(abbreviated RM/L1 and RM/L2):

RM RM/L RM/L

Πιστεύω [. . .] εἰς θεὸν Credo in deum I believe in God

παντοκράτορα omnipotentem, Almighty;
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, et in Christum Iesum, and in Christ Jesus,
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν filium eius unicum [or: unigenitum], his only [or: only-
μονογενῆ, begotten] Son,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, dominum nostrum, our Lord,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ natum de [or: ex] [qui] natus [est] de who [or: he] was born
πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ spiritu sancto et [or: ex] spiritu [or: born] of [or: from]
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, Maria uirgine, sancto et Maria the Holy Spirit and the
uirgine, virgin Mary,
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου sub Pontio Pilato [qui] sub Pontio who [or: he] was
Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα crucifixum [or: Pilato crucifixus crucified under Pontius
crucifixum sub [est] Pilate [or: crucified
Pontio Pilato] under Pontius Pilate]
καὶ ταφέντα et sepultum et sepultus and buried
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ [qui] tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; and [or: who] on the
ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν third day rose again
νεκρῶν, from the dead;
ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς ascendit in caelos ascended into the
οὐρανοὺς heavens;
καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ et sedet [or: sedit] ad dexteram patris, sits [or: sat down] at
τοῦ πατρός, the right hand of the
Father
ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν unde [or: inde] uenturus [est] iudicare uiuos et whence [or: thence] he
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· mortuos; will come to judge the
living and the dead;
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον et in spiritum sanctum, and in the Holy Spirit,
πνεῦμα,
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, sanctam ecclesiam, the holy Church,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, remissionem peccatorum, the remission of sins,
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, carnis resurrectionem, the resurrection of the
flesh,
ζωὴν αἰώνιον. uitam aeternam. eternal life.
160 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

As can easily be gleaned from the table, the sequence birth (γεννηθέντα) – cruci-
fixion (σταυρωθέντα) – burial (ταφέντα) could be expressed in several ways:
(I) The sequence could be translated literally from Greek into Latin by perfect
participle passive natum – crucifixum – sepultum.59
(II) The same sequence could be translated by relative clauses (qui natus est –
[qui] crucifixus est – et sepultus).60
(III) Sometimes main clauses or mere participles in the nominative without est
were used.61 This version may have developed from (II) when the relative
pronoun and/or est was simply dropped.
All three versions are attested in the history of the R/T. They seem to go back to
two different translations, i.e. I and II/III. Version II is most often cited and is the
one found in T.
For the following sequence resurrection (ἀναστάντα) – ascension (ἀναβάντα) –
sitting at the right hand (καθήμενον) there is no direct equivalent in Latin because
it has no active perfect participle. (The present participles resurgentem – ascenden-
tem – sedentem which we do occasionally find in Latin translations of N and C2 are
inaccurate stopgap solutions.62) Therefore, the participles ἀναστάντα – ἀναβάντα –
καθήμενον had to be translated either by relative clauses (or main clauses), in
which case it would be much more harmonious to translate the preceding clauses
in the same way. Alternatively, in the representatives of type I the participles were
followed by main clauses after sepultum which looked less elegant.63 In the course
of time here, too, type II ousted all other versions.

 Cf. FaFo §§ 265, 269, 273, 282 (here passus is in the nominative), 287, 316g, 375, 385, 676.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 266a and b, 267 a and b2, 270, 271a1 and b1, 272, 274, 276c and d, 277d, 278, 280, 283,
285, 288, 290?, 293, 294, 298, 299, 306, 307, 314c, 326, 334, 336, 342, 343, 344 (= T), 345, 346, 347, 373,
376, 386, 387, 393, 400, 401, 404, 410, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423, 424, 428, 430, 527, 610, 676b, 678a1, 709,
763, 764, 765, 797d and e.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 268, 271a2 and b2, 297, 316l, 324.
 For N cf. FaFo § 135d, nos. 27.1, 42, 43. For C2 § 184f type I and III. In the interrelated creeds
§§ 265 (Gaul, s. V) and 273 (Gaul, c. 550 or later) the switch occurs after resurgentem: ‘tertia die
resurgentem ex mortuis [. . .] uictor ascendit ad caelos’.
 Cf. in chronological order: FaFo §§ 316g (Augustine: sepultum – resurrexit), 375, and 676 (Bob-
bio Missal, Vienne, s. VII ex.: sepultum – descendit), 385 (St. Gallen? before 800: sepultum – resur-
rexit), 282 (Northern France, s. VIII or earlier: sepultum – descendit), 287 (Francia, 813–815:
sepultum – surrexit). §§ 265 and 269 have only been preserved in a fragmentary version. – In two
instances, the authors switch from participle to main clause after natum: § 317d (Quodvultdeus):
‘[. . .] natum de spiritu sancto ex uirgine Maria. Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato [. . .]’; § 684d (Liber
misticus, Toledo?, s. IX–X?): ‘[. . .] natum de spiritu sancto ex utero Mariae uirginis; passus sub
Pontio Pilato [. . .]’. – There are a few cases where the accusative with perfect infinitive appears
to have been used instead; cf. §§ 269, 308 (Priscillian), 609 (Eligius of Noyon). However, in none of
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 161

Let us take another look at R as cited by Marcellus (FaFo § 253) and at T in

its standard version as it is firmly attested from the early eighth century on-
wards (§ 344).

RM (Latin version reconstructed) T

Credo in deum I believe in God Credo in deum I believe in God,

patrem the Father
omnipotentem, Almighty; omnipotentem, Almighty,
creatorem caeli et Creator of heaven and
terrae, earth;
et in Christum Iesum, and in Christ Jesus, et in Iesum Christum, and in Jesus Christ,
filium eius unicum [or: his only [or: only- filium eius unicum, his only Son,
unigenitum], begotten] Son,
dominum nostrum, our Lord, dominum nostrum, our Lord,
qui conceptus est de who was conceived of
spiritu sancto, the Holy Spirit,
qui natus est [or: who was born [or: natus ex Maria uirgine, born from the virgin
natum] de [or: ex] born] Mary,
spiritu sancto et Maria of [or: from] the Holy
uirgine, Spirit and the virgin
Mary,
passus sub Pontio suffered under Pontius
Pilato, Pilate,
qui sub Pontio Pilato who was crucified crucifixus, was crucified,
crucifixus est [or: sub under Pontius Pilate
Pontio Pilato [or: crucified under
crucifixum // or: Pontius Pilate]
crucifixum sub Pontio
Pilato]
mortuus dead,
et sepultus [or: et and buried et sepultus; and buried;
sepultum]
descendit ad inferna; descended to the
underworld;

these cases can we be certain that the structure of the creed has not been adapted to its literary
context. In one instance we find a switch from participle to infinitive; cf. § 297 (St. Gallen, s. VIII/1):
‘[. . .] sepultus; tertia die resurrexisse [. . .]’.
 Cf. also above p. 159. Instead of the relative clauses qui natus est – qui crucifixus est simple
participles may have ben used (natus – crucifixus).
162 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

(continued)

RM (Latin version reconstructed) T

et [or: qui] tertia die and [or: who] on the tertia die resurrexit a on the third day rose
resurrexit a mortuis; third day rose again mortuis; again from the dead;
from the dead;
ascendit in caelos ascended into the ascendit ad caelos; ascended to the
heavens; heavens;
et sedet [or: sedit] ad sits [or: sat down] at sedet ad dexteram dei, sits at the right hand of
dexteram the right hand God,
patris, of the Father patris omnipotentis; the Father
Almighty;
unde [or: inde] whence [or: thence] inde uenturus est thence he will come to
uenturus [est] iudicare he will come to judge iudicare judge the living and the
uiuos et mortuos; the living and uiuos et dead.
the dead; mortuos.
et in spiritum sanctum, and in the Holy Spirit, Credo in spiritum I believe in the Holy
sanctum, Spirit,
sanctam ecclesiam, the holy Church, sanctam ecclesiam the holy catholic
catholicam, Church,
sanctorum the communion of
communionem, saints,
remissionem the remission of sins, remissionem the remission of sins,
peccatorum, peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem, the resurrection of carnis resurrectionem the resurrection of the
the flesh, flesh,
uitam aeternam. eternal life. et uitam and eternal
aeternam. life.
Amen. Amen.

Let us first briefly look at changes that require no further investigation:

– the repetition or omission of credo/credimus at the beginning of the second
and third section (this varies in the sources without any discernible differ-
ence in meaning);
– the sequence Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ: this has often been discussed,65 but
arguably without any results of consequence;
– et or qui before tertia die in RM;

 Cf., e.g., Kattenbusch 1900, pp. 541–62; Kelly 1972, pp. 139–41. The sequence Christum Iesum is
neither unusual nor ‘proof of the primitiveness of the core of the Old Roman Creed’ (Kelly 1972,
p. 139). Cf. in a credal context, e.g., Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7); Tertullian,
De praescriptione haereticorum 36,5 (§ 111b5); Novatian, De trinitate 9,1 (§ 119b); Peter Chrysolo-
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 163

– in or ad caelos; likewise, there seems to be no difference between the singular

and the plural of caelum;
– sedet/sedit: these two are often confused in the manuscripts;
– dei after ad dexteram (the Father was always considered divine);
– unde/inde;
– est after uenturus;
– Amen: although this is sometimes discussed in explanations of the creed,
there is no evidence that the mention or omission of Amen has any bearing
on the history of R/T.

Additions and changes in T that do require further investigation:

– patrem
– creatorem caeli et terrae
– qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine
– passus and position of sub Pontio Pilato
– mortuus
– descendit ad inferna
– omnipotentis
– catholicam
– sanctorum communionem.

There is one additional problem: Marcellus and T both conclude with uitam aeter-
nam, but this phrase is found neither in Leo’s version of R (RL; FaFo § 255g) nor in
the long version of the baptismal interrogations in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary
(§ 675c, f; Rufinus’ version of R cannot be reconstructed here with sufficient cer-
tainty). We will also look into this problem below.66
In what follows I will try to outline the theological contexts and geographical
areas within which these additions and changes were made. For this purpose, I
will restrict myself to those texts and authors that can be clearly dated and local-
ized, and disregard most explanations of the creed that are anonymous.

patrem
No doubt the earliest of the additions to R is patrem. RM and TAG only contained
deum omnipotentem/θεὸν παντοκράτορα (in the case of TAG preserved only in its

gus, Sermo 57 (§ 259a); id., Sermo 58 (§ 259b); id., Sermo 59 (§ 259c); id., Sermo 61 (§ 259e); id.,
Sermo 62 (§ 259f); anonymous explanations of the creed (§§ 263; 271b1; 330; 379); etc.
 Cf. below pp. 182 f.
164 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Ethiopic version)67 which corresponds to the usage in the Septuagint and in the
Book of Revelation.68 By contrast, patrem does appear in the baptismal questions
of the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (OGS) and in a brief creed by Marius Victorinus
around 360,69 that is, at about the time of the earliest Latin versions of N which
also contain the syntagma patrem omnipotentem as a translation of πατέρα παν-
τοκράτορα.70 ‘Father’ may have been added by the middle of the fourth century
to correspond to filium eius in the second section. The reason may have been a
desire to ward off Arianism (as in Marius Victorinus who cites his creed in an
anti-Arian treatise). In any case, Rufinus’ version of R (RR; FaFo § 254b) and the
version which can be reconstructed from the works of Leo the Great (RL; § 255g)
clearly both contained patrem. The older version θεὸν παντοκράτορα/deum om-
nipotentem quickly vanished from versions of R/T.71

creatorem caeli et terrae

The Greek equivalent of creatorem caeli et terrae (ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς,
sometimes extended by further genitives such as ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων / ‘of
things visible and invisible’) probably occurs for the first time in the creed of the
Synod of Antioch in early 325 (FaFo § 133) and in J (§ 147); it later formed part of
C2 (§ 184e1). In Latin literature the syntagma creator caeli/coeli et/atque terrae does
not seem to be attested before Hilary of Poitiers who uses it occasionally, referring
to Gen 14:19 (‘Benedictus Abraham deo summo, qui creauit caelum et terram.’ /
‘Blessed be Abraham by God Most High, who created heaven and earth.’).72 Whether
or not the phrase was contained in the creed of Nicetas of Remesiana (modern Bela
Palanka in Serbia; fl. c. 400) is uncertain.73 In any case, it is widely attested in the
Gaulish creeds of Caesarius of Arles, in the Bobbio Missal (s. VII ex.), and in Pirmin,74

 Cf. also Tertullian, De uirginibus uelandis 1,4(3; FaFo § 111c).

 Cf. below p. 254 n. 142.
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 449 (FaFo § 675c), 608 (§ 675f), and p. 122; Marius
Victorinus, Aduersus Arium 2,12 (§ 437).
 Cf. FaFo § 135d1–6.
 Cf., however, the baptismal questions in the so-called Supplementum Anianense to the Grego-
rian Sacramentary (FaFo § 806).
 Cf. Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 134,18; id., De trinitate 12,4. Similarly, Jdt 13:24(Vg); Dan
14:4(Vg).
 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,2. Burn prints creatorem caeli
et terrae as part of Nicetas’ creed (Burn 1905, p. 39, ll. 13 f.), but a great number of codices do not
cite the phrase. However, Nicetas says in his commentary, ‘Deum bonum et iustum, caeli et ter-
rae creatorem’ (Burn 1905, p. 40, ll. 2 f.) Cf. also Westra 2002, pp. 212–13 and FaFo § 324.
 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 9, 1 (FaFo § 271a1, a2); Sacramentarium Gallicanum 184 (§ 676a); 245
(§ 676c); Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (§ 376); 12 (§ 610); 28a (§ 298).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 165

yet seems, for a long time, to have been confined to this region. Unlike the other
additions, it migrated from Gaul to Spain at a very late stage.75
The reason for adding it to the creed may again have been the influence of the
Greek creeds. At the same time, the threat of Manichaeism which taught that the
universe had been created by a demiurge may also have played a certain role.76
But we have no further information on this point.

qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine

The difference between Jesus’ conception and birth (which was later also ex-
pressed by the prepositions de (‘conceived of the Holy Spirit’) and ex (‘born from
the virgin Mary’)) is not usually found in Greek creeds, but typical of the western
tradition. One of the earliest references to this difference occurs in the commen-
tary on Matthew by Hilary of Poitiers (written in 353–356) where it is claimed that
it was ‘the content of all the prophets that he [sc. Christ] was conceived from the
Holy Spirit and born from the virgin Mary (conceptum ex spiritu sancto, natum ex
Maria uirgine)’.77 However, Hilary does not refer to a creed.78 Nonetheless, the
context clearly shows that he made the distinction between conception and birth
in order to ward off criticism of the allegedly illegitimate origin of Christ and to
defend Mary’s virginity.79
The Latin creed of the second session at Rimini (359) which Jerome included in
his Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (written in 378/379; FaFo § 159b) also contains
the phrase. However, the difference between Jesus’ conception and his birth is not
found in the closely related Creed of Niké (§ 159a). Given the fact that all other
references stem from a much later date, it is difficult to believe that it formed part
of the original text.80
Otherwise all indications for the addition of this phrase point to Gaul where
it is first clearly attested in a credal context by Faustus (d. c. 495) who was first
monk and later (from 433) abbot of the abbey on the island of Lérins. In c. 458 he
became bishop of Riez (Reji, Southern Gaul). In a letter of uncertain date he refers

 Cf. the Mozarabic liturgy in the Liber ordinum de ordinibus ecclesiasticis (before 1052; FaFo
§ 684c4).
 Cf. Hutter 2012, cols. 18 f.; Hutter 2023, pp. 96–113. On the spread of Manichaeism in the west
cf. Hutter 2023, pp. 215–25.
 Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 1,3 (FaFo § 151a).
 Hilary says that written creeds were unknown in the middle of the fourth century in much of
the west (except Rome); cf. above pp. 156 f.
 Cf. Ladaria 1977, pp. 112–16; Ladaria 1989, pp. 81–6. For general background cf. Cook 2002,
pp. 28 f., 238 f., 330 and n. 353, 338.
 Cf. also below pp. 317 f.
166 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

to Jesus’ conception ‘of’ (de) the Holy Spirit and his birth ‘from’ (ex) the virgin
Mary in precisely the same terms as T, and in this context lays claim to the ‘au-
thority of the creed’ (iuxta symboli auctoritatem).81 Moreover, he mentions the
conception in his treatise on the Holy Spirit in c. 475.82 The phrase is next attested
in an anonymous Expositio de fide catholica (CPL 505; FaFo § 265) which may also
stem from the fifth century, as well as in the Collectio Eusebiana (a collection of
homilies ascribed to Eusebius of Emesa, though perhaps stemming from the pen of
Faustus of Riez or from one or several of his pupils), Caesarius of Arles, Cyprian of
Toulon (sedit 516–549), and Pirmin.83 A slight variation between authors concerns
the use of the prepositions: for example, Caesarius always writes de Maria uirgine.84
The reasons for this addition are not easily discernible. It appears that the
phrase natus est/natum de spiritu sancto et/ex Maria uirgine is only attested in the
west until the fourth century.85 The Greek equivalent γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος
ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου is first found in the Homoian creed of Constantino-
ple (359/360; FaFo § 160) which in turn was based on the (western) creed of Niké
(§ 159a).86 However, it never made its way into either NAnt (§§ 180a, 198/203, 208) or
C2 (§ 184e1), because it was open to misinterpretation. Instead, the less problematic
phrase σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου was chosen
in C2.
The same concern was clearly also soon felt in the west. In addition, Lk 1:35 sug-
gested that an exegetical distinction had to be made between Christ’s conception
and birth. As we saw above, Hilary used the phrase in an apologetic context. For
Faustus the conception and birth in the creed are proof of the dual nature of Christ
as God and man.87 A theology of the two natures of Christ is also outlined by the
author of the homily CPL 365 (FaFo § 274).88 The authors of Homily 10 of the Collectio
Eusebiana (FaFo § 266b) and of the explanation of the creed included in the Bobbio
Missal (FaFo § 676b) argue along similar lines as does Hilary of Poitiers, defending

 Faustus, Epistula 7, 24 (FaFo § 267a).

 Cf. Faustus, De spiritu sancto 1,3 (FaFo § 267b2).
 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 9 (FaFo § 266a); id., Homilia 10 (§ 266b); Caesarius, Sermo 9, 1
(FaFo § 271a1); Cyprian of Toulon, Epistula ad Maximum episcopum Genavensem (§ 272); Pirmin,
Scarapsus 10 (§ 376); 12 (§ 610); 28a (§ 298).
 Cf. also the Antiphonale Benchorense 35 (680–691 or earlier; FaFo § 698b) and the creeds
§§ 297 (s. VIII/1 or earlier; here the Spirit has no preposition), 307 (before s. XIII), 433 (England,
before 1250).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 89b (Traditio Apostolica), 159a (Niké 359).
 Cf. also FaFo §§ 165 ((Pseudo)-Liberius, Epistula ad Athanasium, 362 or earlier), 177[4] (Vitalis
of Antioch, 376, written in Rome!), 546 (Emperor Marcian, 454), 227 (Paul of Apameia, 536).
 Cf. Faustus, Epistula 7, 24 (CSEL 21, p. 205, ll. 3–8).
 Cf. Pseudo-Augustine, Expositio super symbolum 9 (Westra 2002, p. 429).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 167

the miraculous conception and birth of Christ.89 The author of a homily ascribed to
Faustus of Riez emphasizes that Christ was ‘not a portion of, but an operation of the
Holy Spirit’ (non portio, sed operatio fuit spiritus sancti).90 Similarly, the author of an
anonymous instruction on the baptismal liturgy which may date from the sixth cen-
tury91 edited by Keefe emphasizes that Christ was no son of the Spirit.92 Neverthe-
less, the phrase was not introduced everywhere; for instance, it is missing in North
Africa. Instead, there the creed ran: natum de spiritu sancto ex uirgine Maria.93

passus and position of sub Pontio Pilato

As we saw in a previous chapter, the statement that God/Christ ‘suffered’ was
hotly debated in the controversy concerning patripassianism as advocated, for ex-
ample, by Praxeas.94 It is probably for this reason that passum/passus was not
used in Rome – it is found neither in R nor in TAG. By contrast, Greek παθόντα
occurs in both N (FaFo § 135c) and C2 (§ 184e1), and passus/passum was widely
cited in Latin credal texts from other regions, not least because it occurred in the
New Testament.95
However, the first example of R/T with passus is not found until Nicetas of
Remesiana. This is a particularly tricky case, since we do not really know whether
Nicetas’ creed included crucifixus and mortuus.96 In any case, sub Pontio Pilato

 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 10, 4; Sacramentarium Gallicanum 185.

 Collectio Eusebiana, Sermo extrauagans 2, 4.
 Cf. FaFo § 326.
 Cf. text 50 (Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 580, ll. 12–14).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 215, 4 (FaFo § 316g – the reading ex instead of et uirgine Maria is attested
in numerous manuscripts and my text in FaFo should be corrected accordingly); Quodvultdeus,
Sermo 1 (§ 317a); id., Sermo 4 (§ 317d); id., Sermo 10, 6,7 (§ 317e); Fulgentius, Contra Fabianum, frg.
32,3 (§ 319a1: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex uirgine Maria); Pseudo-Facundus of Hermiane,
Epistula fidei catholicae in defensione trium capitulorum 13 (§ 322a: natum ex spiritu sancto et
Maria uirgine).
 Cf. above p. 125.
 Cf. 1Pet 2:21 (Vulgate): ‘[. . .] quia et Christus passus est pro uobis [. . .]’ / ‘[. . .] because Christ
also suffered for you [. . .]’. 4:1: ‘Christo igitur passo in carne [. . .]’ / ‘Since, therefore, Christ suf-
fered in the flesh [. . .]’.
 Perhaps my reconstruction in FaFo § 324, where I omitted crucifixus and mortuus, should be
amended. In Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,5 (Burn 1905, p. 43, ll. 10–12) Nice-
tas says, ‘Sequitur ut credas dominicae passioni, et passum confitearis Christum, crucifixum a
Iudaeis, secundum praedicta prophetarum.’ / ‘It follows that you should believe the passion of
the Lord and should confess that Christ suffered and was crucified by the Jews as the prophets
predicted.’ Id., Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,5 (Burn 1905, p. 44, l. 5): ‘SVB
PONTIO ergo PILATO PASSVS EST.’ / ‘Therefore, he suffered under Pontius Pilate.’ Competentibus ad
baptismum instructionis libelli 5,5 (Burn 1905, p. 44, ll. 13 f.): ‘Mortuus est ergo, ut mortis iura dis-
168 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

was combined with passus.97 This syntagma is nowhere found in Greek creeds
where Pilate remains attached to the crucifixion, as, e.g., in NAnt (FaFo §§ 180a,
198/203, 208) and C2 (§ 184e1). The shift of Pilate from the crucifixion to the pas-
sion must have occurred because all that followed passus was understood as an
explication of Christ’s suffering which in its totality had occurred under Pilate.98
Both the addition of passus and its combination with Pilate must already have
taken place in the second half of the fourth century, because it is not only found
in Dacia Mediterranea, but also in North Africa where Augustine quotes it occa-
sionally.99 As far as I can see, almost all later versions of R/T that contain passus/
passum follow suit.100
However, passus was not universally received. In c. 400 Rufinus (FaFo § 254b)
and Leo the Great (§ 255) do not yet mention it nor does Peter Chrysologus (§ 259).
Although Augustine does cite it, it is omitted in other places (cf. § 316e, g, k) and
later found in neither Quodvultdeus (§ 317a, d) nor Ferrandus of Carthage (§ 321).101

mortuus
The sequence (crucifixus/passus) – mortuus – sepultus is already found in Tertul-
lian (hunc mortuum et sepultum)102 and in TAL/TAG (crucifixus – mortuus – sepul-
tus / σταυρωθέντα – ἀποθανόντα – ταφέντα). It was, therefore, included in one
branch of the Roman credal tradition at a very early stage.103 Hilary of Poitiers
quotes it (crucifixus – mortuus – sepultus; passus – mortuus – sepultus)104 as does
the First Council of Toledo of 400 (crucifixum – mortuum – sepultum).105 In R/T it
is (perhaps) first attested by Nicetas.106 Leo the Great may also have known it.107

solueret.’ / ‘Therefore, he died in order to abolish the rights of death.’ This may suggest that pas-
sus, crucifixus, and mortuus formed part of the creed. However, Nicetas neither discusses Christ’s
crucifixion nor his death in any detail.
 Cf. Burn 1905, p. 44, l. 5.
 This is different in C2 where the crucifixion was added before παθόντα which was taken over
from N.
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo de symbolo ad catechumenos 7 (cf. FaFo § 316l). The date of this sermon
is unknown. Cf. also id., Sermo 375B (= Sermo Denis 5), 6 (FaFo § 316j).
 An exception may be FaFo § 525 (Jacobi’s Creed, Spain?, s. VII?).
 It is uncertain whether one may conclude from Vigilius, Contra Eutychetem 2,8 (FaFo § 318a)
that he read it in his creed. If so, it must have been inserted in Africa in the later fifth century.
 Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 2,1 (FaFo § 111e1).
 Cf. above ch. 4.5.1.
 Cf. Hilary, De trinitate 7,6 (FaFo § 151c3); 10,65 (§ 151c5).
 Cf. First Council of Toledo, Regula fidei catholicae 16 (FaFo § 486a).
 Cf. above p. 167 n. 96.
 Cf. Leo, Tractatus 62, 2 (FaFo § 255c).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 169

In Gaul, however, we are on safe ground: the Collectio Eusebiana, Caesarius, and,
of course, Pirmin all have it.108 Its addition may have served to specify passus/
passum somewhat further. On the one hand, perhaps it served to emphasize the
reality of Christ’s death (over against docetic views), or possibly, on the other
hand, was also connected to the development of the liturgical celebration of the
Paschal Triduum (Good Friday – Holy Saturday – Easter Sunday) in the second
half of the fourth century.109

descendit ad inferna
First a word on terminology and how the phrase is translated. The earlier sources
usually offer ad inferna. Later this is often changed to ad inferos, which syntagma
was then also accepted in the official Roman catechism and liturgy.110 Occasion-
ally, we also find ad infernum.111 There is no difference in meaning between infer-
num and inferna. Both the singular and the plural refer to the underworld or
netherworld. The translation as ‘hell’ is, by and large, erroneous, because an anal-
ysis of late-antique and early medieval explanations of the creed has made it
clear that there was considerable confusion about the nature of the inferna, and
not all authors equated it with hell. The inferi are the inhabitants of the inferna.
Their precise identity, however, was also a matter of debate.112
The descent to the underworld had been discussed long before it came to be
included in R/T. Hilary of Poitiers already mentions it in a sequence of mortuus –
sepultus – descendens ad inferna – ascendens.113 The first evidence for an inclu-
sion in R/T comes from Rufinus whose creed contains descendit in inferna. His tes-

 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 9 (FaFo § 266a); Caesarius, Sermo 9, 1 (§ 271a1); Pirmin, Scar-
apsus 10 (§ 376); 12 (§ 610); 28a (§ 298).
 Cf. Auf der Maur 1983, pp. 76 f.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 282 (Northern France, s. VIII), 309 (CPL 1759, Spain (Ireland?), date unknown, cf.
below p. 605 n. 50), 345 (Catechismus Romanus, 1566), 346 (Rituale Sacramentorum Romanum,
1584), 421 (Alexander of Hales), 422 (Bonaventura), 423 (Raimundus Martini), 424 (William Du-
rand of Mende), 428 (Flanders, s. XIII), 430 (England, s. XI/1 or earlier), 493 (Toledo IV, 633), 698b
(Antiphonary of Bangor), 711[8] (Haito of Basel, Basel/Reichenau?, 809?).
 FaFo §§ 274 (CPL 365, Gaul, s. VI/2), 277 (CPL 1760 in the Sessorianus, Gaul, s. VI–VIII), 328
(CPL 915, c. 550), 329 (Venantius Fortunatus; Northern Italy or Poitiers, c. 575–600), 330 (before
780), 334 (Spain?, before s. IX in.), 339 (s. IX/1).
 For details cf. Kinzig, ‘Liberating the Dead’, 2024 (sub prelo).
 Cf. Hilary, De trinitate 10,65 (FaFo § 151c5). Cf. also id., De trinitate 2,24 (§ 151c1): ‘Virgo, partus
et corpus postque crux, mors, inferi salus nostra est.’ / ‘The Virgin, the birth, the body, then the
cross, the death, the underworld; [these things] are our salvation.’
170 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

timony is particularly interesting, because he emphasizes that the phrase is not

contained in the Roman creed nor in its eastern equivalents.114 It is not yet men-
tioned either in the Collectio Eusebiana (FaFo § 266), but we find it in Caesarius,
the Bobbio Missal (Vienne, s. VII ex.), and Pirmin.115 It travelled from Gaul to
Spain where it is found in Martin of Braga (574),116 in witnesses of the seventh
century (an inscription in Toledo: FaFo § 311), Ildefonsus of Toledo (c. 657–667),117
and in later sources. Both Venantius Fortunatus (Northern Italy or Poitiers, c.
575–600) and the Antiphonary of Bangor (Bangor 680–691 or earlier) are further
witnesses to the widespread popularity of the idea.118
The reasons for this addition are unknown. What the descent signified has
been widely discussed in ancient and early medieval literature.119 There is a wide
consensus in explanations of the creed that the main purpose of Christ’s descent
was to overcome the devil and to release the deceased; by contrast Christ’s
preaching to the spirits in 1Pet 3:19–20 is only rarely mentioned. However, details
remained controversial. Most authors insist that it is Christ’s human soul that acts
in the descent while his body remained in the tomb. One group of preachers ar-
gued that it was Christ’s human soul only which descended to the underworld
because Christ had promised the robber that ‘today’ they would be in paradise
together (Lk 23:43) which must have referred to Christ’s divine nature. Others,
however, who were keen on safeguarding human salvation, which they thought
presupposed Christ’s acting as God, were convinced that Christ’s divinity and his
human soul had made this trip together. A few tried to tread some sort of middle
path, arguing either that the soul of Christ had somehow been divinely empow-
ered or that Christ’s divinity was ubiquitous and hence present both in heaven
and in the underworld.
Furthermore, the precise nature of the infernum was debated. It was gener-
ally seen as a sombre place and a kind of prison guarded by the devil. An alterna-
tive designation, taken from 2Pet 2:4, is the classical Tartarus. Some authors
expressly mention tortures awaiting those inmates who have committed serious
crimes or sins. Yet this caused some problems as those who had died before Christ
included the patriarchs and prophets who were considered righteous, raising the

 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 16.

 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 9, 1 (FaFo § 271a1); Sacramentarium Gallicanum 184 (§ 676); 591 (§ 375);
Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (§ 376); 12 (§ 610); 28a (§ 298).
 Cf. Martin, De correctione rusticorum 15 (FaFo § 608).
 Cf. Ildefonsus, De cognitione baptismi 37–95 (FaFo § 312).
 Cf. Venantius, Expositio symboli (FaFo § 329); Antiphonale Benchorense 35 (§ 698b).
 Cf. Gounelle 2000; Sarot/Van Wieringen 2018; and the survey in Kinzig, ‘Liberating the Dead’,
2024 (sub prelo) with numerous references.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 171

question as to why they were held in the infernum at all. Some Latin fathers,
therefore, pondered the possibility that the righteous elect stayed in the under-
world after their deaths in a place of refreshment (refrigerium) or some kind of
locus amoenus, but nonetheless had to concede that they were held behind lock
and key. However, these reflections were only rarely taken up by later authors. If
the problem was not simply ignored, it was often said that all the dead were kept
imprisoned because of original sin.
The identity of those who were freed from this underworld likewise consti-
tuted a problem. Did Christ release only (part or all of) those who had died before
his coming or did his action during his descent also include (all or some) humans
who would die in the future? Opinions were divided on this issue. Moreover,
there was disagreement as to whether or not the infernum was completely emp-
tied by Christ (which might suggest the salvation of everyone, smacking of Origen-
ism). Later authors usually included the patriarchs, the prophets, the saints, and
sometimes also Adam as those released. By contrast, infideles and serious crimi-
nals were among those who were left behind. Finally, in the eyes of many later
authors the liberation from the underworld became identical with the final resur-
rection. It is not easy to see how these authors reconciled the seemingly historical
nature of the descensus (which had been completed at the time of Christ’s resur-
rection) and the eschatological resurrection of all humankind. In fact, we find no
detailed reflections on the problems involved in such an amalgamation. Instead
the ‘historical’ account of the release of the pre-Christian prisoners in the under-
world at the time of Christ’s death quietly changed into a proclamation of the sal-
vation of most or all Christians.

omnipotentis
The predicate ‘almighty’ was added to the Father in the christological section of
R/T only at a fairly late stage, perhaps because it was not contained in N (FaFo
§ 135c) or C2 (§ 184e1), but also because it formed a duplicate with patrem omnip-
otentem in the first section of R/T. It is later found in creeds from Gaul120 and
later121 from Spain where it occurs in the second half of the seventh century in
the writings of Ildefonsus of Toledo, Etherius of Osma and Beatus of Liébana, and

 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 9 (FaFo § 266a); id., Homilia 10 (§ 266b); Caesarius, Sermo 9
(§ 271a); Sacramentarium Gallicanum 184 (§ 676); 591 (§ 375); Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (§ 376); 12
(§ 610); 28a (§ 298); Missale Gallicanum Vetus 26 (§ 678a1).
 The only exception is Priscillian, if the text is genuine and uncorrupted (FaFo § 308).
172 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

in the Mozarabic (Hispanic) liturgy.122 It is not found in North Africa nor in Italy
(including Rome).123 Later, the adjective seems to have intruded into Latin ver-
sions of both N and C2.124 The reason for this addition is unknown.

catholicam
The earliest Greek creed containing καθολικήν as predicate of the Church seems
to be that set out by Alexander of Alexandria in his letter to Alexander of Byzan-
tium (Constantinople) in c. 321/322.125 The Synod of Antioch in early 325 followed
suit, as did Arius and Euzoius in their creed submitted to the Emperor Constan-
tine in 327.126 N only mentioned καθολική in its anathemas (FaFo § 135c). How-
ever, in Jerusalem the word formed part of the creed in the 340s (§ 147). Later it is
found in the so-called Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus (§ 146) and in the creed of Epiphanius
of Salamis in 374,127 in NAnt (§§ 180a, 208), and in C2 (§ 184e1). The first Latin wit-
ness may be Nicetas of Remesiana,128 perhaps because he knew J.129 In the fifth
century catholicam may have formed part of Leo’s version of R (§ 255g).130 By that
time it may already have been widespread as it is found in the same period in an
inscription on the Croation island of Kres (Symbolum Apsarense, § 325). Later we
find the adjective in most versions of R/T. The only region where it may not have
been accepted is North Africa.131

 Cf. Ildefonsus, De cognitione baptismi 37–95 (FaFo § 312); Etherius of Osma and Beatus of
Liébana, Aduersus Elipandum 1,22 (§ 314a); for the Mozarabic liturgy cf. § 684c4, d.
 Cf., however, Antiphonale Benchorense 35 (FaFo § 698b).
 It is found in the Latin version of N in the Collectio Vetus Gallica (FaFo § 135d40), in a trans-
lation found in a codex dating from the middle of the ninth century (§ 135d45), and in Latin C2 in
the Spanish Missale mixtum (§ 184f30).
 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz
1934/1935, Urkunde 14; FaFo § 132) 53.
 Cf. Synod of Antioch, Epistula synodica 12 (FaFo § 133); Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Con-
stantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30; § 131c) 3–4.
 Cf. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,11 (FaFo § 175).
 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5 (FaFo § 324).
 Cf. Cvetković 2017, pp. 109–15; Gemeinhardt, ‘Vom Werden’, 2020, pp. 50 f.
 Leo often combines catholica with fides. It is combined with ecclesia in Leo, Tractatus 75, 5;
77, 5; 79, 2, and 91, 2; id., Epistula 15, 2. 4. 11. 16. Catholicam is missing in my reconstruction in
FaFo § 255g.
 A possible exception is Augustine, De fide et symbolo 21 (FaFo § 316k): ‘[. . .] credimus et in
sanctam ecclesiam, utique catholicam.’ / ‘[. . .] we also believe in the holy Church, that is, the
catholic Church.’ The phrasing utique catholicam may indicate, however, that Augustine knew it,
but did not find it in his creed.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 173

The reason for its addition is obvious. The earliest predicate of the Church in
the creeds is its holiness, found in both R and in TAG.132 However, in the course of
the fourth century this came to be seen as no longer sufficient as various rivalling
churches were competing over this claim, such as the North African ‘catholic’
Church and the Donatists. By the late fourth century catholicus had already taken
on the double meaning of ‘universal’ and, therefore, ‘orthodox’ (since the congrega-
tions of the heretics and schismatics were considered to be dispersed and particu-
lar). It is not necessary to describe this development in greater detail here, as a
number of useful accounts are available.133 The trinitarian debates of the fourth
century accelerated such an increasingly ‘confessional’ understanding during
which various groups developed within the Church that all laid claim to universally
valid orthodoxy. This fact becomes especially obvious looking at the anathemas ap-
pended to synodal creeds (beginning with N) in which ‘the Church’ condemns devi-
ant theological tenets. Here ‘catholic’ is often combined with ‘holy’ (ἁγία), and
sometimes with ‘apostolic’ (ἀποστολική), thus indicating the venerable age of the
Church which derives its authority from the apostles themselves.134 The belief in
the ‘holy catholic Church’ in R/T, therefore, mirrors the self-designation of the
Church in the eastern anathemas. It may suffice here first to quote the explanation
of ecclesia catholica in the anonymous Expositio de fide catholica (CPL 505) which
may belong to the fifth century:

Believe the catholic Church, that is, the universal one on the whole world where the one
God is worshipped, where the one baptism is observed, and the one faith is kept [cf. Eph
4:5–6].135

Furthermore, the opposition between the universal and orthodox Church and the
particular churches of the heretics is explicitly addressed in the anonymous
Sermo de symbolo (CPL 1759):

It is not said ‘in the holy catholic Church’, but ‘I believe the holy catholic Church’, that is, the
universal Church spread out over the entire world. When it is said: ‘The Church [singular] is
catholic’, then the churches [plural] of the heretics are not catholic, because they are not
universal, but belong to the remotest regions and places.136

 Cf. also FaFo § 92a, b (Cyprian; baptismal interrogations: per sanctam ecclesiam).
 Cf., e.g., Kelly 1972, pp. 384–6; Schindler 1986–1994, cols. 815–16 (with further literature).
 From FaFo I reference only a few examples: §§ 135c (N: καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολική); 141 (Ant4:
καθολική); 143 (Serdica 343, east: ἁγία καὶ καθολική); 145 (Macrostich Creed: καθολικὴ καὶ ἁγία
and ἁγία καὶ καθολική); 148 (Sirmium 351, First Creed: ἁγία καὶ καθολική); 158 (Seleucia 359: κα-
θολική) etc.
 CPL 505, 8 (Westra 2002, p. 437).
 CPL 1759, 22 (Westra 2002, p. 492).
174 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

There can be little doubt that the adjective catholicus was added precisely for this
reason: to claim universality and hence orthodoxy for the Church of the believer
who pronounced the creed.
This is, perhaps, the appropriate place to point out that it was by no means
clear whether ‘faith in’ encompassed only the Holy Spirit or also the Church and the
following cola. Liuwe Westra has given a detailed analysis of this discussion137 so
that I can be fairly brief. Faith ‘in’ the Church is found in many eastern creeds,138
especially in J (FaFo § 147) and C2 (§ 184e1), but also in the west.139 Some authors
explicitly state in their interpretations that we must (or may) also believe ‘in’ the
Church, whereas others rigorously deny this.140
Ambrose (bishop of Milan 374–397) had an ingenious way of dealing with this
problem. He writes in his Explanatio symboli:

Now then, understand well the way in which we believe in the Creator [this was explained
in the previous paragraph], lest perhaps you should say: But [the creed] has also ‘in the
Church’; but it has also ‘in the remission of sins’; but it has also ‘in the resurrection’. What
then? The reason is the same: we believe in Christ, we believe in the Father in just the same
manner in which we believe in the Church and in the remission of sins and in the resurrec-
tion of the flesh. What is the reason? Because he who believes in the Creator believes also in
the work of the Creator. And now, lest you imagine this to be a conceit of my own, take a
testimony: ‘If you believe not me, believe at least the works’ [Jn 10:38].141

I have printed the crucial preposition in in italics here in order to underline

Ambrose’s point: the preposition in before the remission of sins and the resurrec-
tion indicates that we express faith in the Creator through faith in his creation
(such as the Church).

 Cf. Westra 2017.

 Cf. FaFo §§ 89 (Traditio Apostolica in various eastern recensions), 103b (Epistula Apostolorum),
143a1 (Serdica 343, east, Latin version), 164a2[32] (Apolinarius), 175 (Epiphanius), 176[9] (Didascalia
CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum), 182c[7] (Apostolic Constitutions), 185 (Pseudo-Athanasius), 204a
(Charisius), 208 (Nestorians; cf. also below p. 353), 232c (Cosmas Indicopleustes).
 Belief ‘in the Church’ is, for example, found in the following western creeds: FaFo §§ 256
(Ambrose), 257 (Pseudo-Athanasius, Enarratio in symbolum apostolorum), 259e, f (Peter Chrysolo-
gus), 260 (CPL 1751), 267b2 (Faustus of Riez), 308 (Priscillian), 316e, k (Augustine), 375 (Sacramenta-
rium Gallicanum), 527 (Pseudo-Alcuin, Disputatio puerorum). Cf. also the German creeds and
baptismal vows §§ 300, 766, 767.
 Cf. above in the body of text the quotation from CPL 1759. Faustus of Riez even accuses his
opponents of forging the creed; cf. De spiritu sancto 1,2 (FaFo § 267b2). Cf. also Pseudo-Alcuin,
Disputatio puerorum 11 (§ 527[I,14. 18. 19]).
 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 6 (tr. Connolly 1952, pp. 23 f.; altered).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 175

It seems that Rufinus argued precisely against such a position as expressed

by the bishop of Milan. He is the first who explicitly rejects the inclusion of in
before the cola that follow the Holy Spirit:

It was not said ‘in the holy Church’, nor ‘in the remission of sins’, nor ‘in the resurrection of
the flesh’. For if the preposition ‘in’ had been added, it would have had the same meaning
as in the preceding articles. Instead, however, in those clauses where faith as concerning
the Godhead is declared, it is said, ‘in God the Father’, and ‘in Jesus Christ, his Son’, and ‘in
the Holy Spirit’; yet in the rest, where the text does not deal with the Godhead but with
creatures and mysteries, the preposition ‘in’ is not added. And so it is not said ‘we believe in
the holy Church’, but ‘we believe the holy Church’, not as God, but as the Church gathered
together to God. So also that there is ‘remission of sins’; [we do] not [say ‘we believe] in the
remission of sins’. And [so too we believe that there will be] a ‘resurrection of the flesh’; [we
do] not [say ‘we believe] in the resurrection of the flesh’. Thus by means of this preposition
of one syllable the creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are sepa-
rated from things human.142

There are indeed creeds where the remaining clauses are also prefixed by in. In
fact, belief ‘in the remission of sins and eternal life’ already formed part of the
African baptismal interrogations of the mid-third century.143 In this argument it
is rejected throughout because Rufinus, as opposed to Ambrose, made a distinc-
tion between the Trinity (which can only be referred to by the use of ‘in’) and the
created world. Faustus of Riez added another aspect: he rejected faith ‘in’ the
Church, because ‘we believe the Church as the mother of our rebirth, we do not
believe “in” the Church as if it were the author of our salvation’.144
In the middle ages Peter Abelard claimed that ‘in the Church’ was typical of
Greek creeds and that it had been ‘contained in that creed which Leo III produced
in defence of the orthodox faith, had inscribed on a silver tablet, and attached to
the altar of St Paul in Rome’ – which was indeed correct, as this creed was C2.145

 Rufinus, Expositio symboli 34 (tr. Morison 1916, pp. 47 f.; altered).
 Cf. FaFo § 92a (Cyprian: ‘in remissionem peccatorum et uitam aeternam’); cf. above p. 132.
In addition, cf. §§ 103b (Epistula Apostolorum: ‘in the remission of sins’), 256 (Ambrose: ‘[et] in
remissionem peccatorum [et] in carnis resurrectionem’), 259 (Peter Chrysologus: ‘in remissionem
peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, uitam aeternam’), 260 (‘in remissionem peccatorum, carnis
resurrectionem et uitam aeternam’), 316e (Augustine: ‘in remissionem peccatorum, carnis resur-
rectionem’), 317c (Quodvultdeus: ditto). Cf. also §§ 595b (‘in paenitentiam et remissionem peccato-
rum’), 619 (‘in remissionem peccatorum et carnis resurrectionem’). Cf. also the Old Franconian
baptismal vows §§ 766 and 767 (‘in the remission of sins’).
 Faustus, De spiritu sancto 1,2 (FaFo § 267b2).
 Peter Abelard, Expositio quod dicitur symboli apostolorum (FaFo § 861c). On Leo’s creed cf.
below p. 569.
176 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

sanctorum communionem
In the case of sanctorum communionem, which occurs rarely outside credal litera-
ture,146 we can safely say that the phrase is attested in Gaul in the fifth century,
the first datable examples coming from the Collectio Eusebiana, Faustus of Riez,
and Caesarius of Arles.147 However, it may already have been added in the late
fourth century.148 Nicetas of Remesiana possibly cites the phrase as communio-
nem sanctorum though the authenticity of this passage is not entirely beyond
doubt.149 In addition, it also appears in a creed ascribed to Jerome (Fides Sancti
Hieronymi, FaFo § 484), which André Wilmart located in Spain and attributed to
Gregory of Elvira (d. after 392/393). However, it is not a direct descendant of R,
but a curious mixture of N and R/T.

 All early references stem from North Africa: Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 36,2,20; id.,
Sermo 52, 3,6; id., Sermo 149, 10; id., Contra epistulam Parmeniani 1,10; Gesta collationis Carthagi-
niensis (411) 3,258, l. 50 (CSEL 104, p. 247). They do not provide further help in our context. Discus-
sion in Kattenbusch 1900, pp. 931–3.
 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 10 (FaFo § 266b); Faustus, De spiritu sancto 1,2 (§ 267b2); Cae-
sarius, Sermo 9 (§ 271a1, a2); in addition, Westra 2002, pp. 251 f., 261, 263, 400.
 Cf. below in the text on the Synod of Nîmes and the legislation by Emperor Theodosius
where the syntagma appears in the late fourth century in a non-credal context.
 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,10 (Burn 1905, p. 48, ll. 14 f.; cf.
FaFo § 324). It should be noted, however, that the whole passage Burn 1905, pp. 48, l. 11 – 52, l. 52 is
missing in the so-called ‘Austrian recension’ of the work (for details cf. Burn 1905, pp. LXVI–LXVII;
Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, pp. 151 f. (no. 262)). This affects the end of the creed in Nicetas’ explanation:
communionem sanctorum – uitam aeternam. In addition, it has sometimes been doubted that com-
munionem sanctorum could be extracted from this part of the explanation (e.g. by Westra 2002,
p. 215; Gemeinhardt 2012(2014), p. 83; Cvetković 2017, p. 113; Keller 2022, pp. 121–3). However, if the
end of the explanation as printed in Burn is genuine, I see no reason why it should not have been
included. In ch. 10 Nicetas says first that the ‘holy catholic Church’ is identical with the ‘congregation
of all saints’ (sanctorum omnium congregatio) who are then enumerated (cf. below in the text). The
decisive passage then runs like this (Burn 1905, p. 48, ll. 14–19): ‘Ergo in hac una ecclesia credis te
COMMVNIONEM consecuturum esse SANCTORVM. Scito unam hanc esse ecclesiam catholicam in
omni orbe terrae constitutam; cuius communionem debes firmiter retinere. Sunt quidem et aliae
pseudo-ecclesiae, sed nihil tibi commune cum illis [. . .].’ / ‘Therefore you believe that in this one
church you will obtain the communion with the saints. Know that this one catholic Church is estab-
lished throughout the entire world. You ought firmly to retain communion with it. However, there
are also other pseudo-churches, but you have nothing in common with them.’ The expression credis
(which seems only to be transmitted in codex B and which Gemeinhardt, Cvetković, and Keller trans-
late inaccurately as imperative) is baffling. Codex C reads credere instead of credis te which must be
erroneous. I suggest reading ‘crede te’ (in which case the modern translations would be correct). I
understand Nicetas as saying that the Church and the communion of saints are identical and that
we ought to strive for participation in this communion. If communio sanctorum did not form part of
the creed, it would be difficult to understand why this explanation was necessary.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 177

The question what the addition actually meant has created a fair amount of
scholarly discussion in the past.150 Unfortunately, we have no information regard-
ing the historical context in which the phrase was added. A brief survey of inter-
pretations of this phrase in our earliest sources may show that the explanations
of the creed are not very helpful on this point either.
Neither Faustus of Riez nor Caesarius offer us any such explanations. Where
we do find them, they contradict each other. In the version offered by T it is un-
clear whether sanctorum communionem is (I) an attribute of the Holy Spirit or (II)
of the Church or whether it is (III) an independent object of faith. In addition, it
would require explanation whether communio means ‘fellowship’ in these con-
texts, in the sense of participation (communicatio) or ‘assembly’ (congregatio).
When we first look at (III), there is only one example of a Carolingian (interrog-
atory) creed where we find the phrase in sanctorum communionem which clearly
indicates that it is an object of faith – a suggestion which is then immediately
corrected:

Question: Do you believe in the holy catholic Church and in the communion of saints? An-
swer: [I believe] that there is indeed a holy Church, but I do not believe ‘in’ it because it is
not God, but [it is] the assembly or congregation of Christians (conuocatio seu congregatio
Christianorum) [. . .].151

It remains unclear whether the Church and the communion of saints are considered
to be identical and whether the assembly of Christians is, in fact, the communion.
The above-mentioned Fides Sancti Hieronymi reads:

I believe the remission of sins[,] in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the
resurrection of the flesh unto eternal life.152

Here the sequence sanctorum communio – resurrectionem as objects of faith is sep-

arated from the Church (unless the communion of saints is understood as a result
of the remission of sins in the Church); however, the repetition of credo before re-
missionem also makes clear that it is no attribute of the Holy Spirit either.
There is one instance where the communion of saints is described, above all, as
a work of the Spirit (I). Thus the author of an explanation attributed to Augustine

 Cf., e.g., Kattenbusch 1900, pp. 927–50; Kirsch 1910; Badcock 1920; Elert 1949; Benko 1964; Kelly
1972, pp. 388–97; Vokes 1978, p. 550; Gemeinhardt 2012(2014), esp. pp. 81–90; Keller 2022, esp.
pp. 143–68.
 Pseudo-Alcuin, Disputatio puerorum 11 (FaFo § 527).
 Fides sancti Hieronymi (FaFo § 484): ‘Credo remissionem peccatorum in sancta ecclesia cath-
olica, sanctorum communionem, carnis resurrectionem ad uitam aeternam.’
178 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

says that all will be saints because all saints will ‘in eternity’ (in aeternitate) partake
in equal measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are now unevenly distibuted.153
Usually, however, the sanctorum communio is seen as an explanation of the
Church (II). There are, roughly speaking, three different lines of argument. First, a
distinction was made between the saints and ordinary Christians. In the (perhaps)
earliest preserved explanation of the clause from around 400, Nicetas of Remesiana
identifies the Church with the ‘congregation of all saints’ (sanctorum omnium congre-
gatio) of heaven and earth. He counts not only the patriarchs, Prophets, apostles,
martyrs, and all the righteous among the saints, but also the angels and the heavenly
authorities and powers (uirtutes et potestates), referring to Col 1:20. In other words,
the communio as congregatio is both cosmic and eschatological in that it encom-
passes the heavenly beings but also those righteous who have departed from this
life. The individual Christian who makes the confession will in the end be included
in this ‘communion with the saints’ (in the sense of an objective genitive).154
There are variations of this interpretation. Ordinary Christians could be con-
sidered as having already been received into the communion of saints. Thus the
unknown author of another explanation ascribed to Augustine thought that we
are bound together ‘in the congregation <of faith> and the communion of hope
with those saints who died in the same faith which we have accepted’ (‘cum illis
sanctis qui in hac quam suscepimus fide defuncti sunt, societate <fidei> et spei
communione teneamur’).155 Another anonymous exegete of the creed pursues the
same line of argument. Its author thinks that we will join the communion of saints
once we have fulfilled what we promised (probably at baptism).156
By contrast, the anonymous author of the Collectio Eusebiana limited the com-
munio to the saints whom we are called upon to venerate because of their fear and
love of God. At the same time, he warded off the idea that God himself could be
venerated through the saints as if they were ‘a part of God’.157

 Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 240 (s. VIII?), 1 (FaFo § 383).

 Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5,10 (Burn 1905, p. 48).
 Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 242 (s. VI–VII; cf. FaFo § 276c), 4. The same CPL 1758 (s. VII–VIII?;
cf. FaFo § 280), 10 (Westra 2002, p. 478); Traditio symboli ed. Barbet/Lambot 1965, ll. 212–15
(p. 344; s. VIII or earlier; FaFo § 271b); Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 591, ll. 8–10 (text 51; s. IX in.?; cf. FaFo
§ 338); Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 601, ll. 7–9 (text 53; 813–15; cf. FaFo § 287); Keefe, Explanationes, 2012,
text 8 (s. IX; cf. FaFo § 283), ll. 89–92 (p. 47); Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, text 32 (before 780?; cf.
FaFo § 332), ll. 199–201 (p. 158); cf. also Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, text 30 (s. IX), ll. 288–90 (p. 143).
Similarly, CPL 1761 (s. VII; cf. FaFo § 278), 15 (Westra 2002, p. 517).
 Cf. CPL 1761 (s. VII?; cf. FaFo § 278), 15 (Westra 2002, p. 517): ‘Et credo sanctorum communio-
nem me habere, id est societatem sanctorum, si adimpleuero quae profiteor.’
 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 10, 11 (s. V–VI).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 179

Finally, yet another explanation is given by the anonymous author of a homily

ascribed to Faustus of Riez (cf. FaFo § 268). He emphasizes that sanctorum commu-
nionem is contained in the creed in order to rebut those who argue against a vener-
ation of the martyrs.158 In all these cases, a difference is being made between the
saints and ordinary believers.
In opposition to this particularistic view a universalistic interpretation con-
sidered all Christians to be sancti to a greater or lesser degree, depending on
their faith and their way of life. An explanation from, perhaps, the eighth century
argues that the ‘saints’ are those who have led a saintly life and will be rewarded
in the hereafter:

[We believe] that there is one [eternal] life for the saints, but that there will be diverse re-
wards for their labour [and] conversely that there will be punishments for the sinners ac-
cording to the measure of their transgressions.159

An anonymous instruction on the baptismal liturgy states that the communion of

saints is constituted ‘here through faith and later in the kingdom’.160
By contrast, the author of yet another credal sermon preserved under Augus-
tine’s name is much more oriented towards the present: sainthood, he says, refers
to all true Christians, because ‘holy communion is where there is holy faith (quia
ubi est fides sancta, ibi est et sancta communio)’.161 Even more generally, Magnus,
bishop of Sens (fl. 802–16), reads the ‘communion of all (!) saints (communionem
omnium sanctorum)’ as an explication of the Church. According to him it is the ‘as-
sembly of all the faithful in Christ’ (congregationem omnium fidelium in Christo).162
This universalist view ultimately dates back to the fourth century. It is already
found in a rescript by Theodosius I of 388 in which the Apolinarians are banned
‘from all places, from the boundaries of the cities, from the assembly of the honour-
able persons, and from the communion of saints (ab omnibus locibus [. . .], a moeni-
bus urbium, a congressu honestorum, a communione sanctorum)’.163 Likewise, canon

 Cf. Pseudo-Faustus of Riez, Sermo 2, 10, ll. 123–6 (CChr.SL 101B, p. 833).
 Kinzig, ‘Glauben lernen’, 2020(2022), p. 102, ll. 6–8 (III,3). Curiously, this description of the fu-
ture judgement is adapted from the Libellus fidei of Pelagius (cf. Kinzig, ‘Glauben lernen’, 2020-
(2022), p. 102 n. 113). The author may have thought that it was written by Augustine. Cf. FaFo § 517.
 Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 581, l. 15 (text 50; s. VI; cf. FaFo § 326) = Westra 2002, p. 472: ‘Credo
communionem sanctorum, id est hic per fidem et post in regno.’
 Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 241 (s. IX in. or earlier; cf. FaFo § 386), 4.
 Magnus of Sens, Libellus de mysterio baptismatis (FaFo § 783a[5]); cf. also the anonymous
text § 783b[5].
 Codex Theodosianus 16,5,14. Cf. Elert 1949, col. 584.
180 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

1 of the Synod of Nîmes of 394 or 396 deals with priests and deacons from the east
who impose themselves ‘on the communion of saints under the appearance of a pre-
tended piety (sanctorum communioni speciae simulatae religionis inpraemunt)’.164
Accordingly, in his explanation of baptism (812) Amalarius of Metz (sedit 810–14)
calls for the ‘communion of saints’ to be ‘preserved as a unity of spirit in the bond
of peace (in uinculo pacis unitatem spiritus seruare)’.165
Finally, there is also a sacramental interpretation of the phrase in which sanc-
torum communio is equated with sacramentorum communio. Thus the anony-
mous Expositio super symbolum (CPL 1760) sees the communion of saints as the
congregation of those who invoke the triune God and who celebrate the eucharist
every Sunday.166 This may possibly also be the interpretation which the author of
the Tractatus symboli (CPL 1751; cf. FaFo § 260) has in mind.167 Such a eucharistic
interpretation is strengthened in an anonymous interrogation about the creed
which may, however, not have been written before the tenth century:

Question: In what way [do you believe] the communion of saints?

Answer: That is the sharing (communicatio) of the body and blood of the Lord through the
invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. By means of this sacrament all the faithful who
are unanimous in the Church (in aecclesia concordantes) produce out of themselves (ex se)
the one body of Christ.168

Here sanctorum communio is interpreted as a communion in the sancta, the eucha-

ristic elements, an understanding which is also found in Greek interpretations of
κοινωνία τῶν ἁγίων or τῶν μυστηρίων.169 However, whereas κοινωνία τῶν μυστη-
ρίων170 clearly designates the communion in the eucharistic elements and occurs
frequently in the writings of the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries (above all,

 Council of Nîmes (394/396), canon 1, ll. 10 f. (CChr.SL 148, p. 50). Cf. also Kelly 1972, p. 389.
 Amalarius, Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem de scrutinio et baptismo 27.
 Cf. CPL 1760 (s. VI–VIII; cf. FaFo § 277), 14 (Westra 2002, p. 507). The same in Keefe 2002, vol.
II, p. 399, ll. 3–5 (text 28); Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, text 30, ll. 293–95 (p. 143).
 Interestingly, he does not quote the communio sanctorum in his creed, but refers to it only
in his interpretation of in sanctam ecclesiam. Cf. CPL 1751, 16 (Latin text: Westra 2002, p. 472):
‘That holy Church is one and true in which the communion of saints for the remission of sins, the
resurrection of this our flesh is preached.’
 Latin text: Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 597, ll. 1–5 (text 52; cf. FaFo § 773).
 Cf. Elert 1949; Kelly 1972, pp. 389 f.
 The Latin equivalent of κοινωνία τῶν μυστηρίων would be communio mysteriorum. This
phrase is, in fact, already found in Ambrose, De officiis 1,170 in precisely this eucharistic sense.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 181

John Chrysostom), the precise Greek equivalent of communio sanctorum, viz. κοινωνία
τῶν ἁγίων, is fairly rare, never used in a technical sense, and may denote both the
eucharist as well as the eschatological communion of saints.171 In the west this sacra-
mental interpretation also occurs elsewhere: a French translation of T in the Eadwin
(Cadbury) Psalter from the mid-twelfth century offers la communiun des seintes cho-
ses.172 Likewise Abelard writes in his exposition of T that sanctorum could be under-
stood to refer to the sanctified bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar.173
This brief survey of the earliest interpretations of sanctorum communio
shows that the late-antique and early medieval interpreters of this phrase were
no more unanimous than modern commentators. Rebecca J. Keller has recently
argued that there is a connection between the addition of the phrase and contro-
versies over the veneration of saints in the Gallic church.174 Protest against such
veneration could indeed be heard at least since the times of Jerome who ascribed
it to Vigilantius in particular.175 This is, of course, possible judging by the evidence
of the aforementioned Pseudo-Faustus, but it seems unlikely, not only because we
find veneration of the saints perhaps already in Nicetas who lived in the province

 Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Asceticon magnum, cap. 309 (PG 31, col. 1077D = 1301C, if genuine): pos-
sibly eucharist; id., De baptismo 1,17: eschatological ‘communion of saints’; Amphilochius, Contra
haereticos 17, ll. 652 f. (CChr.SG 3, p. 202; allusion to Heb 10:19): eschatological; Pseudo-John Chrys-
ostom, In ingressum sanctorum ieiuniorum (PG 62, col. 727, l. 50): ditto; Cyril of Alexandria, Epis-
tula paschalis 6, 12, ll. 108 f. (SC 372, p. 398): ditto; Cyril of Alexandria, Epistula paschalis 25, 3 (PG
77, col. 912, l. 56): ditto; Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistula 9, 5 (Heil/Ritter 2012, p. 205, ll.
11 f.): τῶν ἁγίων ἐπὶ τοῖς θείοις ἀγαθοῖς κοινωνίαν / ‘the [eschatological] communion of saints
with regard to God’s gifts’. Cf. also the Latin translations in Origen, In epistulam Pauli ad Roma-
nos 10,14, ll. 26 f. (Hammond Bammel 1998, p. 823): Paul speaks about the sanctorum communio;
Theophilus of Alexandria, Epistula ad Palaestinos et ad Cyprios episcopos missa (= Jerome, Epis-
tula 92) 3,2: excommunication of a heretic.
 Cf. FaFo § 432 and below p. 587. For this and the following reference cf. also Peters 1991,
pp. 216 f.
 Cf. Peter Abelard, Expositio symboli quod dicitur apostolorum (PL 178, col. 630).
 Cf. Keller 2022, pp. 166 f.: ‘The seemingly innocuous phrase sanctorum communio is added to
the Creed in some Gallic community as an affirmation of the belief in the saints and the efficacy
of their relics, and spreads from there throughout Gaul. The phrase is unobjectionable, even to
one such as Vigilantius, who protested the extravagancies of the relic veneration. Eventually, this
Gallic form of the creed is propagated for the sake of liturgical uniformity.’ This interpretation is
already found in Kattenbusch 1900, p. 942.
 Cf. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 1; id., Epistula 109, 1; Gennadius of Marseille, Liber siue defini-
tio ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 39; Collectio Eusebiana, Homilia 11, 5; Pseudo-Faustus of Riez,
Sermo 1, 1, ll. 5 f. (CChr.SL 101B, p. 821). In addition, Hunter 1999.
182 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

of Dacia Mediterranea rather than Gaul, but also because it was not the venera-
tion of the saints that was expressed, but communion of (or with) them. Unfortu-
nately, the original reason for, and meaning of, the addition can no longer be
ascertained. However, it may well be that sanctorum communionem was a gloss
explaining sanctam ecclesiam which intruded in the text of R/T.176

uitam aeternam
I indicated above that uitam aeternam is included in RM, but apparently neither
in RL nor in OGS.177 Yet when we look at the insertion of the phrase in other
creeds, we notice that it already formed part of the baptismal questions attested
by Cyprian in the mid-third century.178 In the fourth century it occurs also in J
(FaFo § 192), NAnt (§§ 180, 208), and elsewhere. (C2 has ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος /
‘life of the world to come’; cf. § 184e1.) If J indeed rests on (some version of) R,179
then a version of R which contained the ‘eternal life’ must have circulated in
Rome. In addition, uitam aeternam occurs in fifth-century authors from different
regions such as Nicetas of Remesiana, Peter Chrysologus, Faustus of Riez, Augus-
tine, Quodvultdeus,180 etc. which makes it difficult to assume that the phrase had
not been present in (some version of) R in Rome. Alternatively, one may speculate
that a version of R without uitam aeternam had already been circulating in the
western empire before the phrase was added to the creed (as quoted by Marcel-
lus). This must then have happened before 340 – but we have no hard evidence
for such an assumption.
Indeed we even have positive proof that the creed (or some version of it) did
contain the phrase as well, at least in Aquileia, because Chromatius mentions in his

 This suggestion was already made by Luther in his Large Catechism of 1529: ‘a gloss or an expla-
nation (glose odder auslegung)’; cf. WA 30, p. 189, ll. 24 f. Cf. also id., Resolutio Lutheriana super propo-
sitione XIII. de potestate papae (WA 2, p. 190, ll, 23–5): ‘[. . .] sed glossa aliqua forte ecclesiam sanctam
Catholicam exposuit esse Communionem sanctorum, quod successu temporis in textum relatum
nunc simul oratur’ / ‘[. . .] but some gloss probably explained that the holy catholic Church is the
communion of saints; in the course of time it was transferred into the text and is now also prayed.’
 Cf. above p. 163.
 Cf. Cyprian, Epistula 69, 7,2 (FaFo § 92a); id., Epistula 70, 2,1 (§ 92b); id., Ad Demetrianum 24,2
(§ 122b); and above p. 132.
 Cf. below ch. 5.5.
 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 5 (FaFo § 324); Peter Chrysolo-
gus, Sermo 57 (§ 259a); id., Sermo 58 (§ 259b); id., Sermo 59 (§ 259c); id., Sermo 60 (§ 259d); id.,
Sermo 62 (§ 259f); Faustus, De spiritu sancto 1,2 (FaFo § 267b2); Augustine, Sermo 215 (§ 316g); id.,
Sermo de symbolo ad catechumenos (§ 316l); Quodvultdeus, Sermo 1, 12,1 (§ 317a).
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 183

Tractatus in Mathaeum (probably written between 397 and 407) that it ended like
this: ‘huius carnis resurrectionem, in uitam aeternam’.181 Liuwe Westra tried to
solve this conundrum by assuming that Rufinus quoted his baptismal creed whereas
Chromatius was referring to the actual creed used in Aquileia and that, by conse-
quence, uitam aeternam had been added sometime between 370 and 407, ‘quite pos-
sibly by Chromatius himself’.182 But this does not answer the question as to why
Marcellus quotes eternal life as well; in addition, it is difficult to see why Chromatius
would mention uitam aeternam whereas Rufinus did not when they were both
preaching about the baptismal creed used in Aquileia at the turn of the fifth cen-
tury. All in all, it is easier to assume that in Rome, Aquileia, and elsewhere there
was a certain flexibility in the wording of R/T and that eternal life was not consid-
ered one of its ‘core statements’, since belief in the resurrection had already been
expressed in the christological section.

Conclusions
When we look at the additions in chronological order we can see that patrem and
mortuus may go back to the third century and may have been added to some ver-
sion of R (not the one quoted by Marcellus), because they are attested in the
Roman baptismal questions and in TAG respectively. However, we are unable to
be more specific, because Rufinus apparently read patrem in the Roman creed
(and that of Aquileia), but not mortuus. In around 400 Nicetas attests passus and
catholicam as additions in Dacia Mediterranea. All remaining variants only ap-
pear in Gaulish creeds from the mid-fifth century onwards, although the creeds
in the Collectio Eusebiana and in Caesarius also display certain variations com-
pared to T. They seem to have travelled to Spain by way of Gaul. This may well
have happened in the context of the conversion of Visigothic Spain to catholicism
as a result of the Third Council of Toledo in 589, but, again, we have no details
regarding this process.

 Chromatius, Tractatus in Mathaeum 41, 8, ll. 199 f. (CChr.SL 9A (Raymond Étaix/Joseph Le-
marié), p. 396).
 Westra 2002, p. 91. As far as I can see, this problem was not discussed in research before
Westra. Peter Gemeinhardt also notes the difference between the Latin R and Marcellus. However,
he then comments that, given the wide attestation of the phrase in the west, ‘the decisive question
does not appear to be why this phrase is contained in the Apostolicum, but why it is missing in the
Romanum’ and speaks of a Roman Sonderweg (Gemeinhardt, ‘Vom Werden’, 2020, p. 53).
184 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

All in all, our analysis confirms the hypothesis of previous scholars that T in its
present form is, by and large, a product of the Gaulish church where it was memo-
rized and explained in catechesis,183 but that it is not the product of a deliberate
overall editing process as such. Instead the changes to R were made by different
people at different times, and we must also allow for a certain variation in wording.
Liuwe H. Westra has pointed out that such a flexibility appears to have been
generally accepted:

None of our sources [. . .] betray any signs of discontent with this situation or condemn a
certain variant as deviating from the ‘original’ Apostles’ Creed. Therefore, the general as-
sumption that in the early Church, the Apostles’ Creed was considered essentially one seems
to be correct and what we call differences between two forms of the Creed were considered
variations and nothing more. Even additions like Creatorem caeli et terrae, Descendit in in-
ferna, Sanctorum communionem, and Vitam aeternam were probably not always regarded
as changes in the text of the Creed, so that there was no difficulty in the fact that, for exam-
ple, two variants, one of which contained these additions while the other lacked them, both
could claim to be the one and only ‘Apostles’ Creed’.184

Augustine offers no less than four versions of the creed in his works as the follow-
ing synopsis illustrates:

Sermo  Sermo  De fide et symbolo Sermo de symbolo ad

(= Morin Guelf. ) (§ g) (§ k) catechumenos
(FaFo § e) (§ l)

Credo in deum, [Credimus] in deum,

Credentes itaque in Credo/credimus in
deum, deum,
patrem omnipotentem, patrem omnipotentem, patrem omnipotentem patrem omnipotentem,
[. . .].
uniuersorum
creatorem,
regem saeculorum,
immortalem et
inuisibilem.
et in Iesum Christum, [Credimus et] [. . .] credimus etiam in et in Iesum Christum,
in filium eius Iesum Christum,
Iesum Christum,

 Cf., e.g., Kelly 1972, pp. 411–20; Vokes 1978, p. 536. More cautiously, Gemeinhardt, ‘Vom Wer-
den’, pp. 20 f.
 Westra 2002, pp. 84 f. Cf. also Vinzent 2006, p. 372.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 185

(continued)

Sermo  Sermo  De fide et symbolo Sermo de symbolo ad

(= Morin Guelf. ) (§ g) (§ k) catechumenos
(FaFo § e) (§ l)

filium eius filium dei patris filium eius

unicum, unigenitum [. . .], unicum,
dominum nostrum, dominum nostrum, dominum nostrum. [dominum nostrum],
qui natus est de natum de spiritu [. . .] credentes in eum natus de spiritu sancto
spiritu sancto et sancto et uirgine dei filium, qui natus est et uirgine Maria,
uirgine Maria, Maria, per spiritum sanctum
ex uirgine Maria.
sub Pontio Pilato Credimus itaque in passus sub Pontio
eum, qui sub Pontio Pilato,
Pilato
crucifixus crucifixum sub Pontio crucifixus est crucifixus
Pilato
et sepultus; et sepultum; et sepultus. et sepultus;
tertia die resurrexit tertia die a mortuis Credimus etiam illum [tertia die resurrexit a
a mortuis; resurrexit; tertio die resurrexisse a mortuis;]
mortuis [. . .].
ascendit in ascendit in Credimus in caelum ascendit in
caelum; caelos; ascendisse [. . .]. caelum;
sedet ad dexteram sedet ad dexteram Credimus etiam, quod sedet ad dexteram
patris; patris; sedet ad dexteram patris;
patris;
inde uenturus inde uenturus Credimus etiam inde inde uenturus iudicare
iudicaturus uiuos et est iudicare uenturum uiuos et mortuos;
mortuos; uiuos et conuenientissimo
mortuos. tempore et iudicaturum
uiuos et mortuos.
et in spiritum [Credimus] et [Credimus in spiritum et in spiritum
sanctum, in spiritum sanctum.] sanctum,
sanctum,
in sanctam ecclesiam, Credimus et in sanctam sanctam ecclesiam,
ecclesiam, utique
catholicam.
in remissionem remissionem Itaque credimus et remissionem
peccatorum, peccatorum, remissionem peccatorum,
peccatorum.
186 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

(continued)

Sermo  Sermo  De fide et symbolo Sermo de symbolo ad

(= Morin Guelf. ) (§ g) (§ k) catechumenos
(FaFo § e) (§ l)

carnis resurrectionem carnis, Et ideo credimus et in resurrectionem carnis,

resurrectionem. carnis resurrectionem.
uitam aeternam per < . . . [?]> in uitam
sanctam aeternam.
ecclesiam.

Here we have not only variations in the number of cola, but also (in the christologi-
cal section) in the syntactical construction.189 In addition, Augustine apparently had
no problem in sometimes adding in before the Church etc. and sometimes omitting
it. The variations between the creeds point to the fact that in Augustine’s church

 ‘I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was
born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, was crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate; on
the third day rose again from the dead; ascended into heaven; sits at the right hand of the Father;
thence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit; in the holy Church;
in the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh.’
 ‘[We believe] in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of the universe, king of the ages, immortal
and invisible. [We also believe] in his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, born of the Holy Spirit and the
virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; on the third day rose again from the
dead; ascended into the heavens; sits at the right hand of the Father; thence he will come to
judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, the res-
urrection of the flesh, eternal life through the holy Church.’
 ‘Believing, therefore, in God, the Father Almighty [. . .]. [. . .] We also believe in Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God the Father [. . .], our Lord. [. . .] Believing in this Son of God, who
was born through the Holy Spirit from the virgin Mary. [. . .] We, therefore, believe in him who
was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried. [. . .] We also believe that on the third day he rose
again from the dead [. . .]. We believe that he ascended into heaven [. . .]. We also believe that
he sits at the right hand of the Father. [. . .] We also believe that thence he will come at the most
proper time and judge the living and the dead. [We believe in the Holy Spirit.] [. . .] We also be-
lieve in the holy Church, that is, the catholic Church. [. . .] We, therefore, also believe the remis-
sion of sins. [. . .] And we, therefore, also believe in the resurrection of the flesh. < . . . [?]>’.
 ‘I/we believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, [our Lord,] born
of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified and buried;
[on the third day rose again from the dead;] ascended into heaven; sits at the right hand of the
Father; thence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy
Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh; in [or: for] eternal life.’
 A fourth version (which cannot neatly be reconstructed) is found in De fide et symbolo (FaFo
§ 316k). The most extensive study of Augustine’s creeds is still Eichenseer 1960.
 5.2 From the Creed of Rome to the Apostles’ Creed 187

the wording of the symbolum was not yet fixed, but that the creed could be subject
to minor variations in the process of oral transmission in the Traditio symboli.
Probably, Augustine did not insist on the recitation of a fixed formula in the Red-
ditio, but on the enumeration of theological propositions (which could sometimes
be extended).

Additions that have not stood the test of time

It is by no means all variants in R/T which had been added over the centuries that
‘survived’. One might mention the addition of per sanctam ecclesiam to the pneu-
matological section in North Africa (this alteration was imported from the baptis-
mal interrogations of the third century),190 the addition of uictor after ascendit in
Gaul,191 the phrase resurrexit uiuus a mortuis which is first found in TAG, Nicetas of
Remesiana, and later especially in Spanish creeds,192 or the addition of deum et be-
fore dominum nostrum which is first attested in Spain in the sixth century and
clearly anti-Homoian.193
Sometimes peculiar syntagmata occur which cannot be assigned simply to one
region and which later disappeared. The phrases abremissa peccatorum194 and
abremissionem peccatorum195 which are first attested in the fifth century probably
did not make it because of their highly unusual phrasing.196 Caesarius of Arles and

 Cf., e.g., Cyprian (FaFo § 92) and above p. 132. Furthermore Augustine (§ 316g); Quodvultdeus
(§ 317b, c); Fulgentius of Ruspe (§ 319b2); Pseudo-Fulgentius (§ 320).
 Cf. Missale Gallicanum Vetus (FaFo § 678a1); CPL 1760 (§ 277). Cf., however, CPL 1762 (§ 364
[2]) which according to Westra 2002, pp. 387–392, 561 f. is North Italian.
 Cf. Nicetas of Remesiana (FaFo § 324). Spanish: Martin of Braga (§ 608); Ildefonsus of Toledo
(§ 312); Etherius of Osma/Beatus of Liébana (§ 314a); Formulae Hispanica in modum symboli (§ 510
[16]); Mozarabic Liturgy (§§ 684c4, d). (Perhaps) not of Spanish origin: Expositio symboli (CPL
229a, Northern Italy, s. V–VIII; § 262); the anonymous explanation Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, text
9 (§ 334).
 Cf. Martin of Braga (FaFo § 608); Ildefonsus of Toledo (§ 312); Etherius of Osma/Beatus of Lié-
bana (§ 314a, b, d, e); Mozarabic liturgy (§ 684a, c2, c4). Not of Spanish origin: Quodvultdeus (§ 317e,
but the context is unclear); Bobbio Missal (§ 375; clearly influenced by Etherius and Beatus).
 Cf. Collectio Eusebiana (FaFo § 266b), Faustus of Riez (§ 267b2), Antiphonary of Bangor
(§ 698b).
 Cf. Pseudo-Faustus of Riez (FaFo § 268); creed § 297; Missale Gallicanum Vetus (§ 678a). Cf.
also § 271b2 (Caesarius of Arles?).
 Abremissa either stands for abremissam (from the noun abremissa = remissa) or is a neuter
plural of abremissus. The relevant databanks offer no other form than abremissa which is always
accompanied by peccatorum. The lexeme is confined to the authors mentioned in the previous
footnotes. Abremissio is also found in Isidore, Liber numerorum 8 (PL 83, col. 1298B): sanctorum
abremissio pia. Zeno of Verona, Tractatus 1,2, 24, ll. 218 f. (CChr.SL 22, p. 21) offers remissa pecca-
188 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

the Bobbio Missal read filium eius unigenitum, sempiternum.197 Sempiternum is not
attested elsewhere. Oddly, the more precise translation of μονογενῆ as unigenitum
(instead of unicum) never made it into T either, although it is occasionally found in
other authors.198 In this context it is also worth mentioning that some expositors of
the creed combine unicum with dominum nostrum (hence: ‘our only Lord’) which
can be seen from the way they divide the cola.199
Some creeds emphasize that the Spirit had ‘one substance with the Father and
the Son’ (unam habentem substantiam cum patre et filio).200 This may have been
influenced by Gregory the Great201 in which case CPL 505 and 1763 must have been
written later than is usually assumed.202 Finally, it may be noted that the ‘resurrec-
tion of the dead’ (resurrectionem mortuorum), which is often found in modern ver-
sions of T, does not usually occur in R/T, but was taken over from C2.203 Carnis
resurrectionem may not generally have been replaced because what mattered here
was the resurrection of the flesh (and not just the soul) in order to emphasize a full
(and not just spiritual) resurrection.204
The reasons why some variants of R/T survived and now form part of T while
others simply vanished are manifold: some may have been considered superflu-

torum (cf. also 1,6 (p. 43, l. 9)). On discussion of the form abremissa cf. Bengt Löfstedt in CChr.SL
22, pp. 79–81.
 These creeds are identical except for the fact that Caesarius uses relative clauses in the chris-
tological section while the Missal has participles; cf. Caesarius, Sermo 9 (FaFo § 271a1, a2); Sacra-
mentarium Gallicanum 184 (§ 676a).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 272 (Cyprian of Toulon), 525 (Jacobi’s Creed, Spain?, s. VII?).
 Cf., e.g., Peter Chrysologus (FaFo § 259f), CPL 1761 (§ 278), CPL 1758 (§ 280), creed from Berne
(§ 282), Tractatus de symbolo apostolorum (§ 283), the Book of Deer (§ 294), CPL 1759 (§ 309), Aper-
tio symboli (§ 332), anonymous florilegium (§ 337), anonymous creed (§ 379a); Pseudo-Augustine,
Sermo 240 (§ 383); anonymous creed (§ 385). In Sermo 58 of Peter Chrysologus filium eius is miss-
ing (§ 259b) – yet this must surely be a mistake by an early copyist, given that he quotes it on
other occasions. It is also omitted in the creed § 379a and in the Bobbio Missal (§ 676b, c).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 265 (CPL 505), 273 (CPL 1763), 698b (Antiphonary of Bangor).
 Cf. Gregory, Homilia in Euangelia 30, 3: ‘Qui unius substantiae cum Patre et Filio exorare pro
delinquentibus perhibetur, quia eos quos repleuerit exorantes facit.’ / The Spirit, ‘who, being of
one substance with Father and Son, is shown to pray for the sinners, because he makes those
pray whom he has filled’.
 CPL 505: fifth century, cf. Westra 2002, pp. 312–18; CPL 1763: 550 or later, cf. Westra 2002,
pp. 393–5.
 Exceptions: Peter Chrysologus (FaFo § 259c – but in one sermon only, otherwise always car-
nis resurrectionem); Alcuin (§ 702g3); furthermore the anonymous creed § 339.
 It is difficult to say why CPL 505 (FaFo § 265) and 1763 (§ 273) read ex mortuis instead of a
mortuis and whether this variant has any significance at all. Lk 20:35 (resurrectione ex mortuis)
and Col 1:18 (primogenitus ex mortuis) may have played some role in this respect.
 5.3 The general endorsement of T in the Carolingian Reform 189

ous, others were omitted by negligence. Again others disappeared because the rel-
evant region or the authors who used it did not have sufficient ecclesiastical or
political influence. Not least, we should not discount the loss of manuscripts as
having played a part. It is important to keep all these factors in mind: the final
shape of T was not entirely the result of particular theological or liturgical devel-
opments but may also have come about by sheer happenstance.205

5.3 The general endorsement of T in the Carolingian Reform

When we look at the witnesses for T we can easily see that its general implementa-
tion was a result of the efforts during the reign of the Frankish king and emperor
Charlemagne (king 768–814; emperor since 800) to achieve uniformity in the liturgy
and to improve the religious knowledge of his subjects. We find T (with minor var-
iations) in sacramentaries and baptismal liturgies from the late eighth century on-
wards.206 Charlemagne insisted in his Admonitio generalis of 789 that ‘the faith in
the holy Trinity, and the incarnation of Christ, his passion, resurrection, and ascen-
sion into the heavens’ be diligently (diligenter) preached to everybody.207 For that
purpose T was more helpful than C2 which lay people had difficulties in under-
standing and memorizing. Alas, we have no direct testimony that the king and em-
peror promoted one particular version of T, but we do have a testimony that he
considered R/T to be part of the basics that every believer ought to know. Sometime
in the early 800s he wrote a letter to Bishop Gerbald (Garibaldus; Ghaerbald) of
Liège (sedit 787–810). In it he mentions an incident that had happened at Epiphany
at a baptismal ceremony in which the emperor took part and during which he
found that none of the parents or sponsors were able to recite the creed and the
Lord’s Prayer. The emperor was indignant about the degree of sloppiness he found
in the diocese of Liège, ordering the bishop to convene an assembly of priests for
the matter to be investigated. In the same vein, he told the bishop to make sure
that everybody knew at least the Lord’s Prayer and ‘the creed of the catholic faith,
as the apostles have taught it’ (symbolum fidei catholicae, sicut apostoli docuerunt)
and that no infant was to be baptized before their parents and sponsors had recited
both these texts in the presence of the officiating clergy.208 The creed in question

 Cf. also Gemeinhardt, ‘Vom Werden’, 2020, esp. p. 57.

 Cf. the list in FaFo, vol. II, pp. 352 f.
 Charlemagne, Admonitio generalis 32 (FaFo § 719a).
 Cf. Charlemagne, Epistula de oratione dominica et symbolo discendis (FaFo § 731). Cf. also
below p. 470.
190 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

must have been some version of R/T because only this creed was attributed apos-
tolic origin, as we will see in the next chapter.
It may well be that Gerbald references this letter in another epistle in which
he admonishes his clergy to be more diligent in teaching their flock the Lord’s
Prayer and ‘the creed which the apostles have taught’ (symbolum, sicut docuerunt
sancti apostoli).209 It may have been in the same context that he also addressed
his congregation directly telling them no longer to neglect the Lord’s Prayer and
‘and the creed of the twelve apostles (de symbolo duodecim apostolorum), which
begins like this, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty”, and the remaining verses
that follow’.210 Gerbald’s successor Waltcaud (fl. 811–381) continued this effort at
improving religious education.211
In addition, a member of the king’s court (perhaps Angilbert of Saint-Riquier,
d. 814) issued an instruction in 802 or 803 to an ecclesiastical missus dominicus as
to how to examine the religious knowledge of canons, monks, and lay people.
Canons, he said, should be told ‘to memorize the Apostles’ Creed (symbolum aposto-
lorum) and the faith of St Athanasius, the bishop [i.e. the Symbolum Quicumque]’.212
The symbolum apostolorum is also mentioned in a number of ecclesiastical chap-
ters of the same period from other dioceses as part of the minimum knowledge
that both priests213 and lay people ought to have.214 In this respect, Haito of Basel
(sedit 803–23) expressly mentions that the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed
(symbolum apostolorum) are to be memorized ‘both in Latin and in the vernacular’
(tam Latine quam barbarice).215 Indeed, the oldest German version of T in the so-
called Weissenburg Catechism dates from precisely this period.216 Two other exam-
ples that also call the creed used at baptism the symbolum apostolicum are a brief
treatise on baptism by Alcuin (735–804) of c. 798 and the response by Leidrad of
Lyons (sedit 798–814?) to Charlemagne’s famous inquiry of 812 concerning baptis-
mal practices in his realm (FaFo § 781).217 However, we must allow for some varia-

 Gerbald, Ad dioeceseos suae presbyteros epistula (Epistula 2; FaFo § 745c).

 Gerbald, Instructio pastoralis ad gregem suum (Epistula 3) 1 (FaFo § 745d1). Cf. also id., In-
structio pastoralis ad gregem suum (Epistula 3) 3 (§ 745d2).
 Cf. Waltcaud of Liège, Capitulary, chs. 1–2 (FaFo § 749: symbolum apostolicum).
 Angilbert (?), Epistula (FaFo § 727).
 Cf. Capitula Frisingensia Prima 1–3 (FaFo § 756: symbolum apostolicum).
 Cf. Capitula Parisiensia 2 (after 800; FaFo § 744: symbolum apostolorum); (Pseudo-)Gerbald
of Liège, Second Capitulary 1 (§ 745b: symbolum apostolorum); Hrabanus Maurus, De clericorum
institutione 1,27 (§ 769: apostolicae fidei symbolum).
 Haito of Basel, Capitulary, ch. 2 (FaFo § 747a).
 Cf. below pp. 584 f.
 Cf. Alcuin, De sacramento baptismatis (FaFo § 775); Leidrad of Lyons, Liber de sacramento
baptismi ad Carolum Magnum imperatorem 5 (§ 785).
 5.3 The general endorsement of T in the Carolingian Reform 191

tion because the exposition of the creed which Amalarius of Metz (sedit 810–814)
included in his reply is very similar to, but by no means identical with, T.218 Finally,
we still possess an explanation of T from the pen of Hrabanus Maurus that was
preached on the second Sunday of Lent.219
T is also the version of the symbolum apostolicum that was included (without
title) in the magnificent Dagulf Psalter (cod. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbi-
bliothek, lat. 1861; FaFo § 299). This psalter was named after the scribe who wrote
it in Aachen between 783 and 795 at the behest of Charlemagne to be gifted to
Pope Hadrian. Kelly (who also mentions the Psalter of Charles the Bald (cod.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1152), written in 842–869220) is, therefore, no
doubt right when he says that ‘T must have had something of the status and pres-
tige of an official form if it was selected for inclusion in psalters prepared for the
royal house’.221
In conclusion, although direct evidence is lacking, T was undoubtedly the ver-
sion of the Apostles’ Creed that was propagated by Charlemagne and the members
of his court chapel in their effort to improve the general level of religious education
and to curb the rank growth of the liturgy that had proliferated in the west over
the previous centuries.222 Why they chose Pirmin’s version is not known. However,
it may be significant as regards its spread in Francia that the oldest manuscript of
the Scarapsus (cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1603223) was written in the
late eighth or early ninth century in a scriptorium close to the Frankish court. It
also included, inter alia, Charlemagne’s aforementioned Admonitio generalis which
set out the king’s ideas about reforming education and the Church. It is precisely
through manuscripts such as these (which may have served the bishops ‘for refer-
ence and instructing’224), and through its inclusion in the daily office, that T ulti-
mately won the day as the definitive version of the creed attributed to the apostles.

 Cf. Amalarius, Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem de scrutinio et baptismo 23–27 (FaFo
§ 782a1). However, he nowhere calls it the symbolum apostolorum.
 Cf. Hrabanus, Homilia 13 (PL 110, cols. 27–9; cf. FaFo § 306).
 In this Latin Psalter T is called in Greek ΣYΜΒΟΛΟΝ.
 Kelly 1972, p. 426.
 Cf. also Vogel 1986, pp. 147–50; Metzger 1997, pp. 114–19; Angenendt 2001, pp. 327–48; Ehrens-
perger 2006; Angenendt 2009, pp. 38–44; Klöckener 2013, pp. 66–9.
 Cf. Hauswald 2010, pp. LXIV–LXVII; Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, pp. 304 f.; URL <http://www.mira-
bileweb.it/manuscript/paris-bibliothèque-nationale-de-france-lat-1603-manoscript/12069> (10/11/
2023).
 Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, p. 304.
192 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed

Concomitantly to the spread of R/T in the west, the legend developed that this
creed had its origins in a council of the apostles before they departed from Pales-
tine in order to preach all over the world. The idea that the Church’s teaching
went back to the apostles and, ultimately, to Christ himself is, of course, very old
and, for example, already found in First Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.225
Later on, however, it developed into a full-blown legend.
The Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in their present form in Antioch in
c. 380, offer a summary of Christian teaching that allegedly derived from a coun-
cil of the apostles, although the only details given is a list of names.226 Two of the
earliest accounts of this legend proved especially influential because they were
quoted over and over again in later explanations of the creed; they are to be
found in the writings of Ambrose and Rufinus. For Ambrose the major purpose of
the council of the apostles was to establish a formula summarizing the main ten-
ets of the Christian faith for religious instruction:

Therefore, the holy apostles met together [and] made a brief summary of the faith (breuia-
rium fidei), so that we might express the sequence of the whole faith in a nutshell (ut
breuiter fidei totius seriem comprehendamus). Brevity is needful so that it may be always
remembered and recalled to mind.227

Ambrose insists on brevity so that the creed could be memorized and thus be pro-
tected from additions either by heretics or by overly cautious catholics concerned
about the text’s precise meaning. He concludes:

Therefore, the holy apostles met together and briefly (breuiter) composed the creed.228

Whereas Ambrose’s account is succinct and to the point, the presbyter Rufinus
offered his congregation at Aquileia an embellished version of the legend in
around 404 or shortly thereafter, adding a range of new elements:

 Cf. First Clement 42,2–3 (FaFo § 348); Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,1 (§ 349b); Tertullian,
De praescriptione haereticorum 20,4–5 (§ 350b1).
 Cf. Constitutiones apostolorum 6,14,1–15,2 (FaFo § 182b). The list in 6,14,1 is that of Mt 10:2–4
(see below), with Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:26). The author also adds James, the
brother of the Lord, and the Apostle Paul.
 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 2 (FaFo § 351a).
 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 3 (FaFo § 351a).
 5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed 193

Our fathers of old have related that, after the ascension of the Lord, when tongues of fire had
rested upon each of the apostles at the coming of the Holy Spirit so that they might speak in
manifold and diverse languages (through which no foreign people, no barbarous speech
should appear inaccessible to them or beyond attainment) [cf. Acts 2:1–11], a commandment
from the Lord was given to them to depart to each of the nations in order to preach the word
of God [cf. Acts 1:8]. Thus, before separating from one another, they first agreed together
upon a fixed standard for their future preaching (normam prius futurae sibi praedicationis) so
that, when they had dispersed, they could not possibly vary when teaching those who were
called to believe in Christ. When, therefore, they were all in one place and were filled with
the Holy Spirit, they composed (as we have said) this brief token of their future preaching
(futurae praedicationis indicium), each contributing his own decision to the one [decree]. They
resolved that this rule (regulam) was to be given to believers. [. . .] When, therefore, as we
have said, the apostles were about to depart to their preaching, they laid down this token of
their unanimity and their faith (unanimitatis et fidei suae indicium).229

Here the event is linked to Pentecost and, therefore, located in Jerusalem. The
apostles were actually filled by the Holy Spirit when they laid down the creed.
Their aim was to demonstrate unanimity with regard to the contents of faith. This
version adds another new element which is not yet found in Ambrose: each apos-
tle stated his own view and contributed it to the creed. As such the creed is invari-
able and cannot be changed.
Rufinus clearly emphasized the unanimity of the apostles in creating the
creed; later expositions ironically used this notion of its joint apostolic nature as
a means of discrimination: because of its venerable origin the creed serves to dis-
tinguish both faith from unbelief and orthodoxy from heresy. Leo the Great
pointed out in a letter to Empress Pulcheria that

the brief and perfect confession of the catholic creed (ipsa catholici symboli breuis et per-
fecta confessio) which was sealed by the twelve sentences of the twelve apostles is so well-
furnished with heavenly fortification (tam instructa sit munitione caelesti) that all the opin-
ions of heretics can be struck down by that one sword.230

The author of a sermon attributed to Maximus of Turin (fl. 408–423) which may
have been composed in c. 450 made a similar point:

The blessed apostles [. . .] delivered the mystery of the creed (mysterium symboli) to the
Church of God, which they armed against the troops of the furious devil so that the sign of
the creed (signaculum symboli) would distinguish between believers and the infidels (be-
cause there was to be a dissension between the believers under the one name of Christ),
and the one who is an alien from the faith and an enemy of the Church would become ap-

 Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18).

 Leo the Great, Epistula 4b(31), 4 (FaFo § 360a). Cf. also Tractatus 96, 1 (§ 360b).
194 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

parent because, in spite of being baptized, he would not know it, or being a heretic he
would have corrupted it.231

Later explanations of the creed attribute a clause of T to each apostle. It is diffi-

cult to say when this notion developed as the dates of the anonymous texts in
which these attributions occur are mostly unknown. It may well be that it did not
occur before the late seventh or early eighth century, the Bobbio Missal and Pir-
min being among the earliest examples.232
There were, however, two problems with this assignation of individual clauses
to each apostle. First, the various lists of apostles in the Latin translation of the
New Testament, the Vulgate, differed from each other, and, second, the number of
clauses did not quite fit the number of apostles so that certain adjustments had to
be made which depended on the precise wording of the creed and, in the end,
turned out not to be uniform. Thus, what was meant to lead to a ‘stable’ apostolic
tradition resulted in considerable confusion. We do not need to rehearse the details
of this phenomenon here. Rather, the following will outline some of the major
trends and peculiarities that occur in manuscripts of the early and high middle
ages when it comes to listing the apostles.
The New Testament contains four lists of apostles (Mt 10:2–4; Mk 3:16–19; Lk
6:14–16; Acts 1:13 and 26).233 For the purpose of the creed these lists had, of neces-
sity, to be modified, because Judas Iscariot had to be replaced by Mathias (Acts
1:26). The lists of apostles given in relation to T are only partly based on the New
Testament as the following typology demonstrates.

Type Ia
It is hardly surprising that the most wide-spread sequence was that of Acts 1:13
(plus Mathias):

Peter – John – James – Andrew – Philip – Thomas – Bartholomew – Matthew –

James – Simon – Jude – Mathias

It is found, for example, in

– Sacramentarium Gallicanum (Bobbio Missal) 591 (FaFo § 375; Vienne, s. VII ex.?);
– Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 241 (FaFo § 386; Gaul, s. IX in. or earlier);

 Pseudo-Maximus, Homilia 83 (FaFo § 23).

 Cf. Sacramentarium Gallicanum 591 (FaFo § 375); Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (§ 376).
 For the New Testament evidence cf. Taylor 2009.
 5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed 195

– creeds in cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 14085 (Corbie, c. 850), f. 230r
and cod. Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.p.th.f. 109 (Germany, s. X), ff.
159r–v (FaFo § 404);
– cod. Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, 804 (France, c. 875–900), f. 69r
(FaFo § 410);
– Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica III,3, inq. 2, tract. 2, q. 2, tit. 1, c. 1
(Paris, 1235–1245; FaFo § 421).234
The creeds contained in the Paris and Würzburg codices and in the Troyes manu-
script respectively are largely identical and appear to be extended versions of
that found in the Bobbio Missal. Alexander’s creed is slightly different.

Type Ib
This is a small variant of the previous sequence, in which Mathias was not in-
cluded in the list. As a result Thomas appears twice.
– Collectio Vetus Gallica (Lyons, s. VII/2; FaFo § 373);
– Pirmin, Scarapsus 10 (Abbey of Hornbach?, c. 725–750; FaFo § 376);
– cod. Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Augiensis perg. 18 (Abbey of
Reichenau, c. 800–825), p. 26, col. 1 (FaFo § 393).
In these cases, all clauses are identical, as are their attributions to the apostles.
Accordingly, it appears very likely that the three occurrences are related to each
other: Pirmin was the founder of Reichenau where the Augiensis perg. 18 was
later written. His version, in turn, may be related in some way to the Collectio
Vetus Gallica (the relationship between these two texts is complicated).235

Type Ic
This list is also based on Acts 1:13+26, but on a distinctive western textual tradition
which is represented by the so-called Codex E (08), also called Ea or E2 or Codex
Laudianus of the late sixth/early seventh century.236

Peter – Andrew – James – John – Philip – Thomas – Bartholomew – Matthew –

James – Simon – Jude – Mathias

 Alexander mentions that sometimes Thomas is named as last apostle in this sequence. See
below type Ib.
 Cf. FaFo § 373, introduction. Cf. also Hauswald 2010, p. XCIX.
 Cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. gr. 35 (Italy, Sardinia, or Rome, c. 600), f. 4r; cf. above
p. 147. Cf. also Wordsworth/White 1954, p. 39 app. ad loc.
196 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Its only witness is the Liber Floretus (before 1200) that is preserved in cod.
Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 283 (Lübeck, 1454), ll. 29–37 (FaFo § 425; a hex-
ametrical version).

Type IIa
This is the list found in Mt 10:2–4, except that Mathias is substituted for Judas
Iscariot:

Peter – Andrew – James – John – Philip – Bartholomew – Thomas – Matthew –

James – Thaddaeus – Simon – Mathias

– De fide trinitatis quomodo exponitur (CPL 1762; Northern Italy, s. V or later;

FaFo § 364);
– cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 40 (Switzerland, c. 780), pp. 322 f. (FaFo § 379a);
– cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 2796 (France, c. 813–815), f. 67v
(FaFo § 379b).
CPL 1762 clearly differs from the creeds in the St. Gallen and Paris codices which
are closely interrelated, although not identical.

Type IIb
This is a variant of the previous list, inverting Simon and Thaddaeus.
– Pseudo-Alcuin, Disputatio puerorum 11 (before 800; FaFo § 527);
– cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3909 (Augsburg, c. 1138–1143),
f. 23r (FaFo § 418);
– William Durand of Mende, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,7 (Mende,
1292/1296); FaFo § 424).
Pseudo-Alcuin (which is slightly briefer than T) may be the ancestor of Clm 3909
(which is identical with T). William has a different distribution of clauses.
The following lists do not appear to be based on any biblical evidence.

Type IIIa
Peter – Andrew – James – John – Thomas – James – Philip – Bartholomew – Mat-
thew – Simon – Thaddaeus – Mathias
– Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 240 (s. VIII?; FaFo § 383);
 5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed 197

– cod. Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Augiensis perg. 229 (region of

Chieti; 806–822 or 821), f. 222r–v (FaFo § 401; here Simon is missing – proba-
bly a scribal error – so that only eleven apostles are named);
– cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 22053 (olim Cim. III.4.m.; dio-
cese of Augsburg, c. 814), ff. 44r–45r (FaFo § 400);
– cod. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 481 (s. XI/XII), f. 27r (cf.
FaFo, vol. II, p. 406);
– cod. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, theol. gr. 190 (1475–1500),
f. 302v (FaFo § 427; a Greek translation of T).
Due to differences in the distribution of clauses Pseudo-Augustine and Reg. lat.
481 appear to form one group, while Augiensis perg. 229, Clm 22053, and Vienna,
theol. gr. 190 form another.

Type IIIb
This list is the same as IIIa except that John and Iacobus maior (James, son of Ze-
bedee) are switched around.
– Bonaventura, Commentaria in quattuor libros sententiarum III, dist. XXV, art.
I, quaest. I (Paris, 1250–1252; FaFo § 422).

Type IV
Peter – Andrew – John – James – Thomas – James – Philip – Bartholomew – Mat-
thew – Simon – Jude – Mathias

– Raimundus Martini, Explanatio symboli apostolorum ad institutionem fidel-

ium (Spain, 1258; FaFo § 423);
– cod. Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, C 194 (s. XIII?), f. 109v (cf. FaFo, vol. II, p. 407)
– Richard Rolle (cf. below p. 574 n. 19);
– cod. Wiesbaden, Hessische Landesbibliothek, 35 (s. XV), f. 52r (a hexametrical
version; FaFo § 426).
Raimundus, C 194, and Richard Rolle are basically identical. In C 194 nostrum is
missing after dominum, and ad caelum is replaced by ad caelos. Rolle reads in-
ferna instead of inferos and ad caelos instead of ad caelum, also adding est after
uenturus and et before uitam aeternam. He omits Amen. Iudas Iacobi (Raimundus)
is called Iudas Thadaeus.
198 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Type V
Peter – Andrew – John – James – Matthew – Philip – Bartholomew – Thomas –
Barnabas – Simon – Jude – James – Mathias

– Eadwin (Canterbury) Psalter (cod. Cambridge, Trinity College, R.17.1 (Canter-

bury, c. 1155–1160)), ff. 281v–282r as part of the Expositio super symbolum
(CPL 1760; FaFo § 419).

The existence of the Apostle Paul also caused some headaches. His name follows
that of Peter in all lists that include him. As a result either the number of twelve
apostles had to be expanded or one of the other apostles to be dropped. Both sol-
utions are found.

Type VI
Peter – Paul – Andrew – James – John – Thomas – James – Philip – Bartholomew –
Matthew – Simon – Thaddaeus
This is the same as type IIIa, with Paul added and Mathias omitted.

– Expositio super symbolum (CPL 1760; Gaul, s. VI–VIII; FaFo § 277).

Type VII
This list starts off in a similar vein but adds another sequence after Thomas
which also includes Barnabas:237

Peter – Paul – Andrew – James – John – Thomas – Matthew – Philip – Bartholo-

mew – James – Barnabas – Simon – Jude – Thomas – Mathias. In this case we end
up with fifteen apostles!

– cod. Laon, Bibliothéque Municipale, 303 (s. XIII), ff. 9r–10r (FaFo § 420; part of
a longer exposition of the creed).

 The inclusion of Paul and Barnabas is also found in the explanation of the creed by Albert of
Padua (d. 1328), according to Voss 1701, p. 504.
 5.4 The legend about the origin of the Apostles’ Creed 199

Type VIII
Even more confusing is this final variant of the list in which Paul is inserted after
Peter and the final apostle’s name is omitted altogether (although twelve clauses
are numbered):

Peter – Paul – Andrew – James – John – Bartholomew – Thomas – Matthew –

James – Simon – Jude – ?

– cod. Cambrai, Bibliothèque municipale, 625 (576; Northern France or Brittany,

s. IX/2), f. 67r–v (FaFo § 409).

There are further variations. A creed which is found in cod. Zurich, Zentralbiblio-
thek, C.64 (286; St. Gallen?, s. VIII/IX), ff. 1r–v (FaFo § 385) identifies the apostles
only by numbers, not by names (‘The first said . . ., the second said . . .’ etc.). The
same is true of the creed found in cod. Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversi-
taire, Section Médécine, H 141 (Flavigny, s. IX in.), f. 4r (FaFo § 387). However, the
way it distributes the clauses differs considerably from that of the Zurich codex.
These lists are probably related to similar lists in medieval sacramentaries
and prayer books (libelli precum) that contain prayers addressed to the individual
apostles.238 However, examination of this very complex evidence would lead us
too far astray from our main line of investigation.
However, one peculiar feature must be mentioned. From the early fourteenth
century onwards we find lists in which the names of the apostles are combined
with quotations from the prophets. Examples of this type are given in FaFo § 428.239
Although it was generally acknowledged in the middle ages that T had been
composed by the apostles, the authorship of the individual clauses and even their
number remained a matter of dispute in learned circles.240 A creed from Northern
Italy has the list of apostles (type IIa) follow the actual creed, concluding with the
remark: ‘It is difficult to determine the sequence of those speaking, which of the
apostles said this first’.241 (A vague attempt is made to number the clauses instead

 Cf., e.g., Dell’Omo 2008, p. 253 (litany) and Dell’Omo 2003, pp. 280 f. (no. 17), in both cases
citing additional evidence and literature. Other early lists are found in Schermann, Prophetarum,
1907; cf. also Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden, 1907.
 For iconographic evidence cf. below pp. 592–4. For later written sources cf. Bühler 1953.
 For details cf. Wiegand 1904, pp. 45–8; Vinzent 2006, pp. 29 f.
 Apertio symboli (FaFo § 263; Northern Italy, 800 or earlier).
200 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

in the manuscripts attesting this creed but it is given up halfway through.) Like-
wise, Jocelin of Soissons (sedit 1126–1152), while claiming that the creed had been
written by the Twelve (Matthias having replaced Judas), could not recall it being
mentioned in the Scriptures who had written what.242 Durandus of Saint-Pourçain
(d. 1332/1334) remarked in his Commentary on the Sentences that the attribution of
clauses of the creed to individual apostles was rather accidental and fairly artifi-
cial.243 In the end, the learned English bishop Reginald Pecock (Pavo, 1393–1461)
and the Italian humanist Laurentius Valla (1406–1457) went so far as to establish
the pseudonymity of the Apostles’ Creed; as a result both these scholars received
an ecclesial condemnation leading them in turn to recant.244

5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem

In245 his chapter on ‘eastern creeds’ Kelly suggested that every major centre of
Christianity in the east possessed its own declaratory creed by the first decades of
the fourth century, ‘and that some of them must go well back into the third cen-
tury’.246 This view reflected a consensus widely accepted in earlier scholarship,
but a closer look shows there is no evidence for such a far-reaching claim. We
will see that the alleged creed of Caesarea (which Kelly discusses in this chapter)
probably did not exist as a fixed formula.247 Of his remaining alleged examples
some are not baptismal creeds, but theological declarations formulated ad-hoc
(Alexander of Alexandria,248 Arius and Euzoius249); all the others are revisions of
N originating from the 370s (Antioch,250 Mopsuestia,251 and, perhaps also the

 Cf. Jocelin, Expositio in symbolum 2 (PL 186, cols. 1480B–1481A): ‘They prepared a spiritual
banquet, that is, the creed (symbolum), in which they did not include all parts of the faith in de-
tail, but only twelve sentences (sententias), as there were twelve (Judas having already been re-
placed by Matthias), such that each one contributed his own [sentence]. Who specifically
(quisquam)? I do not remember having read this in the canonical Scripture.’
 Cf. Durandus, Scriptum super IV libros sententiarum, lib. 3, dist. 25, qu. 3, n. 9 (Martimbos
1587, p. 581): ‘[. . .] sed quia talis assignatio per accidens est, et minus artificialis, ideo dimittatur.’
Cf. also Wernicke 1887–1893, 1887, p. 126.
 For details cf. Vinzent 2006, pp. 31–3.
 This chapter is based on Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022.
 Kelly 1972, pp. 181–193; quotation on p. 192.
 Cf. below ch. 6.3.
 Cf. FaFo § 132 and below pp. 217 f.
 Cf. FaFo § 131c and below p. 217.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 198, 203, and below pp. 346–9.
 Cf. FaFo § 180a and below pp. 346–9.
 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 201

creed in the Apostolic Constitutions252) or even later (the creed attributed to Mac-
arius of Alexandria253). Only one creed remains that falls into Kelly’s purported
category: the Creed of Jerusalem (J). J is contained in homilies to those about to be
‘illuminated’, i.e. candidates for baptism (Catecheses ad illuminandos), which
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (sedit 348–386/387), delivered during Lent 351.254 In
what follows, I wish to show that the singularity of J and its parallelism with R as
a declaratory baptismal creed is not the result of a quirky turn of history – J must
be a descendant of R.
In theological terms, J is non-distinct with regard to the debates of the fourth
century. Above all, it displays no features which would allow us to classify it as
Nicene or Arian (or whatever). N seems to have had no discernible theological
influence on J, but this does not necessarily mean that Cyril was reticent over
against Nicene theology.255 (Cyril’s explanations are clearly Nicene.256) Instead, he
may have considered N in general and the homooúsios in particular unsuitable
for catechesis.
Most strikingly, J differs from N in that it contains an extended pneumatolog-
ical section, including – after the Spirit – baptism and forgiveness of sins, the
Church, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life.257 However, these elements
(with some variations) are also found in R as preserved by Marcellus (RM; FaFo
§ 253). A synopsis of both formulae is set out below, with identical wording and
positioning underlined; similar wording underlined; identical wording in a diver-
gent position underlined.

 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 186 f.; FaFo § 182c.

 Cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 190 f.; FaFo § 188a.
 For Cyril cf. Jacobsen 2018. The role of the creed within the catechumenate in Jerusalem is
described by Doval 2001, pp. 37–46 and Day 2007, pp. 57–65. On the date of the catecheses cf. the
discussion in Doval 1997.
 Pace Kelly 1972, p. 183.
 Cf., e.g., Cyril, Catechesis 7, 4–5. His theology is discussed in Jacobsen 2018.
 The same elements are also found in Hilary’s version of the Ecthesis of Serdica (east) of 343
in the Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) A IV 2,1–5; cf. FaFo § 143a1[3]: ‘Credi-
mus et in sanctam ecclesiam, in remissam peccatorum, in carnis resurrectionem, in uitam aeter-
nam.’ / ‘We also believe in the holy Church, in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the
flesh, in eternal life.’ This must be a later addition to the text, taken from RM, as it is not con-
tained in the parallel tradition in Hilary’s De synodis 34 (FaFo § 143a2).
202 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

J RM

Πιστεύομεν εἰς We believe in Πιστεύω [. . .] εἰς [. . .] I believe in

ἕνα θεόν, one God, θεόν, God
πατέρα, the Father
παντοκράτορα, Almighty, παντοκράτορα, Almighty,
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ Maker of heaven and
γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων earth, of all things both
καὶ ἀοράτων· visible and invisible;

καὶ εἰς and in καὶ εἰς and in

ἕνα κύριον one Lord
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Jesus Christ, Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, Christ Jesus,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ the only-begotten τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ his only-
τὸν μονογενῆ, Son of God, τὸν μονογενῆ, begotten Son,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, our Lord,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς who was born
γεννηθέντα θεὸν [begotten] from the
ἀληθινὸν πρὸ πάντων Father as true God
τῶν αἰώνων, before all ages,
δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα through whom all
ἐγένετο, things came into
being,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ who was born from the
πνεύματος ἁγίου Holy Spirit and the
καὶ Μαρίας τῆς virgin Mary;
παρθένου,
<. . .> <. . .> τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου who was crucified
Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα under Pontius Pilate,
καὶ ταφέντα and buried,
ἀναστάντα [ἐκ νεκρῶν] and] rose again καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and on the third day
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ [from the dead] ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν rose again from the
on the third day, νεκρῶν, dead;
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς and ascended into the ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς ascended into
οὐρανοὺς heavens, οὐρανοὺς the heavens;

 For the text of J cf. FaFo § 147, but I omit the passage indicated by < . . . >. See below in the
text.
 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 203

(continued)

J RM

καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ and sat down to the καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ and sits at the
δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς right hand of the τοῦ πατρός, right hand of
Father, the Father,
καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν and will come in ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν whence he is
δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ glory to judge the ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· coming to judge the
νεκρούς, living and the dead; living and the dead;
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ of whose kingdom
ἔσται τέλος· there
will be no end;
καὶ εἰς ἓν ἅγιον and in one Holy Spirit, καὶ εἰς τὸ and in the Holy
πνεῦμα, ἅγιον πνεῦμα, Spirit,
τὸν παράκλητον, the Paraclete,
τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς who spoke through
προφήταις· the prophets;
καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα and in one baptism of
μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν repentance for the
ἁμαρτιῶν· remission
of sins;
καὶ εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν and in one holy ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, the holy Church,
καθολικήν ἐκκλησίαν· catholic Church;
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, remission of sins,
καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς and in the resurrection σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, the resurrection of the
ἀνάστασιν· of the flesh; flesh,
καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. and in eternal life. ζωὴν αἰώνιον. eternal life.

Given the high number of agreements between both creeds and considering that
there is no other creed which displays such close similarities with either J or RM,
we may assume a close genealogical relationship between both texts. Further-
more, if we consider that R was composed before 340/341 (the date of Marcellus’
letter) whereas J is first attested in 351 and that in the first decades of the fourth
century Rome’s ecclesial influence was far greater than that of Jerusalem, we are
forced to conclude that either RM must have had a direct impact on J (and not
vice versa) or that both creeds are based on a common Vorlage. Several important
differences notwithstanding, both RM and J display the same basic pattern, which
may have looked like this:
204 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Πιστεύομεν/πιστεύω εἰς θεόν, We believe/I believe in God

παντοκράτορα· Almighty;
καὶ εἰς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν [or: Χριστὸν and in Jesus Christ [or: Christ Jesus],
Ἰησοῦν],
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ [or: αὐτοῦ] τὸν the only-begotten Son of God [or: his
μονογενῆ only-begotten Son],
<...> <...>
ἀναστάντα ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ rose again from [the] dead on the
ἡμέρᾳ [or: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ third day [or: on the third day rose
[τῶν] νεκρῶν] again from [the] dead],
καὶ ἀνελθόντα [or: ἀναβάντα] εἰς τοὺς ascended [or: went up] into the
οὐρανοὺς heavens,
καὶ καθίσαντα [or: καθήμενον] ἐκ sat down [or: sits] to the right hand
δεξιῶν [or: ἐν δεξιᾷ] τοῦ πατρὸς [or: at the right hand] of the Father,
καὶ ἐρχόμενον [or: ὅθεν ἔρχεται] κρῖναι and will come [or: whence he is com-
[or: κρίνειν] ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· ing] to judge the living and the dead;
καὶ εἰς ἅγιον πνεῦμα, and in the Holy Spirit,
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, the holy Church,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, the remission of sins,
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, the resurrection of the flesh;
ζωὴν αἰώνιον. eternal life.

Alternatively, the order of the remission of sins and the holy Church may have
been reversed (which I do not consider very likely; cf. below). This creed closely
resembles RM, but its wording is not entirely identical with it. All remaining var-
iants are best explained if we posit two different translations from a Latin version
which may have run like this:

Credimus/credo in deum omnipotentem

et in Iesum Christum/Christum Iesum, filium dei [or: eius] unigenitum, < . . . > resurgen-
tem259 a [or: ex] mortuis tertia die [or: tertia die resurgentem a [or: ex] mortuis] et ascenden-
tem in caelos et sedentem ad dexteram [or: in dextera] patris et uenturum [or: unde venturus
[est]] iudicare uiuos et mortuos;
et in sanctum spiritum, sanctam ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum, [or: remissionem
peccatorum, sanctam ecclesiam], carnis resurrectionem, uitam aeternam.

 It is, perhaps, more likely to assume that a Latin present participle resurgentem was rendered
by the Greek aorist participle ἀναστάντα than that a Latin relative clause qui [. . .] resurrexit (as is
usually found in Latin versions of RM) was rendered in Greek by a participle. See also below p. 205
n. 261.
 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 205

If we accept this hypothesis of two translations, then this creed is identical with
RM as regards content (except perhaps for τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν260).261
One problem remains: the incarnation and passion which may have been ex-
pressed in a very different manner in J and RM. Kelly, from whom the above-quoted
reconstruction is taken,262 supplies the clauses [τὸν σαρκωθέντα καὶ] ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
[τὸν σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα καί] / ‘who [was incarnate and] became human, [who
was crucified and buried and]’ for the passage indicated by < . . . >. However, I have
argued elsewhere that the missing part of J may have run like this:263

[τὸν σαρκωθέντα] [who was incarnate]

καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα and became human,
τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου [καὶ ἁγίου who was born from the virgin Mary
πνεύματος] γεννηθέντα [and the Holy Spirit],
τὸν [ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου] σταυρωθέντα who was crucified [under Pontius
Pilate]
καὶ ταφέντα and was buried

Whereas the crucifixion (under Pontius Pilate?) and the burial are also mentioned
in RM, the clauses τὸν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα would have no equivalent.
In fact, at least ἐνανθρωπήσαντα could not have been a translation from Latin,
since there was no Latin equivalent. All of this is, of course, highly speculative and
only serves to indicate that the clauses on Christ’s incarnation and passion may
have resembled each other more closely than Kelly’s reconstruction suggests.

There are other elements that were added to the Vorlage of J. Again, these addi-
tions appear to have been made after this creed had ‘travelled’ to Palestine. In
what follows, I provide a list of witnesses for all additions to the Vorlage:

1. ἕνα θεόν: God’s uniqueness is inconspicuous – this is found in a vast array of

witnesses.

2. πατέρα: Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1,3,6 (frg. 1; FaFo § 109b1); 1,10,1 (§ 109b3); Anti-
och 325 (§ 133[8]); Novatian, De trinitate 1,1 (§ 119a); Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Con-
stantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30; FaFo § 131c) 2; Eus (§ 134a);

 Cf. above pp. 146 f.

 It is striking, however, that in the christological section apparently no relative clauses were
used as we know them from the usual Latin versions of R (cf. above pp. 146 f.).
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 183 f., reprinted in FaFo § 147.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022, pp. 194–6.
206 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

Eusebius, De ecclesiastica theologia 2,6 (§ 134b3); N (§ 135c); Asterius of Cappadocia,

Fragment 9 (§ 137a); Ant3 (§ 141a[2]); Ant2 (§ 141b[1]); Ant4 (§ 141d[1]); Pseudo-Dionysius
of Rome, Epistula ad Dionysium Alexandrinum (§ 142); Serdica (east) 343 (§ 143a1[1], a2
[1], b[1], c[1]); Macrostich Creed (§ 145[1]); Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus (§ 146); cf. also RL
(Roman creed as given by Leo the Great; § 255a, g).

3. ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,1,2 (FaFo § 109b6): fac-
torem caeli et terrae; 3,4,2 (§ 109b7): fabricatorem caeli et terrae; Antioch 325
(§ 133[8]).

4. ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων: Eus (FaFo § 134a): τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ
ἀοράτων; N (§ 135c): πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων.

5. ἕνα κύριον: Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem

(Byzantinum; Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 14; FaFo § 132) 46; Antioch 325 (§ 133[9]);
Eus (§ 134a); N (§ 135c); Ant2 (§ 141b[2]).

6. τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα θεὸν ἀληθινὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων: creed
against Paul of Samosata (FaFo § 127[1]): τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ αἰώνων κατὰ πνεῦμα
γεννηθέντα; Eus (§ 134a): πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον; Eu-
sebius, De ecclesiastica theologia 1,8 (§ 134b2): τὸν πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
γεγεννημένον; Ant3 (§ 141a[3]): τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων; Ant2
(§ 141b[2]): τὸν γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρός; Ant4 (§ 141d[2]): τὸν πρὸ
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα = Serdica (east) 343 (§ 143a2[2]) = Mac-
rostich Creed (§ 145[2]). Θεὸν ἀληθινόν: N (§ 135c): θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.
Ιt appears that θεὸν ἀληθινόν was added (from N?) to τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων in order to emphasize the Son’s divinity.

7. δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο: Jn 1:3 (πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο); 1Cor 8:6 and Heb 2:10
(δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα); Irenaeus, Epideixis 6 (FaFo § 109a2); Tertullian, Aduersus Prax-
eam 2,1 (§ 111e1); Eus (§ 134a); Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imper-
atorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30; FaFo § 131c) 2; N (§ 135c); Ant2 (§ 141b[3]);
Ant1 (§ 141c[4]); Ant4 (§ 141d[2]); Serdica (east) 343 (§ 143a1[2], a2[2], b[2], c[2]);
Macrostich Creed (§ 145[2]).

8. ἐν δόξῃ: Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7); 3,16,6 (§ 109b9);

Eus (§ 134a).

9. οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος: no earlier references, but cf. Serdica (east) 343
(FaFo § 143a2): οὗ ἡ βασιλεία ἀκατάλυτος οὖσα διαμένει εἰς τοὺς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας.

10. ἓν ἅγιον πνεῦμα: Serdica (east) 343 (FaFo § 143b[3]).

 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 207

11. τὸν παράκλητον: Epistula Apostolorum 5(16) (FaFo § 103b); Ant3 (§ 141a[4]);
Ant4 (§ 141d[4]); Serdica (east) 343 (§ 143a1[3], a2[3], b[3], c[3]); Serdica (west) 343
(§ 144a2[9]); Macrostich Creed (§ 145[3]).

12. τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις: no earlier references.

13. εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: no earlier references.

14. εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν καθολικήν ἐκκλησίαν: no earlier references, but cf. Arius and
Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30;
FaFo § 131c) 3: καὶ εἰς μίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

We can see from this list that almost none of the additions are found in western
sources (not counting Irenaeus a western author). The only exceptions are no. 2:
πατέρα which is also found in Novatian (but which is hardly significant) and
no. 7: δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο which is also found in Tertullian where, however, it
forms part of an edited quotation of Jn 1:3.
Furthermore, we find a certain number of additions that are found nowhere
else before J:
– It is clear from Cyril’s own words that no. 9 οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος is
directed against Marcellus, who – as Cyril puts it – had recently taught that after
the end of the world Christ would no longer be ruling and that the Logos would
be resolved into the Father and cease existing.264 It seems plausible to assume
that Cyril himself made this addition to J (which was later taken over by the Sec-
ond Ecumenical Council265) in order to combat Marcellus’ doctrines.

– The reference to the prophets (no. 12: τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) was proba-
bly inserted in order to define the Spirit more precisely by tying it to the Old Tes-
tament: it is the Spirit of the prophets who is worshipped among Christians but

 Cf. Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 15, 27. Through his use of the present tense Cyril may
even imply that Marcellus taught the end of the world had already come and Christ’s reign had
already ended. Cf. also Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 15, 31–33. The eternity of the divine king-
dom is also underlined in Catecheses 4, 15; 15, 17; 18, 20. On Marcellus’ teaching on this point cf.
frgs. 101–4, 106–7, 109, 111 (Vinzent) where an end to Christ’s kingdom is envisaged after the Final
Judgement. Cf. also Synod of Serdica (342), Epistula synodalis (east) (Brennecke et al. 2007, Doku-
ment 43.11) 3: ‘[. . .] who [sc. Marcellus] with a sacrilegious mind, profane speech, and corrupt
argument wishes to limit the everlasting, eternal, and timeless kingdom of Christ the Lord; he
says that four hundred years ago the Lord had accepted the beginning of his reign and that the
end for him would arrive together with the end of the world.’ In addition, Seibt 1994, pp. 429–41;
Vinzent 1997, pp. LXIV–LXVIII.
 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 45.
208 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

was already present and active at the time of the Old Testament.266 The insistence
on the Spirit’s continuous activity across the history of salvation made it possible
to ward off enthusiastic pneumatologies such as those held by the Montanists,
who venerated Montanus as the Paraclete,267 beliefs which certainly still existed
in various forms in the fourth century, or those current among the Messalians
and similar ascetic groups. Likewise, this reference rebutted any suggestion of a
dualism between the God of the Old and New Testament and, as a result, of a du-
ality of spirits. Such a doctrine was ascribed by Cyril himself to the Marcionites
and the Manichaeans.268 By contrast, Cyril seeks to demonstrate time and again
in his sermons that the coming of Christ and the events in the New Testament
were foretold by the prophets and that the Holy Spirit had spoken in both the Old
and the New Testament.269 He may, therefore, have added this clause himself.

– It is difficult to say why and by whom the belief ‘in one baptism of repentance’
(no. 13: εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας) was added, why it was combined with the remis-
sion of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) and what it actually means.270 Cyril himself dis-
cusses penitence at some length in Catecheses 2 and 8, but he does not discuss the
syntagma βάπτισμα μετανοίας which occurs only in 18, 22 in his sermons, in a quo-
tation from J. It is even more puzzling when one remembers that in the New Testa-
ment, the phrase ‘baptism of repentance’ is associated with the baptism of John,
which is superseded by the coming of Christ.271 Most likely, the syntagma βάπτισμα
μετανοίας is not technical here. The relation between penitence and baptism is dis-
cussed in 3, 15, where Cyril quotes Acts 2:38 to show that penitence and baptism are
intimately interconnected.
The emphasis on the singularity of baptism may be directed against its repeti-
tion. Cyril himself argues against a repetition of baptism, but it is difficult to see
which groups he envisages in his polemics. They cannot have been those advocating
rebaptism of heretics wishing to join the catholic Church, because Cyril himself sup-

 This may, perhaps, be based on 2Pet 1:21; cf. Kelly 1972, p. 341; Staats 1999, p. 258 and pp. 261–4.
Cf. also Rom 1:2 and Heb 1:1 and Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 48. Cf. also below pp. 372 f.
 Cf. Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 18, 8.
 Cf. Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 16, 6–7. The phrase was later transplanted into the
creeds of Constantinople as τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. Cf. below pp. 372 f.
 Cf., e.g., Cyril, Catecheses ad illuminandos 4, 16; 16, 3–4. 24–32; 17, 5. 18.
 Cyril himself later quotes the phrase again in Mystagogia 1, 9 (FaFo § 631a; if authentic), but
without the remission of sins. It is also given in Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,11 (FaFo § 175) as well
as in a closely related creed which is ascribed to Athanasius (Interpretatio in symbolum (§ 185)).
In the first instance the remission of sins is not mentioned, in the Pseudo-Athanasian creed there
is a characteristic variation: εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας καὶ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν. Cf., furthermore,
Proclus of Constantinople, Homilia in theophania 11,71 in a similar context.
 Cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4.
 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 209

ports this very practice.272 He may instead have in mind Jewish-Christian groups
such as the Hemerobaptists, which performed frequent cleansing rituals. The Elcha-
saites were credited with preaching the forgiveness of sins by means of a second
baptism.273 The Marcionites (who figure prominently in Cyril’s catecheses274) were
said to have repeated baptism to wash off post-baptismal sins.275 There were also
those who repeated baptism out of fear.276
Additionally, one may ponder whether J did not run like this: καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα
μετανοίας καὶ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (‘and in one baptism of repentance and in the
remission of sins’). In this case, it would have contained two separate clauses expli-
cating the work of the Spirit. Otherwise, the remission of sins may have been joined
to the baptism of repentance in order to explain at what point it actually occurred.277
Moreover, in J, baptism may precede the Church because the latter is thought to be
constituted through that baptism. (However, Cyril does not comment on this.) By con-
trast, in RM, baptism follows the Church because it is administered by the Church.278

– Finally, its oneness and catholicity were added to the holiness of the Church
(no. 14: εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικήν ἐκκλησίαν). This oneness corresponds to that of
the three persons of the Trinity and of baptism. Cyril emphasizes that there is
only one true ἐκκλησία as opposed to the false churches of the heretics (18, 26).
The Church is called ‘holy’ to distinguish the second Church in the history of sal-
vation (i.e. of the Gentiles) from the first Church (of the Jews; 18, 25). Cyril also
gives five reasons for its catholicity (i.e. universality): it has spread over the entire
world; it teaches universally and unceasingly all that is necessary to know about
the faith; it teaches the entire human race; it heals all sins that have been commit-
ted; lastly, it possesses every kind of Christian virtue (18, 23). The combination of
the three attributes only occurs in J and may well stem from Cyril himself.

This list of additions not found before J also reveals a close proximity between J
and Eus, which is hardly surprising, since J and the regula fidei on which Eus is

 Cf. Cyril, Procatechesis 7.

 Cf. Ferguson 2009, pp. 72–74. For the repetition of baptism to attain forgiveness of sins in the
group of the Elchasaites cf. Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 9,13,4.
 Cf. Cyril, Catecheses ad illuminandos 6, 16; 16, 4. 7; 18, 26, but in a different context.
 Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 42,3,6–10 and Ferguson 2009, p. 278 and n. 9.
 Cf. Leo the Great, Epistula 159, 7 and Ferguson 2009, p. 765.
 The version in the Pseudo-Athanasian creed (cf. above p. 208 n. 270) makes it even clearer:
εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας καὶ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν.
 Cf., e.g., Rufinus, Expositio symboli 37: ‘Those therefore who have already been taught to be-
lieve in one God, under the mystery of the Trinity, must believe this also, that there is one holy
Church, in which there is one faith and one baptism, [. . .]’ (tr. Morison 1916, pp. 49 f.).
210 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

based279 stem from the same region (nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The most significant vari-
ant displayed only by Eus and J (excepting Irenaeus) is the addition of ἐν δόξῃ to
the parousia. The almost identical overlaps found in N (nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) are not
particularly surprising either, given N’s close relationship with Eus.280 Thus, there
is no conclusive evidence that N influenced J at all. However, earlier scholarship
often assumed that J was the Vorlage for N.281 This earlier hypothesis moreover
appears to be difficult to continue supporting in view of those differences which
are not easily explained as revisions.282
The remaining sources for J partly draw on N and are, therefore, bound to show
the same similarities. This is true especially of Ant2 (nos. 2, 5, 6, 7), Ant4 (nos. 2, 6, 7,
11), of Serdica (east; nos. 2, 6, 7, 10, 12), and of the Macrostich Creed (nos. 2, 6, 7, 11).
The similarities of J to other sources are less significant:
– Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses: nos. 2, 3, 7, 8.
– Ant3: nos. 2, 6, 11.
– Antioch 325: nos. 2, 3, 5.
– Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum: nos. 2, 7, 14.
All other sources display only one parallel.
The complex case of Pontius Pilate notwithstanding, there may be a differ-
ence in wording, but J exhibits no discernible additions to the content in RM with
possibly one exception. This concerns the positioning and precise formulation of
belief in the ‘Lord’. Whereas J places the ‘one Lord’ at the beginning of its christo-
logical section, RM places ‘our Lord’ after τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ. The read-
ing in J seems to be certain and the word was probably moved to harmonize it
with ‘one God’, ‘one Holy Spirit’, ‘one baptism’, and ‘one Church’.283 It appears,
therefore, more likely that ‘our Lord’ in RM is the original reading.

 Cf. below ch. 6.3.

 Cf. ch. 6.4.2.
 Cf., e.g., Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 254–9; Staats 1999, pp. 162–5. Cf., however, Kelly 1972,
pp. 227 f.
 Cf., e.g., N’s omission of οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς; πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων; καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν
τοῦ πατρός, the position of μονογενῆ, and the brief third article.
 Cf. Cyril, Catecheses ad illuminandos 7, 4; 10, title. Nevertheless, in Catechesis 17, 34 (Reischl/
Rupp 1848/1860, vol. II, p. 292) Cyril sums up the content of the creed like this: [. . .] εἰς ἕνα θεὸν
πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ,
καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸν παράκλητον. / ‘[. . .] and in one God, the Father Almighty, and in
our Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.’ It is somewhat
surprising that Cyril here does not say εἰς ἔνα κύριον (‘in one Lord’) in relation to Jesus Christ,
especially as the context does not warrant the mention of ‘our’ Lord. Could it be that here he
remembers the old version of his creed?
 5.5 A descendant of the Roman Creed: The Creed of Jerusalem 211

In summary, J was probably based on a western creed that was closely related to,
or even identical with, RM and which, therefore, likely originated in Rome.284 Ad-
ditions to this creed were made that might, in part or as a whole, stem from Cyril
himself. That said, it is difficult to see how this creed would have made its way
into the east, as relations between Rome and Jerusalem in the first half of the
fourth century were infrequent if they existed at all.285 I have suggested else-
where that Cyril’s predecessor Maximus (sedit c. 334–348/350) may have had a
hand in its migration, in connection with the festivities which Emperor Constan-
tine had convoked to mark the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in
mid-September 335.286 It is also important to note that the dedication was not sim-
ply a festive gathering – it was also a proper synod that adopted and promulgated
canonical decrees. We possess its encyclical in which the bishops in Alexandria
and Egypt were asked to receive the Arians back into the Church. The synod had
been prompted to reach this decision by Constantine who had examined the
Arians’ faith and had found no fault.287 The emperor had a creed attached to his
letter of invitation which documented this orthodoxy and to which the bishops
assembled in Jerusalem had then agreed.288 Unfortunately, this letter is no longer
extant.289 It is possible that the Arians, whose identity is unknown, had used the
creed of the capital for this purpose because its theological indistinctness meant

 Kelly’s argument against such a hypothesis (cf. Kelly 1972, pp. 201 f.) rests on the unfounded
assumption that the ‘eastern creeds’ which he enumerates (cf. above pp. 200 f.). were already in
existence at the beginning of the fourth century (Kelly 1972, p. 181).
 Cf. Drijvers 2004, pp. 1–31 mentions no such relations. Likewise there is no mention in Pietri
1976, vol. I, pp. 187–237. There is no convincing evidence that RM was adopted in Jerusalem (via
Antioch or in whatever other way) before the fourth century, as Kattenbusch and (at least partly)
Harnack assumed (cf. above pp. 17 f. and Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022, p. 190 n. 17). Several similar creeds
appear to have co-existed in Rome at the beginning of the fourth century with RM ultimately win-
ning the day. Cf. above ch. 5.1.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Origin’, 2022, pp. 203–6.
 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 21,2–7.
 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 21,4: ‘Our most-devout emperor has also in his letter testified to
the correctness of [the men’s] faith (πίστεως ὀρθοτομίαν). He has ascertained it from them, him-
self receiving the profession of it from them by word of mouth, and has made it manifest to us
by subjoining to his own letters the men’s orthodox opinion in writing (ὑποτάξας τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ
γράμμασιν ἔγγραφον τὴν τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὀρθοδοξίαν), which we all confessed to be sound and ec-
clesiastical’ (tr. NPNF; altered).
 It is probably not the creed of Arius and Euzoius (cf. FaFo § 131c), as our sources claim (Rufi-
nus, Historia ecclesiastica 10,12; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,33,1; cf. 1,25; Sozomen, Historia
ecclesiastica 2,27), because by that time Arius himself appears no longer to have been alive. (Con-
stantine only mentions the adherents of Arius and the presbyters around Arius in his lost letter
to the council, but not the heresiarch himself; cf. Council of Jerusalem (335), Epistula synodalis
(Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 39), 2. 5.) Cf. Brennecke et al. 2007, pp. XXXVI–XXXVIII, 129.
212 5 The Old Roman Creed and its Descendants

that it was entirely compatible with their doctrines (in which case their tactics
would have been similar to that of Marcellus of Ancyra, who later also quoted the
Roman credal interrogations in his letter to Julius of Rome for apologetic pur-
poses). Alternatively, Constantine himself may have chosen RM for the purpose of
building theological bridges (perhaps on the suggestion of one of his advisers290),
because it did not contain those very clauses in N that had offended the Arians.
This creed may well have been solemnly adopted by the bishops in the course
of the celebrations that Eusebius mentions, so as to seal the Arians’ reception
back into the fold. In addition, the anniversary of the dedication was celebrated
each year and new converts (or infants?) were baptized on the occasion, accord-
ing to Sozomen.291 A creed would have been necessary if baptisms were adminis-
tered on a grander scale during the dedication festivities themselves. Cyril or one
of his predecessors may have subsequently extended this confession.
This hypothesis regarding the transmission of the creed into the east is admit-
tedly sheer speculation. The precise circumstances of the process remain shrouded
in the darkness of time. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that J is in its basic
structure of western and that is, Roman, origin. As we shall see, it later influenced
the production of the creeds of Constantinople (C1/C2).292

 Unfortunately, we know nothing about personal encounters between Pope Silvester (sedit
314–335) and the emperor nor about the relations between Ossius of Córdoba and Constantine
after Nicaea. For Ossius cf. Kreis 2017, esp. p. 425.
 Cf. Historia ecclesiastica 2,26,4: ‘Since that time the church of Jersualem has celebrated this
anniversary of the consecration with great splendour in such a way that initiations [i.e. baptisms]
are performed in it, Church assemblies are held over eight days in a row, and many people from
more or less every region under the sun assemble [in Jerusalem] who gather from everywhere at
the time of this festival, following the story of the sacred places.’ Cf. also Egeria, Peregrinatio
48–49.
 Cf. below ch. 7.
6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up
to Constantinople

We only find solid ground in our search for creeds when we reach the fourth cen-
tury. That is the earliest time that formulae are attested which we may call declar-
atory creeds whose wording had been fixed. Such declaratory creeds were, above
all, the product of synods, the special cases of Rome and Jerusalem notwithstand-
ing (and even in Rome the declaratory form of R may go back to the synod of 340/
3411). As we will see these synodal creeds are not original products but act upon
each other: the synods took doctrinal material from earlier creeds and reas-
sembled it like building blocks, at times adding some new material in the process,
in such a way that the previous creed is either confirmed or rebutted in specific
sections.2 The most famous, albeit probably not the first, synodal creed is the con-
fession of the First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicaea in 325. We will deal
with it in chapter 6.4. But where did N come from? Was it produced in Nicaea
from scratch or was there a model that the council took up and modified? What
was the context of its composition? In order to elucidate this context, we will first
look for antecedents in the documents produced in the course of the so-called
Arian controversy (which not only focussed on the teaching of Arius).3

6.1 Arius and Alexander of Alexandria

The controversy began with a dispute in Alexandria between the presbyter Arius
and his bishop Alexander over the question of the relationship between God the
Father and God the Son. Its details can be found in any textbook on the history of
theology. I will discuss this controversy here only as far as its origin and early theo-
logical content of the creed are concerned. In the course of this dispute, a group of
presbyters and deacons from Alexandria and bishops from the province of Libya

 Cf. above ch. 5.1.

 On this ‘building-block model’ cf. above pp. 80 f. and n. 101.
 For the problems involved in defining ‘Arianism’ cf. Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’, 2018,
pp. 1478–81. Recent scholarship has underlined and widely discussed the theological differences
among those whom their opponents have lumped together under this title, above all, Arius, As-
terius the Sophist, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and (to a certain extent) Eusebius of Caesarea (cf. the
literature quoted in Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’, 2018). Nonetheless, it is clear from all
our sources (both Nicene and anti-Nicene) that there was a serious clash both at Antioch (325)
and Nicaea between the supporters and opponents of Arius which may justify the use of the
term for our purposes.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-006
214 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

superior (Pentapolis), led by Arius, produced a document in 321 in which they in-
tended to present the ‘faith’ (πίστις) of their forefathers to their Bishop Alexander.4
However, they introduced the body of the text with the phrase ‘we acknowledge’
(οἴδαμεν), not yet using the term πιστεύομεν (which was later indispensable for
this purpose). What follows is also quite obviously not a traditional, fixed formula,
but a brief theological treatise that gives a long-winded description of the relation-
ship between God the Father and God the Son, endeavouring to ward off opposing
theological views. The text is not yet structured by reference to the persons of the
Trinity – in fact, it is difficult to discern any clear structure at all.
This is typical of Arius’ thinking in general:5 it is hardly possible to make out
a consistent system in his views from the extant sources. He placed a great em-
phasis on the complete sovereignty and transcendence of God. God alone is ‘unbe-
gotten/unborn’ (ἀγέν[ν]ητος) and without beginning or origin, immaterial and
not subject to any form of change. He freely decided to create the Son, who is
completely separate from and subordinate to him as a distinct hypóstasis (‘onto-
logical entity’). Although this happened ‘before all time’, it does not exclude a logi-
cal priority of the Father before the Son, since the Son does not subsist timelessly
or before/beyond time in eternity like the Father (hence the famous phrase which
was condemned in Nicaea 325: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ‘there was [a time] when he
was not’6). Rather, in being unoriginate, the Father is essentially dissimilar to the
Son. Arius explicitly rejected the consubstantiality of Father and Son which was
later proclaimed at Nicaea.7 The Son is therefore unable to recognize the οὐσία
(‘being’, ‘essence’, ‘substance’) of the Father. However, as a result of divine grace,
he has received a special knowledge of the Father which is not accessible to other
creatures (who nevertheless have some ‘knowledge of God’). It is by virtue of
God’s will alone that the Son is unchangeable and a perfect creature, which se-
cures him a unique position of dignity compared to the other creatures. Unlike
these, the Son, exercising his free will, has served the Father from the beginning
in every way. Although Arius speaks of three hypostáseis, his doctrine of the
Spirit remains rudimentary.
The Alexandrian presbyter appears to have tried to find a balance between
the biblical evidence and the Platonic notion of God. He sought to express the one-
ness of God, as revealed in the Old Testament and logically deduced in philoso-
phy, in such a way that it would not be endangered by the existence of a Son of

 Cf. Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a).
 The following paragraph is based on Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’, 2018, pp. 1483 f.
 For the precise meaning of ποτε and the resulting problems in translating this phrase cf.
Markschies 2022.
 Cf. below ch. 6.4.5.
 6.1 Arius and Alexander of Alexandria 215

God. At the same time, however, the Son’s pre-eminent position as revealed in the
New Testament was to be maintained. It has become clear in recent decades that
the dispute triggered by Arius was also about the principles of the right interpre-
tation of Scripture in the service of a rational and consistent theological doctrine.
When we now turn to the creed that Arius and his supporters sent to Bishop
Alexander, it is obvious that the authors underline the alleged ontological distance
between the ‘one God’ and the ‘Son’ by repeating μόνον (‘alone’) no less than eight
times.8 The Son was begotten ‘before eternal times’ and is called ‘only-begotten’,
but it appears from the continuation of the confession that other ‘things’ or ‘beings
begotten’ may exist (which are unlike the Son). The Son is at one and the same
time a ‘creature’ while differing from other creatures by virtue of being ‘perfect’.
The act of begetting is not described in further detail except that it was effected
solely by the Father’s will.9
Subsequently, the authors distance themselves from the views of earlier theo-
logians before returning to their main point: the relation between the Father and
the Son, and the Son’s ontological status. They affirm three divine hypostáseis.
God is called ‘unbegun’, whereas the Son – albeit timelessly begotten by the Fa-
ther – by virtue of being created does not share the same being ‘with the Father’
as this would create a danger of introducing ‘two unbegotten beginnings’. Rather,
it is made clear that the God exists ‘before the Son’.
Finally, the authors reject the idea of a consubstantiality of the Son with the Fa-
ther (they use the term ὁμοουσίου / ‘of like/identical substance’), because in that case
the Father would be ‘composite, divisible, alterable, and a body’.10 The authors say
nothing further about the third hypóstasis, the Spirit. It may be a minor detail, but it

 Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a) 2:
Οἴδαμεν ἕνα θεόν, μόνον ἀγέννητον, μόνον ἀίδιον, μόνον ἄναρχον, μόνον ἀληθινόν, μόνον
ἀθανασίαν ἔχοντα, μόνον σοφόν, μόνον ἀγαθόν, μόνον δυνάστην [. . .]. / ‘We acknowledge one
God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone unbegun, alone true, alone possessing immortal-
ity, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign [cf. 1Tim 6:15]; [. . .].’
 Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a) 2:
[. . .] πάντων κριτήν, διοικητήν, οἰκονόμον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, δίκαιον καὶ ἀγαθόν,
νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης θεόν, γεννήσαντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τὰ ὅλα πεποίηκε, γεννήσαντα δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑποστή-
σαντα ἰδίῳ θελήματι, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν
κτισμάτων, γέννημα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν γεγεννημένων [. . .]. / ‘Judge, Governor, and Overseer of
all; unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law, the Prophets, and the New
Testament; who begot an only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he has made
both the ages and the universe [cf. 1Cor 8:6]; begot him, not in appearance, but in truth; that he
made him subsist by his own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but
not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; [. . .].’
 Cf. also below pp. 256 f.
216 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

is striking that they are careful to call the highest being ‘God’ when they describe his
specific ontological status, his aseity (as medieval theologians would later say); yet
‘Father’ in his relation to the Son and in this relation only. What is implied here is the
idea that ‘Father’ is a relational term and not a term describing God’s essence. As
God existed ‘before’ the generation of the Son he was not always ‘Father’.11
Is this a creed? Yes and no. First of all, the text presents itself as an explication
of the ‘faith’ held by a group of authors who express their personal commitment to
the theological tenets it contains. But the authors are clearly struggling to formulate
the content of their faith. This observation, however, is not irrelevant to the ques-
tion of the origins of the creeds. For the authors do not refer to a ‘rule of faith’, let
alone a fixed formula, that they have to hand and which might have been taken
over from baptismal catechesis (and thus from the ‘fathers’). Rather, their problem
(and in the debate with Alexander also their vulnerable point) is precisely that they
do not have such a formula at their disposition which they could then simply inter-
pret. Instead, it seems as if Arius and his comrades-in-arms referred to a binitarian
‘kerygma’ that had not yet been firmly fixed, to the content of a baptismal cateche-
sis which was still fluid and, therefore, open to very different and indeed even
completely contradictory interpretations. The beginning of their credal statement
mentions the ‘faith from our forefathers’ which the authors had allegedly learned

 Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a)
3–5: ‘[. . .] but, as we say, by the will of God (θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ), created before times and before
ages, and receiving life, being, and glories from the Father since the hypóstasis of the Father ex-
isted together with him (συνυποστήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρός). For the Father did not, in bestow-
ing the inheritance of all things upon him, deprive himself of what he possesses ingenerately
(ἀγεννήτως) in himself; for he is the fountain of all things. Thus there are three hypostáseis. And
God, being the cause of all things, is unbegun, altogether singular (ἄναρχος μονώτατος); but the
Son being timelessly begotten (ἀχρόνως γεννηθείς) by the Father, and being created and founded
before the ages, did not exist before he was generated (οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι); but being
timelessly begotten before all things, he alone was caused to subsist by the Father (μόνος ὑπὸ τοῦ
πατρὸς ὑπέστη). For he is not eternal or coeternal or co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he
have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten
beginnings (ὥς τινες λέγουσι τὰ πρός τι, δύο ἀγεννήτους ἀρχὰς εἰσηγούμενοι). But God exists be-
fore all things in this way as the Monad and beginning of all things (ὡς μονὰς καὶ ἀρχὴ πάντων).
Wherefore also he exists before the Son, as we have learned also from your preaching in the
midst of the Church. Therefore, insofar as he possesses [his] being from God, and glories, life,
and all things are delivered unto him [from God], in such sense is God his origin. For he is supe-
rior to him, as he is his God and exists before him. But if the phrases “from him”, and “from the
womb” [Ps 109(110):3], and “I came forth from the Father, and I am come” [Jn 8:42], are under-
stood by some people to be a part of him, consubstantial, or something issuing [from him] (ὡς
μέρος αὐτοῦ ὁμοουσίου καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπό τινων), then according to them the Father is compos-
ite, divisible, alterable, and a body, and, as far as they are concerned, the incorporeal God en-
dures the attendant characteristics of a body.’
 6.1 Arius and Alexander of Alexandria 217

from Alexander; however, this surely does not refer to a fixed formula, because
otherwise the authors would no doubt have quoted such a formula. Rather it is in-
tended as a general reference to the sum of theological doctrines imparted in cate-
chesis and preaching which is less clearly defined than even a ‘rule of faith’. Even
when Arius and Euzoius submitted a creed to the emperor long after the Council of
Nicaea, in 327, in order to clear themselves from the charge of heresy, they referred
neither to a creed passed down within the church of Alexandria nor to N, but to a
‘faith’ derived ‘from the holy gospels’.12 In view of this evidence there should be
little doubt that no fixed declaratory creed existed in Alexandria, and its sphere of
influence, in the first two decades of the fourth century.
In fact, when one browses through the documents of the early Arian contro-
versy compiled by Hans-Georg Opitz none of the protagonists cite a ‘faith’ which
could be interpreted as a fixed formula handed over in baptism. Instead they men-
tion ‘faith’ in a vague sense or refer summarily to Scripture or the teaching of the
‘Church’.13 In this respect, it is interesting to take a look at the tome which Alexan-
der of Alexandria sent to all bishops (preserved in Syriac fragments only). In this
circular letter he states inter alia:

[. . .] and with regard to the right faith concerning the Father and the Son: just as the Scrip-
tures teach us, we confess the one Holy Spirit and the one catholic Church and the resurrec-
tion of the dead, of which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ became the first fruits [cf. ICor
15:20], who put on the body from Mary, the Mother of God, in order to dwell among the
human race, died, rose from the dead, was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right
hand of the Majesty [cf. Heb 1:3].14

This looks like what we would consider a ‘traditional’ fixed creed, but the order of
the theological statements does not correspond to any of the confessions that have
come down to us. When we turn to the letter that this Alexander wrote to Alexander
of Thessaloniki (or of Byzantium) we see that the above-quoted passage from his let-
ter to the bishops probably formed part of a much larger treatment of the doctrine
of the Trinity. The letter to Alexander is a rambling discourse against Arian doctrines.
It too contains a passage which resembles a creed, since it is introduced by a solemn

 Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30; FaFo
§ 131c) 2.
 Cf., e.g., Alexander of Alexandria, Arii depositio (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4a) 1 (the ‘sound and
catholic faith’); id., Epistula encyclica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4b) 19 (‘catholic faith and catholic
Church’); id., Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15) 2 (the ‘right faith’); Eusebius
of Nicomedia, Epistula ad Paulinum Tyrium (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 8) 4 (‘Scripture’).
 Alexander of Alexandria, Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15) 2. A very
similar passage is found in id., Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz
1934/1935, Urkunde 14; FaFo § 132) 53.
218 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

introduction: ‘Concerning whom [i.e. the Father and the Son] we believe just as
seems good to the apostolic Church’.15 The solemn finite verb πιστεύομεν is used
here for the first time in a credal text in order to emphasize the importance of
what is to follow. Again, Alexander does not refer to a specific ‘faith’ transmitted
to him in baptism or elsewhere. What follows is clearly no fixed formula. Rather,
he offers an explanation of the ontological status of Father and Son and their mu-
tual relation, emphasizing that the Son was ‘begotten not from that which does
not exist, but from the Father who exists’. Alexander then tries to describe the
Son’s relation to the Father with the term εἰκών (‘image’; Col 1:15), also referring to
Heb 1:3 where ἀπαύγασμα (‘radiance’) and χαρακτήρ (‘express image’) are used in
this context. Alexander insists on the eternal generation of the Son, but he finds it
difficult to reconcile it with the fact that generation is a specific act which as such
can only happen in time. After a lengthy discussion of this matter Alexander re-
turns to the Holy Spirit who had inspired both the ‘holy men’ of the Old Testament
and the ‘divine teachers’ of the New Testament. The bishop then moves on to men-
tioning the ‘one and only one catholic, apostolic Church’ (μίαν καὶ μόνην κα-
θολικὴν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν) and the resurrection of the dead. At this
point Alexander once again appends a brief christological summary containing
the same clauses as in his letter to the bishops.
Apparently, in the church of Alexandria as represented by Alexander certain
clauses had started to ‘coagulate’ around Christ and the Spirit. As regards Christ
these included the incarnation from Mary (here termed as theotókos), his death,
resurrection, ascension (or rather: assumption), and the sitting at the right hand.
The Spirit is followed by a mention of the Church and the resurrection of the dead.
The attributes of the Church (‘one’, ‘catholic’, and ‘apostolic’) serve to ward off
Arius’ claim of following the fathers, just as the reference to the ‘apostolic Church’
in the introduction to the credal passage.16 In other words, Alexander’s discourse is
interspersed with traditional theologumena like croutons in an onion soup.
At the same time, the fact that such doctrinal statements were personally
signed by the participants of a synod (as in the case of Alexander’s encyclical17)
suggests that bishops were increasingly personally held accountable for the accep-
tance or refusal of certain doctrines. We will consider this development in further
detail below.18

 Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz 1934/

1935, Urkunde 14; FaFo § 132) 46: Περὶ ὧν ἡμεῖς οὕτως πιστεύομεν, ὡς τῇ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
δοκεῖ· [. . .].
 Cf. above pp. 216 f.
 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15).
 Cf. below p. 467.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 219

6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context

The Council of Antioch belongs to a series of events ultimately culminating in the

Council of Nicaea.19 Considering the latter first, Constantine’s letter of invitation
to it is usually dated to spring 325.20 In it the emperor mentions a previous invita-
tion to Ancyra (see below). It is, therefore, possible that the council that was in
the end held in Nicaea had already been in the making as a great council of eccle-
sial unity by late 324, briefly after Constantine’s victory over Licinius at Chrysop-
olis on 18 September 324.21 To achieve that purpose of unity, a number of issues
had to be addressed, including the date of Easter which was observed at different
times in the empire, the Melitian schism which threatened the Egyptian church,
and a number of jurisdictional and disciplinary problems which had to be set-
tled.22 As regards the Arian controversy, the emperor considered this a nuisance
to be removed ahead of the council by writing to Alexander of Alexandria and
Arius and banging their heads together.23
At the same time, the Arian controversy posed probably not only a political,
but also a religious problem for him. He feared that strife in the Church might
anger the divinity who had granted him victory over Licinius – Constantine’s army
had been accompanied by Christian priests whose prayers had obviously been
more effective than those of their pagan counterparts on whose support Licinius
had relied.24 An angry deity, however, threatened the salus publica (‘public wel-
fare’). Therefore, a speedy solution had to be sought in order to quell the disturban-
ces. To this end the emperor sent Bishop Ossius of Córdoba in the autumn of 324 on

 Reconstructions of the prehistory of Nicaea differ considerably between scholars. For an al-
ternative view (the council was summoned as a council of appeal by Ossius when Antioch failed)
cf. Fernández 2020; Fernández 2023. However, presupposing that Fernández’ chronology is right,
it would only have been after March/April 325 (Synod of Antioch) that Constantine, at Ossius’ be-
hest, would have invited the bishops first to Ancyra and to Nicaea, where the council was opened
in June (cf. Fernández 2020, pp. 209 f.; Fernández 2023, pp. 102 f.). This period is too short.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 20).
 Date according to Barnes 1982, p. 75.
 Cf. Brennecke 1994, pp. 434–6. On the Easter question cf. also Gwynn 2021, pp. 102–4; McCar-
thy 2021; on the Melitian schism Gwynn 2021, pp. 104; on the disciplinary canons Gwynn 2021,
pp. 105 f.; Weckwerth 2021.
 In his letter to Alexander and Arius, Constantine emphasizes time and again that he considered
the affair to be insignificant; cf. Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum et Arium (Opitz 1934/1935, Ur-
kunde 17) 4–6. 9–10. 12–14. Stuart Hall, Paul Parvis, and Sophie Cartwright have suggested that this
letter was directed to the Council of Antioch; cf. Hall 1998; Paul Parvis 2006; Cartwright 2015, pp. 15–16.
The letter’s address notwithstanding, I hesitate to concur in view of section 6 in which Alexander and
Arius are explicitly addressed, although the argument of these scholars is admittedly powerful.
 Cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2,4.
220 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

a mission to reconcile Alexander and Arius, equipping his envoy with a letter ad-
dressed to both adversaries in which he ordered them to resolve their squabbles
quietly among each other.25 This mission was unsuccessful. Ossius then seems to
have sought a settlement at a council held in Antioch, probably in March/April 325.26
✶
The creed produced by this gathering is included in a letter of the synod which
was, perhaps, addressed to Alexander of Byzantium (Constantinople).27 The au-
thenticity of this letter has often been questioned, not least because the synod is
not mentioned anywhere else by the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries.28
Eduard Schwartz edited it from a Syriac manuscript (cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Na-
tionale, syr. 62, ff. 144r–147r; s. IX), together with an ancient editorial note (see
below) and a Greek retroversion which was subsequently corrected by Luise
Abramowski.29 Meanwhile further manuscripts containing this letter have been
discovered.30 A new edition of all relevant documents, accompanied by an exten-
sive commentary, was recently prepared by Matthias Simperl.31
There are problems concerning the identity of the synod. In most manu-
scripts the letter is appended to the twenty-five canons which appear to belong to

 On Ossius cf. Kreis 2017 who points out how little we know about him, the precise nature of
his mission, and his contacts with the court.
 On the date of the council cf. the discussion in Burgess 1999, p. 189. Simperl now advocates a
date between late autumn 324 and late winter 324/325 (Simperl 2022, p. 243).
 Cf. Council of Antioch (325), Epistula synodica. The identity of the addressee is uncertain (Al-
exander of Thessaloniki?); cf. Simperl 2022, pp. 232–5.
 Cf. the literature listed in FaFo § 133. The entire problem is now comprehensively discussed in
Simperl 2022. There is a letter by Constantine which is quoted in the Historia uniuersalis by Agapius
of Manbiǧ (Hierapolis; s. X) in which the emperor says (Vasiliev 1911, p. 546): ‘With the first synod
having met in the city of Antioch in a contentious manner, we have decided to convoke another
meeting in the city of Nicaea’ (tr. Galvão-Sobrinho 2013, p. 83). The problem with this citation is that
the Council of Nicaea had first been summoned to Ancyra. This is also the emendation and transla-
tion by the editor of this text, Alexandre Vasiliev, who erroneously identifies it with the Synod in 314
(cf. also Galvão-Sobrinho 2013, p. 226 nn. 51 and 52). According to Simperl, the text of the passage is
corrupt, and the translation suggested by Galvão-Sobrinho untenable (cf. Simperl 2022, p. 26 n. 167).
The letter is largely identical with Urkunde 20 and would urgently need further investigation.
 Cf. Schwartz 1905(1959), pp. 136–143, reprinted (without the note) as Urkunde 18 in Opitz 1934/
1935, pp. 36–41. (Schwartz himself did not consider his Greek text, strictly speaking, a ‘retrover-
sion’, cf. Schwartz 1905(1959), p. 135.) Cf. also Abramowski 1975(1992), pp. 1–4. An English transla-
tion of the letter (although without the beginning and without Abramowski’s corrections) is
found in Stevenson/Frend 1987, pp. 334–7. A complete English translation was made by Cross
1939, pp. 71–6. The credal part of this Greek version and an English translation is also found in
FaFo § 133.
 Cf. Simperl 2022, pp. 7 f., 34–81.
 Cf. Simperl 2022.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 221

the Dedication Council held in Antioch in 341.32 In addition, it is followed by a

rather confused note33 from an unknown historical source saying that another
letter on the same subject had been sent to the Italian bishops. They had replied
and affirmed the creed and canons. In addition, they had sent another twenty-
five canons to Antioch which had then been passed on to the eastern bishops and
which the unknown author promises to include later in his book. (So he seems to
assume that the series of twenty-five canons issued by the Antiochene Council of
341 (which are clearly eastern in origin) in fact originated from Italy.) The author
finishes by expressing his astonishment regarding the fact that the fathers in
Antioch had not used homooúsios, although their council had taken place after
Nicaea where many of the Antioch synodals had also been present.
The origin of the letter is, therefore, slightly dubious. It is also peculiar that it
begins in the first person singular, but later switches to the first person plural.
The text opens with the salutation to Alexander and includes a long list of bishops
who have sent the letter. Ossius of Córdoba and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch
(who probably presided the synod34) headed the list. The following two sections
(2–3) form a kind of cover letter, perhaps by Ossius,35 that originally accompanied
the synodal letter itself which begins not until section 4.36 It is obvious from this
cover letter that the synod took place as part of Ossius’ mission of reconciliation
between the quarrelling factions in the Arian dispute. The list of provinces in-
cluded in section 3 (Palestine, Arabia, Phoenice, Coele Syria, Cilicia, and Cappado-
cia) demonstrates the extent of the problem in geographical terms.
The authors complain about the confusion that had arisen with regard to the
‘law of the Church and its canon’ (section 4).37 They claim that bishops in these
provinces had been prevented from holding synods. It is suggested (although not

 Cf. below ch. 6.5.1. For the canons cf., e.g., Stephens 2015, pp. 60–80; Simperl 2022, pp. 63–76,
210–5. For the context cf. also Simperl 2022, pp. 52–5, 86–91.
 Cf. Schwartz 1905(1959), p. 143; Simperl 2022, pp. 61–3.
 Cf. Chadwick 1958(2017); Simperl 2022, pp. 279 f.
 According to Simperl Eustathius authored the entire document; cf. Simperl 2022, pp. 251,
278–80.
 There appears to be a brief return to the first person singular in Opitz 1934/1935, p. 37, l. 17
(Greek) text: λέγω δή. This may, however, either be a marginal gloss which was at some point
inserted into the text, or, more likely, occurs because λέγω δή is used as a fixed formula regard-
less of the grammatical number (in the sense of ‘that is’). Such carelessness is often found in pa-
pyri (cf. Mayser 1934(1970), p. 187).
 Opitz 1934/1935 (who reproduces Schwartz’ Greek retroversion), p. 37, l. 13 should, perhaps,
read: ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς νόμος καὶ ὁ κανών (instead of οἱ κανόνες). Cf. Hubert Kaufhold in Ohme
1998, p. 383. This has been overlooked in Brennecke et al. 2007, p. 102. Simperl 2022, p. 288 thinks
that the Greek could have read θεσμός instead of κανών.
222 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

spelled out) that this is the reason why Ossius (as the emperor’s envoy) convoked
the synod in order to pacify the situation, together with the bishop of Antioch, the
capital of the (political) Diocese of the East (in which most of the provinces named
were situated). The most important item on the agenda was the ‘mystery of our
faith’, ‘concerning the Saviour of us all, the Son of the living God’, as the erroneous
Arian doctrines were spreading all over the place after Alexander of Alexandria had
expelled the supporters of Arius. The letter explicitly states that the gathering at
Antioch had dealt at length with the teachings of Alexander (section 7). Further-
more, a creed is included (sections 8–13) which we will discuss below. This in turn is
followed by a brief (and not very clear) account of the dealings conducted at the
council with three dissenting bishops (Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronias,
and Eusebius of Caesarea). It seems that they had been accused of teaching false
doctrines, had been interrogated by the bishops assembled at the synod, and, finally,
been convicted of Arianism. As they refused to recant before the synod, they were
excluded from the fellowship with the bishops present at the council and deposed
(section 14). Finally, Alexander of Byzantium is asked neither to receive the deposed
bishops nor to write to them or receive letters of communion from them. The end of
the letter also makes it clear that by that time a ‘great and holy’ synod had been
summoned to Ancyra. Here the suspended bishops would be given an opportunity
to repent and learn the right doctrine (section 15).
The creed included in the letter is so important that we have to look at it in
some more detail:38

Creed of Antioch (325)

(Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 18; FaFo § 133)
[8] Ἔστιν οὖν ἡ πίστις [. . .] πιστεύειν [8] Therefore the faith is [. . .] to believe in
εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, one God, the Father Almighty, incompre-
ἀκατάληπτον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίω- hensible, immutable, and unchangeable,
τον, διοικητὴν καὶ οἰκονόμον πάντων, governor and administrator of all, just,
δίκαιον, ἀγαθόν, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ good, Maker of heaven, earth, and of all
γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, νόμου the things in them [cf. Ex 20:11; Ps 145-
καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης (146):6; Acts 4:24; 14:15], Lord of the Law, of
κύριον· the Prophets, and of the New Testament;

 Council of Antioch (325), Epistula synodica. Greek text as reconstructed by Schwartz (= Opitz
1934/35, Urkunde 18) with the corrections by Abramowski 1975(1992), pp. 1–4; cf. FaFo § 133; fur-
ther emendations by Simperl 2022 are given in the following footnotes. Extensive commentaries
are found in Vinzent 1999, pp. 240–382; Simperl 2022, pp. 305–74.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 223

[9] καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, [9] and in one Lord Jesus Christ, only-
υἱὸν μονογενῆ, γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ begotten Son, begotten not from that
μὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, οὐχ ὡς which does not exist, but from the Fa-
ποιητόν,39 ἀλλ᾿ ὡς γέννημα κυρίως, γεν- ther, not as something made, but as
νηθέντα δὲ ἀρρήτως καὶ ἀλέκτως, διότι properly an offspring, and begotten in
μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ὁ γεννήσας καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁ an ineffable and indescribable manner,
γεννηθεὶς40 ἔγνω. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ41 ἔγνω because only the Father who begot and
τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ἢ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ the Son who was begotten know [it].
ὁ πατήρ, τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα καὶ οὐ πρότερον For ‘no one knew the Father except the
οὐκ ὄντα. Son, and [no one knew] the Son except
the Father’ [Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22], [the Son]
who exists eternally and did not previ-
ously not exist.
[10] Χαρακτῆρα γὰρ αὐτὸν μόνον ἐκ [10] For we have learned from the holy
τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν μεμαθήκαμεν, οὐ Scriptures that he alone is the express
ὡς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς σημάντεον ἀγέν- image [cf. Heb 1:3], not unbegotten (as
νητον ὄντα οὐ θέσει (ἀσεβὲς γὰρ καὶ ‘from the Father’ signifies), nor by adop-
βλάσφημον τοῦτο λέγειν)· ἀλλὰ κυρίως tion (for it is impious and blasphemous
καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸν λέγουσιν αὐτὸν αἱ to say this). Rather, the Scriptures call
γραφαὶ τὸν γεννητὸν ὄντα, 42 ὥστε him properly and truly Son, existing as
καὶ 43 πιστεύομεν ἄτρεπτον εἶναι καὶ begotten such that we believe also that
ἀναλλοίωτον αὐτὸν οὐδὲ θελήσει ἢ he is immutable and unchangeable; but
θέσει γεννηθῆναι ἢ γενέσθαι, ὥστε ἐκ not that he was begotten or came into
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν εἶναι φαίνεσθαι, being by volition or by adoption
ἀλλὰ καθὸ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰκός, (whereby it would be clear that he ex-
οὐδ᾿ ὅπερ οὐ θέμις ἐννοεῖν καθ᾿ ὁμοιό- isted from that which does not exist), but
τητα τῆς φύσεως ἢ μῖξιν οὐδενὸς τῶν as it befitted him that he was born; nor
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένων, [11] ἀλλὰ διότι according to a similarity of nature or
ὑπερβαίνει πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν ἢ διάνοιαν commixture with anything which came
ἢ λόγον, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου into existence through him (which it is
γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦμεν, θεὸν not lawful to think), [11] but, since it
λόγον, φῶς ἀληθινόν, δικαιοσύνην, Ἰη- transcends all reflection or understand-
σοῦν Χριστόν, πάντων κύριον καὶ σω- ing or reasoning, we confess him to have

 Simperl: ποίημα.
 Καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁ γεννηθείς. Simperl reads: τὸν υἱὸν τὸν γεννηθέντα. This would suggest: ‘because
only the Father who begot knew the Son who was begotten’. Cf. Simperl 2022, pp. 329 f.
 Simperl: διότι.
 Τὸν γεννητὸν ὄντα. Text according to Simperl. Schwartz/Abramowski: γεννηθέντα.
 Simperl: καὶ ἡμεῖς.
224 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

τῆρα. Εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν οὐ θελήσεως been begotten from the unbegotten Fa-
οὐδ᾿ ἄλλου τινός, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πατ- ther, the God Word, true light, righteous-
ρικῆς ὑποστάσεως.44 ness, Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour of
all. He is the image, not of the will or of
anything else, but of the paternal hypós-
tasis itself [cf. 2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3].
Οὗτος δ᾿ ὁ υἱὸς θεὸς λόγος καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ But this Son, God the Word, was also
ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου Μαρίας τεχθεὶς45 καὶ born in flesh from Mary the Theotokos,
σῶμα φορέσας, παθὼν καὶ ἀποθανὼν assumed a body, suffered, died, rose
ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ἀνελήφθη εἰς again from the dead, was taken up into
οὐρανόν, κάθηται δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγα- heaven, sits ‘at the right hand of the
λοσύνης τῆς ὑψίστης ἐρχόμενος κρῖναι Majesty most high’ [Heb 1:3], [and] will
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. come to judge the living and the dead.
[12] Ἔτι δὲ ὡς καὶ τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν αἱ [12] Furthermore, as also [in the case of]
46

ἱεραὶ γραφαὶ διδάσκουσιν καὶ ἓν our Saviour, the holy Scriptures teach us
πνεῦμα47 πιστεῦσαι, μίαν καθολικὴν ἐκ- to believe also one Spirit, one catholic
κλησίαν, τὴν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, καὶ Church, the resurrection of the dead, and
κρίσιν ἀνταποδόσεως καθὰ ἔπραξέν τις a judgement of retribution according to
ἐν σώματι εἴτε ἀγαθὰ εἴτε κακά. what someone has done in the body,
whether good or bad [cf. 2Cor 5:10 v.l.].
[13] Ἀναθεματίζοντες ἐκείνους, οἳ λέ- [13] We anathematize those who say,
γουσιν ἢ πιστεύουσιν ἢ κηρύττουσιν believe, and preach God’s Son to be a
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ κτίσμα ἢ γενητὸν ἢ creature or originated or made, and not
ποιητὸν 48 καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῶς γέννημα as truly begotten, or that there was
εἶναι ἢ ὅτι ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν – ἡμεῖς γάρ, when he was not; we believe, indeed,
ὅτι ἦν καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ὅτι φῶς ἐστιν, 49 that he was and is and that he is light;
πιστεύομεν –, προσέτι δὲ κἀκείνους, but along with them [we anathematize]
οἳ τῇ αὐτεξουσίῳ θελήσει αὐτοῦ those who suppose he is immutable
ἄτρεπτον εἶναι αὐτὸν ἡγοῦνται, ὥσπερ through his own act of will, just as [we
καὶ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος παράγοντες τὴν anathematize] those who also derive
γέννησιν καὶ μὴ φύσει ἄτρεπτον κατὰ his birth from that which does not exist
τὸν πατέρα. Χαρακτὴρ γὰρ ὡς ἐν and [say] that he is not immutable in

 Αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως. Simperl reads: αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρῴου προσώπου (‘of the pater-
nal person itself’).
 Simperl: γεννηθείς.
 Simperl: τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν αὐτόν (‘our Saviour himself’).
 Simperl: εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα (‘in one Spirit’).
 Simperl: ποίημα.
 Kαὶ ὅτι φῶς ἐστιν. Simperl: καὶ ὅτι ἔσται (‘and will be’). Cf. Simperl 2022, p. 372.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 225

πᾶσιν, οὕτως καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τῷδε τοῦ nature as is the Father. For as the ex-
πατρὸς ἐκηρύχθη ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν. press image of the Father [cf. Heb 1:3],
just in all things, so in this respect par-
ticularly, is our Saviour proclaimed.

It is clear that the letter takes up expressions and phrases from the ‘faith’ of Arius
and his followers which I discussed above. This can be clearly seen placing the
two creeds side by side:

‘Faith’ of Arius et al. Creed of Antioch (325)

(Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a)
[2] Οἴδαμεν ἕνα θεόν, μόνον ἀγέννητον, [8] Ἔστιν οὖν ἡ πίστις [. . .] πιστεύειν
μόνον ἀίδιον, μόνον ἄναρχον, μόνον ἀλη- εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα,
θινόν, μόνον ἀθανασίαν ἔχοντα, μόνον ἀκατάληπτον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλ-
σοφόν, μόνον ἀγαθόν, μόνον δυνάστην, λοίωτον, διοικητὴν καὶ οἰκονόμον
πάντων κριτήν, διοικητήν, οἰκονόμον, πάντων, δίκαιον, ἀγαθόν, ποιητὴν
ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, δίκαιον οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν
καὶ ἀγαθόν, νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ αὐτοῖς, νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς
καινῆς διαθήκης θεόν, [. . .].50 καινῆς διαθήκης κύριον· [. . .].

What is significant here is not the occurrence of the individual expressions (many
of which are fairly conventional), but their accumulation in one brief paragraph.
However, the synodal letter uses these terms to make a point which differs from
Arius’. I will return to this problem below.
In its christological section the synodal letter clearly follows in the footsteps
of Alexander of Alexandria’s letter to Alexander of Thessaloniki (Byzantium):

Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Creed of Antioch (325)

Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzanti-
num)
(Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 14; FaFo § 132)
[46] [. . .] καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν [9] [. . .] καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ, Χριστόν, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, γεννηθέντα
γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ πα-

 ‘We acknowledge one God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone unbegun, alone true,
alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign; Judge, Governor, and
Overseer of all; unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law, the Prophets, and
the New Testament; [. . .].’
226 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πατρός, οὐ κατὰ τὰς τῶν τρός, οὐχ ὡς ποιητόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς γέννημα
σωμάτων ὁμοιότητας ταῖς τομαῖς ἢ ταῖς κυρίως, γεννηθέντα δὲ ἀρρήτως καὶ
ἐκ διαιρέσεων ἀπορροίαις, ὥσπερ Σα- ἀλέκτως,
βελλίῳ καὶ Βαλεντίνῳ δοκεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ ἀρρή-
τως καὶ ἀνεκδιηγήτως [. . .].
[47] Ἅπερ οὐ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ δεῖ μαθεῖν ἄνδ- διότι μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ὁ γεννήσας καὶ ὁ
ρας τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας πνεύματι κινουμέ- υἱὸς ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἔγνω. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ
νους, ὑπηχούσης ἡμᾶς καὶ τῆς φθασάσης ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ἢ τὸν
Χριστοῦ περὶ τούτου φωνῆς καὶ διδασ- υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα καὶ οὐ
κούσης· Οὐδεὶς οἶδε τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ, πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα.
εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός· καὶ οὐδεὶς οἶδε τίς ἐστιν
ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ.
[10] Χαρακτῆρα γὰρ αὐτὸν μόνον ἐκ τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν μεμαθήκαμεν, οὐ ὡς τὸ ἐκ
τοῦ πατρὸς σημάντεον ἀγέννητον ὄντα
οὐ θέσει (ἀσεβὲς γὰρ καὶ βλάσφημον
τοῦτο λέγειν)·
Ἄτρεπτον τοῦτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον ὡς ἀλλὰ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸν λέγουσιν
τὸν πατέρα, ἀπροσδεῆ καὶ τέλειον υἱόν, αὐτὸν αἱ γραφαὶ τὸν γεννητὸν ὄντα,
ἐμφερῆ τῷ πατρὶ μεμαθήκαμεν, μόνῳ ὥστε καὶ πιστεύομεν ἄτρεπτον εἶναι καὶ
τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ λειπόμενον ἐκείνου. ἀναλλοίωτον αὐτὸν οὐδὲ θελήσει ἢ
θέσει γεννηθῆναι ἢ γενέσθαι, ὥστε ἐκ
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν εἶναι φαίνεσθαι,
ἀλλὰ καθὸ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰκός, οὐδ᾿
ὅπερ οὐ θέμις ἐννοεῖν καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα
τῆς φύσεως ἢ μῖξιν οὐδενὸς τῶν δι᾿
αὐτοῦ γενομένων, [11] ἀλλὰ διότι ὑπερ-
βαίνει πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν ἢ διάνοιαν ἢ
λόγον, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γεν-
νηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦμεν, θεὸν λόγον,
φῶς ἀληθινόν, δικαιοσύνην, Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν, πάντων κύριον καὶ σωτῆρα.
Εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν ἀπηκριβωμένη καὶ Εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν οὐ θελήσεως οὐδ᾿
ἀπαράλλακτος τοῦ πατρός. [48] Πάντων ἄλλου τινός, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς
γὰρ εἶναι τὴν εἰκόνα πλήρη δι᾿ ὧν ἡ μεί- ὑποστάσεως.
ζων ἐμφέρεια δῆλον, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐπαίδευ-
σεν ὁ κύριος ὁ πατήρ μου λέγων μείζων
μού ἐστι. Καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 227

εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πιστεύο-

μεν· Ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστι τῆς δόξης καὶ
χαρακτὴρ τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως.
[. . .]
[54] Μετὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστα- Οὗτος δ᾿ ὁ υἱὸς θεὸς λόγος καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ
σιν οἴδαμεν, ἧς ἀπαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ κύριος ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου Μαρίας τεχθεὶς καὶ
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς σῶμα φορέσας σῶμα φορέσας, παθὼν καὶ ἀποθανὼν
ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐ δοκήσει ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ἀνελήφθη εἰς
Μαρίας ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς οὐρανόν, κάθηται δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγ-
ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας, ἐπιδημήσας τῷ γένει αλοσύνης τῆς ὑψίστης ἐρχόμενος κρῖ-
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, σταυρωθεὶς καὶ ἀπο- ναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
θανών, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ
θεότητος ἥττων γεγενημένος, ἀναστὰς
ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναληφθεὶς ἐν οὐρανοῖς,
καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλοσύνης.51

The syntagma κρίσιν ἀνταποδόσεως in section 12 (which is probably influenced

by Is 34:8) – if original – is conspicuous as it occurs in no other creed that I know
of (this is also true for its Latin equivalent iudicium retributionis). (We find it in a
vaguely similar context in the Regulae morales by Basil of Caesarea.52) Further-

 ‘[46] [. . .] and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not from that
which does not exist, but from the Father who exists; yet not [begotten] after the likeness of bod-
ies by severance or emanation [resulting] from divisions, as Sabellius and Valentinus think, but
in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner, [. . .]. [47] But those men who are led by the Spirit
of truth [cf. Jn 16:13] have no need to learn these things from me for the words long since spoken
by the Saviour in his teaching yet sound in our ears: “No one knows who the Father is except the
Son, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father” [cf. Mt 11:27; Jn 10:15]. We have learned
that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, just like the Father, lack-
ing only his “unbegotten”. He is the exact and precise image of his Father. [48] For it is clear that
the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us,
saying, “My Father is greater than I” [Jn 14:28]. In accordance with this we believe that the Son
always existed from the Father; for he is “the radiance of [his] glory and the express image of his
Father’s hypóstasis” [Heb 1:3]. [. . .] [54] After this, we acknowledge the resurrection from the
dead, of which our Lord Jesus Christ became the first fruits [cf. 1Cor 15:20]; [he] was truly and
not in appearance clothed in a body derived from Mary the Theotokos “at the consummation of
the ages for the destruction of sin” [Heb 9:26], who dwelt among the human race; was crucified
and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of his godhead; rose again from the dead, was
taken up into the heavens, sits “at the right hand of the Majesty” [Heb 1:3].’
 Cf. Regulae morales 1,2 (PG 31, col. 700C): Ὅτι τῆς μετανοίας καὶ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὁ
παρών ἐστι καιρός· ἐν δὲ τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι ἡ δικαία κρίσις τῆς ἀνταποδόσεως. / ‘That the present
time is one of repentance and forgiveness of sins; but in the world to come [there is] the just
228 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

more, the expression ἐν σώματι in this context is found in no other creed. Like-
wise, phrases are used in the anathemas that occur nowhere else, e.g., κτίσμα ἢ
γενητὸν ἢ ποιητόν and τῇ αὐτεξουσίῳ θελήσει αὐτοῦ ἄτρεπτον. This seems to
point to the authenticity of the creed, as a forger would probably have chosen
more common phrases.
Given the similarities to the writings of Arius and, in particular, Alexander,
and the use of rare phrases it is difficult to maintain that the entire letter is a
forgery unless one thinks that this was a deliberate ruse in order to give the letter
an air of authenticity. However, the objections Holger Strutwolf and others have
raised against the letter’s theological stance and some other observations53 are
not entirely without foundation either, so that it appears that the original text
may have undergone some editing. The bishops mentioned in the initial list of
senders and its content suggest that it was written in early 325. It may, therefore,
be wise to take the historical information contained in this letter seriously, but to
be cautious with regard to its theological argument where it cannot be viewed as
a direct response to the theologies of the period (especially Arius, Alexander of
Alexandria, and, perhaps, Eusebius of Caesarea).
Against this backdrop, what is the main thrust of this letter? First of all, in
setting out their doctrine the authors do not refer to a creed ‘into which they
were baptized’, as the usual formula goes in the fifth century. Instead they refer
to a ‘faith which was set forth by spiritual men’. These men are briefly character-
ized as follows: they must ‘not rightly be considered to have lived or thought in
the flesh, but they meditated this in the Spirit together on the basis of the holy
writings of the divinely inspired books’ (section 8). Later, in sections 10 and 12 it
is said that the basis for their argument is the Bible itself. After the end of the
creed the letter continues:

This is the faith set forth and the entire holy synod agreed to it and confessed that this was
the apostolic and salvific doctrine. And all fellow ministers were unanimous about it.54

The procedure, then, seems to have been this: the creed which was included in
sections 8–13 had been drafted by a committee of expert ascetics and was subse-
quently submitted to the entire council which agreed to it. This suggests that the
creed itself as a whole did not go back to tradition, but was, in fact, a product of

judgement of retribution.’ 18,4 (732B): Ὅτι ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ τὰ ἐλάττονα εὐγνωμοσύνης ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς
μείζοσι τῆς ἀνταποδόσεως κρίσις δικαιοῦται. / ‘That the decision to retribute in more important
matters is justified by the generosity in minor matters.’ By contrast, the phrase κρίσις καὶ ἀντα-
πόδοσις is found very frequently.
 Cf. Camplani 2013, pp. 69–72.
 Council of Antioch, Epistula synodica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 18) 14.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 229

the council itself. The rather peculiar reference to the holy lifestyle of its authors
and the later reference to the Scriptures served to disguise precisely this fact.
The creed proper is trinitarian in character: section 8 deals with the Father,
sections 9–11 with the Son, and section 12 with the Holy Spirit and a series of
other items which may, perhaps, be regarded as the fruits of the Spirit. It con-
cludes with a series of condemnations (section 13). The ‘oneness’ of the individual
trinitarian ‘persons’ is emphasized at the beginning of each article.
The creed begins with a section on the Father which is fairly conventional
and need not detain us here, except for one observation: the combination of δι-
οικητής and οἰκονόμος (‘governor and administrator’) is only found in Arius’ Let-
ter to Alexander and was – together with some other expressions – clearly
reproduced from there, as our synopsis above has shown.
In the christological section first the idea is refuted that the Son was begotten
from nothing or that he was something ‘made’ (ποιητόν; or, perhaps, ποίημα). In
positive terms, he is ‘properly an offspring’ (γέννημα κυρίως) and has existed
from eternity. In order to avoid any anthropomorphic misunderstanding, the au-
thors add that the manner of his begetting is ‘ineffable and indescribable’ (ἀρρή-
τως καὶ ἀλέκτως; section 9).
Subsequently (sections 10–11a) the manner of begetting is more closely de-
fined. The authors refute the idea that the Son is ‘unbegotten’. Likewise, genera-
tion ‘by an act of will or by adoption’ (θελήσει ἢ θέσει) is deemed unacceptable.
Instead, the key terms to correctly describe the Son’s relationship to the Father
are ‘express image’ (χαρακτήρ) or ‘image’ (εἰκών) of the divine hypóstasis (a clear
reference to Heb 1:3; cf. again section 13). By contrast, the Son possessed no ‘simi-
larity of nature’ (ὁμοιότης τῆς φύσεως) with those things that came into being
through him, let alone did he have a share in them through ‘mixture’ (μῖξις).
Finally, a summary of the Son’s work of salvation is given which includes
birth – suffering – death – resurrection – ascension – sitting at the right hand –
Last Judgement (section 11b). This is followed in section 12 by a series of clauses
including the ‘one’ Spirit, the ‘one catholic Church’, the resurrection of the dead,
and, again, the Last Judgement.
The creed ends with a series of anathemas (section 13). Eight teachings are
condemned here: (1) the Son as a ‘creature’; (2) as ‘originated’; (3) as ‘made’; (4) as
‘not truly begotten’; (5) as having some kind of temporal beginning; (6) that he is
immutable as a result of his will (and not of his very nature); (7) that he was born
from nothing; (8) and that he is ‘not immutable in nature’ (which could either
mean that he is immutable by volition (= 6) or that he is not immutable at all).
Thus we see how the form of a three-fold creed (followed by the anathemas),
as we know it from Nicaea and Constantinople, gradually takes shape. The length
of each article is as yet unequal, the second article being the most extensive, as
230 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

the controversy primarily focussed on the status of the Son. Unless the text was
heavily expanded at a later stage, its rhetorical strategy oscillates: it discusses
controversial points at some length in the christological section whereas it limits
itself to an enumeration of important divine attributes and stages of salvation his-
tory in the first and third sections. It would be tempting to explain this uneven-
ness by the later extension of a first draft which may have looked like this:

First draft Extension

Ἔστιν οὖν ἡ πίστις [. . .]
[8] πιστεύειν εἰς ἕνα θεόν,
πατέρα, παντοκράτορα,
ἀκατάληπτον, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίω-
τον,
διοικητὴν καὶ οἰκονόμον πάντων, δί-
καιον, ἀγαθόν,
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ πάντων
τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς,
νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς
διαθήκης κύριον·
[9] καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
υἱὸν μονογενῆ,
γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾿
ἐκ τοῦ πατρός,
οὐχ ὡς ποιητόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς γέννημα κυ-
ρίως,
γεννηθέντα δὲ ἀρρήτως καὶ ἀλέκτως,
διότι μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ὁ γεννήσας καὶ ὁ
υἱὸς ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἔγνω. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔγνω
τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ἢ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ
ὁ πατήρ, τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα καὶ οὐ πρότερον
οὐκ ὄντα.
[10] Χαρακτῆρα γὰρ αὐτὸν μόνον ἐκ τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν μεμαθήκαμεν, οὐ ὡς τὸ ἐκ
τοῦ πατρὸς σημάντεον ἀγέννητον ὄντα
οὐ θέσει (ἀσεβὲς γὰρ καὶ βλάσφημον
τοῦτο λέγειν)· ἀλλὰ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς
υἱὸν λέγουσιν αὐτὸν αἱ γραφαὶ τὸν γεννη-
τὸν ὄντα, ὥστε καὶ πιστεύομεν ἄτρεπτον
εἶναι καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον αὐτὸν οὐδὲ
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 231

θελήσει ἢ θέσει γεννηθῆναι ἢ γενέσθαι,

ὥστε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν εἶναι
φαίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καθὸ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν
εἰκός, οὐδ᾿ ὅπερ οὐ θέμις ἐννοεῖν καθ᾿
ὁμοιότητα τῆς φύσεως ἢ μῖξιν οὐδενὸς
τῶν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένων, [11] ἀλλὰ διότι
ὑπερβαίνει πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν ἢ διάνοιαν ἢ
λόγον, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου
γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦμεν, θεὸν
λόγον, φῶς ἀληθινόν, δικαιοσύνην, Ἰη-
σοῦν Χριστόν, πάντων κύριον καὶ σω-
τῆρα. Εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν οὐ θελήσεως οὐδ᾿
ἄλλου τινός, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς
ὑποστάσεως.
Οὗτος δ᾿ ὁ υἱὸς θεὸς λόγος καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου Μαρίας τεχθεὶς καὶ
σῶμα φορέσας, παθὼν καὶ ἀποθανὼν
ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ἀνελήφθη εἰς
οὐρανόν, κάθηται δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγα-
λοσύνης τῆς ὑψίστης ἐρχόμενος κρῖναι
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
[12] Ἔτι δὲ ὡς καὶ τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν αἱ
ἱεραὶ γραφαὶ διδάσκουσιν καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα
πιστεῦσαι,
μίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
τὴν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν,
καὶ κρίσιν ἀνταποδόσεως καθὰ ἔπραξέν
τις ἐν σώματι εἴτε ἀγαθὰ εἴτε κακά.
[Anathemas]

Some material at the beginning of section 11 (such as ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου
γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦμεν, θεὸν λόγον, φῶς ἀληθινόν, δικαιοσύνην, Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν, πάντων κύριον καὶ σωτῆρα) may also have belonged to the Vorlage, but
its extent can no longer be clearly identified.
It is difficult to say whether the extension (if indeed that is what happened)
was added to the Vorlage (1) at the drafting stage by the committee or (2) during
the full session of the council, or (3) whether it forms, in fact, part of a subsequent
revision (which would then also explain why some of the theological tenets con-
232 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

tained therein may reflect the trinitarian discussion of a later stage).55 The fact that
phrases from Alexander were also used in the added material seems to preclude
the idea that the entire extension was added after the council (although some
phrases may have been added).56
The text is clearly anti-Arian in tone, but its argument is more forceful in what
it rejects than what it posits, because the precise nature neither of the generation
of the Son, nor of his likeness to the Father are spelled out. The Son’s generation
from the Father involves the former’s immutability. The term hypóstasis is intro-
duced in relation to the Father, without clarifying what it means for the Son to be
the image of this hypóstasis (section 11). In addition, there also appears to be a
break halfway through section 11 where the argument gradually changes from an
explanation of certain trinitarian tenets to a simple enumeration of the stages of
incarnation. Moreover, new credal terms such as ‘word’ and ‘true light’ are intro-
duced en passant (based on Jn 1:1–9) without further explanation. But when we
compare Alexander’s creed we can see that the letter from Antioch simply follows
the structure of this earlier text – without, however, slavishly repeating its word-
ing: thus the peculiar order Spirit – Christ in Alexander’s text57 is reversed. In addi-
tion, the pneumatological section was extended by including the Last Judgement
which is missing in Alexander’s text (or, perhaps, only hinted at).
What is new here, however, is the fact that the anathemas are collated at the
end rather than appearing thoughout the argument. Interestingly, the creed itself
does not name the opponents in contrast to Arius’ creed and Alexander’s statement.58
There is another difference: what exactly is meant when the creed says that
the Arian doctrines are ‘anathema’ to the synod? It cannot mean excommunica-
tion because it is not directed against named persons, but against persons hold-
ing specific views. An excommunication of Arius and his adherents is nowhere
mentioned, and Theodotus, Narcissus, and Eusebius of Caesarea who were found
holding similar views were (provisionally) deposed, but not excluded from the
Church either. We, therefore, have to ascertain whether ἀναθεματίζειν is a theo-

 Strutwolf mentions, in particular, the condemnation of the Son’s generation by the Father’s
will; the eikon-Christology; the anathema of the claim that the Son was ‘a creature or originated
or made’. Cf. Strutwolf 1999, pp. 40–3; Strutwolf 2011, pp. 313–20. Pace Strutwolf cf. now Simperl
2022, pp. 349–53, 369–71.
 Such as οὐδὲ θελήσει ἢ θέσει and εἰκὼν γάρ – τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως.
 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15) 2.
 In Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo
§ 131a) 3 Valentinus, Mani, Sabellius, and Hieracas (of Leontopolis) are named, in Alexander of
Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 14;
FaFo § 132) 46 Sabellius and Valentinus. Cf. also Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistula V 1 (Feltoe;
FaFo § 124a) and above pp. 99 f.
 6.2 The Council of Antioch (Spring 325) and its context 233

logical or a legal term and what it implies. Strangely enough, this problem has
received little discussion in previous scholarship – usually the condemnations
are conflated with the system of excommunication.59 However, it is important to
draw certain distinctions.
In late antiquity excommunication was primarily a penalty which consisted
in someone’s temporary or total exclusion from the Christian congregation in
general and the eucharist in particular, as a reaction to deviant behaviour or
faith.60 By contrast, an anathema was a certain type of curse against someone
which was pronounced by an individual bishop or a synod.61 In the period we are
interested in this curse is found in an encyclical letter by Alexander of Alexandria
that mentions a synod of ‘almost one hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya’ which
had anathematized Arius and his followers.62 However, Alexander did not pri-
marily ask his fellow-bishops to bar the latter from participation in worship,
rather, to refuse them fellowship and hospitality lest they spread their pernicious
doctrines.63 From another one of Alexander’s letters, that to his namesake of The-
ssaloniki (or Byzantium), it also emerges that such an anathema was not primar-
ily a canonical penalty involving exclusion from worship. Instead Alexander
expelled Arius and his followers from his church, because they taught beliefs that
were alien to the ‘right’ doctrine. In this context he quoted Gal 1:964 which obvi-
ously refers to their capacity as presbyters and ecclesiastical teachers that they
were no longer allowed to exercise. But it remains obscure whether or not Alex-
ander expected the other bishops to also exclude the Arians from the eucharist
(although this may have been implied by asking them to refuse fellowship). In
any case, when Arius wrote to Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Patro-
philus of Scythopolis he did not ask to be granted communion, but to be rein-
stated as presbyter and to be allowed to celebrate mass.65 Arius also reports in his

 Cf., e.g., Hofmann 1950, p. 429; Doskocil 1969, col. 11; Jaser 2013, pp. 40–42.
 Cf. the surveys in Doskocil 1969; Vodola 1986; Firey 2008; Konradt, ‘Excommunication’, 2014;
Leppin 2014; Bührer-Thierry/Gioanni 2015; Uhalde 2018.
 Cf. the surveys in Michel 1907; Hofmann 1950; Speyer 1969, esp. col. 1267; Aust/Müller 1977;
Hunzinger 1980; May 1980; Zawadzki 2008–2010; Pennington 2009.
 Cf. Alexander, Epistula encyclica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4b) 11. Cf. also 16 and 19. The phrase
in 16 (Opitz 1934/1935, p. 9, ll. 25 f.) διὸ καὶ ἀπεκηρύχθησαν καὶ ἀνεθεματίσθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλη-
σίας is slightly awkward. Perhaps one has to read: διὸ καὶ ἀπεκηρύχθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ
ἀνεθεματίσθησαν (cf. the apparatus Opitz 1934/1935, p. 9, ll. 25 f.). Or ἀπό is a misspelling of ὑπό. In
any case, this may also have meant that Arius et al. were simply stripped of their office.
 Cf. Alexander, Epistula encyclica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4b) 20.
 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz
1934/1935, Urkunde 14) 56. Cf. also id, Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15) 2.
 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 1,15,11 (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 10).
234 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia that a series of bishops had been placed under
anathema by Bishop Alexander.66 This is obviously no excommunication in the
sense of members of a congregation being excluded by their bishop for transgres-
sions of disciplinary rules; rather it is the termination of ecclesial communion be-
tween bishops.
Furthermore, in synodal documents from the fourth century onwards anathe-
mas were often not directed against the persons themselves, but against the views
a person held (the model for this use of anathema is found in Gal 1:8–9 and 1Cor
16:22).67 This is why excommunication was a possible, but not necessary sanction
accompanying anathemas.68 The creed of Antioch is one of the first texts in which
this meaning becomes apparent:69 it condemns unnamed persons holding heretical
doctrines.70 As no person was specifically named, clearly no canonical penalty
(such as excommunication) could be pronounced. In general, there is no indication
that the Arians were excommunicated. Their sympathizers lost their sees, but even
this was, as we saw above, only a provisional measure. Likewise, we hear from Soc-
rates that Arius and his followers were anathematized by the Council of Nicaea
and were not to return to Alexandria – if this was contained in a synodal document
it has not survived. Moreover, they were sent into exile by an edict of the em-
peror.71 This means that they were excluded from communion with the Alexan-
drian church, but there is no indication that Arian theologians were no longer
permitted to partake of the eucharist as such. We will see below how the use of
anathemas contributed to the increasingly legal character of synodal creeds.72

 Cf. Arius, Epistula ad Eusebium Nicomediensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 1) 3.

 Eusebius was even vaguer in his credal exposition, anathematizing ‘every godless heresy’
(πᾶσαν ἄθεον αἵρεσιν); cf. next chapter.
 These reflections are partly inspired by Bührer-Thierry 2015, esp. pp. 7 f., 13; Graumann 2020,
pp. 8–10. Cf. also Weckwerth 2010, pp. 20 f.
 Cf. Hanson 1988, p. 150; Galvão-Sobrinho 2013, p. 82. The only earlier references may be Dio-
nysius of Alexandria, Epistula V 1 (Feltoe; FaFo § 124a), and canon 52 of the Synod of Elvira
where someone putting up slanderous pamphlets in a church is anathematized. The date of this
synod (314?) is highly controversial; cf. Weckwerth 2013, pp. 185 f. (no. 181).
 There is a certain similarity here to the cura morum of the Roman censors who watched over
the morals of the city’s population. ‘If the censors were not satisfied with giving a mere reproof,
they entered their reprimands on the census list against the respective person’s name (nota). The
criticism was accompanied by an explanation’ (Suolahti 1963, p. 50, listing numerous references).
This was already noticed in antiquity, but Ambrose clearly states the difference in De fide 1,119
(FaFo § 455a2): the notae are secret, the anathemas are public.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,33. The emperors seem to have seen in an anathema a
parallel to the secular penalty of infamia and acted accordingly by meting out similar kinds of
punishments. For infamia cf. esp. Kaser 1956; Scheibelreiter 2019, cols. 704–17.
 Cf. below ch. 6.4.6.
 6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church 235

6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church

Eusebius of Caesarea’s letter to his congregation which he wrote in June 325 in

the wake of the Council of Nicaea plays a key role in the fixation of credal formu-
lae. This document was perhaps meant to be read out during mass. The bishop
was moved to composing his epistle, because he had signed N after some hesita-
tion and wished to explain his signature to his congregation.73 This document is
the earliest witness for N which is why we will return to it further below.74 Fur-
thermore, Eusebius apparently says that N was a version of the creed of Caesarea
which had been revised by the Council of Nicaea. It is, therefore, often claimed
that N was directly based on the local creed of Caesarea or of wider Palestine.
However, this theory does not stand up to closer scrutiny.75 First, it is striking
that Eusebius does not actually mention a ‘creed’; instead he calls the formula
(which I will abbreviate as Eus) which he goes on to quote the ‘text about the
faith which we had submitted’ (τὴν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν προταθεῖσαν περὶ τῆς πίστεως γρα-
φήν). He says that he read out this text in the presence of the emperor and re-
ceived praise for it. He continues:

As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, in our first catechesis, and when
we received baptism; and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures; and as we con-
stantly believed and taught as presbyter and now as bishop, so also believing at the time
present, we report to you our faith, and it is this: [Here follows his ‘creed’.]76

We may draw the following conclusions from Eusebius’ comment:

(1) Eusebius submitted a written document to the synod that was actually read
out during one of its sessions.
(2) This document contained the ‘faith’ which Eusebius had received in his cate-
chetical instruction and in baptism.77
(3) Its content corresponded to the Holy Scriptures.
(4) Eusebius held on to this ‘faith’ as a presbyter and bishop until the present day
and taught it himself to others.

 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,34.

 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22; FaFo §§ 134a,
135b); cf. also below ch. 6.4.2.
 In what follows I come largely to the same conclusions as Hans von Campenhausen in his
seminal article of 1976(1979).
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 3 (FaFo § 134a).
 This could be an indication that Eusebius was baptized as an adult (cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1960,
p. 12). However, even in that case no conclusions may be drawn as regards his religious educa-
tion, since baptism was often postponed until adulthood at this time.
236 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

This introductory passage provides astonishingly little information concerning our

question about the emergence of fixed declaratory creeds. Eusebius does not say that
he is going to recite a previously fixed formula. Indeed, he later says that he believed
these things ‘from as long as we have known ourselves’78 – and this must certainly
mean from earliest childhood which makes it quite unlikely that the credal text
quoted is a traditional text ‘handed over’ before baptism in Caesarea. Instead, he
possibly relates the content of the received faith which, before Nicaea, had not yet
assumed a fixed form.79 If this is the case, however, we have to examine whether,
precisely because Eusebius’ faith had been recorded in a particular structure for
the council, it turned into a fixed formula exhibiting this very structure.
Why would Eusebius have done this? As we saw above, he and his two fellow-
bishops had been deposed at Antioch, while being granted leave to appeal to the
Council of Ancyra (later moved to Nicaea). He was, therefore, under considerable
pressure to explain his theological position in order to regain his episcopal see. In
such a situation it would not have been enough simply to fall back on a possibly
pre-existent baptismal creed, rendering further explanations necessary. This is
precisely what Eusebius provides in this text.
In what follows, I give the entire text of sections 4–6. The Greek sentence
structure cannot be reproduced fully in English.

Exposition of faith (‘creed’) of Eusebius of Caesarea (Eus)

(Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22; FaFo § 134a)

[4] Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, [4] We believe in one God, the Father
παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρα- Almighty, the Maker of all things both
τῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· visible and invisible [cf. Col 1:16];
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word
τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ of God, God from God, Light from Light,
φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, life from life, only-begotten Son [cf. Jn
πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάν- 1:18 v.l.], ‘first-born of all creation’ [Col

 Cf. the quotation below p. 237.

 I also remain unconvinced that Eusebius’ credal text is based in some way on the writings of
Arius and Alexander or on the creed of Antioch. Pace Vinzent 1999, pp. 257, 278–80, 312, 345–8; Sim-
perl 2022, pp. 314–6, 323, 357. Thus the syntagma εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα (‘in one God,
the Father Almighty’) which is found both in Eus and the creed of Antioch is entirely traditional;
cf., e.g., Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1,3,6 (FaFo § 109b1); 1,10,1 (§ 109b3). Likewise, εἰς ἕνα κύριον
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (‘in one Lord Jesus Christ’) already occurs in Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1,1,6 (τὴν
πίστιν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ /
‘the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God’).
 6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church 237

των τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεν- 1:15], before all ages begotten from the
νημένον, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· Father, ‘through whom’ also ‘all things
τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκω- came into being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6]; who
θέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμε- for our salvation became flesh, lived
νον καὶ παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ among men, suffered, on the third day
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πα- rose again, and ascended to the Father,
τέρα καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι and will come again in glory to judge
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. the living and the dead [cf. 2Tim 4:1;
1Pet 4:5].
Πιστεύομεν δὲ καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. And we believe also in one Holy Spirit.
[5] Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν [5] Believing each of these to be and to
πιστεύοντες πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ exist, the Father truly Father, the Son
υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy
ἀληθῶς ἅγιον πνεῦμα Spirit
(καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποσ- (just as our Lord, sending forth his
τέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυ- disciples for the preaching, also
τοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπεν· Πορευθέντες said, ‘Go and make disciples of all
μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτί- nations, baptizing them upon the
ζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πα- name of the Father, the Son, and
τρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου the Holy Spirit’ [Mt 28:19]);
πνεύματος),
περὶ ὧν καὶ διαβεβαιούμεθα οὕτως ἔχειν concerning whom we also confidently
καὶ οὕτως φρονεῖν καὶ πάλαι οὕτως affirm that so we hold, so we think, and
ἐσχηκέναι καὶ μέχρι θανάτου ὑπὲρ ταύτης so we have held from long ago, and that
ἐνίστασθαι τῆς πίστεως ἀναθεματίζοντες we maintain this faith unto the death,
πᾶσαν ἄθεον αἵρεσιν, anathematizing every godless heresy;
[6] ταῦτα ἀπὸ καρδίας καὶ ψυχῆς πάν- [6] we witness before God Almighty
τοτε πεφρονηκέναι, ἐξ οὗπερ ἴσμεν ἑαυ- and our Lord Jesus Christ that we have
τούς, καὶ νῦν φρονεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν ἐξ always held these things from our heart
ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκρά- and soul, from as long as we have
τορος καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ known ourselves, and now both truly
Χριστοῦ μαρτυρόμεθα think and say;
δεικνύναι ἔχοντες δι᾿ ἀποδείξεων καὶ being able by proofs to show and to
πείθειν ὑμᾶς, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς παρεληλυ- convince you that, in times past also,
θότας χρόνους οὕτως ἐπιστεύομέν τε we have constantly believed and
καὶ ἐκηρύσσομεν. preached thus.

The creed itself seems at first glance to consist of three articles dealing with the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit (section 4). But this is followed by a fourth ‘article’
238 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

(section 5–6) which is rather complex and requires some explanation. Here Opitz’
punctuation in his edition (which I followed in my collection Faith in Formulae;
i.e. inserting a full stop after the quotation from Mt 28:19) is misleading, because
in that case the participium coniunctum πιστεύοντες lacks a corresponding finite
verb. At a closer glance, however, it becomes clear that the sentence does not stop
on p. 43 after the quotation in line 19 but runs all the way through to line 25.80 It
must, therefore, be punctuated as above (the main verb is printed in bold).
This minute detail is important in assessing the text because it is unclear
where the creed ends. From the evidence of later creeds, especially N, one would
have thought that it terminates after the mention of belief in the Holy Spirit (and
this is precisely what has been suggested by most scholars until now81), but this is
not the case. The participium coniunctum πιστεύοντες clearly indicated that Euse-
bius’ credal statement continued right until the end of this rather cumbersome
sentence, forming a kind of peroration summing up the previous sections and fur-
nishing the exegetical basis for belief in the Trinity (Mt 28:19). This observation is
strengthened by the fact that Eusebius explicitly emphasizes in the following sen-
tence that this had been the exposition of his creed (section 7: ταύτης ὑφ’ ἡμῶν
ἐκτεθείσης τῆς πίστεως). Furthermore, he points out that his ‘faith’ was consid-
ered orthodox by each and every one, including the emperor.
Therefore, in my view we have to distinguish the trinitarian content in this
exposition of faith from its actual literary manifestation as a creed. Eusebius, it is
true, carefully describes the three persons of the Trinity one after the other, re-
sulting in three distinct articles. However, he also expresses this faith in the
fourth ‘article’ whose purpose is fivefold: (1) to give a kind of summary; (2) to fur-
nish a biblical quotation underpinning belief in the Trinity (and thus implicitly
justifying the trinitarian structure of the previous sections); (3) to emphasize the
creed’s venerability; (4) to condemn heresy; and (5) to underline the orthodoxy of
its author.
This does not mean that Eusebius did not fall back on catechetical practice in
Caesarea. In fact, he seems to indicate precisely this in the introduction to his
text. But this reference makes it rather unlikely that he was using a fixed text,
because in that city no fixed formula existed as yet. After all, why would the bishop
have felt the need to communicate a traditional formula allegedly recited at each
baptism to his own congregation? Instead he submitted a text to the council
which conveyed the content of the catechetical teaching of Caesarea regarding

 This is almost the same punctuation as in Parmentier’s and Hansen’s edition of the text as it
is quoted in Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History 1,12,5–6; cf. Parmentier/Hansen 1998(2009), p. 49,
l. 16 – 50, l. 4.
 Cf., e.g., Vinzent 1999, pp. 346–8.
 6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church 239

the faith. In other words, the ‘creed’ which Eusebius submitted was nothing but
the regula fidei (or baptismal credal kerygma) that formed the basis for the bap-
tismal catechesis in the coastal city of Palestine and which may also have formed
the content of the questions to which the baptizands agreed, their precise word-
ing differing from one baptism to the next. He took propositions about the first
and second person of the Trinity from this ‘rule of faith’ which he considered use-
ful for the present purpose. He did not use propositions about the fruits of the
Holy Spirit such as we encountered in the creeds of Alexander and of Antioch,
because they were irrelevant to Eusebius’ situation. It is impossible, in my view,
that such teaching about the Spirit did not exist in Caesarea as well; but there
was as yet no Traditio and Redditio symboli in that city, rites which, as we will see
below,82 necessitated a fixed formula. Instead knowledge about the faith was im-
parted by preaching based on the regula fidei, without the memorization and ren-
dition of a fixed formula. Incidentally, this also explains why the first person
plural (πιστεύομεν, διαβεβαιούμεθα, μαρτυρόμεθα) is used thoughout this decla-
ration: the persons speaking are not the baptizands of Caesarea (in which case,
given what we know about the preparation to baptism, it is most likely the singu-
lar would have been used), but the members of the council.
Eusebius begins the article on the Father with a conventional phrase, also
found in the creed from Antioch (πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκρά-
τορα), but then adds a reference to Col 1:16 (τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορ-
άτων ποιητήν). This no doubt serves to emphasize the transcendence of the
Father vis-à-vis the rest of the universe (including the Son) and his creative activ-
ity. In his christological section, Eusebius clearly creates an intermediate position
between the Arian defence of the Son’s creation and his opponents’ insistence on
the Son’s full divinity. Arian theology is reflected in the inclusion of Col 1:15 (‘first-
born of all creation’), while the insistence that the Son is ‘God from God’ and that
he was begotten from the Father may be an attempt to bridge the gap between
Eusebius and his opponents. Yet once again, this apparent endorsement of the
Son’s ‘full divinity’ is not without qualifications, precisely because Jesus Christ is
the ‘Logos of God’ (whereas in Antioch he was called ‘God the Logos’) and ‘God
from God, Light from Light, life from life’ (as opposed to Antioch where ‘God the
Logos’ was simply called ‘true light’).83 Likewise, some ambiguity remains when it
comes to the alternative between the Son’s temporality and his coeternity with

 Cf. below ch. 11.1.1.

 As regards the history of the phrase ‘Light from Light’ cf. Munkholt Christensen 2023, esp.
p. 255 n. 16. Eusebius describes its theological background in Demonstratio euangelica 4,3. Cf. esp.
4,3,7: ‘For God wished to beget a Son, and established a second light, in everything made like
himself (φῶς δεύτερον κατὰ πάντα ἑαυτῷ ἀφωμοιωμένον).’
240 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

the Father: the insistence on the Son’s cooperation in the creation of ‘all things’
may suggest that he had been begotten ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ temporality (because
time may be seen as part of the created order); at the same time the phrase ‘before
all ages’ may point to the Son’s being, as it were, the ‘starting-point’ of time (and as
such part of temporality).
Eusebius does not mention the death of the Son nor his sitting at the right
hand of the Father, as opposed to both Alexander and the Creed of Antioch. Mar-
kus Vinzent is probably right in pointing out that he omits any open confession of
the Son’s subordination and the description of the Son as a second lord, in view
of his deposition in Antioch.84
Eusebius is the first to introduce the resurrection ‘on the third day’ in an east-
ern creed. The only earlier example is the creed in the so-called Traditio Apostol-
ica which, however, must probably be attributed to Rome.85 It is unclear whether
Eusebius’ insertion is in any way connected with the Creed from Jerusalem that is
western in origin and also contained this addition86 or whether this is a direct
influence from 1Cor 15:4.
Eusebius also deviates from his predecessors in saying that the Son ‘ascended’
(ἀνελθόντα) to the Father87 whereas both Alexander of Alexandria and the creed
of Antioch retain the older expression that Christ was ‘taken up’ (ἀναληφθείς/
ἀνελήφθη) into heaven.88 Furthermore in Eusebius’ version the Son will return ‘in
glory’ for the Final Judgement. This addition – which occurs frequently in earlier
Christian literature89 – is clearly influenced by Mt 16:27 and 24:30 (cf. also Phil
2:11) and is, as such, not particularly remarkable. However, it is worth mentioning
that the earliest creed (other than that of Eusebius) that includes it, i.e. J, also
comes from Palestine.90
Eusebius’ final section insists on the ‘true’ existence of each of the persons of
the Trinity, probably in order to ward off any ideas of trinitarian modalism.

 Cf. Vinzent 1999, pp. 345 f.

 Cf. TAE/TAL (FaFo § 89c) and above ch. 5.1. For earlier non-credal literature cf. the examples
in Harnack 1897, pp. 380 f., esp. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 2,32,3 (§ 109b5); Tertullian, De prae-
scriptione haereticorum 13,4 (§ 111b1); id., De uirginibus uelandis 1,4 (3; § 111c).
 Cf. FaFo § 147 and above ch. 5.5.
 It is not used in the New Testament. It is only rarely found before the fourth century: Justin,
Apologia prima 42,4 (FaFo § 104a6); Melito of Sardes, De pascha 104 (l. 788; § 107). (Pseudo-)Igna-
tius, Ad Magnesios 11,3 (long version; § 98b2b) is probably later.
 Cf. above pp. 217, 224. Further references in Harnack 1897, pp. 383 f.
 Cf. Harnack 1897 pp. 385 f., esp. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7).
 Cf. FaFo § 147 and above p. 203. Later in the fourth century it is found in the creed of the
Synod of Seleucia (359; FaFo § 158a[4]); Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,8 (§ 175); Pseudo-Athanasius,
Interpretatio in symbolum (§ 185).
 6.3 A local creed in Caesarea? Eusebius’ Letter to his Church 241

When we take all this into consideration and also look at the remainder of
Eusebius’ letter its purpose becomes clear. Its principal aim was not to justify a
theological ‘change of heart’ on the part of Eusebius, as is often assumed in the
literature on the subject.91 Instead he wished, above all, to explain that his faith
was considered orthodox by emperor and council and that, therefore, his deposi-
tion (about which there probably was considerable uncertainty in Caesarea) was
null and void. To this end, Eusebius had drafted a statement of his faith. The em-
peror, obviously relieved that a text had been proposed which was flexible
enough to encompass a variety of views on the Trinity ordered this text to be
signed by the bishops present. However, objections that the creed was too close
to Arius’ views were raised. Constantine first tried to solve this problem by in-
cluding homooúsios in Eusebius’ text. But the emperors’ suggestion did not satisfy
the opposition. Instead, ‘on the pretext of the addition of the word homooúsios’ a
text with further revisions was drafted which Eusebius then quotes: N.92 Eusebius
does not say here that the bishops added to his text, but that they actually wrote
a new text.93 However, this new text (N) must to a certain degree have been based
on the previous creed drafted by Eusebius, because in the introduction to his let-
ter he speaks of N as a text where ‘supplements were appended to our expres-
sions (ταῖς ἡμετέραις φωναῖς προσθήκας ἐπιβαλόντες)’.
Whatever the truth of the matter (and we will have to return to this point
below), Eusebius himself concedes that N deviated in some important respects
from his original text and that he found it difficult to accept these passages. He,
therefore, had to explain why both his initial statement and that of Nicaea were,
in fact, compatible with each other, which he does at some length in sections
9–16. The draft of N obviously proved controversial in a number of points and
needed clarification which was then given at the council.94 Eusebius followed a
clear objective in this process which he in fact explicitly states: after the proper
explanations had been given he did not reject the term homooúsios, considering
that the text was a compromise document which served to restore peace and he

 Cf., e.g., Campenhausen 1976(1979), pp. 278 f.: ‘Eusebius fears that adding his signature to the
Nicene Creed could be interpreted as a betrayal of the theological convictions that he otherwise
consistently held, and he wants to forestall such suspicions. His report thus aims at a preventive
self-defence.’
 Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 7
(FaFo § 135b1): Οἱ δὲ προφάσει τῆς τοῦ ὁμοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποιήκασιν
[. . .]. / ‘And the [bishops] composed this text on the pretext of the addition of the word homooú-
sios [. . .]’.
 Cf. Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), p. 250; Kelly 1972, pp. 221–2.
 Cf. below pp. 250 f.
242 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

no longer feared to be deviating ‘from the correct meaning’.95 After these difficul-
ties in interpretation had been removed, Eusebius could agree to the compromise
text as in his view N and his own declaration of faith agreed fundamentally.96

6.4 The Creed of Nicaea

It will have become clear in what was said above that the trinitarian declaratory
creed gradually evolved in the early fourth century, the creeds of Antioch and of
Eusebius approaching, while not yet quite achieving a conformity of literary
structure and theological content.
Arguably,97 the most important creed in ancient eastern Christianity was
that of Nicaea. As we will see, it was the doctrinal standard by which all other
theological declarations were measured until it was ultimately superseded by
the Creed of Constantinople (which itself is a descendant from N). Given its enor-
mous impact it is most regrettable that we have but scarce information about
the circumstances of its composition. Most of it comes from Eusebius of Caesarea
who clearly was no impartial observer, being, as we saw above, interested in
clearing himself of the charge of heresy and thus may have exaggerated his role
in the proceedings.

 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Urkunde 22) 10 (Opitz 1934/1935, p. 45, ll. 12–14):
Διόπερ τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ ἡμεῖς συνετιθέμεθα οὐδὲ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου παραιτούμενοι τοῦ τῆς
εἰρήνης σκοποῦ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῖν κειμένου καὶ τοῦ μὴ τῆς ὀρθῆς ἐκπεσεῖν διανοίας. / ‘On this
account, we assented to the meaning ourselves, without declining the term “consubstantial”, as
peace lay within reach without deviation from the correct meaning’ (tr. Stevenson/Frend 1987,
pp. 345–6; altered).
 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Urkunde 22) 17 (Opitz 1934/1935, p. 47, ll.
2–5): [. . .] τότε δὲ ἀφιλονείκως τὰ μὴ λυποῦντα κατεδεξάμεθα, ὅθ’ ἡμῖν εὐγνωμόνως τῶν λόγων
ἐξετάζουσι τὴν διάνοιαν ἐφάνη συντρέχειν τοῖς ὑφ’ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ προεκτεθείσῃ πίστει ὡμο-
λογημένοις. / ‘[. . .] but we received without contention what no longer pained us as soon as, on
a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we
ourselves have confessed in the faith which we previously declared’ (tr. Stevenson/Frend 1987,
p. 347; altered).
 This chapter is an extended version of Kinzig 2023.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 243

6.4.1 The prehistory of the council

As we saw above,98 Ossius’ attempt to seek to establish peace between the war-
ring factions at the Council of Antioch in the spring of 325 failed, because in the
end the council suspended church communion with the Arian or ‘Arianizing’
bishops Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Narcissus of Neronias,
until they would – it was hoped – recant at the forthcoming council which the
emperor had summoned to Ancyra. This must have angered Eusebius’ powerful
namesake at the imperial residence of Nicomedia, given that he himself sup-
ported the Alexandrian presbyter.99 Arius may even have stayed for a time in Nico-
media in 319.100 The emperor too spent some time in Nicomedia in the autumn
and winter of 324/325.101 The local bishop may, therefore, have been the driving
force in urging the emperor to use the proposed council of unity to reinstate the
deposed bishops and to settle the theological issues.102
When we look at the list of Arian supporters at Nicaea,103 one particular group
of powerful bishops stands out (Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore
of Heraclea, and, perhaps, Menophantus of Ephesus) whose sees were located not
too far from Nicomedia, Theognis and Maris even coming from the same province
(Bithynia). Theodore excepting, they were also related to each other in the sense
that, together with other prelates and theologians, they had been ‘Syllucianists’ (συλ-
λουκιανισταί104), pupils of the distinguished theological teacher Lucian of Antioch
who had perished in 312 during the Diocletian persecution.105 The bustling activity

 Cf. above ch. 6.2.

 On Eusebius of Nicomedia’s relations with the court cf. Pohlsander 1993, pp. 156 f. and n. 27;
Hillner 2023, p. 227. To what extent his sympathies actually make this Eusebius an ‘Arian’ is a
matter of debate; cf. especially Luibhéid 1976; Gwynn 2007, pp. 116–20, 211–19.
 This stay (which may be hinted at in Athanasius, De synodis 15,2 and is clearly, although un-
reliably, attested by Epiphanius, Panarion 68,4,4; 69,5,2; 69,7,1) is disputed by some scholars; cf.
Pohlsander 1993, p. 157 and n. 28.
 Cf. Barnes 1982, p. 76.
 Cf. also Constantine’s letter to the church of Nicomedia (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27) 14,
where he claims to have followed Eusebius’ wishes in every respect.
 The names are discussed in Bleckmann/Stein 2015, vol. II, pp. 85–6.
 The term is only found in Arius, Epistula ad Eusebium Nicomediensem (Urkunde 1) 5 (Opitz
1934/1935, p. 3, l. 7).
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 2,14. He also adds to this group Leontius (later bishop
of Antioch), Antony of Tarsus in Cilicia, Numenius, Eudoxius, Alexander, and Asterius of Cappa-
docia (the Sophist). Later Athanasius of Anzarbus is mentioned (3,15). The identity of Numenius,
Eudoxius, and Alexander is uncertain. Eudoxius may be identical with Eudocius (Eudoxius) of
Germanicia who took part in the Dedication Council in Antioch in 341 (cf. below ch. 6.5.1) and in
360 became Bishop of Constantinople (360–after 366). The term ‘pupil of Lucian’ must, however,
244 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

of this network may have reinforced the impression at court that most bishops in
the empire were seconding the presbyter from Alexandria.
Furthermore, Constantine himself may not have fully understood the gravity of
the doctrinal problems involved.106 He clearly thought that, after his victory over
Licinius and prior to the twentieth anniversary of his reign (the Vicennalia) for
which empire-wide festivities had been planned,107 the council would be a splendid
opportunity to demonstrate the doctrinal unity and peace within the Church, once
the minor doctrinal squabbles had been settled.108 So initially Constantine may have
sympathized with the Arian cause under the influence of his local bishop. At the
same time, the emperor may also have learned that the bishop of Ancyra, Marcellus
(d. 374), was a fierce opponent of Arianism, whereas Theognis of Nicaea supported
the Arian cause.109 This may have been one of the reasons why the council was
eventually moved from Ancyra to Nicaea (modern İznik in northwestern Turkey,
some forty miles south of the imperial residence Nicomedia). However, there were
other reasons for moving the venue: apart from practical considerations (Nicaea
could be reached more easily from all regions of the empire110), the rationale behind
this choice may also have been that Nicaea was close enough to the eastern capital
Nicomedia for the emperor to be present at the council111 and that it was far enough
from the capital in order not to create the impression that the Arians were calling
the shots.112

6.4.2 The creed of Eusebius and N

It is important to keep this background in mind because it helps us to understand

what happened at the council with regard to its creed. It was to go down in history
as the ‘council of the 318’ but was, in fact, attended by 250–300 bishops.113 In some

be taken in the widest sense. As to the existence of a Lucianic ‘school’ cf. the description of the
status quaestionis in Brennecke 1991, pp. 475–7; Bleckmann/Stein 2015, vol. II, pp. 157–9.
 Cf. his remarks in his letter to Alexander and Arius (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 17) 9–14.
 Cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3,15; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 1,25,1.
 Cf. his address to the council in Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3,12. Even if it is not quoted verba-
tim, Eusebius’ version of it may well summarize the emperor’s intentions.
 Cf. also Drake 2006, p. 125.
 Cf. Jacobs 2021, pp. 71 f.
 Constantine mentions this reason himself in his letter of convocation; cf. above p. 219. Cf.
also Drake 2021, pp. 122–3.
 Cf. also Jacobs 2021, pp. 70–7.
 Cf. Brennecke 1994, p. 431; Gwynn 2021, pp. 92–6: 220 participants. The number 318 which
was later attached to the council is probably fictitious. It may go back to an allegorical interpreta-
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 245

sources, a Eusebius is named as the bishop who opened the council in June 325.
There is good reason to think that this was the bishop of Nicomedia, given that he
was ‘the bishop of the current imperial residence and the local metropolitan’.114
Constantine was in overall charge and even seems to have attended at least some
of the council sessions.115 Unfortunately, we do not really know the emperor’s view
on the proceedings, as with any of the later councils of the fourth century. Constan-
tine famously considered himself a ‘bishop of those outside’ (τῶν ἐκτὸς ἐπίσκο-
πος),116 but there is very little evidence as regards his take on things in Nicaea and,
in particular, how he viewed the assembly of bishops and its decisions (including
the creed) in institutional terms. He may possibly have considered them as some
kind of consistory (the emperor’s inner circle and advisory body) in matters spiri-
tual, in which free speech was encouraged. Alas, not much is known about the con-
sistory either, because its members were sworn to secrecy.117 In any case, there can
be no doubt that Constantine took a very active role in the proceedings, and his
possible motives have to be taken into account also when it comes to the origin
of N.118
It is most remarkable that he no longer imposed silence on the warring fac-
tions (as he had tried to do in his letter to Athanasius and Arius119), but actively
sought a theological solution. The Arians were the first to provide a suggestion to
this effect. Eustathius of Antioch reports that Eusebius of Nicomedia produced
some sort of doctrinal statement (γράμμα). It may be identical with a letter which
Ambrose of Milan claims was read at the council.120 However, Theodoret writes
that the supporters of Arius ‘drew up’ (or ‘dictated’ – the Greek is ambiguous) a

tion of the number of Abram’s servants in Gen 14:14 and emphasized the liberation from the
Arian heretics in analogy to the liberation of Lot. In this sense cf. Brennecke 1994, p. 431; Riedl
2004, pp. 32 f. (listing further literature). However, Ritter 1965, p. 40 n. 1 considers the number to
be basically accurate. Cf. also CPG 8516 and the literature cited there. For the exegetical back-
ground cf. Aubineau 1966, pp. 10–13.
 Gwynn 2021, p. 97. Cf. the heading of Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3,11 which only names ‘the
bishop Eusebius’ (cf. Winkelmann 1991, p. 8, l. 29). In the text of the chapter the bishop remains
unidentified. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 1,19,2 identifies him with Eusebius of Caesarea, but
this is wholly unlikely. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 1,7,10 gives the bishop’s name as Eusta-
thius of Antioch, who had probably already been presiding over the Council of Antioch in 325 (cf.
above p. 221).
 Cf. Drake 2021, pp. 124–6.
 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,24. Cf. also below pp. 473–5, 482.
 Cf. Brown 1992, pp. 10, 66, 109; Harries 1999, pp. 38–42.
 For further details cf. Girardet 1991(2015); Girardet 1993(2009); Girardet 2010, pp. 140–7.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum et Arium (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde
17) 7–8. 11.
 Cf. Ambrose, De fide 3,125 (cf. Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 21, in part).
246 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

text which he calls ‘teaching of faith’ (πίστεως διδασκαλία).121 We do not know

whether or not all these documents were one and the same.122 Perhaps the Arians
were asked to produce or draft a written statement of their theological views, or
perhaps the council formed a committee from its midst and entrusted it with
drafting such a statement which would settle the controversy. In the latter case,
the committee must have been dominated by Arians. Be that as it may, the Arian
statement, whatever it was, caused an uproar. It was completely unacceptable to
the vast majority of the council so that it was ultimately torn to pieces.123 How-
ever, as we will see, the creed drawn up at the Synod of Antioch in the previous
spring (FaFo § 133) must also have been known and discussed in Nicaea and, be-
cause of its anti-Arian stance, was likewise deemed unacceptable as it was.
At this point Eusebius of Caesarea may have stepped in and may have pro-
duced his aforementioned exposition of faith.124 After his suspension from office
at Antioch, he may have been formally reinstated at Nicaea early in its proceed-
ings.125 He may then have suggested what he considered some sort of compro-
mise, while at the same time trying to enhance his own status with the emperor.
As we saw above, Eusebius maintains that N was based on this, his, statement.126
Yet a synoptic comparison shows that the truth is more complicated:

Eus Creed of Nicaea (N)

(Opitz /, Urkunde ; FaFo § a) (FaFo § c)

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα We believe in one God, Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα We believe in one God,
θεόν, θεόν,
πατέρα, the Father πατέρα, the Father
παντοκράτορα, Almighty, παντοκράτορα, Almighty,

 Eustathius of Antioch in Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,1–3 (FaFo § 135a2). Further-
more, Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 1,7,15 (FaFo § 135a1).
 Cf. the long list of scholarly contributions in Tetz 1993.
 Theodoret whose account in Historia ecclesiastica 1,7,14–15 depends on the fragment from Eu-
stathius which he quotes in 1,8,1–3 (FaFo § 135a2) clearly understands Eustathius to say that the
creed was ‘torn up’. Martin Tetz, however, thinks that Theodoret misunderstood Eustathius who
wished to say that the ‘illegal writing had burst in the sight of all’ (τοῦ παρανόμου γράμματος διαρ-
ραγέντος ὑπ’ ὄψει πάντων ὁμοῦ; cf. Tetz 1993, pp. 230 f.). This ingenious interpretation allows him
to identify the document mentioned by Eustathius and Theodoret with Eus. I remain unconvinced.
 Cf. above ch. 6.3.
 Cf. Gwynn 2021, p. 99.
 Cf. above pp. 235, 241.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 247

(continued)

Eus Creed of Nicaea (N)

(Opitz /, Urkunde ; FaFo § a) (FaFo § c)

τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων the Maker of all things πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ Maker of all things
ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων both visible and ἀοράτων ποιητήν· both visible and
ποιητήν· invisible; invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον and in one Lord Jesus καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον and in one Lord Jesus
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Christ, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Christ,
τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ the Son of God,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ begotten from the
πατρός, Father,
μονογενῆ, only-begotten,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας that is, from the
τοῦ πατρός, substance of the Father;
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God from God, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God from God,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Light from Light, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Light from Light,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ true God from true God,
ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ begotten, not made,
ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, consubstantial with the
Father;
ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, life from life,
υἱὸν μονογενῆ, only-begotten Son
πρωτότοκον πάσης first-born of all creation
κτίσεως,
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων before all ages begotten
ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς from the Father
γεγεννημένον,
δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ through whom also all δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο through whom all
πάντα· things came into being; things came into being,
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ both things in heaven
τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, and things on earth;
τὸν Who τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς who because of us
ἀνθρώπους humans
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν because of our καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν and because of our
σωτηρίαν salvation σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα salvation descended,
σαρκωθέντα became flesh, καὶ σαρκωθέντα, and became flesh,
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, became human,
καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις and lived among
πολιτευσάμενον humans,
καὶ παθόντα and suffered, παθόντα suffered,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ and on the third day καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ and on the third day
ἡμέρᾳ rose again, ἡμέρᾳ, rose again,
248 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

(continued)

Eus Creed of Nicaea (N)

(Opitz /, Urkunde ; FaFo § a) (FaFo § c)

καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν and ascended to the ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς ascended into the
πατέρα Father, οὐρανούς, heavens,
καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ and will come again in ἐρχόμενον will come [lit: coming]
glory
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ to judge the living and κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ to judge the living and
νεκρούς. the dead νεκρούς· the dead
Πιστεύομεν δὲ καὶ εἰς ἓν And we believe also in καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον and in the Holy Spirit.
πνεῦμα ἅγιον. one Holy Spirit. πνεῦμα.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν The catholic and apostolic
ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καί· Church anathematizes
Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, those who say, ‘There was
καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων when he was not’, and,
ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ‘He was not before he was
ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας begotten’, and that he
φάσκοντας εἶναι [ἢ came to be from nothing,
κτιστὸν] ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ or those who claim that
ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ the Son of God is from
θεοῦ, τούτους another hypóstasis or
[. . .] ἀναθεματίζοντες [. . .] anathematizing ἀναθεματίζει ἡ substance, (or created,) or
πᾶσαν ἄθεον αἵρεσιν every godless heresy καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ alterable, or mutable.
[. . .]. [. . .]. ἐκκλησία.

As can easily be gleaned from this synopsis, although there are many similarities
between the two texts, N is not simply an extended version of Eusebius’ text.128
Admittedly, the agreements between Eus and N are considerable: in both cases
we have a three-part, trinitarian pattern whose third part is very brief. The first
section of both texts is identical, minor editorial differences notwithstanding.
The christological section, however, exhibits considerable differences. Thus,
instead of ‘the Word of God’, N contains an elaborate explanation of Christ’s son-
ship und his origin from the substance of the Father (the title ‘only-begotten Son’
appears in Eus further below). Thus the ‘sonship’ (which in Eus is added to the

 It is uncertain whether ἢ κτιστόν formed part of the original creed (as some good witnesses
to the text attest) or whether it is a later addition by Athanasius (as argued by Wiles 1993). On the
textual evidence cf. Dossetti 1967, p. 240. More recently, Edwards has suggested that the version
of N quoted by Athanasius is ‘the draft which was retained in Alexandria, and that this was not
identical in all respects with the version that was finally promulgated’ (Edwards 2012, p. 498; cf.
also Edwards 2021, p. 151).
 For what follows cf. also Lietzmann 1922–1927(1962), pp. 250–3; Kelly 1972, pp. 217–20.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 249

‘Word’) replaced the ‘Word’ altogether in N. The divinity of the Son and his being
light is again found in both creeds. Yet Eus contains surplus text after it (‘life
from life – from the Father’). In the continuation of the text until the end of the
christological section both versions include the reference to Christ’s collaboration
in creation, to the incarnation ‘for our salvation’ and to the passion, resurrection,
and the Last Judgement. At the same time, the details differ considerably: N adds
a reference to the ‘things in heaven and things on earth’ and also extends the
clause on salvation (‘because of us humans’) as well as the statement about the
incarnation (‘descended’). Whereas Eus refers to Christ’s life among humans, N
says that he ‘became human’ (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα).129 In Eus the goal of ascension is
the Father, in N the heavens. The clause on the resurrection differs, too. Finally,
N makes no reference to the return ‘in glory’.
The section on the Holy Spirit is characteristically brief in both versions, leav-
ing aside the repetition of ‘we believe’ in Eus which is probably not very signifi-
cant. In effect, this may be the most cogent argument why there must be some
literary connection between Eus and N, because, as we saw above, both the creed
of Alexander and of Antioch contain extended pneumatological articles. But
again, the texts are not identical, and it is not easy to explain why Eus would
have been changed in N, except if one assumes that ‘in the Holy Spirit’ in N is
more succinct than ‘and in one Holy Spirit’ in Eus.
In N, however, the creed is followed by a series of condemnations that have
no equivalent in Eus (which only contains a rather vague anathema) and to
which we will return below.130
What conclusions can we draw from these peculiar findings? Supposing for a
moment that Eusebius submitted a fixed formula in Nicaea which was then modi-
fied by additions, it cannot have been the formula which he quotes in his letter,
for some modifications (such as the omission of ‘and’ between the participles in
the second article) cannot really be explained as the result of an editorial process.
Yet he insists that it was this text, i.e. Eus, which was read out at the council (sec-
tion 2). The same differences also make it unlikely to suppose a joint Vorlage,
quite apart from the fact that this would also be in direct contradiction to Euse-
bius’ words.

 Thomas Brüggemann has pointed out to me that it is difficult to understand why
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα was added. It seems to clarify the preceding σαρκωθέντα (found in Eus) by
underlining Christ’s full humanity (including, probably, his human soul and intellect) – but
why was this deemed necessary? Cf. Grillmeier 1975, p. 245 who thinks that ‘there is no partic-
ular reason for suspecting here a retort against Arian teaching on the incarnation’.
 Cf. below ch. 6.4.6.
250 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Nevertheless, the structural resemblances are so striking that there must be

some literary connection between both formulae. These resemblances are even
more obvious when we compare them to the creeds by Arius, Alexander of Alex-
andria, and the Synod of Antioch, all of which look quite different.
Eusebius’ statement according to which N was his revised creed is, therefore,
hardly plausible, if we assume that he means the exact wording of the formula
quoted by him. For the readers or hearers of his letter it must also have been
obvious that N could not have been the revised version of a fixed formula from
Caesarea. If this is so, how else should we interpret Eusebius’ words?
As I mentioned before, after the Arian formula had failed to find general agree-
ment, the council must have reached a dead end. A compromise formula was
needed, and the emperor may have considered the learned bishop from Caesarea
(who was not counted among the ‘militant’ Arians) to be a suitable mediator be-
tween both sides. Eusebius then submitted a text to the council which was initially
approved of by the emperor who then referred it to a committee to add the homo-
oúsios at an appropriate place (section 7). Yet this committee (which Eusebius did
not belong to and in which the Arians were by now outnumbered) was unable to
agree on Eusebius’ formula and drew up a ‘new’ text instead which was similar to
that of Eusebius in some respects but not simply an extended version. This new
text (N) was then discussed in plenary session, in particular the phrases τουτέστιν
ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί (sections
9–13).
When we look at the way Eusebius introduces the quotation of N it becomes
clear that he was himself aware of the fact that N was not simply an extended
version of Eus. For he says that the bishops ‘composed this text (τὴνδε τὴν γρα-
φὴν πεποιήκασιν) on the pretext of the addition of the word homooúsios’. In
other words, according to Eusebius the ‘identity’ between his text and N was not
a verbal identity, but an identity of content.131
This is confirmed by a look at his discussion of N. After his quotation of the
creed he comments on what he saw as the differences between both texts. These
were the additions that in his view had subsequently been made by the council:
– ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός (sections 9–10);
– γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα (section 11);
– ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί (sections 9–10, 12–13);
– and the anathemas, esp. ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν – ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων – πρὶν γεννη-
θῆναι οὐκ ἦν (sections 15–16).

 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 221; Behr 2004, vol. I, p. 155.

 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 251

Eusebius obviously had no problems with these differences, considering both

texts to be basically identical. In other words, while being based on the content of
his text, N’s wording was largely different from Eus which, in turn, was a written
summary of the rule of faith at Caesarea.132 The procedure for drawing up N was
basically the same: the rule of faith on which the drafting committee agreed was
written down. However, it was then supplemented by material from Eus and,
probably, the creed of the Synod of Antioch. The latter creed was also deemed
insufficient in itself: it insisted on the Son’s being the ‘express image’ of the Father
(cf. Heb 1:3) and tried to express the relationship between the Father and the Son
in biblical terms, but this turned out not to be clear enough as Athanasius at-
tests.133 It was then stipulated, under imperial pressure, that N be signed by the
assembled bishops. Thus, once and for all the regula fidei turned from oral ke-
rygma into a creed whose wording was fixed and whose normativity was estab-
lished by the bishops’ signatures.134

6.4.3 The rule of faith underlying N

We may even be able to identify some of the elements which belonged to the reg-
ula fidei that lay at the heart of N. In this context it is, once again, important to
remember that, N notwithstanding, the earliest declaratory creeds are R (in prob-
ably more than one version135) and J. It has been shown above that J is dependent
on R.136 But what about R and N? It is important to keep in mind that, given their
overall similarity, R and N cannot have developed entirely independently from
each other. When we compare the wording of both creeds we find a certain deal
of overlap (identical words in italics; same words, but different word order
underlined; similar wording broken underlined).

 Cf. above pp. 238 f.

 Cf. below p. 261.
 In Antioch the creed had been implemented by means of a letter. There is no mention that it
was separately signed by the bishops.
 Cf. above ch. 5.1.
 Cf. above ch. 5.5.
252 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Roman creed as attested by Marcellus

N (FaFo § 135)
of Ancyra (RM)
(FaFo § 253)
Πιστεύω [. . .] εἰς θεόν, Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν,
πατέρα,
παντοκράτορα παντοκράτορα,
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
τὸν μονογενῆ,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός,
μονογενῆ,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός,
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί,
δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρ-
ανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρ-
κωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
παθόντα
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα
καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
ἀναβάντα ἀνελθόντα
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός,
ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 253

καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.

ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, [condemnations]
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν,
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν,
ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

As there is little evidence that earlier credal formulae existed (except for the credal
interrogations which I discussed above137), these similarities may be considered as
deriving from a regula fidei which provided the foundation for these creeds and
which may explain these similarities. We may even be able to identify some of the
elements which belonged to this regula. In this context, it is striking that N does not
describe the passion story in the same detail as R does, instead simply using πα-
θόντα which corresponds to passum in the early Roman interrogatory creeds.138 Fi-
nally, N displays a number of additions which are clearly a result of the debates at
the council: γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, and the passage τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας –
τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ. The passage τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς – ἐνανθρωπήσαντα may also belong into this
context, though this is less certain.
When we omit the surplus text in both creeds we arrive at the following
basic pattern:

Πιστεύω εἰς θεόν παντοκράτορα

καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν/Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ/τοῦ θεοῦ [τὸν] μονογενῆ,
[γεννηθέντα
καὶ] παθόντα
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα/ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
ἀναβάντα/ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς/ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.

In my view, it is impossible to go any further than this. There is no evidence that

this regula ever existed as such as a written formula. N does not seem to depend
on R, whether directly or indirectly, in any meaningful sense or vice versa. This
suggests that both these texts derive from a common oral tradition (as does Eus)
which was the joint possession of the pre-Constantinian church and which we
came across already when studying the regulae fidei of the second and third
centuries.139

 Cf. above ch. 4.5.

 Cf. above ch. 4.5.1.
 Cf. above ch 4.4.
254 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

6.4.4 The biblical basis of N

N is drenched in biblical language, although it contains only two actual quota-

tions, i.e. the statement that ‘through him [sc. the Son] all things came into being’
(Jn 1:3, 1Cor 8:6) and that he will come ‘to judge the living and the dead’ (2Tim 4:1,
1Pet 4:5). With regard to the underlying biblical grammar, N largely follows Jn
1:1–14 down to the incarnation, without, however, using Logos terminology which
was unsuitable for describing the intimate relationship between Father and Son
and was, therefore, open to misinterpretations.140 Interestingly, there are no clear
allusions to Phil 2:6–11, although the internal dynamic of both biblical texts re-
sembles each other.141
When we compare N with Eus we see that Mt 28:19 probably was the source
for the basic trinitarian pattern, although the Great Commission is not quoted in
N – though it is in Eus. Other important passages that have clearly influenced the
text include Eph 4:5–6, 1Cor 8:6 (oneness of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus
Christ); Rev 1:8 etc. (the Father’s omnipotence);142 1Cor 8:6, Col 1:15–16, Heb 1:2 (Fa-
ther as creator, Christ as intermediary/helper); Jn 1:14. 18, 3:16, 1Jn 4:9 (only-
begotten); Jn 1:4. 9, 8:12 (light; cf. Heb 1:3); 3:33, 1Jn 5:20 (true God; cf. Jn 17:3); Jn
1:9, 3:13. 19, 11:27 (descent); 1Cor 15:3–4 (death, burial, and resurrection); Mk 16:19,
Lk 24:51, Acts 1:11, 1Pet 3:22 (ascension); Mt 25:31, Acts 1:11 (return); Acts 10:42,
2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5 (Last Judgement), and many others.143 However, the creed’s key
term homooúsios is not found in the Bible and the underlying noun ousía occurs
only in Lk 15:12–13 in quite a different context. This was one of the reasons why
in the aftermath of the council N was by no means immediately accepted.

 Cf. above p. 239.

 On the reasons cf. Kinzig, ‘“Obedient unto death”’, 2024 (sub prelo).
 It must be noted, however, that, except for one reference in 2 Corinthians (6:18), the noun
παντοκράτωρ is found in the New Testament only in Revelation, in most instances in combina-
tion with θεός (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7. 14; 19:6. 15; 21:22). Revelation here deviates from the usage
of the Septuagint where παντοκράτωρ is usually combined with κύριος. Furthermore, in the
Greek Old Testament we do find a number of references of the extended type κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ
παντοκράτωρ (Hos 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:8. 14. 15. 16. 27; 9:5. 6. 15; Nahum 3:5; Hag 1:14; Zech 10:3;
Bar 3:1. 4; furthermore 2Sam(2Kings) 7:27: κύριε παντοκράτωρ θεὸς Ισραηλ; 1Chron 17:24: κύριε
κύριε παντοκράτωρ θεὸς Ισραηλ; 2Macc 7:35: τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπόπτου θεοῦ; Jer 39:19: θεοῦ
παντοκράτορος ἐθνῶν; Jer 39(32):19 ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας ὁ παντοκράτωρ καὶ μεγαλώνυμος κύριος;
3Macc 6:18: ὁ μεγαλόδοξος παντοκράτωρ καὶ ἀληθινὸς θεός; 6:28: τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπουρανίου
θεοῦ ζῶντος). However, it never occurs together with πατήρ.
 Cf. FaFo, ch. 3.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 255

6.4.5 The theological cause of discontent: homooúsios

We must, therefore, take a closer look at this adjective homooúsios. How did the
statement that the Son is ‘consubstantial with the Father’ come to be inserted into
N, and what did it actually mean? Let us first recall the circumstances of its inser-
tion. Eusebius (who skips the episode of the Arian creed submitted by his name-
sake of Nicomedia that I mentioned above in chapter 6.4.2) says that the council
first discussed his own credal text in the presence of the emperor. The emperor
then asked for homooúsios to be added and for the participants to sign the resul-
tant creed, thus expressing their agreement (section 7).
As was outlined above, the council must have entrusted a committee with the
necessary revisions because Eusebius indicates that N was ‘dictated by them’ in
the general assembly (ταύτης τῆς γραφῆς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπαγορευθείσης; section 9).
Dictation was probably necessary, because the council fathers would not have
been able to discuss this document unless they wrote it down first.144 Eusebius is,
however, coy about who was actually behind this draft.
Before the drafting committee began its work, the emperor seems to have ad-
dressed the council with a speech. At this point, Eusebius is quite explicit: Con-
stantine ‘added only the single word homooúsios’ (ἑνὸς μόνου προσεγγραφέντος
ῥήματος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου) himself providing the rationale behind this addition:

<The Son> was not called homooúsios with regard to corporeal affections; therefore, the Son
did not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission, for a nature which was imma-
terial, noetic, and incorporeal could not possibly be subject to any corporeal affection, and it
befitted [us] to contemplate such things with divine and ineffable expressions. Such was the
philosophical view of the subject taken by our most-wise and most-pious emperor.145

One of the most frequently discussed areas of investigation regarding the Council
of Nicaea concerns where the term homooúsios came from, why it was inserted
into the creed, and what role Constantine actually played in this context. The pains-
taking research of the last fifty years, notably undertaken by Frauke Dinsen, Chris-
topher G. Stead, and Martin von Ostheim, has cleared up the history of the term as
much as possible.146 By the beginning of the fourth century it could mean different
things to different people. This was partly due to the fact that the underlying term

 However, the verb ὑπαγορεύω is ambiguous and may also mean that N was ‘drafted’ by
them.
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 7 (FaFo § 135b1).
 Cf. Dinsen 1976; Stead 1977, esp. pp. 190–222; Stead 1994; Ostheim 2008. In addition, Hanson
1988, pp. 190–202; Ulrich 1994, pp. 8–18; Beatrice 2002; Ayres 2004, pp. 92–8; Edwards 2012; Stę-
pień 2018.
256 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

οὐσία might mean ‘generic, shared being’, while also referring to an individual
‘being’ (in that sense largely synonymous with ὑπόστασις147), just like the word
‘car’ could be used to refer to cars as such (‘they drove by car’) or to an individual
specimen (such as a pink Mercedes identified by a certain licence plate). To add to
the confusion, in second-century Valentinian gnosticism it could refer to ‘belonging
to the same order of being’ within the gnostic three-tier hierarchy of being.148
The most influential theologian of the third century, Origen, may occasionally
have used homooúsios to describe the Son’s relation to the Father. However, on
other occasions he insisted on a difference between the οὐσίαι and hypostáseis of
Father and Son and distinguished between a first and second hypóstasis, the second
clearly being subordinate to the first.149
Furthermore, homooúsios had also played a certain role in a controversy be-
tween Dionysius of Alexandria (sedit 247/248–264/265) and Dionysius of Rome
(sedit 259–268) with the former declaring it unscriptural. Nevertheless, he reluc-
tantly accepted its use, equating it both with ὁμογενής (‘of the same descent/kind’
as between parents and children) and ὁμοφυής (‘of the same nature’ as between
seed and plant).150 Much ink has been spilt over who introduced the term into the
trinitarian debate of the third century and what role it played in this context. In
addition, Paul of Samosata may have been censured for using the term which
contributed to his condemnation and deposition in 268. However, details of Paul’s
use and understanding of homooúsios remain blurred and need not concern us
here, because

the one point which is quite clear in this obscure affair is that those who condemned Paul
also condemned the use of the word homooúsios in a trinitarian context, thereby causing
considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an
official doctrinal statement in the next century.151

Arius and others very carefully distinguished between God/Father and Son, be-
cause – as Arius put it – the Son ‘is neither part of God nor [does he exist] from
any underlying being (ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός)’.152 In his letter to Alexander Arius

 For the history of this term cf. Hammerstaedt 1994.

 Cf. Stead 1977, p. 209; Hanson 1988, p. 191. There has been an attempt in recent research to
derive Constantine’s interpretation of homooúsios from hermetic literature (cf. esp. Beatrice
2002; Digeser 2017; Chandler 2019, esp. 99–122). This has been refuted by O’Leary 2022.
 For details cf. Stead 1977, pp. 209–14; Stead 1994, cols. 389–91; Hammerstaedt 1994, cols. 1005–8.
 Cf. Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii 18,2–3.
 Hanson 1988, p. 195.
 Arius, Epistula ad Eusebium Nicomediensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 1; FaFo § 131b) 5.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 257

explicitly connected the use of homooúsios with the teaching of Mani.153 He also
rejected his opponents’ exegesis of the preposition ἐκ in Psalm 109(110):3c (‘From
the womb (ἐκ γαστρός), before the morning-star I brought you forth’) and Jn 8:42
(‘I came forth from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός), and I am come’), because it sug-
gested that the Son was a ‘part’ (μέρος) of the Father and therefore ‘consubstan-
tial’ or some kind of emanation (προβολή).154
Eusebius of Nicomedia had expressed himself in a similar vein in a letter to
Paulinus, bishop of Tyre:

We have never heard that there are two unbegotten [beings] (δύο ἀγέννητα) nor that one
has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that it has ever undergone any
change of a corporeal nature, my lord; but [we affirm] that what is unbegotten is one and
one also that which [exists] in truth by him, yet did not come into being from his substance
(καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεγονός), and does not at all participate in the nature of the
unbegotten (τῆς φύσεως τῆς ἀγεννήτου) or exist from his substance (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ),
but came into being entirely distinct in his nature and in his power, and having become a
perfect likeness both of disposition and power to the maker (ἀλλὰ γεγονὸς ὁλοσχερῶς
ἕτερον τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, πρὸς τελείαν ὁμοιότητα διαθέσεώς τε καὶ δυνάμεως τοῦ πε-
ποιηκότος γενόμενον). We believe that his beginning not only cannot be expressed by
words but is also incomprehensible to the understanding not only of humans, but also of all
beings superior to man.
We advance these considerations not as our own, but we speak as we have learned
from Holy Scripture. We have learned that the Son was created, established, and begotten
in substance (γεννητὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ) and in the same immutable and inexpressible nature and
likeness as the Maker; and so the Lord himself says, ‘God created (ἔκτισε) me in the begin-
ning of his ways; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills he brings me forth’ [Prov
8:22–23. 25b]. If he had been from him, that is, of him (ἐξ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ), as
some portion of him or from an emanation of his substance, it could not be said that he was
created or established (κτιστὸν οὐδὲ θεμελιωτόν); and of this you, my lord, are certainly not
ignorant. For that which exists from the unbegotten could not be said to have been created
or established, either by another or by him, since it exists as unbegotten from the beginning
(τὸ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ὑπάρχον κτιστὸν ἔτι ὑφ’ ἑτέρου ἢ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἢ θεμελιωτὸν οὐκ ἂν
εἴη, ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀγέννητον ὑπάρχον). But if the fact of his being called the begotten gives any
ground for the belief that, having come into being of the Father’s substance (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
τῆς πατρικῆς αὐτὸν γεγονότα), he also possesses from the Father the identity of nature (τὴν
ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως), we know that it is not of him alone that the Scriptures have spoken
as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to him by
nature (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνομοίων αὐτῷ κατὰ πάντα τῇ φύσει).155

 For the background cf. Rose 1979, pp. 154–161, Heil 2002, and Hutter 2012, cols. 32 f. In addi-
tion, Hutter 2023, pp. 213–15.
 Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a) 5.
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, Epistula ad Paulinum Tyrium (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 8), 3–6 (tr.
NPNF; altered).
258 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

It appears that Eusebius tries to ward off a ‘materialistic’ interpretation of οὐσία

in this passage: if something undergoes (‘suffers’, πεπονθός) change it must pos-
sess some form of material substratum which is actually able to change. Yet God’s
immutability would suffer if a being were to issue from God ‘by some quasi-
physical process of generation involving change or loss’.156 Οὐσία and φύσις (he
uses the terms synonymously) must not be understood to refer to some kind of
material reality. If it did, the Son’s coming into being would be like a ‘cell division’
(my term). Yet in its christological interpretation Proverbs 8 points to the ‘crea-
tion’ of the Son which, temporal factors notwithstanding, necessarily implies a
substantial distinctness of that Son from the Father.
Here the rift which must have opened up between Constantine and his Arian
advisers becomes especially palpable: both the emperor and Eusebius of Nicomedia
denounced a ‘material’ interpretation of homooúsios. Yet whereas Eusebius used
this argument to reject homooúsios entirely and to deny the full divinity of the Son,
Constantine advocated the use of the adjective for affirming the Son’s full divinity.
Unfortunately, however, the emperor was unable to supply a positive definition of
the term in the way he intended it to be understood, simply affirming that one
should ‘contemplate such things with divine and ineffable expressions’. He defined
the Son’s nature (φύσις), which he appeared to identify with οὐσία, as ‘immaterial,
noetic, and incorporeal’ (ἄυλον καὶ νοερὰν καὶ ἀσώματον).157 Whereas it was clear
what φύσις was not (i.e. neither matter nor body), it was less clear what it actually
was, except that it could only be perceived by the νοῦς (and not by the senses).158
As a result, the precise nature of the relationship between the Father and the
Son remained hazy and open to misinterpretation which is why the insertion of
the terms ousía and homooúsios caused a certain agitation among the council fa-
thers. Eusebius reports:

On their dictating this document, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they
used the expressions ‘from the substance of the Father’ (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός) and ‘con-
substantial with the Father (τῷ πατρὶ ὁμοούσιον)’. Accordingly, questions and explanations
took place, and the meaning of the phrases was examined in rational argument. And they
professed that the phrase ‘from the substance’ was indicative of the Son’s being indeed
from the Father, yet without being as if a portion of him (τοῦ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι, οὐ
μὴν ὡς μέρος ὑπάρχειν τοῦ πατρός).159

 Stead 1977, p. 227.

 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 7 (FaFo § 135b1).
 On φύσις cf. Zachhuber 2016, esp. cols. 763 f.
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 9 (tr. NPNF;
altered).
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 259

Eusebius stressed that the use of the phrases γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοού-
σιον τῷ πατρί (‘begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father’) was used to
ward off the (Arian) idea that the Son’s ousía was in any way comparable or iden-
tical with earthly matter and that the Son, therefore, belonged to the created
order. In this respect he also used the term hypóstasis synonymously with ousía:
the Son was not of a different hypóstasis than the Father.160 However, it remained
obscure what homooúsios meant exactly: if Eusebius’ account of the discussions is
to be trusted, it did not necessarily mean ‘of identical substance’, but that the Son
‘resembled in every respect the begetting Father alone’.161
This imprecision may have been introduced into the creed on purpose: the em-
peror or his advisers may have thought that homooúsios (although clearly not ac-
ceptable to the Arians) was a fuzzy enough description of the ontological proximity
of Father and Son to be adopted by the council’s majority. Ousía and hypóstasis
were largely used synonymously in N as a whole (including the anathemas). Given
the debates that took place at the council, οὐσία in N must, therefore, be translated
as something like ‘ontological manifestation’. Homooúsios then meant that the Son
possessed the same ‘ontological manifestation’ as the Father which, in turn, implied
that he, too, was immutable and did not belong to the created order. In other
words, ousía filled the terminological gap which had opened up when one tried to
preserve the distinction between Father and Son while, at the same time, emphasiz-
ing their unity in such a way that it was more than terminological, but existed on
an ontological level, thus marking the categorical difference to the relationship be-
tween the creator and the created order. For this present purpose it was perfectly
acceptable that homooúsios could mean the essential identity of Father and Son, as
well as denoting a fundamental similarity in a wider sense between the two as long
as it was clear that this similarity was due to some kind of common ontological sub-
stratum (their shared ousía or hypóstasis) which was neither merely conceptual
nor material. Given this fuzziness, homooúsios served less as a definition of the
Son’s divinity, than to denote the ontological incomparability of the Son’s ousía to
that of the created order – an incomparability which excluded his origin from any
other hypóstasis or ousía than that of the Father.162
Athanasius, who participated in the council as Alexander’s secretary, says as
much in his defence of Nicaea (De decretis Nicaenae synodi, written perhaps in
352/353):

 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 12.
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 13.
 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 12–13.
260 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

The fathers ‘wrote “from God’s substance” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ), in order that “from
God” (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) might not be considered common and equal (κοινὸν καὶ ἴσον) in the
Son and in things originate, but that everything else might be believed as a creature, and
the Word alone as from the Father.’163

In this respect N went even further than Alexander of Alexandria who never used
the term homooúsios, but tried to maintain the full divinity of the Son while attrib-
uting a different hypóstasis to him than that of the Father.164 He merely insisted on
some kind of ‘likeness’ between Father and Son which he derived inter alia from Col
1:15 (‘image’) and Heb 1:3 (‘radiance’), without being more clearly defined.165
Incidentally, this is probably also the reason why the term Logos was not
used in N, because according to traditional doctrine it could be understood either
as the Father’s λόγος ἐνδιάθετος (‘inner mental’, i.e. purely inwardly conceived,
word or thought), in which case the distinction between Father and Son would
not have been sufficiently clear), or as his λόγος προφορικός (‘spoken/uttered
word’) which not only made it difficult to express the unity between Father and
Son, but which could also be misunderstood to mean that the Word was some
kind of (material) emanation from God, as the gnostics, Stoics, or Neo-Platonists
supposedly held,166 perhaps not possessing its own hypóstasis.167
Where did homooúsios come from all of a sudden? We have conflicting in-
formation in this regard. On the one hand, Basil of Caesarea repeatedly mentions
that Hermogenes, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, ‘wrote’ the creed.168 But this

 Athanasius, De decretis Nicaenae synodi 19,2 (tr. NPNF; altered).

 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz
1934/1935, Urkunde 14) 16. 19. 20–1. 38. 46. 48.
 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula encyclica (Urkunde 4b), 13 (Opitz 1934/1935, p. 9, ll. 3 f.):
Ἢ πῶς ἀνόμοιος τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ ὢν εἰκὼν τελεία καὶ ἀπαύγασμα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ λέγων ὁ
ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα; ‘Or how is he unlike the Father’s substance, who is the perfect
image and the radiance of the Father and says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” [Jn
14:9]?’ Cf. also Stead 1994, col. 405 f.
 On this Logos doctrine cf. Mühl 1962; Kamesar 2004; Löhr 2010, cols. 337 f.; Becker 2016,
pp. 372–4. Later in the fourth century those theologians who wished to retain the Logos terminol-
ogy distanced themselves from the use of both the term λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and λόγος προφορικός.
Cf., e.g., Ecthesis macrostichos (FaFo § 145) 9–10; Council of Sirmium (351), Fidei confessio prima
(§ 148) 9(8); Pseudo-Athanasius (Marcellus?), Expositio fidei (§ 149), 1. On the idea of ‘emanation’
and its opponents cf. Ratzinger 1959; Dörrie 1965(1976) (who emphasizes that Plotinus used the
term only sparingly).
 Eusebius also refuted this distinction (cf. Löhr 2010, col. 407, listing references). Cf. also
below pp. 292, 295, 297 f. and n. 330; 335, 351 n. 588.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 81: ‘[. . .] the offspring of the blessed Hermogenes who wrote the great and
indestructible creed in the great synod (τοῦ τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἄρρηκτον πίστιν γράψαντος ἐν τῇ μεγ-
άλῃ συνόδῳ).’ Id., Epistula 244, 9: Then the Arians ‘went over to Hermogenes, who was diametrically
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 261

is rather unlikely, since his name does not appear on the lists of episcopal partici-
pants (instead, Leontius is shown as the city’s bishop169). It is also unclear whether
Basil regarded Hermogenes as the sole author, as head of the drafting committee,
or as some kind of secretary to the council.
On the other hand, Philostorgius claims that Ossius and Alexander of Alexan-
dria had schemed before the Council in Nicomedia to adopt homooúsios and to
condemn Arius170 – but how would the Church historian have known about this?
Nevertheless, Philostorgius may not be entirely wrong, because Athanasius men-
tions in his Historia Arianorum written many years after the event (late 357) that
Ossius ‘had set out the faith in Nicaea (τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξέθετο) and had ev-
erywhere proclaimed the Arians as heretics’.171
Whatever the authorship of N, in another context Athanasius reports that
‘the council’ first wanted to compose a creed entirely based on Scripture but was
then forced to introduce homooúsios for greater precision, after the ‘Eusebians’
had given the original draft an Arian interpretation.172
Yet another version of what had happened is recorded in the writings of Am-
brose of Milan. He says that homooúsios was included in the aforementioned let-
ter by Eusebius of Nicomedia from which he then quotes one single sentence: ‘If,
however, we called the Son of God also uncreated, we would begin to confess him
as homooúsios with the Father’ – which to Eusebius is, of course, unacceptable.173
Ambrose continues:

When this letter had been read at the Council of Nicaea, the fathers inserted this word [i.e.
homooúsios] into their treatise on the faith (in tractatu fidei), because they saw that it would
shock their adversaries, in order that they, as it were, might take the sword, which their

opposed to the false teaching of Arius, as is declared by the creed originally published by that man
at Nicaea (ὡς δηλοῖ αὐτὴ ἡ πίστις ἡ κατὰ Νίκαιαν παρ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐκφωνηθεῖσα ἐξ ἀρχῆς).’
Hermogenes is also mentioned in Epistula 263, 2 where Basil says that he ordained Eustathius of
Sebaste.
 Cf. Gelzer/Hilgenfeld/Cuntz 1898, p. LXII (no. 94). I consider it wholly unlikely that Hermo-
genes participated as priest and would have drafted N in that minor capacity.
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,7; 1,7a (anonymous Life of Constantine); 1,9a (Life of
Constantine). The Life claims that Ossius and Alexander had even prepared N in advance to be
signed by all bishops (Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,9a), but then quotes the beginning of
the Creed of Constantinople (1,9a,3: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν
οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων) plus the anathemas of N as the creed pre-
pared by Ossius and Alexander! This is possibly the creed in Epiphanius, Ancoratus 118,9–13
(FaFo § 184e5).
 Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 42,3.
 Cf. Athanasius, De decretis Nicaenae synodi 19–20; Behr 2004, vol. I, p. 157.
 Cf. also Gwynn 2007, p. 213.
262 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

[opponents] had drawn, to sever the head of their own blasphemous heresy [cf. 1Sam
(1Kings) 17:51].174

Although it is hardly likely that homooúsios was included in N in order to provoke

the Arians, it could well be that it was the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia which
introduced the term into the debate, which was then inserted into N as ‘an apotro-
paic formula for resisting Arianism’175 precisely because it would have been rejected
by cocksure Arians like Arius himself and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Conceivably, the
staunch anti-Arian bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, and Ossius of Córdoba, who in-
sisted on the one hypóstasis of Father and Son, may have been responsible for its
inclusion, although the evidence remains inconclusive.176 Be that as it may, it is diffi-
cult to believe that the emperor himself was behind this move; instead, he probably
relied on the counsel of his theological advisers who by that time must have in-
cluded anti-Arians such as Eustathius and Ossius.
It may be significant in that respect that Eusebius does not actually say that it
was Constantine who introduced homooúsios into the debate, but only that he
added it and also provided the key to interpreting the text (ἑρμήνευε).177 Indeed,
the bishop points out that he himself knew that ‘even among the ancients some
learned and illustrious bishops and writers’ had used the term ‘in their theologi-
cal discourse about the Father and Son’178 which may suggest a wider discussion
among the council fathers in which traditional authorities such as Origen, Diony-
sius of Rome, or Dionysius of Alexandria were cited. It is even unclear whether
the emperor accepted the addition and went on to provide a series of qualifica-
tions or whether he actually urged for it to be added, however with some explan-
ations in order to make it palatable for those opposing the term, because ousía
could be understood to refer to corporeal affections (τῶν σωμάτων πάθη) and to
presuppose some kind of materiality of the Father and the Son, understandings
that needed to be ruled out. The explanations given in the letter to the Church of
Caesarea are found in other texts by Eusebius, almost word for word.179 This may
suggest that the bishop expresses what the emperor had actually said in his own

 Ambrose, De fide 3,125 (cf. Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 21, in part).
 Hanson 1988, p. 172.
 On Eustathius’ theology cf. Lorenz 1982, pp. 544 f.; Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 57–60; Cartwright
2015. Ossius also seems to have been sceptical with regard to the doctrine of two/three divine
οὐσίαι. Cf. Narcissus of Neronias, Epistula ad Chrestum, Euphronium et Eusebium (Opitz 1934/
1935, Urkunde 19) and Pietri/Markschies 1996(2010), p. 301.
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 7 (FaFo § 135b1).
 Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 13.
 Cf. Eusebius, Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 22) 7 (FaFo §
135b1) in comparison with the list in Stead 1977, p. 232.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 263

words here.180 Ultimately, it is impossible to give a conclusive answer as to who

suggested homooúsios although Eustathius probably had a hand in it in some
way, supported by Ossius.

6.4.6 The anathemas of N

The section on the Holy Spirit in N is very brief; but N does not end with it. It is
followed by a series of condemnations which are clearly (although not explicitly)
directed against Arius and his theology. In particular, the following doctrines are
condemned:
(1) the temporal beginning of the Son;
(2) his creation from nothing;
(3) his origin from another hypóstasis or ousía;
(4) his mutability.
These are precisely the same tenets which had already been rejected in Antioch
some months previously, although summarized in a more succinct fashion. It is,
therefore, probable that either the authors of N had the creed of Antioch at their
disposition or at least that those bishops who had drafted the earlier creed were
also involved in the drafting of N.
Not only are N’s anathemas clearly based on those of Antioch when it comes to
their theological content: they also follow Antioch in not condemning specific persons.
This was already remarked upon in antiquity and attributed to the council’s ‘modera-
tion’.181 However, there is also a characteristic difference between Antioch and Nicaea
in this regard. In Antioch a synod condemned certain dissident doctrines (and commu-
nicated this decision to other churches), speaking in the first person plural: ‘we con-
demn’. In N it was the ‘catholic and apostolic Church’ which performed this act. The
weight of N’s anathemas was increased even further by postponing this subject to the
end of the sentence. In addition, it was not a church (or synod), but the Church whose
eminence was underlined by the qualifying adjectives ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’. Thus

 The ‘tenor’ of Constantine’s own interpretation of N (or of that of his advisers) may be gath-
ered from his letter to the church of Nicomedia (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27) 1–5.
 Cf. Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 10,12: ‘. . . since the moderation of the council [of Nicaea]
was so great that they passed sentence not against [Arius’] person, but against his depraved doc-
trines [. . .].’ Likewise Justinian, Edictum rectae fidei (Schwartz 1973, p. 160, ll. 29 f.): ‘For the
[synod] of Nicaea anonymously anathematized those who advocated the godless view of Arius
[. . .].’ Incidentally, in the Edictum this forms part of an entire paragraph on the practice of
anathematizing: Schwartz 1973, pp. 160, l. 1 – 164, l. 33.
264 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

two claims were made: first, the Church pronouncing the anathema was ‘univer-
sal’ (καθολικός) as opposed to the particular minority view of the heretics; second,
it stood in one unbroken and continuous line with the apostles (as opposed to the
newfangled heresies). Clearly, these claims were not historical: it quickly turned
out that many, if not most bishops did not accept N, because they held views simi-
lar to those which were being outlawed here; likewise, it was easy to prove that
the real innovation consisted not in the subordinationism of the Arians, but in the
introduction of the unbiblical homooúsios. Yet that was not the point: the phrasing
chosen at Nicaea was intended to seize and defend a certain discursive space and
to display the hegemony of one group of bishops, supported by the emperor, over
dissenting views. The anathemas of Nicaea thus served to increase this creed’s nor-
mativity even further. From then on the creeds were also used to test episcopal
orthodoxy; dissent was sanctioned in the anathemas.182
Yet in the long term this discursive strategy was not altogether successful: the
anathemas were not seen as forming a unified whole with the creed, but contin-
ued as a separate literary genre which might amalgamate with other genres.
Thus, as we will see, in Constantinople the anathemas were no longer appended
to the creed but included in canon 1 of the synod, here directed against certain
groups which were each labelled with a collective term.183
Unfortunately, the evidence regarding how the creed might be ‘enforced’ and
the nature of the sanctions expressed in the anathemas remains unclear, as the
sources contradict each other about what happened after N had been produced at
the council. There is some evidence to suggest that the document was ultimately
forced upon the bishops as the emperor threatened them all with immediate exile
should they refuse to sign it.184 Apparently, this had the effect of Eusebius of Nico-
media, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon (hence three of the five afore-
mentioned bishops from nearby the court) changing sides and adopting the synod’s
decrees, apparently persuaded by Constantine’s sister Constantia. Philostorgius
(who is sympathetic to the Arian cause) says that they changed homooúsios to homoi-
oúsios (‘of similar substance’) when they signed the creed, but this is often doubted
by modern scholars because it seems to exonerate Eusebius.185 Be that as it may,

 Cf. Turner, History and Use, 1910, pp. 28 f.

 Cf. Council of Constantinople (381), canon 1 (FaFo § 565c): Eunomians/Anhomoians, Arians/
Eudoxians, semi-Arians/Pneumatomachians, Sabellians, Marcionites, Photinians, Apolinarians.
Cf. also below p. 357.
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,9a. It is unclear whether this information, provided
by the aforementioned anonymous Life of Constantine, is accurate.
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,9; 1,9c and Bleckmann/Stein 2015, vol. II, p. 95.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 265

these three did not subscribe to the anathemas which suggests that the creed and the
anathemas were signed separately.186
The imperial magister officiorum Philumenus was charged with also collecting
the signatures of Arius and his remaining adherents. (Arius himself may not have
taken part in the council, although probably being nearby.187) They refused and suf-
fered their fate and went into exile. Their exact number is unknown, but it appears
that the Arian bishops Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas or Marmarica belonged
to this group, Arius and some of the priests in his retinue notwithstanding.188 As
regards Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, it is not quite clear whether they were also
exiled by the emperor straight away189 or some months later.190 Eusebius and The-
ognis later declared their willingness also to sign the anathemas in a joint letter to
the emperor.191
Exile in any case involved a de facto deposition. However, as far as we can
see, none of the bishops and priests in exile had to undergo a process of penance,
which would have been required, had they been excommunicated. Instead they
were required to recant their heretical doctrines; some of them (such as Arius
and Euzoius192) did so and were then recalled and reinstated (which in Arius’
case may not have happened due to his premature death193).
In other words, issuing the anathemas (which were pronounced by the synod
and were, in this instance, not directed against persons) and enforcing the pun-
ishments (which were secular measures directed against specific individuals)
were two distinct procedures and not necessarily interconnected. This becomes
very clear from the letter which the council fathers sent to the Egyptian clergy.
After first quoting the anathemas they added rather enigmatically:

 Cf. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, Libellus paenitentiae (Opitz 1934/1935, Ur-
kunde 31) 2; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,32.
 Attendance is claimed by Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 10,1. However, the mention of Philu-
menus as being entrusted with collecting their signatures (if historical) only makes sense if Arius
did not take part in the proceedings; but he ‘may have been lurking in the wings’ (Hanson 1988,
p. 157).
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,9–10.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,33.
 Cf. Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 1,10. Cf. also Constantine’s letter to the church of Nic-
omedia (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27). Cf. also Sara Parvis 2006, p. 135.
 Cf. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, Libellus paenitentiae (Opitz 1934/1935, Ur-
kunde 31) 3; cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1,8,34; 1,14,1.
 Cf. Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30;
FaFo § 131c).
 Cf. below p. 268 n. 207. On the difference between anathema and excommunication cf. also
above p. 233.
266 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

But you have either learned already or will learn about the outcome the measures taken
against him [sc. Arius] have had (καὶ τὰ μὲν κατ’ ἐκεῖνον οἵου τέλους τετύχηκε πάντως ἢ
ἀκηκόατε ἢ ἀκούσεσθε); for we would not seem to trample on a man who has received that
which his peculiar sin deserved. Yet his impiety proved so powerful that it affected Theonas
of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same things.194

The cautious phrasing of this significant passage (which is often mistranslated) can
only mean that (a) the synod did not wish to preempt a message sent to Egypt by a
third party, (b) that this message contained the punishment meted out to Arius,
Theonas, and Secundus,195 and (c) that the synod did not wish to impose further
sanctions on the three heretics, because the message by the third party already con-
tained punishments matching their offences. Hence the synod did not state that
Arius ‘was excommunicated and probably degraded from the presbyterate’,196 be-
cause the ‘measures’ (literally ‘things’) were not those taken by the synod, but by
the third party. This third party must, of course, have been the emperor, and the
imperial letter in question may be Urkunde 25.197 Oddly, though, Constantine’s epis-
tle contains no information as to what happened to Arius but admonishes the
church of Alexandria to restore ecclesial peace. Perhaps Arius’ punishment was
stipulated by a separate edict (which will also have been published in Alexandria
but is no longer extant).
The creed had turned from an expression of faith into a legal document at the
latest in Nicaea, given the protocol followed at the synod, the emperor’s involvement
in the proceedings, and the measures taken in its aftermath. Henceforth, dissent
was – in principle (though not always in practice) – subject to secular punishment
which could involve deposition and exile or other sanctions (see below). It is true,
therefore, to say that ‘Constantine’s interference in the conflict and the establishment
of an “official” doctrine “criminalized” theological dissent’.198
Nonetheless, developments had not yet reached a stage at which the Nicene
Creed was made compulsory for all Christians – for the time being its binding force
remained restricted to the bishops. As far as we can see, Constantine did not even
make N compulsory for all clergy. He was content with, as he thought at the time,
having established peace between the warring factions in the Arian controversy. In

 Council of Nicaea (325), Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam et episcopos Aegypti, Libyae et
Pentapolis (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 23) 4–5.
 The fact that in Urkunde 23 only Arius, Theonas, and Secundus are mentioned does not mean
that no other bishops were exiled, as this letter is directed to the Egyptian church and may, there-
fore, cite only those clerics that fell under its jurisdiction.
 Pace Williams 2001, p. 70.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 25).
 Galvão-Sobrinho 2013, p. 91.
 6.4 The Creed of Nicaea 267

his letter to the church of Alexandria of June 325 he called the local clergy to settle
their differences on the basis of the decisions of Nicaea where ‘more than three
hundred bishops’ had ‘confirmed one and the same faith’ (μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πίσ-
τιν) which remained unspecified.199 In his encyclical letter to all the churches Con-
stantine did not even consider it necessary to mention the doctrinal issues discussed
at Nicaea.200 Instead he imposed a poll tax on those bishops who followed Arius
which was ten times higher than usual and withdrew certain privileges.201 Finally,
he ordered the heretic’s writings to be burnt like those of the anti-Christian philoso-
pher Porphyry had been.202 But nowhere did he quote or paraphrase N. The em-
peror first paraphrased his own faith in a letter to the church of Nicomedia, going
on to warn its clergy against sympathizing with Eusebius.203 In a rather rambling
and aggressive letter to Arius and his followers the emperor sought to refute Arius’
theology, perhaps on the basis of N, but without explicit recourse to it.204 Therefore,
in the emperor’s eyes the purpose of Nicaea was not to establish a specific creed but
to achieve unity by whatever means necessary.
As regards the legal implications of the creed and its anathemas, we may,
therefore, summarize our conclusions as follows: the bishops at Nicaea followed
the precedent set by Antioch in defining the faith in writing by means of a three-
part creed. In addition, they appended anathemas to the creed (as had also hap-
pened at Antioch). These anathemas were, as it were, the ‘flip side’ of defining the
faith by means of a fixed formula. Yet they did not necessarily follow from this
definition and, as a result, did not form an integral part of the creed; instead,
they helped to delimit even more clearly the boundaries of what was permitted
to be said about the Trinity and what was not. The emperor and/or the synod re-
quired the bishops to agree to N and to the anathemas by signing each of them
separately. If this was refused, they were deposed and sent into exile. If they re-
canted, they were recalled and reinstated. In this respect, Constantine followed a

 Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 25) 5.

 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad omnes ecclesias (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 26) 2 where he men-
tions only in passing that controversial matters regarding the veneration of God had been dis-
cussed and then concentrates on explaining the reasons for the date of Easter.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad Arium et socios (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 34) 39 and 41 and
Codex Theodosianus 16,5,1 (326).
 Cf. Constantine, Lex de Arii damnatione (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 33).
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Nicomediensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27), esp. 1–5
and 13.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad Arium et socios (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 34; the date of this let-
ter is controversial; cf., e.g., Williams 2001, p. 77: 333; Brennecke et al. 2007, p. XXXVIII: 325). Allu-
sions to N are, perhaps, found in Urkunde 34, 14–15 and 26. Cf. Williams 2001, pp. 77 f.
268 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

procedure which he had already applied against the Donatists.205 Nevertheless, in

doing so he set an important precedent because theological dissent had so far not
been considered a crime.206

6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople

Nicaea was no success story. After the council Constantine once again changed
tack: Arius was rehabilitated after he and his associates had submitted a creed, per-
haps in early 328, which Constantine considered compatible with N.207 The emperor
may have thought that he had thus achieved ecclesial unity.208 But the problem
was not only one of politics. The formula adopted at Nicaea remained unacceptable
to a large number of eastern bishops who in one way or another sympathized with
Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia and/or took exception to the use of a non-biblical
term (homooúsios) to describe the relationship between God Father and the Son or
Logos. Most bishops followed a view which Origen had already expressed a century
previously: there was a clear hierarchy in heaven with the Father ranked at the top
and the Son or Logos and the Holy Spirit being (in some way) subordinate to him.
As Origen put it in his Commentary on John:

But we are obedient to the Saviour who says, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I’
[John 14:28 v.l.] and who, for this reason, did not permit himself to accept the title ‘good’ [cf.
Mk 10:18] when it was applied to him, although it was perfectly legitimate and true. Instead,
he graciously offered it up to the Father, and rebuked the one who wished to praise the Son
excessively. This is why we say the Saviour and the Holy Spirit transcend all created beings,
not by comparison, but by their exceeding pre-eminence (ὑπερβαλλούσῃ ὑπεροχῇ). The Fa-
ther exceeds the Saviour as much (or even more) as the Saviour himself and the Holy Spirit
exceed the rest (which are no ordinary beings). How great is the praise ascribed to him who
transcends thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not
only in this world but also in that which is to come [cf. Eph 1:21]? And in addition to these
<what must we> say also of holy angels, spirits, and just souls?

 Cf. Lenski 2016, pp. 173 f. and 204 f. (nos. 39, 42).
 On anti-heretical legislation cf. the discussion in Noethlichs 1971; Brox 1986, cols. 281–3;
Riedlberger 2020, pp. 318–41, 495–810; in addition, Hillner 2015, pp. 198 f.
 Cf. Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30;
FaFo § 131c) 2 and Constantine, Epistula ad Alexandrum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 32). The details
of Arius’ readmission are controversial. Cf. Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 23–34 and, e.g., Barnes 2009
pace Brennecke et al. 2007, pp. XXXVI–XXXVIII and Brennecke 2018. In addition, Galvão-Sobrinho
2013, pp. 165–71.
 On Constantine’s erratic ecclesial politics after Nicaea cf. Drake 2000, pp. 258–72; Barnes 2011
(2014), pp. 240–2.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 269

But although the Saviour transcends in his substance, rank, power, divinity (for the
Word is living), and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he
is not comparable with the Father in any way.
For he is an image (εἰκών) [cf. 2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15] of the goodness and a radiance (ἀπαύ-
γασμα; cf. Heb 1:3) not of God, but of God’s glory and of his eternal light; and he is a vapour
(ἀτμίς), not of the Father, but of his power; and he is a pure emanation (ἀπόρροια εἰλικρι-
νής) of God’s almighty glory, and an unspotted mirror of his activity [cf. Wis 7:25–26; Heb
1:3]. It is through this mirror that Paul and Peter and their contemporaries see God, because
he says, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me’ [cf. John 14:9; 12:45].209

Origen also made less explicit statements,210 but there was little doubt that he saw
the Son and the Spirit as subordinate to the Father, a notion which seemed entirely
compatible with Scripture to many theologians of the first half of the fourth century.
Meanwhile, Eusebius of Nicomedia had been recalled from exile and been ac-
tive in regaining his influence at court. He successfully propagated the fame of
his teacher Lucian of Antioch: Constantine’s mother Helena built a church dedi-
cated to this martyr near her home town Drepanon/Helenopolis, in the vicinity of
Nicomedia.211 Here Constantine prayed briefly before his death on 22 May 337.
The same Eusebius also baptized Constantine at around the same time.212 By then,
Nicene theologians such as Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374) and Athanasius (d. 373),
who had succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria in 328, had come under
pressure: Marcellus had been declared a heretic at a synod in Constantinople
(perhaps in 336/337) because of what many considered an eccentric trinitarian
doctrine. Likewise Athanasius had been stripped of his office at the Synod of Tyre
(335) and sent into exile to Trier.
Things became even more complicated after Constantine’s death, because now
first three Augusti (Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II) and then, from 340
onwards, two emperors (Constans for the west (d. 350) and Constantius II for the east
(d. 361)) controlled religious policy in different ways. In addition, in the wake

 Origen, Commentarii in Iohannem 13,151–153 (tr. FaCh 89, p. 100; altered). Cf. also id.,
Commentarii in Iohannem 32,363; id., De principiis 4,4,8; id., Contra Celsum 7,43; 8,14–15; id.,
Homiliae in Psalmos, hom. 4 in Ps 77 (Perrone et al. 2014, p. 404, ll. 20–5); id., Commentarii in
Matthaeum 15,10.
 Cf. Origen, De principiis 1 praef. 4 (FaFo § 116a); id., Commentarii in Iohannem 32,187–189
(§ 116b); id., In Matthaeum commentariorum series 33 (§ 116c); id., Contra Celsum 5,11.
 Cf. Hillner 2023, pp. 19 f., 76–8, 259 f.
 Eusebius of Caesarea, Vita Constantini 4,61–62; Jerome, Chronicon, a. 337. Cf. also Gelasius of
Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, frg. 22a; Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 10,12; and Socrates, His-
toria ecclesiastica 1,39,3–4 with the story of how Constantine entrusted his testament to an Arian
presbyter who is identified with Eusebius of Nicomedia in Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica
2,16. It is, perhaps, spurious.
270 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

of the growth of Christendom in the fourth century, the bishops of the metro-
polises of the empire (Rome, Nicomedia (which was later outstripped by Con-
stantinople), Alexandria, Antioch, and, to a lesser extent, Jerusalem) attempted
to extend their jurisdiction and power. Constans favoured the Nicenes and re-
instated Athanasius, but the bishop was again expelled from Alexandria in 339.
Pope Julius I of Rome (337–352) supported both Athanasius and Marcellus who
had fled to the western capital. A Roman Synod of 340 or 341 rescinded the syn-
odal decisions against these two bishops.213

6.5.1 The creeds associated with the Dedication Council in Antioch (341)

In the east Eusebius of Nicomedia and his circle of supporters led the opposition
against Athanasius and Marcellus. They celebrated their greatest triumph at the
Encaenia Synod (Dedication Council) in Antioch in the summer of 341, attended
by ninety or ninety-seven eastern bishops,214 among them Eusebius (who had
meanwhile been promoted from Nicomedia to Constantinople), the local bishop
Placetus (Flacillus), Acacius of Caesarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodore of
Heraclea, Eudocius of Germanicia, the designated bishop of Alexandria, Gregory,
Dianius of Caesarea in Cappadocia (who was accompanied by Asterius the Soph-
ist), George of Laodicea, Eusebius of Emesa, and Theophronius of Tyana.215 It is
unclear whether Julius of Rome, who was a defender of Nicaea and, therefore,
critical of recent developments in the east, was represented by a delegation.216
Maximus of Jerusalem stayed away, because, as Socrates says, he had been in-
duced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius which he regretted (and appar-
ently feared being deposed himself at Antioch).217 The emperor Constantius also
attended as he was staying in the city on the occasion of the consecration of the
‘Great Church’ whose construction his father Constantine had commissioned.

 Cf. Julius of Rome, Epistula ad Antiochenos episcopos (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 41.8).
Marcellus had previously appealed to Julius and the synod in the letter which was analyzed
above; cf. ch.5.1.
 For the number of participants cf. Durst 1993, vol. I, p. 24; Brennecke et al. 2007, p. 138.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,8,5; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,5,10–6,1; and Durst
1993, vol. I, pp. 24 f. The participation of Asterius is attested in the Synodicon Vetus 42, ll. 6–7
(Duffy/Parker 1979, p. 38 = Libellus synodicus (Mansi 2, col. 1350D)); cf. Kinzig 1990, p. 18 and n. 44;
Vinzent 1993, p. 28. For Theophronius cf. below pp. 276–8.
 It appears that Roman envoys were at that time staying in Antioch, but we do not know to
what extent they took part in the proceedings of the synod. Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica
2,8,4; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,6,8; and Durst 1993, vol. I, p. 25.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,8,3; similarly, Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,6,8.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 271

The precise agenda of this synod is unknown, but it appears that its purpose
was first and foremost to draw up a reply to a letter by Julius of Rome who had
demanded that an eastern delegation be sent to attend a synod in the western capi-
tal in order to confirm Nicaea and to support Athanasius. In this context, he seems
to have accused the eastern bishops of Arianism. The assembled prelates refused
Julius’ request and rejected his suspicions with great indignation.218 However, they
also had to find a common platform vis-à-vis the followers of Arius, lest they lose
their credibility; however, they wished to do so without expressly confirming N
and its homooúsios, and also had to deal with the case of Theophronius of Tyana
who had been accused of championing the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra.
Oddly, four creeds are traditionally associated with this council (FaFo § 141a–
d), which even confused ancient Church historians.219 The second of these texts
(abbrev. Ant2), which may chronologically have been the first,220 was adopted by
the council as its theological statement.221 It is clear from the remark with which
Athanasius introduces his quotation of the creed that it formed part of a letter
(the remainder of which is missing).222

Second Creed of Antioch (341; Ant2)

(Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 41.4; FaFo § 141b)
Πιστεύομεν ἀκολούθως τῇ εὐαγγελικῇ We believe, following the evangelical and
καὶ ἀποστολικῇ παραδόσει εἰς ἕνα θεόν, apostolic tradition, in one God, the Father
πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ὅλων Almighty, the Demiurge and Maker and
δημιουργόν τε καὶ ποιητὴν καὶ προ- Governor of the universe, ‘from whom
νοητήν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα· are all things’ [1Cor 8:6];

 Both Julius’ letter and the synod’s reply are lost. Summaries are given by Socrates, Historia
ecclesiastica 2,15,5–6 and Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,8,3–8 (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument
41.1 and 41.6). Cf. also the beginning of the ‘First Creed’ (Expositio fidei, Formula prima (FaFo §
141c)); cf. below p. 278.
 Socrates saw this as a tactic to undermine Nicaea; cf. Historia ecclesiastica 2,10,2: ‘This being
done, they altered the creed (μεταποιοῦσιν τὴν πίστιν); they did not criticize the events at Nicaea,
but established a precedent by continuously holding councils and by publishing one definition of
faith after the other, thus gradually moving towards the doctrine of the Arians.’
 I follow the order suggested by Tetz 1989(1995), pp. 236–41.
 Cf. Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei/Formula altera (FaFo § 141b).
 Athanasius, De synodis 23,1: ‘Here follows what they published in the second place at the
same Dedication Council in another letter, changing their minds about the first [creed] and con-
triving something novel and more extensive: [. . .].’ Similarly Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica
2,10,9 who may depend on Athanasius.
272 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son,
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, δι᾿ οὗ the only-begotten God [cf. Jn 1:18],
τὰ πάντα, ‘through whom are all things’ [Jn 1:3;
1Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2],
τὸν γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ who was begotten before the ages from
τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, ὅλον ἐξ ὅλου, the Father, God from God, whole from
μόνον ἐκ μόνου, τέλειον ἐκ τελείου, βα- whole, sole from sole, perfect from per-
σιλέα ἐκ βασιλέως, κύριον ἀπὸ κυρίου, fect, King from King, Lord from Lord,
λόγον ζῶντα, σοφίαν ζῶσαν, φῶς ἀλη- living Word [cf. Jn 1:4; 1Jn 1:1], living Wis-
θινόν, ὁδόν, ἀλήθειαν, ἀνάστασιν, ποι- dom, true Light [cf. Jn 1:9; 1Jn 2:8], Way,
μένα, θύραν, ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both
ἀναλλοίωτον, τῆς θεότητος οὐσίας τε unalterable and unchangeable; precise
καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης τοῦ image of the godhead, substance, will,
πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, τὸν πρω- power, and glory of the Father; the first-
τότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, born of all creation [cf. Col 1:15],
τὸν ὄντα ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, λόγον who was ‘in the beginning with God’,
θεὸν κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ εὐαγγε- God the Word, as it is written in the
λίῳ· Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα Gospel, ‘And the Word was God’ [Jn 1:1–
ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκε, 2]; ‘through whom all things came into
being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6], and ‘in whom
all things hold together’ [Col 1:17];
τὸν ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν κατελθόντα who ‘in the last days’ [Heb 1:2], descended
ἄνωθεν καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ παρθένου from above, was born from a virgin ac-
κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ἄνθρωπον γενόμε- cording to the Scriptures [cf. Mt 1:23], and
νον, μεσίτην θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόστο- became human, mediator ‘between God
λόν τε τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχηγὸν and humans’ [1Tim 2:5], apostle of our
τῆς ζωῆς, ὥς φησιν ὅτι· Καταβέβηκα ἐκ faith [cf. Rom 1:5], and Prince of life [Acts
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ 1:15], as he says, ‘I have descended from
ἐμόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, heaven, not to do my own will, but the
τὸν παθόντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀναστάντα will of him who sent me’ [Jn 6:38]; who
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς οὐρα- suffered for us, on the third day rose
νούς καὶ καθεσθέντα ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πα- again, ascended into the heavens, sat
τρὸς καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης καὶ down at the right hand of the Father, and
δυνάμεως κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· will come again with glory and power ‘to
judge the living and the dead’ [2Tim 4:1];
καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ εἰς παρά- and in the Holy Spirit, who is given to
κλησιν καὶ ἁγιασμὸν καὶ τελείωσιν τοῖς those who believe for comfort, sanctifi-
πιστεύουσι διδόμενον, cation, and perfection,
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 273

καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς just as our Lord Jesus Christ also en-
διετάξατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς λέγων· Πορευ- joined his disciples, ‘Go and make disci-
θέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτί- ples of all nations, baptizing them upon
ζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ the name of the Father, the Son, and the
τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, δηλο- Holy Spirit’ [Mt 28:19], namely, of a Fa-
νότι πατρός, ἀληθῶς πατρὸς ὄντος, υἱοῦ ther who is truly Father, a Son who is
δὲ ἀληθῶς υἱοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ἁγιοῦ πνεύ- truly Son, and of the Holy Spirit who is
ματος ἀληθῶς ἁγίου πνεύματος ὄντος, truly Holy Spirit, the names not being
τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς given without distinction or idly, but de-
[ἀργων ed., sed cf. app. ad loc.] κειμένων, noting accurately the respective subsis-
ἀλλὰ σημαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν tence (hypóstasis), rank, and glory of
ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ὑπόστασίν τε each one that is named, as they are three
καὶ τάξιν καὶ δόξαν, ὡς εἶναι τῇ μὲν ὑπo- in subsistence, and one in harmony.
στάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συμφωνίᾳ ἕν.
Ταύτην οὖν ἔχοντες τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἐξ Therefore, holding to this faith, and
ἀρχῆς καὶ μέχρι τέλους ἔχοντες ἐνώπιονholding to it from beginning to end in
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πᾶσαν αἱρε- the sight of God and Christ, we anathe-
τικὴν κακοδοξίαν ἀναθεματίζομεν. matize every heretical false opinion.
Καὶ εἴ τις παρὰ τὴν ὑγιῆ τῶν γραφῶν If anyone teaches contrary to the sound
ὀρθὴν πίστιν διδάσκει λέγων ἢ χρόνον faith of the Scriptures, saying that time,
ἢ καιρὸν ἢ αἰῶνα ἢ εἶναι ἢ γεγονέναι or season, or age, either is or has been
πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι τὸν υἱόν, ἀνά- before the Son was generated, let him
θεμα ἔστω. be anathema.
Καὶ εἴ τις λέγει τὸν υἱὸν κτίσμα ὡς ἓνIf anyone says that the Son is a creature
τῶν κτισμάτων ἢ γέννημα ὡς ἓν τῶν like one of the creatures, or an offspring
γεννημάτων ἢ ποίημα ὡς ἓν τῶν ποι- like one of the offsprings, or a work like
ημάτων καὶ μή, ὡς αἱ θείαι γραφαὶ πα- one of the works, and [does] not [affirm]
ραδέδωκαν, τῶν προειρημένων ἕκαστον each individual of the previously men-
ἀφ᾿ ἑκάστου ἢ εἴ τις ἄλλο διδάσκει ἢ εὐ-
tioned [articles] as the divine Scriptures
αγγελίζεται παρ᾿ ὃ παρελάβομεν, ἀνά- have transmitted, or if anyone teaches
θεμα ἔστω. or preaches [anything] beside what we
received, let him be anathema.
Ἡμεῖς γὰρ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ τῶν θείων γρα- For we truly and reverentially both be-
φῶν παραδεδομένοις ὑπό τε προφητῶν lieve and follow all that has been trans-
καὶ ἀποστόλων ἀληθινῶς τε καὶ ἐμφόβως mitted in the divine Scriptures, whether
καὶ πιστεύομεν καὶ ἀκολουθοῦμεν. by prophets or apostles.
274 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

At first glance, one is struck by the length of this text. Whereas N could be used in
religious instruction, Ant2 would have been less suited for this purpose. The creed
is not only framed by appeals to Scripture – it is also interspersed with numerous
biblical quotations and allusions, because its authors wished to buttress their doc-
trines, which deviated from N, by scriptural authority (something which the au-
thors of N had largely neglected to do).
The first section emphasizes once more the omnipotence and creative power
of God the Father who is the ultimate source of the universe. At first glance, it
looks as if the christological section will follow in the footsteps of Nicaea. It first
underlines the full divinity of the ‘only-begotten God’ who cooperates in creation –
it does this seemingly even more forcefully than N, citing the preexistence, divin-
ity, integrity, oneness, and perfection of the Son, all of which are followed by a
host of biblical titles. However, homooúsios is missing. The point of this section is
concealed in the phrase concluding the descriptive part: ‘precise image of the god-
head, substance, will, power, and glory of the Father; the first-born of all creation’.
The Son’s divinity is almost imperceptibly lessened here: the text describes the re-
lationship between Father and Son by using terms taken from Col 1:15 as ‘image’
and as ‘first-born of all creation’, the first term being supplemented by the unbibli-
cal adjective ἀπαράλλακτον (‘invariable’, ‘unchanged’, hence ‘precise’). The text
continues with another declaration of the Word’s divinity and his creative activity,
quoting Jn 1:1–3. It then adds the christological summary, including the virgin
birth – its first mention in an eastern synodal creed of the fourth century.
Its pneumatological section enumerates the functions of the Spirit (comfort
(Jn 14:16 etc.), sanctification (2Thess 2:13; cf. 1Cor 6:11), perfection (Gal 3:3?)), a
combination which is found nowhere else.
This is followed by a concluding section which, on the basis of Mt 28:19, out-
lines the three hypostáseis of Father, Son, and Spirit each possessing their respec-
tive rank and glory, but bound together by one ‘harmony’ (τῇ συμφωνίᾳ).223 The
perfect harmony of Father and Son was also emphasized by Asterius in his exegesis
of Jn 10:30.224 The Sophist had also maintained that Father and Son were hypostati-
cally separate,225 a terminology already found in Origen.226

 This rare combination of ὑπόστασις and συμφωνία is also found in (Pseudo-)Didymus, De
trinitate 1,36,9.
 Cf. Asterius, frgs. 39 and 40 (Vinzent).
 Cf. Vinzent 1993, pp. 229 f.
 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum 8,12, ll. 24–26 (SC 150, p. 200): Θρησκεύομεν οὖν τὸν πατέρα τῆς
ἀληθείας καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὄντα δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα, ἓν δὲ τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ τῇ
συμφωνίᾳ καὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τοῦ βουλήματος· [. . .] / ‘Therefore we worship the Father of the truth
and the Son who is the truth; they are two entities with regard to hypóstasis, but one in unanim-
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 275

Taken as a whole the creed emphasizes the divine nature of the Son, while
apparently also drawing a clear ontological distinction between Father and Son
(through the reintroduction of the term ‘image’227) and allowing for the created
and perhaps even temporal nature of the Son. Thus the precise relation between,
on the one hand, the expressions ‘God from God’ and ‘only-begotten’ and, on the
other hand, the claim that the Son was an ‘image’ and ‘first-born of all creation’
remains undefined. In addition, the three persons of the Trinity each appear to
possess a hypóstasis specific to their individual rank and glory (which, by implica-
tion, must differ from each other, without this difference being spelled out).228
Sozomen mentions that the synod attributed the authorship of this creed to Lu-
cian of Antioch (perhaps the teacher of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Asterius the Sophist,
and Eudocius of Germanicia229) which he himself calls into doubt and which is not
very likely.230 Owing to a lack of evidence we do not know to what extent the creed
represents the theology of a ‘Lucianic school’. However, it has long been noticed that
its christological section was influenced by the theology of Asterius.231 We know that
this Sophist (whose relationship with Arius is a matter of scholarly discussion232)
championed a clearly subordinationist trinitarian doctrine.233 However, whereas As-
terius presented a rather elaborate theory for describing the relationship between
Father and Son, in this text the tensions between, on the one hand, the repeated em-
phasis on the divinity of the Word and, on the other hand, the distinction between

ity, in harmony, and in identity of will.’ Chadwick 1965(1980), p. 461 n. 1 gives further references
from Origen. Cf. also Vinzent 1993, p. 230 and n. 10. Cf. also above p. 256 and n. 149.
 On the ‘image’ terminology among the Eusebians cf. DelCogliano 2006. In addition, cf. above
pp. 218, 229, 232, 251.
 This was already noticed by Hilary of Poitiers, De synodis 31: ‘Apparently this creed did not,
perhaps, speak expressly enough about the undistinguished similarity of the Father and Son,
[. . .].’ Hilary then goes on to explain that the creed was primarily directed against trinitarian
modalism (by which he probably means Marcellus of Ancyra) and gives a Nicene interpretation
of the text; cf. De synodis 32–33.
 Cf. above p. 243 and n. 105.
 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,5,9: ‘They said that they had found this creed to have been
entirely written by Lucian (ταύτην τὴν πίστιν ὁλόγραφον εὑρηκέναι Λουκιανοῦ), who was martyred
in Nicomedia. In general, he was a man of high esteem who had investigated the Holy Scriptures
very thoroughly. I cannot say whether this statement was really true, or whether they wished to
give weight to their own document through the dignity of the martyr.’ It is unclear whether ὁλόγρα-
φον means that Lucian had composed the creed or that the synod had ‘found’ his creed in a manu-
script which was written in his own hand.
 Cf. Asterius, frgs. 9, 10, 57, 60 and Vinzent 1993, p. 28; Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’,
2018, p. 1487.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’, 2018, pp. 1486 f.
 For details cf. Vinzent 1993, pp. 38–71 and Kinzig, ‘Areios und der Arianismus’, 2018, pp. 1488 f.
276 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

the three hypostáseis and, in particular, between Father and Son remains unre-
solved. Thus it is, for example, unclear to what extent the quotation of Col 1:15 im-
plies some form of temporality of the ‘first-born’ and a form of created nature in the
broadest sense which would put Christ ultimately on a par with the rest of creation.
The concluding anathemas do not offer any elucidation either. First all heresies
are summarily condemned. This section is followed by three condemnations dis-
playing a specific structure which is here found for the first time in a creed:234 they
consist of a conditional clause introduced by εἴ τις (‘if anyone’), summarizing the
opponent’s position, and a main clause containing nothing but the formula ἀνά-
θεμα ἔστω (‘let him be anathema/accursed’).235 Here all forms of temporality before
the generation of the Son appear to be condemned – but does this mean the Son is
coeternal with the Father in every respect? Likewise, when the creed condemns
those who speak of the Son as a ‘creature like one of the other creatures’, this may
suggest that the Son is some kind of ‘creature’, albeit different from all others.
This vagueness as well as the omission of homooúsios may very well have
been the result of an attempt to create an ‘umbrella creed’ which was acceptable
to as many eastern bishops as possible while excluding both a ‘hard’ Nicene view
(as defined by the homooúsios) and an unmitigated Arianism.236
✶
We can be much briefer with regard to the other three creeds associated with the
Synod of 341. The so-called ‘third creed’ (Ant3) was composed by the otherwise
unknown Bishop Theophronius of Tyana who had apparently been accused of
being a follower of Marcellus of Ancyra.237 This may, in turn, have meant that he
did not clearly distinguish between the hypostáseis of Father and Son, a charge
which was also labelled Sabellianism (after the condemned theologian Sabellius
who, in c. 220, had been accused by Calixtus of Rome of teaching patripassianism).
In his defence, Theophronius submitted this text to the synod, similar to what Eu-
sebius of Caesarea had done in Nicaea.238 There is no reason to assume that he
used an extant local baptismal creed as the basis of his text.239
His creed is fairly inconspicuous except for the omission of ἕνα in the first
and second articles and for the corresponding claim that the Son was ‘with God
in hypóstasis’ (πρὸς τὸν θεόν ἐν ὑποστάσει). Both these features may indicate that

 That is, unless the creed of Theophronius antedates this text; cf. below in the text.
 This structure was adapted from Gal 1:9 (cf. 1:8; 1Cor 16:22).
 Cf. already Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,5,6–7.
 Cf. Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei. Formula tertia (FaFo § 141a).
 For a detailed analysis cf. Tetz 1989(1995); Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 173–7.
 Cf. Tetz 1989(1995), p. 233 pace Kelly 1972, p. 267.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 277

in Theophronius’ view Father and Son were not ontologically distinct (‘one’ and
‘one’) but possessed a common hypóstasis (whatever this would mean). Such a
meaning, in turn, would indeed point to certain sympathies with the theology of
the bishop of Ancyra (or of Eustathius of Antioch).240 The third article is much
longer than that of Nicaea and underlines the operations of the Holy Spirit:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete [cf. Jn 14:16 etc.], ‘the Spirit of truth’ [Jn 15:26], which God
also promised by his prophet to pour out upon his servants [cf. Joel 3:1], and the Lord promised
to send to his disciples; which he also sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness [cf. Acts 2:3–4].

This expansion may indicate that there was discussion about the nature and pre-
cise identity of the Spirit (which had remained undefined in N).
The final anathemas (which display a similar structure to those of Ant2)241
probably condemn Marcellus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata; however, the con-
struction of the sentence as it stands does not make much sense.242
It is important to note, with regard to the procedure concerning the submis-
sion of personal creeds to councils, that Athanasius (who has preserved all creeds
associated with Antioch 341) tells us in the introduction to this text that Theophro-
nius submitted a statement which he had himself composed and that ‘all sub-
scribed it (πάντες ὑπέγραψαν), thus adopting the faith (πίστιν) of the man’.243
Athanasius probably copied the creed from a codex in which the signatures were
still extant.244 Obviously, then, it no longer sufficed to confirm the orthodoxy of a
bishop who had been charged with heresy by a simple raising of hands (as had
apparently happened in Nicaea in the case of Eusebius245). Unfortunately, Athana-
sius does not tell us the reasons for this change of procedure. Was it because
there were no official minutes in which such a vote could have been recorded?

 Cf. Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 174–7.

 Cf. above p. 273.
 Cf. the discussion in Tetz 1989(1995), pp. 227–31; Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 176–7. The preserved
text reads: Εἰ δέ τις παρὰ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν διδάσκει ἢ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. καὶ Μαρκέλ-
λου τοῦ Ἀγκύρας ἢ Σαβελλίου ἢ Παύλου τοῦ Σαμοσατέως· ἀνάθεμα ἔστω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ πάντες οἱ
κοινωνοῦντες αὐτῷ. Following earlier scholarship in FaFo I added καὶ <εἴ τις διδάσκει τὰ> Μαρ-
κέλλου which yields the following translation: ‘But if anyone teaches, or holds in his mind, any-
thing besides this faith, let him be anathema; <if anyone teaches the [doctrines]> of Marcellus of
Ancyra, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, let him be anathema both himself and those who com-
municate with him.’
 Athanasius, De synodis 24,1.
 I do not share Schneemelcher’s scepticism with regard to Athanasius’ statement; cf. Schnee-
melcher 1977(1991), p. 119. Cf. also Tetz 1989(1995), p. 235.
 Cf. above p. 246.
278 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Or was there a danger that too many bishops might in fact secretly sympathize
with Theophronius (and Marcellus) and that pressure had to be increased?
✶
The so-called First Creed of Antioch (Ant1) is an extract from the Tome in which
the synod communicated its results to all bishops.246 Those bishops assembled at
Antioch claimed that they had examined the faith of Arius, but, at the same time,
distanced themselves from him and, for that purpose, added a creed which is
sometimes called an abbreviated version of the Second Formula.247 It does, how-
ever, in fact display some interesting new features:

First Creed of Antioch (341; Ant1)

(Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 41.5; FaFo § 141c)
Μεμαθήκαμεν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς ἕνα We have learned from the beginning to
θεόν, τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεόν, πιστεύειν, τὸν believe in one God, the God of the uni-
πάντων νοητῶν τε καὶ αἰσθητῶν δημι- verse, both the Demiurge and Governor
ουργόν τε καὶ προνοητήν, of all things, both those intelligible and
those perceptible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ, πρὸ and in one only-begotten Son of God,
πάντων αἰώνων ὑπάρχοντα καὶ συνόντα subsisting before all ages and co-existing
τῷ γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ with the Father who begot him, ‘through
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ whom’ also ‘all things’ both visible and
ἀόρατα, τὸν καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν invisible ‘came into being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor
κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν τοῦ πατρὸς κατελθόντα 8:6; Col 1:16]; who ‘in the last days’ [Heb
καὶ σάρκα ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ἀνειληφότα 1:2] according to the Father’s good plea-
καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν πατρικὴν αὐτοῦ βούλη- sure [cf. Mt 12:18; 17:5; Mk 1:11 parr.; 2Pet
σιν συνεκπεπληρωκότα, πεπονθέναι καὶ 2:17] descended and assumed flesh from
ἐγηγέρθαι καὶ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνεληλυ- the Virgin; and having fully accom-
θέναι καὶ ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς κα- plished all his Father’s will [cf. Mk 14:36
θέζεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι parr.; Jn 4:34; 5:30; Heb 5:7], he suffered,
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς καὶ διαμένοντα βα- was raised, ascended into the heavens,
σιλέα καὶ θεὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. sits at the right hand of the Father, will
come again ‘to judge the living and the

 Cf. Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei. Formula prima (FaFo § 141c). For the addressees
cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,10,9.
 Cf. Brennecke et al. 2007, p. 148.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 279

dead’ [2Tim 4:1], and remains King and

God forever.
Πιστεύομεν δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. And we also believe in the Holy Spirit.
Εἰ δὲ δεῖ προσθεῖναι, πιστεύομεν καὶ If it is necessary to add this, we also be-
περὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως καὶ ζωῆς lieve about the resurrection of the flesh,
αἰωνίου. and eternal life.

It is difficult to see why the synod produced another creed.248 In particular, it re-
mains a mystery why the ‘good pleasure’ and fulfillment of the ‘will’ of the Father
were added here. Whereas the expression κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν τοῦ πατρός in relation to
the incarnation is traditional,249 this appears to be the first time the Father’s will is
mentioned in a credal text.250 The final additions of the resurrection of the flesh
and of eternal life (which are identical with the final clauses in R251) may have
been made in order to facilitate communication with Rome. Nevertheless, the pre-
cise sequence of events regarding this important synod and the reasons which led
to the composition of its creeds remain unknown.
✶
4
Finally, a fourth creed (Ant ) is also associated with the Dedication Council. How-
ever, it now seems clear that it must result from another synod which was also
held in Antioch some months later.252 It was handed to Emperor Constans at Trier
by a delegation comprising Bishops Narcissus of Irenopolis (= Neronias in Cilicia),
Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea, and Mark of Arethusa, who all appear
to have belonged to the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia (Eusebius himself had died
in 341). Socrates cites as the reason for their journey the western emperor’s wish to
be kept apprised of ecclesial developments in the east, especially with regard to the
controversy involving Athanasius (who at that point was staying in Rome) and Paul
of Constantinople (who had also been expelled from his see).253 The creed itself had
no immediate effect, but its long-term impact was considerable, as the (eastern)

 Neither Athanasius nor Socrates nor Sozomen give any reasons for this; cf. Athanasius, De
synodis 22; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,10,9; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,5,8.
 It is already found in Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses 1,1,20; 1,2,1; 3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7).
 Cf., however, already Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam 4,1 (FaFo § 111e2).
 Cf. above ch. 5.1.
 Athanasius admits that this creed was produced ‘after some months had passed’ (μετὰ μῆνας
ὀλίγους); cf. De synodis 25,1.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,18,1. Kelly 1972, p. 273 is sceptical (cf. also Brennecke
et al. 2007, p. 176). He thinks that in truth it was ‘a manoeuvre on the part of the East to satisfy
Constans that a general council (for which the Western emperor was pressing, but which they
were anxious to avoid) was unnecessary’.
280 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Council of Serdica (343) adopted it with some changes; it was also integrated into
the Macrostich Creed of 344 and the First Creed of Sirmium (351).254
Ant4 is a subtle mixture of phrases taken from N and from Theophronius, as
the following table shows (single underlining = N; double underlining = Theophro-
nius). By contrast, Ant2 does not appear to have left any traces in this text.

Fourth Creed of Antioch (341; Ant4)

(Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 42; FaFo § 141d)
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, κτίστην καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν mighty, Creator and Maker of all things,
πάντων, ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ‘from whom all fatherhood in the heavens
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται· and on earth takes its name’ [Eph 3:15];
καὶ εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱόν, τὸν and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord
κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν πρὸ Jesus Christ, who was begotten from the
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεν- Father before all ages, God from God,
νηθέντα, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Light from Light, ‘through whom all
δι᾿ οὗ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς things came into being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6]
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, in heaven and on earth, visible and in-
λόγον ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ visible, being Word, Wisdom, Power
ζωὴν καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν, τὸν ἐπ᾿ [cf. 1Cor 1:24], Life, and true Light; who
ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ‘in the last days’ [Heb 1:2] because of us
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ became human and was born from the
τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, τὸν σταυρωθέντα holy Virgin; was crucified, died, was
καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀνασ- buried, on the third day rose again
τάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ from the dead, was taken up into
ἀναληφθέντα εἰς οὐρανὸν καὶ κα- heaven, sat down at the right hand of
θεσθέντα ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ the Father, and will come ‘at the con-
ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος summation of the age’ [Heb 9:26] ‘to
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς καὶ ἀποδοῦ- judge the living and the dead’ and to
ναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, οὗ ἡ render ‘to everyone according to his
βασιλεία ἀκατάπαυστος οὖσα διαμένει works’ [Prov 24:12; Ps61(62):13; Mt 16:27 v.
εἰς τοὺς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας· ἔσται γὰρ κα- l.; Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12]; whose kingdom en-
θεζόμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ μόνον dures unceasingly unto the infinite ages;
ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ for he will sit at the right hand of the Fa-
μέλλοντι· ther ‘not only in this age, but also in that
which is to come’ [Eph 1:21];

 Cf. below pp. 287–91, 291–4, 294–7.

 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 281

καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τουτέστι τὸν and in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Para-
παράκλητον, ὅπερ ἐπαγγειλάμενος τοῖς clete, whom he sent forth after his ascen-
ἀποστόλοις μετὰ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς sion into the heavens, having promised
αὐτοῦ ἄνοδον ἀπέστειλε διδάξαι αὐτοὺς [it] to the apostles, to teach them and to re-
καὶ ὑπομνῆσαι πάντα, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ mind [them] of all things; through whom
ἁγιασθήσονται αἱ τῶν εἰλικρινῶς εἰς the souls of those who have sincerely be-
αὐτὸν πεπιστευκότων ψυχαί. lieved in him will also be sanctified.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸν υἱὸν But those who say that the Son is from
ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως καὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ nothing, or is from another hypóstasis
θεοῦ καί· Ἦν ποτε χρόνος, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, and is not from God, and that ‘there
ἀλλοτρίους οἶδεν ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. was a time when he was not’, the catho-
lic Church regards as alien.

Whereas the influence of N cannot be pinpointed with absolute certainty in the

first two articles (some of these elements also appear in the creeds of Antioch 325,
Eusebius, Asterius, and Ant2),255 the condemnations were almost literally taken
from N. This is significant, in particular, with regard to the statement condemning
the view that the Son is from another hypóstasis, because it excludes, in effect, a
theology of two/three hypostáseis. Instead, hypóstasis and ousía continued to be
seen as de facto identical. There is no indication either that the authors champ-
ioned an explicitly subordinationist theology – on the contrary, it looks as if they
had deliberately tried to phrase their creed as Nicene as possible while not using
the homooúsios. It resembled N in its brevity, too.
Furthermore, there is a new element which is undoubtedly western. In what fol-
lows I place the clauses dealing with Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension/as-
sumption side by side with those of the Roman creed in the Traditio Apostolica (TAG;
FaFo § 89c) and R as preserved by Marcellus (RM; § 253). The crucial terms here are
σταυρωθέντα and ταφέντα which are not found in eastern creeds before Antioch.

Ant TAG RM

τὸν σταυρωθέντα τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου
σταυρωθέντα [or: τὸν σταυρωθέντα
σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου]

 Cf. Vinzent 1999, pp. 266–7, 307.

282 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

(continued)

Ant TAG RM

καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα

καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν [or: ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν]
ζῶντα
καὶ ἀναληφθέντα εἰς οὐρανὸν καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
οὐρανοὺς
καὶ καθεσθέντα ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ
πατρὸς πατρός, πατρός,
καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ ἐρχόμενον [or: ἐλευσόμενον] ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ
τοῦ αἰῶνος κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρίνειν [or: κρῖναι] ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς
νεκρούς νεκρούς

Markus Vinzent has suggested that Ant4 refers and reacts directly to Marcellus, be-
cause in the months between the end of the Dedication Council and the composi-
tion of Ant4 the letter of the Roman synod backing Marcellus had arrived in
Antioch which also contained Marcellus’ letter to Julius which we have discussed
above.259 There can be no doubt that Ant4 contains an (indirect) condemnation of
Marcellus in that it emphasizes in the strongest terms that Christ’s kingdom ‘en-
dures unceasingly unto the infinite ages’ and that he will sit at the Father’s right
hand also in the age to come which Marcellus rejected.260 But a closer look at its
christological section suggests that Ant4 does not refer to Marcellus (or R), but in-
stead to the creed contained in the Traditio Apostolica, because the clause καὶ ἀπο-
θανόντα is contained in TAG, but not in RM. Be that as it may, it is clear that Ant4
tries to accommodate western credal language as much as possible.

 ‘Who was crucified, died, was buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, was taken
up into heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father, and will come at the consummation of
the age to judge the living and the dead.’
 ‘Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and was buried, and on the third day
rose again alive from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and is sitting at the right hand of
the Father, coming to judge the living and the dead.’
 ‘Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and on the third day rose again from
the dead; ascended into the heavens and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, whence he is
coming to judge the living and the dead.’
 Cf. Vinzent 1999, p. 373 and also pp. 227–35. For Julius’ letter cf. above p. 155, 270 f.; for
Marcellus’ letter to Julius cf. above ch. 5.1.
 Cf. above p. 207 and n. 264.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 283

The differences with regard to N were subtle: on the one hand, in the anathemas
the divinity of the Son was even further emphasized through the addition of καὶ μὴ
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ than in the condemnations of N; on the other hand, the use of ousía had
been dropped in this section (as it had in the entire creed) and the opponents’ views
were not ‘anathematized’ as in N, but only considered ‘alien’ – clearly the authors
did not wish to burn all bridges with their Arian opponents (who were, therefore,
not listed by name either). In any case, they wished to distance themselves from any
kind of ‘Arian’ teaching which propagated a doctrine of two hypostáseis of Father
and Son and some kind of temporality of the Son. Conversely, if this meant that the
hypóstasis of Father and Son was identical (which was also suggested by the phrases
ἐκ τοῦ πατρός γεννηθέντα / ‘who was begotten from the Father’ and θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ /
‘God from God’), then this creed could easily be considered Nicene, except for its
omission of homooúsios. The term ‘image’ which had played such an important role
in Ant2 to describe the relation between Father and Son had been dropped. Indeed
when one compares the only passage in the New Testament where hypóstasis is
used in relation to the Son (Heb 1:3: the Son as ‘the exact imprint’ of God’s hypósta-
sis – χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ), it becomes clear how much the Eusebian
party had, in fact, moved towards the Nicene position in order to allay western wor-
ries. At the same time, it remained unclear once more whether hypóstasis and ousía
were considered de facto synonymous. But moving towards Nicaea was not the
same as expressing support for Marcellus – on that point Antioch was crystal-clear.
Nevertheless, Marcellus’ doctrine was not expressly condemned either nor was his
name named explicitly. On this point too the creed’s language was conciliatory.

6.5.2 The Council of Serdica and its creeds (343)

The tensions between the eastern and western bishops came to a head at the
council of Serdica (modern Sofia) in the autumn of 343.261 It had been convened
by the western Augustus Constans262 who seems to have suggested to scrap N alto-
gether and to start from scratch in defining the faith.263 It actually disintegrated

 The date is controversial. The council is often dated to autumn 342; cf. Rist 2015, p. 70; DelCo-
gliano 2017.
 On the council’s preparation and development cf. Brennecke et al. 2007, pp. 179–85 and their
introductions to each document; Rist 2015.
 Cf. Synod of Serdica (west), Epistula ad Iulium papam (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 43.5) 3:
‘The most religious emperors themselves gave leave for all points at issue to be discussed afresh
and, principally, the issues relating to the holy faith (de sancta fide) and violations of the integrity of
truth’ (tr. Wickham 1997, p. 49).
284 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

into two separate assemblies whose participants excommunicated each other.

Part of the problem was the position held by the bishops Athanasius and Marcel-
lus who were both present at the western assembly which was headed by Ossius
of Córdoba, Protogenes of Serdica, and Gaudentius of Naissus (together with dele-
gates representing Julius of Rome). Athanasius, who had been deposed at the
Synod of Tyre in 335 and had fled to Rome after a brief interval in his home dio-
cese, hoped to be able to reverse his expulsion with the help of Pope Julius and the
Council of Serdica; Marcellus, who had been charged with heresy and deposed by a
synod held in Constantinople in 336 or 337, also sought support from the assembly.
The eastern council ultimately confirmed and extended Ant4 and banned Athana-
sius and Marcellus. By contrast, the western council attacked not only Arianism,
but also, more generally, what they considered a subordinationist doctrine of the
Trinity. At the same time, the western delegates defended Athanasius and Marcel-
lus, supporting the actions of Bishop Julius in favour of the ousted bishop of Alex-
andria. In addition, the so-called canon 7 they issued affirmed the privileges of the
Roman bishop with regard to a retrial in cases where a bishop had been deposed
by the provincial synod, without any geographical restriction. Again, we need not
discuss here the details of this process which showed the deep rift that had devel-
oped between the Latin and Greek churches in the meantime.264

Western synod
After the synod Ossius of Córdoba and Protogenes of Serdica wrote a letter to Julius
of Rome, explaining what had been decided with regard to the creed.265 All the
bishops had agreed with N. Apparently, the condemnations of N were discussed at
some length (the preserved Latin text is mutilated here). As a result of these discus-
sions the council decided that further explanations were necessary in order to re-
strict the influence of the ‘disciples of Arius’ and to preserve the faith intact. Such
explanations were intended for the use of teachers and catechists (omnes docentes
et catechizantes) in order to rebut Arianism.
Athanasius’ account of events (written twenty years after the council) paints
a slightly different picture.266 He also mentions a statement concerning the faith
as associated with Serdica, but denies that the synod had in fact adopted a new
definition. Athanasius intimates that there had been a heated discussion about

 Cf., e.g., Hanson 1988, pp. 293–306; Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 210–45. Further literature is listed in
FaFo §§ 143–144.
 Cf. Ossius and Protogenes, Epistula ad Iulium papam (FaFo § 144b).
 Cf. Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 5,1 (FaFo § 144c).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 285

the sufficiency of N and that, in this context, a new creed had hastily been drawn
up, but that, in the end, the synod had decided to leave N unaltered. We will re-
turn to his statement later.267
Hence the evidence provided by Ossius/Protogenes and Athanasius agrees in
that the sufficiency of N had been discussed in Serdica and an additional document
drawn up, but these two sources differ with regard to the status of this declaration.
However, at that point Athanasius was strongly interested in confirming the contin-
uous validity of N. By contrast, Ossius and Protogenes would probably not have
sent the explanatory document to Julius, had it not been adopted by the council.268
The uneven structure of the lengthy credal statement which forms part of the
even longer synodal letter differs considerably from the creeds which we have stud-
ied so far. A Greek and a Latin version have come down to us – we do not know
which of these, if any, is the original.269 There is no need here fully to reproduce and
discuss this text. It begins with a condemnation of subordinationist theology and of
the notion of a finite existence of the Son. Valens of Mursa (modern Osijek) and Ursa-
cius of Singidunum (Belgrade) are explicitly mentioned as its proponents. (We will
have to deal with details of their theology later.270) They were accused of claiming
that ‘the Logos and the Spirit were crucified and slaughtered, died and rose again’271
and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each had their own hypóstasis (sections 1–2).
The authors of the western creed also rejected the idea of a relationship of Fa-
ther and (incarnate) Son as defined by harmony and unanimity only (διὰ τὴν συμφω-
νίαν καὶ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν / propter consensum et concordiam). This seems to be directed
against Origen,272 but also against Ant2 (‘three in hypóstasis, and one in harmony’).273
By contrast, they identified hypóstasis (Latin substantia) with ousía and underlined

 Cf. below pp. 326 f.

 For further discussion cf. Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 236–9.
 Cf. Council of Serdica (343, west), Professio fidei ab episcopis occidentalibus promulgata
(FaFo § 144a). Sections are given according to Brennecke et al. The first two sections of the text,
which I have omitted in FaFo, are found in Brennecke et al. 2007, pp. 206–7 (Greek). The Latin
text is in Turner 1899–1939, vol. I 2/4, pp. 644–53.
 Cf. below pp. 301 f., 305–11.
 Dokument 43.2, 2 (Brennecke et al. 2007, p. 207, ll. 1–3): [. . .] καὶ ὅτι ὁ λόγος καὶ ὅτι τὸ
πνεῦμα καὶ ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἐσφάγη καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη [. . .]. Latin text: Turner 1899–1939,
vol. I 2/4, p. 651, ll. 15–17: ‘[. . .] et quod Verbum et Spiritus uulneratus est et occisus et mortuus et
resurrexit [. . .].’The Greek text with its repetition of καὶ ὅτι is slightly odd. Likewise, the singular
of the verbs requires an explanation. Sara Parvis 2006, p. 241 translates: ‘[. . .] and that the Word,
even the Spirit [. . .]’ (cf. Sara Parvis 2006, p. 241 n. 279) which does not do justice to the text as it
stands: the Logos and the Spirit are clearly distinguished.
 Cf. above p. 274 and n. 226.
 Cf. above p. 273. This is also discussed elsewhere; cf. Vinzent 1993, p. 230 n. 11.
286 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

that there was only one joint hypóstasis of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The co-
eternity of Father and Son was thus affirmed (sections 3–4, 7–8). The Son is begotten
(γεγεννημένον / natum), without being ‘in every respect a begotten creature (κτίσιν
γεγεννημένον παντάπασιν – the Latin text is defective here)’ (section 5). Obviously,
some bishops made no clear terminological distinction between the Son’s genera-
tion and his creation. The Son is called the Father’s Logos, Wisdom, and Power. As
Logos he is only-begotten, whilst with regard to his humanity he is first-born (sec-
tion 6).274 This distinction is particularly typical of Marcellus of Ancyra who makes
this point in his writings against Asterius.275 Nevertheless, although Marcellus was
present at the council, the fathers affirmed the ever-lasting kingdom of the Son in
the strongest possible terms, an idea which Marcellus clearly rejected.276
One of the issues which must have preoccupied the bishops was the role of the
Spirit which they described in detail with some interesting reflections. The Spirit’s des-
ignation as Paraclete is traditional. But what is new here is that the Spirit is the divine
agent in Christ incarnate. This follows from the one-hypóstasis theology championed
in this statement: if the Logos and the Spirit are of the same hypóstasis and the Logos
is somehow present in Christ incarnate, then the same applies to the Spirit. (It would,
of course, also apply to the Father, but the authors obviously did not wish to raise this
problem here.) The bishops distinguished the Spirit from the man whom the Spirit
had ‘put on’ (ἐνεδύσατο / induit) and ‘taken’ from the Virgin Mary. It was the man the
Spirit had assumed who suffered, rose, and ascended to heaven. The Spirit brought
this man whom he liberated (from death) ‘as a gift to his Father’ (section 9).277
This statement is not very concise, but it is clear that it was considered a kind
of appendix to N. Nowadays it is usually assumed that its one-hypóstasis theology

 Here the Greek text appears to be defective. The Latin text reads in section 6: ‘Confitemur
unicum et primogenitum, sed unicum uerbum, quod semper fuit <et> est in patre, primogenitum
sane a<d> hominem.’ The words in italics are missing from the Greek. But it is clear from the fol-
lowing reference to Col 1:18 that the Latin text must be correct.
 Cf. Marcellus, frgs. 10, 12–16 where he argues against the Asterian identification of Jn 1:18
and Col 1:15. 18 (cf. also Vinzent 1993, pp. XXXVII–XXXVIII).
 Cf. above p. 207 and n. 264.
 [. . .] ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἀνέστη, ὅντινα καὶ προσήνεγκε τῷ πατρὶ ἑαυτοῦ δῶρον, ὃν
ἠλευθέρωσεν. / ‘[. . .] sed homo in deo surrexit, quem etiam obtulit patri suo munus, quem liber-
auit.’ The subject of the relative clause must be the Spirit. There are two contemporary parallels,
both in Latin authors; cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Matthaeum 3,2, ll. 16–17 (SC 254,
p. 114): ‘Quo in tempore exspectatum Deo patri munus hominem quem adsumpserat reportauit.’ /
‘At that time he brought back man, whom he had assumed, as a welcome gift to God the Father.’
Pseudo-Hilary, Epistula seu libellus 6,129 (Blatt 1939, p. 78, l. 32): ‘[. . .] deo patri liberatum homi-
nem afferens munus [. . .].’ / ‘[. . .] offering the liberated man as a gift to God the Father [. . .].’ In
both these cases, however, the agent is the Son, not the Spirit.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 287

is an expression of the influence which Marcellus had exerted on the synod and
that, perhaps, the bishop of Ancyra even authored the document.278 However, as
we saw above, this text also has some anti-Marcellan features which are some-
times overlooked279 or flatly denied.280 Either Marcellus had revised his eschatol-
ogy and no longer assumed that the Logos would, in the end, be reunited with the
Father,281 or the western bishops did not follow him on this point.

Eastern synod
By contrast, the eastern synod’s encyclical letter condemned first and foremost Mar-
cellus (because of his deviant doctrine) and Athanasius (because of his inacceptable
conduct),282 and – in a second step – also the leading figures of the western synod,
Julius of Rome, Ossius, Protogenes, Gaudentius of Naissus, and Maximinus of Trier,
because they did not follow the eastern example. At the end they demanded agree-
ment with (their version of) the ‘faith of the catholic Church’ (catholicae ecclesiae
fidem), once again mentioning the ‘judaizing’ Marcellus.283 One might, therefore, ex-

 Details in Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 239–40.

 No discussion in Sara Parvis 2006.
 Cf. Brennecke et. al. 2007, p. 210 n. b.
 A testimony to this change of heart may be found in the Epistula ad Iulium papam (FaFo § 253)
2,6: ‘But following the divine Scriptures I believe that [there is] one God and his only-begotten Son,
the Word, who always exists with the Father and has never in any sense had a beginning of exis-
tence; truly existing from God; not created, not made, but always existing, always reigning with “God
the Father” [1Cor 15:24]; “of whose kingdom”, according to the testimony of the messenger [i.e. the
angel Gabriel], “there will be no end” [Lk 1:33].’ Cf. also the Epistula synodalis (west) (Brennecke et al.
2007, Dokument 43.1) 11; Pseudo-Athanasius (= Marcellus), Epistula ad Liberium 2 (FaFo § 150).
 Cf. Epistula synodalis (east) (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 43.11) 3–6 (Marcellus), 7–15
(Athanasius). The objections are summarized in 24: ‘For we cannot reinstate Athanasius and Mar-
cellus, who have at one time been deposed and condemned, in the office of bishop. For they have
led a criminal life, impiously blaspheming against the Lord. They have also again crucified the
Son of God and have him once more publicly fastened [to the cross] with heavy blows. For the
one of them [Marcellus] has once and for all died an eternal death by blaspheming against the
Son of God and his eternal kingdom; the other was deposed by the judgement of the bishops and
condemned, because in his profane conduct he sins horribly against the body of the Lord <and>
his mysteries and performs other terrible atrocities.’
 Cf. Epistula synodalis (east) (Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument 43.11) 29: ‘And because Ossius’ asso-
ciates have intended to infringe the catholic and apostolic faith by introducing the novel doctrine of
Marcellus who has united with Judaism (a novel doctrine which is a judaizing compound of Sabellius
and Paul [of Samosata]), we have, of necessity, set down the faith of the Catholic Church denied by
the aforesaid associates of Ossius who have introduced instead Marcellus’, the heretic’s. It follows
that when you have received our letter you should each accord your agreement with this sentence
and sign our decisions with your personal subscription’ (tr. Wickham 1997, p. 37; slightly altered).
288 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

pect a creed with a series of anathemas (condemning the doctrines of Marcellus

and, perhaps, Athanasius). But this is not the case.
This creed has a complex textual history which is difficult to unravel. For rea-
sons which are discussed elsewhere284 I consider the version which is preserved
in De synodis 34 by Hilary of Poitiers closest to the Greek original.285 It is basically
identical with Ant4.286 However, at the end six condemnations were added:287

(1) Ὁμοίως καὶ τοὺς λέγοντας τρεῖς (1) Likewise those who say that there
εἶναι θεοὺς are three Gods,
(2) ἢ τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ εἶναι θεὸν (2) or that Christ is not God,
(3) ἢ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων μήτε Χριστὸν (3) or that before the ages neither the
μήτε υἱὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι θεοῦ Christ nor the Son of God existed,
(4) ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν (4) or that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα are the same,
(5) ἢ ἀγέννητον τὸν υἱὸν (5) or that the Son is unbegotten,
(6) ἢ ὅτι οὐ βουλήσει οὐδὲ θελήσει (6) or that the Father did not beget the
ἐγέννησεν ὁ πατὴρ τὸν υἱόν, Son by choice or will,
τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καὶ καθο- the holy catholic Church anathematizes.
λικὴ ἐκκλησία.

The reasons for these additions are not obvious.288 Nos. 1 and 2 are traditional con-
demnations of tritheism and of the outright denial of Christ’s divinity (neither of
which was seriously suggested by anyone in the present debate).289 Interestingly, the
first anathema does not explicitly condemn a theology of three hypostáseis – the
term is not mentioned here. No. 3 is directed against those who deny the Son’s co-
eternity with the Father, as did Arius, Marcellus, and his (possible290) pupil Photinus
of Sirmium, although on the basis of fundamentally different presuppositions.291 We
will see below that this opposition against the bishops of Ancyra and Sirmium would

 Cf. FaFo § 143 (introduction) and also Brennecke et al. 2007, pp. 272–3.
 The versions in cod. Veronensis LX (FaFo § 143b) and the Syriac version (§ 143c), which are
almost identical, clearly show signs of later pneumatological extensions.
 The most important differences in the Serdicense are the omission of ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶ-
νος (cf., however, FaFo § 143a1) and the addition of ἢ αἰών after ἦν ποτε χρόνος.
 Council of Serdica (343, east), Fides synodi (FaFo § 143a2). Cf. Brennecke et al. 2007, Dokument
43.12.
 A slightly different interpretation is found in Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 230–2.
 The charge of tritheism had been raised by Dionysius of Rome against Dionysius of Alexan-
dria; cf. Bienert 1978, pp. 211–17.
 Cf., however, Williams 2006, esp. pp. 196–7.
 On Marcellus cf. his claim that before the incarnation only the Logos existed; cf. Marcellus,
frgs. 5–8 (Vinzent) and Vinzent 1997, p. XXXVI. Photinus, whose writings are lost, appears to have
maintained that the Son existed only after his birth from the virgin. Cf. below p. 295.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 289

lead to a remarkable theological shift.292 The condemnations nos. 4 and 5 result from
the aforementioned (implicit) one-hypóstasis theology which is contained in this
creed, to try and prevent misinterpretations. It does not follow from presupposing
one hypóstasis that Father, Son, and Spirit are identical (no. 4) nor that the Son is
(like the Father) unbegotten (or unoriginated: ἀγέννητον = ἀγένητον; no. 5).
The position that the Father begot the Son ‘neither by choice nor will’ (οὐ βουλή-
σει οὐδὲ θελήσει, no. 6) is, for example, found in the creed of Antioch 325,293 but it is
difficult to see why Serdica (east) should have turned against a creed that was, by
now, outdated. Sara Parvis has suggested that nos. 5–6 were directed specifically
against Athanasius,294 and there are good reasons to follow her argument: there was
indeed at the time a debate about the possibility of two ungenerate/unoriginate (ἀγέν-
νητα/ἀγένητα) divine beings. According to Asterius this would have followed from
the Nicene assumption of the Son’s generation from God’s essence, thus threatening
monotheism.295 By contrast, Athanasius had no problems conceding this conclusion,
as long as the Son was no part of creation and indeed coeternal with the Father.296
As far as no. 6 was concerned, the discussion about whether God possessed
some kind of ‘will’ through which he created the cosmos had been going on for
some time. If one admitted this possibility, there was a danger that God was con-
ceived of as being subject to human passions which the gnostic Basilides and his
school may have rejected.297 Later, Arius himself had insisted on the generation of
the Son ‘by the will of God’.298 Likewise, Asterius had propagated the Son’s genera-
tion ‘by choice and will’ (βουλήσει καὶ θελήσει) of the Father (and hence intro-
duced an ontological distinction between the two),299 to which Athanasius had
replied that the Son’s existence as offspring was not subject to the Father’s will,

 Cf. below pp. 292 f.

 Cf. FaFo § 133[10].
 Cf. Sara Parvis 2006, pp. 231–2 and nn. 239–40.
 Cf. Asterius, frgs. 2–4 (Vinzent).
 Cf. Athanasius, Contra Arianos 1,31,2: ‘But if they [believe], as it pleased Asterius, that what is
not a work (ποίημα) but existed always is unoriginate (ἀγένητον), then they must be told ever so
often that in this interpretation the Son must likewise be called unoriginate. For he belongs nei-
ther to the things originated nor is he a work, but he has eternally existed together with the Fa-
ther, as has already been shown, [. . .].’ Cf. also Athanasius, Contra Arianos 3,16, esp. 3,16,4.
 Cf., e.g., Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 7,21,1. However, Winrich A. Löhr thinks that
Refutatio 7,20–27 ought not to be used to reconstruct Basilidean gnosticism; cf. Löhr 1996, pp. 284–323.
 Cf. Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum 3 (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo
§ 131a).
 Asterius, frg. 18 (Vinzent 1993, p. 90): [. . .] ἀλλὰ δεῖ λέγειν βουλήσει καὶ θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι
τὸν υἱὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός. / ‘[. . .] but one has to say that the Son was generated by the choice and
will of the Father.’ Cf. also frg. 16 and Vinzent 1993, pp. 191–2.
290 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

but originated from the Father’s substance.300 It is easy to see why the eastern
bishops would have wished to distance themselves from a doctrine of two ungen-
erate beings (which might have been construed as ditheism), but it is less obvious
why they would have insisted on the Son’s generation by the Father’s will, given
that the present creed’s trinitarian doctrine was otherwise by no means Arian or
Asterian. Perhaps there was a fear that, once again, the assumption of one divine
hypóstasis might lead to some kind of ‘merging’ of the first and second person of
the Trinity. Later, a different explanation was given in the Macrostich Creed: the
Father ought not to be confined by any kind of necessity. It is unclear, however, to
what extent the commentary in the Macrostich Creed actually reflects the consid-
erations of Serdica.301
According to Hanson, with their six additional condemnations the easterners
wished

to allay Western fears that in maintaining the existence of three hypostáseis within the God-
head they are falling into tritheism, and to reject Arian doctrine equally with Sabellianism.
The last clause may be aimed both at the Arian playing down the role of the Son as Logos
and Wisdom and at pro-Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
which appeared to rule out the moral union between the Father’s being and that of the
Son.302

But as we saw above the creed did not maintain a theology of three hypostáseis –
on the contrary: it was as Nicene as possible without actually adopting its homooú-
sios. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow from the Son being generated ‘by
choice and will’ of the Father that he was not also consubstantial with the Father.
In any case, the interpretation presented above suggests that a considerable
shift towards a quasi-Nicene position had taken place among many eastern bish-
ops between the Dedication Council (‘Second Creed’) and Serdica. It is important
to remember that there is little evidence in the many documents we have about
what happened at Serdica that there was a fundamental doctrinal disagreement
between east and west. As I said above, the controversial issues concerned the
conduct of Athanasius (not his doctrine) which in the eyes of the eastern bishops

 Cf. Athanasius, Contra Arianos 1,29,2, ll. 6–9 (Metzler/Savvidis 1998, p. 139): Τὸ ποίημα ἔξωθεν
τοῦ ποιοῦντός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας γέννημά ἐστι· διὸ καὶ τὸ μὲν
ποίημα οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ εἶναι· ὅτε γὰρ βούλεται ὁ δημιουργός, ἐργάζεται· τὸ δὲ γέννημα οὐ βουλή-
σει ὑπόκειται, ἀλλὰ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ἰδιότης. / ‘A work is extraneous to its maker, as has been
said before, but the Son is the proper offspring of the [Father’s] substance. Therefore, also a
work does not by necessity forever exist; for when the workman wills it [to exist] it is produced;
but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the substance.’
 Cf. also the next chapter.
 Hanson 1988, p. 298–9.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 291

was utterly criminal and the refusal of the westerners to condemn Marcellus’ the-
ology. But the easterners did not indicate that they disagreed with the doctrinal
position of the western council as expressed in its creed.

6.5.3 The Macrostich Creed (344)

This creed was issued at yet another synod held in Antioch of unknown size, in the
summer of 344.303 It was mockingly called the ‘Macrostich Exposition’ already in
antiquity because of its inordinate length (μακρόστιχος ἔκθεσις = exposition with
long lines, i.e. lengthy).304 The synod sent a mission headed by Eudoxius of Germa-
nicia (the future bishop of Antioch and of Constantinople),305 Martyrius (his see is
unknown), and Macedonius of Mopsuestia306 to the west, to submit this text to the
western bishops for approval. Obviously, it was an attempt to repair relations be-
tween east and west which had been further strained by the fact that a western
delegation sent to Antioch had ended in utter disaster.307 Unfortunately, we have
no details about this mission nor its reception in Rome. According to Socrates the
reason for the mission’s failure was not so much theological, as caused by a break-
down in communication, as the western bishops, who for the most part did not
read Greek, were unable to understand the text, but insisted on the continuing va-
lidity of N and wished to waste no more time over the composition of ever more
credal texts.308 Although it is hardly conceivable that the creed was not submitted
in a Latin version, it may well be that the west looked on at the continuous doc-
trinal hagglings of the eastern bishops with growing incomprehension.
The text is an odd hybrid. Its first part is identical with the creed of Serdica
(east), including its set of condemnations. This was by now the doctrinal platform
for most eastern bishops who refused to adopt the homooúsios. It is followed by a

 Cf. Council of Antioch (344), Ecthesis mascrostichos (FaFo § 145). It is probably the same
home synod which deposed Stephen of Antioch and replaced him with Leontius; cf. Theodoret,
Historia ecclesiastica 2,10,2 and Hanson 1988, pp. 306–7. Socrates and Sozomen erroneously place
it before Serdica; cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,19–20; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,11.
 The term occurs for the first time in Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,11,1. Cf. also Athana-
sius, De synodis 26,1; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,19,2.
 Cf. below p. 294 and Löhr 1995; Vaggione 2018.
 Little is known about Macedonius; Athanasius counts him among the Eusebians; cf. Gwynn
2007, pp. 110–1.
 The salacious details of this episode which led to the deposition of Stephen of Antioch are
found in Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 20 and Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 2,9,1–10,1.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,20,1.
292 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

commentary (sections 5–16) explaining the two anathemas of Ant4 and the six ad-
ditional anathemas of Serdica309 one by one. It is too lengthy to be printed here,
but these additions make it much clearer where the group of bishops stood than
either Ant4 or the creed of Serdica (east) had done.
– The creed insists on the timeless generation from the Father’s hypóstasis and
thus (like Serdica) suggests that there was only one divine hypóstasis in which
the Son participated through the generation, which indicates a remarkable
proximity to N (section 5).
– It also argues that the Son ‘has a beginning in the Father who begot him’
(ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τὸν γεννήσαντα πατέρα) and is, therefore, not coeternal with
the Father (although this is not explicitly stated; section 6).
– The creed affirms three divine πράγματα (‘entities’, ‘realities’?) or πρόσωπα
(‘persons’) of Father, Son, and Spirit, but insists on the oneness of the Father,
thus trying to ward off any danger of tritheism. The precise meaning of both
terms is left unexplained. It is striking that neither the term ousía nor hypós-
tasis is mentioned here; in particular, the creed does not explain whether
prágma and prósopon are synonymous with hypóstasis, thus carefully avoid-
ing a theology of three hypostáseis (section 7).
– The Son is subordinate to the Father by virtue of his generation, but shares
the Father’s ‘nature’ (φύσις) and is, therefore, also fully divine. The equation
of phýsis with hypóstasis again points to a one-hypóstasis theology (section 8).
– The creed rejects any distinction between (pre-existent) Logos and incarnate
Son, as well as the notion that before his incarnation the Son somehow did not
fully subsist as Son and that his kingdom would come to an end after the Final
Judgement. This is directed against those who call the Logos ψιλός (‘mere’,
‘bare’, or ‘simple’) and ἀνύπαρκτος (‘non-existent’), having his subsistence from
the Father. Some of them call the Logos ‘a spoken utterance’ (προφορικός),
while others conceive of him as ‘residing in the mind’ (ἐνδιάθετος), ideas that
are also condemned (section 9).310 This section is followed by a digression di-
rected specifically against the followers of Marcellus and Photinus of Sirmium
(section 10). Oddly, the Logos is called ἐνυπόστατος here which can only mean
that he had his own hypóstasis which is contradictory to what was said before.
What is even more remarkable is that the authors claim that the Son is only
‘similar to the Father in all things’ (τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον), in their at-
tempt to ward off the theology of Marcellus and Photinus. Thus the new catch-

 Cf. above pp. 281, 288.

 On the opposition between the λόγος προφορικός and ἐνδιάθετος cf. above p. 260 and n. 166.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 293

word ὅμοιος which would later have a remarkable career was introduced into
the debate.
– After this digression the commentary returns to the next in the series of con-
demnations, explaining the rejection of all forms of patripassianism: the op-
ponents trace the three names of Father, Son, and Spirit back to the same
prágma and prósopon, an idea which had already been rejected in anathema
3. Once again, the text carefully avoids using the term hypóstasis (section 11).
– Strangely, the condemnation of the view that the Son is unbegotten is not
commented upon. Here the commentary leaves a gap.
– The emphasis on the Son’s generation by ‘choice’ (βουλήσει) and ‘will’
(θελήσει) is meant to avoid the danger of making the Father subject to any
kind of necessity (section 12). This view had also been expressed in the sixth
additional anathema of the creed of Serdica (east).311
Here the commentary on the condemnations of Serdica ends. What follows is an-
other explanation of the Son’s generation (section 13) and of the unique relation
between Father and Son (section 14). The authors wish to distance themselves
from a view which considers the Son a created being like any other. They quote
Prov 8:22 to this purpose and clearly allude to Jn 1:3: the Son is creator and as
such cannot himself belong to the created order. The Son alone was begotten by
the Father. This generation then leads to a subsistence of the Son which is distinct
from that of the Father without being separate from him. By contrast, the creed
emphasizes the close proximity of Father and Son (which is even described as the
Father ‘embracing’ (ἐνστερνισμένου) the Son). Again the question as to whether
the Son possesses his own hypóstasis is touched upon, without mentioning the
term itself.
The final section (section 15) resumes the subordinationist doctrine of the
Trinity which had been developed throughout the commentary. The ‘all-perfect’
(παντέλειον) and ‘most-holy’ (ἁγιωτάτην) character of the Trinity is emphasized.
The oneness of Father and Son is described with the help of the terms ‘dignity’
(ἀξίωμα) and ‘harmony’ (συμφωνία), but without using ousía or hypóstasis. Ant2
(which had been influenced by Asterius) had used the term symphonía in this
context, while in the same clause insisting on the hypostatic difference between
Father, Son, and Spirit.312 However, here the term axíoma is added, no explicit
distinction is made between the hypostáseis of Father and Son, and the Spirit is
not even mentioned in this context. Indeed, the Spirit is only referenced further

 Cf. above p. 288.

 Cf. above p. 273.
294 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

below: it is subordinate to the Son who bestows it (at Pentecost) upon the saints
through the will of the Father (πατρικῷ βουλήματι).
As I have tried to make clear in my analysis there is a peculiar tension in this
text: whereas sections 5–9 seem to lean towards a one-hypóstasis theology, the di-
gression in 10 appears to presuppose a separate hypóstasis of the pre-existent
Logos and even a relationship between Father and Son which is defined by similar-
ity only, rather than (some kind of) identity. This correlates with the general im-
pression that section 10 interrupts the carefully structured text and may, in turn,
indicate that 10 was later inserted into the creed’s commentary in 5–9, 11–12. The
commentary without this digression may even have already been written in Serd-
ica, but left unpublished for some reason (length?). Sections 13–15 may also have
been appended later when 10 was inserted. Whatever the precise history of this
text, it clearly shows traces of several stages of revision.
Be that as it may, we can detect a theology ‘on the move’ in this instance,
gradually shifting from a position which may have been considered compatible
with N towards a new theology which would later be called Homoian. This may
well be connected with the fact that the chief delegate was Eudoxius who was to
become one of the leaders of this ecclesial party. He had already taken part in the
Dedication Council and in the Synod of Serdica, but appears to have not yet been
one of the principal figures in these proceedings. The fact that he was heading
the mission to the west suggests that by now he had obtained a leading role in the
doctrinal negotiations. Perhaps it was he who had composed the digression which
was then inserted into an already existing, earlier text at the Synod in Antioch
in 344.

6.5.4 The First Creed of Sirmium (351)

The synod which was summoned in early 351 to Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrov-
ica in Serbia) by the Emperor Constantius II discussed the orthodoxy of Photinus.313
He had been deposed as bishop of Sirmium at two Synods in Milan (345) and Sir-
mium (347), but the deposition had not come into effect. Finally, at the (second) Sir-
mian Synod of 351 Photinus was (again) deposed and sent into exile. On the same
occasion a creed was adopted which is another extended version of Ant4.314 The dif-

 Cf. above p. 288 and n. 291.

 Cf. Council of Sirmium (351), Fidei confessio prima (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 47.3;
FaFo § 148). It is probably neither a revision of the Ecthesis of Serdica (east) nor of the Macrostich
Creed, because in that case the additional condemnations in both these creeds (beginning with
ὁμοίως, ‘likewise’) would have now been replaced by another set of anathemas which is less
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 295

ferences are minimal.315 However, the anathema of Ant4 is supplemented by a series

of 26 new condemnations (altogether 27). They all display the same structure, consist-
ing of a conditional clause introduced by εἴ τις (‘if anyone’) to summarize the oppo-
nent’s position and a main clause containing nothing but the formula ἀνάθεμα ἔστω
(‘let him be anathema’). This structure already occurs in Ant2,316 but it is extended in
such a way here that it almost functions like a litany or a responsory. Thus the em-
phasis is shifted from the credal text itself to the final condemnations. What do these
additional anathemas reveal about their authors’ theological tenets?
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not one prósopon (rejection of modalism, anath-
ema 20(19)). The authors underline the pre-existence of Christ and his cooperation
in the process of creation (anathemas 4(3), 6(5), 15(14)). The Logos is not in any way
intrinsic to the Father (he is neither endiáthetos nor prophorikós)317 nor is his gener-
ation the result of an ‘expansion’ or ‘extension’ (πλατυσμός) of the Father (anathe-
mas 7(6)–9(8)). Here, once again, the text is directed against Marcellus of Ancyra and
Photinus without their being named.318 (Photinus had, according to the council’s pro-
ceedings as reported by Epiphanius, distinguished the pre-existent Logos, who had
subsisted in the Father but was no Son, from Christ, who had been named Son after
the virgin birth.319 Hence he probably championed a version of adoptionism.) The
Son is subordinate to the Father who told the Son to sit at his right hand. The Father
is the beginning of Christ who, in turn, is the beginning of all things. It is important
to hold on to this notion of a hierarchy in the divinity, because otherwise there is
the danger that two unbegun and unbegotten beings existed and thus, ultimately,
two gods (anathemas 3(2), 19(18), 27(26)). At the same time, the Son has not come into

likely. It is easier to assume these Sirmian anathemas were added to an, at that stage, briefer
text.
 Differences which may be significant: καὶ δύναμιν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν was changed
to καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν καὶ ζωήν. In addition, ὅπερ ἐπαγγειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μετὰ τὴν εἰς
οὐρανοὺς αὐτοῦ ἄνοδον ἀπέστειλε διδάξαι αὐτοὺς καὶ ὑπομνῆσαι πάντα was changed to ὅπερ
ἐπαγγειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μετὰ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς αὐτοῦ ἄνοδον ἀποστεῖλαι, διδάξαι καὶ ὑπ-
ομνῆσαι αὐτοὺς πάντα ἔπεμψε. – The additions ἦν χρόνος ἢ αἰών in the second anathema and ἡ
ἁγία καὶ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία are identical with those in Serdica and in the Macrostich Creed. Per-
haps the present text of Ant4 is defective in these places.
 Cf. above p. 273.
 For the distinction between the Logos endiáthetos and prophorikós cf. above pp. 260 and n. 167.
Furthermore cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 71,3,9 (Dokument 47.2, 1,12 in Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 333).
 For the theory of Christ’s generation as a result of God’s expansion cf. Marcellus, frgs. 48
and 73 (Vinzent). Cf., in addition, Vinzent 1997, pp. 262–77.
 Cf. especially the report about the disputation at Sirmium in Epiphanius, Panarion 71,2,2–4
(Dokument 47.2, 1,8 in Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 331). In addition, Hübner 1989, pp. 187–8. On the
teachings of Photinus in general cf. Uthemann 1999; Williams 2006; McCarthy Spoerl 2022.
296 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

being by the Father’s will (βουλήσει), as this would indicate that he is a creature
(which is clearly directed against Arius and Asterius, but also the creed of Serdica
(east) and the Macrostich Creed;320 anathema 25(24)). Conversely, the authors also
reject the view that the Son has been generated against the Father’s will, because
this would render the Father subject to some kind of necessity or compulsion (anath-
ema 26(25)). The Paraclete must be clearly distinguished from both Father and Son
(anathemas 21(20)–23(22)), but this does not make Father, Son, and Spirit three gods
(anathema 24(23)).
The synod insisted that in those passages of the Old Testament which had
been used by Photinus to prove that the Son was not pre-existent it was precisely
the Son and not the Father who had been active and had appeared to the patri-
archs (anathemas 16(15)–19(18)). Christ incarnate is not unbegotten (anathemas
5(4), 11(10)), but he is no mere human either (anathema 10(9)). Interestingly, the
authors also seem to turn against Jews who take Is 44:6 (‘I, God, [am] the first and
I [am] the last, and besides me there is no God’) as proof that Christ could not have
been divine (anathema 12(11)). However, the verse was also used by Marcellus in
his polemic against Asterius where he argued that God’s oneness excluded the pre-
existence of another, younger divine figure.321 God was not transformed or altered
in the process of the incarnation, and did not suffer either (anathemas 13(12),
14(13)).
The final anathema (which was again directed against Photinus) sums up the
doctrine of this creed:

Once more giving a precise summary of the idea of Christianity, we say that if anyone might
say not that Christ is God, Son of God, existing before the ages, and having assisted the Fa-
ther in the framing of the universe, but that he was called Christ and Son and received the
beginning of his existence as God [only] from the time when he was born from Mary, let
him be anathema.322

There is nothing in this text which would have been offensive to defenders of Ni-
caea except for the omission of homooúsios and (perhaps for some) its rather dis-
tinctive subordinationism. The opponents against which this creed is directed
(primarily Marcellus and Photinus and, to a lesser extent, Arians) remain unnamed.
There is no indication that the authors championed a theology of three hypostá-
seis – in fact, they seem to represent a one-hypóstasis theology, taking over the first
condemnation from Ant4. In other words: the creed’s condemnations explain the
creed itself without adding any major new doctrinal reflections. They contain no

 Cf. above pp. 288 f., 293.

 Cf. Marcellus, frgs. 97–98 (Vinzent).
 Council of Sirmium (351), Fidei confessio prima (FaFo § 148) 28(27).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 297

inkling of a Homoian doctrine of the Trinity and thus take a step back from the
Macrostich Creed. In fact, just like Ant4 this creed represents a theology which is
very close to Nicaea. Therefore, even the Roman bishop, by now Liberius (sedit
352–366), was ultimately able (although not without considerable political pres-
sure323) to accept it as orthodox.324

6.5.5 The Expositio fidei attributed to Athanasius

We possess another Expositio fidei which the manuscript tradition attributed to

Athanasius, but which – in the view of its most recent editors – was issued by an
unknown Egyptian council in around 351.325 Earlier scholars often attributed it to
Marcellus, but this is now deemed unlikely.326 Alas, we have no information
about the context within which this creed was drafted. Nonetheless, it looks as if
the authors knew and used the Sermo maior de fide (Epistula ad Antiochenos),
which was perhaps written by the bishop of Ancyra,327 and texts which are as-
cribed to Dionysius of Rome and his namesake of Alexandria by Athanasius.328
The text is an extended creed which displays Nicene features. The authors reject
certain descriptions of the Logos: he is ‘neither a spoken nor a mental Word,329

 Cf. Barnes 1993, p. 138.

 Cf. Liberius, Epistula ad orientales episcopos in Hilary, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Frag-
menta historica) B VII 8,2(6): ‘That you may know more truly that I express my true belief (ueram
fidem) in this letter, let me say: because my lord and common brother Demofilus [bishop of Ber-
oea where Liberius stayed in exile] kindly saw fit to set forth your creed, which is also the Catho-
lic faith (fidem uestram et catholicam), as discussed and set forth by very many of our brothers
and fellow bishops at Sirmium and accepted [. . .] by all present, I have accepted it gladly [. . .]. I
have not contradicted it in any respect, I have concurred with it, follow it and hold to it’ (Wick-
ham 1997, pp. 77 f.; slightly altered). In my view, Liberius’ letter fits better the First Sirmian
Creed than the Second of 357 or Third of 358. However, problems remain; for a full discussion cf.
Brennecke 1984, pp. 274–84 (who opts for the creed of 357; cf. also Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 376)
and Hanson 1988, pp. 358–62 (p. 362: ‘The matter must be left open.’). Cf. also Bleckmann/Stein
2015, vol. II, pp. 280 f. and Sághy 2018, citing further literature.
 Cf. Pseudo-Athanasius, Expositio fidei (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 48; FaFo § 149). Cf.
also Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 346.
 Cf. Seibt 1993; Brennecke et al. 2014, pp. 346 f.
 Cf. Seibt 1993, pp. 285–90. Sara Parvis 2006, p. 246 rejects Marcellan authorship.
 Detailed discussion in Seibt 1993, pp. 290–5. Seibt assumes that the texts by the two ‘Dionysii’
and the Expositio fidei were written by the same author; this is disputed by Heil 1999, pp. 41–3.
 The idea that the Logos is prophorikós or endiáthetos was already rejected in the Ecthesis
macrostichos 9–10 (cf. above p. 292). Cf. also the Council of Sirmium (351), Fidei confessio prima
(FaFo § 148) 9(8) and above p. 295. In addition, cf. above p. 260 and n. 167.
298 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

nor an emanation of the Perfect, nor a division, nor an issue of the impassible
nature; but an absolutely perfect Son, living and active [cf. Heb 4:12], the true
image of the Father, equal in honour and glory’.330 The Son is thus ‘similar to the
Father’ (ὅμοιος τῷ πατρί; section 1). Yet this is no Homoian theology: the following
quotation of Jn 14:9 (‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’) makes it clear
that the authors do not wish to distinguish the Son from the Father; on the con-
trary: the Son’s likeness is an expression of his proximity to the Father. Yet he is
not identical with him either. There is, therefore, a certain similarity of this text
with the aforementioned ‘Homoian’ passage in the Macrostich Creed,331 but the
divinity of the Son is emphasized in much stronger terms than in the earlier text.
The authors distance themselves from the ‘Sabellians’ who say that the Fa-
ther-Son (υἱοπάτορα) is of a single substance, but not from the same (or, perhaps
better, of a like) substance (μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον). Obviously they do
not share the (later) Neo-Nicene position: for them homooúsios does not (yet)
mean identity of substance.332 However, they also reject the division of Father,
Son, and Spirit into three distinct hypostáseis (by which they mean something
like ‘entities’ without a common ontological substratum), as this would lead to tri-
theism. The most appropriate metaphor is that of spring (Father) and river (Son):
‘[. . .] the godhead passes from the Father into the Son without flow333 and with-
out division (ἀρρεύστως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως)’ (section 3). This excludes the idea of the
Son’s being a creature. Every biblical text which is claimed to refer to the Son/
Christ being a creature (e.g. Jer 38(31):22; Prov 8:22) in truth refers to the Lord’s
body (σῶμα; section 5).
Finally, the authors have little to say about the Holy Spirit, but what they do
say is remarkable: the Spirit is an ἐκπόρευμα, something proceeding from the Fa-
ther, and ‘is ever in the hands of the Father who sends, and [is in the hands] of the
Son who conveys him, through whom he filled all things [cf. Eph 4:10]’ (section 6).

 Pseudo-Athanasius, Expositio fidei 3 (FaFo § 149): [. . .] λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιά-
θετον, οὐκ ἀπόρροιαν τοῦ τελείου, οὐ τμῆσιν τῆς ἀπαθοῦς φύσεως οὔτε προβολήν, ἀλλ᾿ υἱὸν αὐτο-
τελῆ, ζῶντά τε καὶ ἐνεργοῦντα, τὴν ἀληθινὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρὸς ἰσότιμον καὶ ἰσόδοξον [. . .].
 Cf. Ecthesis macrostichos (FaFo § 145[10]) and above pp. 292 f.
 By contrast, cf., e.g., Pseudo-Athanasius (Marcellus?), Epistula ad Liberium (FaFo § 150)
whose author identifies ousía with hypóstasis, advocates a theology of one divine ousía, and
clearly assumes homooúsios to express identity of substance.
 The meaning of ἀρρεύστως here is difficult to ascertain. For how can a spring turn into a
river without flow? I owe this observation to Kathrin Lüddecke.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 299

All in all, the text is irenic in character: the opponents (mainly Arians) are
nowhere named. The authors are struggling accurately to describe the relation
between the persons of the Trinity, rejecting both a one-ousía and a three-
hypostáseis theology. They affirm the homooúsios, but do not interpret it in the
sense of an identity of substance: here it expresses that the Son most closely ap-
proximates the Father, while falling short of an actual identity.

6.5.6 The Second Creed of Sirmium (357)

It is uncertain whether new synodal creeds were produced in the period 351–357.
Sulpicius Severus claims that Emperor Constantius II requested the western bish-
ops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius at Synods in Arles (353) and Béziers
(356). In turn, they told him that the fides first had to be debated before they were
willing to do as he wished, but Bishop Valens (of Mursa) and his associates did
not have the courage to take up the gauntlet (de fide certare non ausi).334 After
Arles Liberius of Rome sent a letter to Constantius II, calling for a new investiga-
tion into the case of Athanasius and the confirmation of the orthodoxy of N at a
general council.335 Similarly, according to Sulpicius Severus, the local bishop Dio-
nysius said at the Synod of Milan (355) that he would not agree to Athanasius’
condemnation, unless the bishops had considered the faith beforehand (dum-
modo de fide inter episcopos quaeretur).336 Eusebius of Vercelli seems to have
made the same request. He presented N and promised to do all that was expected
of him if his opponents were to write down a ‘profession of faith’ (fidei professio-
nem scripsissent). When Dionysius was on the point of actually doing so, bishop
Valens tore quill and paper from his hand.337 The bishops Valens and Ursacius (of
Singidunum) then supposedly circulated a letter under the emperor’s name. Had
the letter met with resistance, then the emperor would have taken the blame.
This would not have been a problem ‘because also at that time a catechumen
would have been excused for not knowing the mystery of the faith’ (quia etiam
tum catechumenus sacramentum fidei merito uideretur potuisse nescire; the em-

 Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2,39,3 (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 50.2, 1). As regards Va-
lens (and Ursacius) cf. already above p. 285.
 Liberius, Epistula ad Constantium imperatorem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 50.1) 7. Cf.
also Brennecke 1984, pp. 158–64 who expresses a certain scepticism and thinks that Liberius was
referring to Serdica rather than to N.
 Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2,39,4 (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 50.2, 2).
 Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica), app. II,3(8),2
(FaFo § 152).
300 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

peror had not yet been baptized).338 Since our reports about events at Milan are
incomplete and the imperial letter (if it ever existed) is lost, we do not know to
what extent N was discussed at Milan. However, there can be little doubt that it
did play some role. At that point a Latin translation must have existed which is
no longer extant (the earliest surviving text stems from 356339). By contrast, it is
controversial whether Constantius submitted a doctrinal formula to the Synods of
Arles and Milan; in any case, there is no trace of it in our sources.340
There were clear signs, though, that Constantius was no longer willing to tol-
erate dissension in the Church.341 Although the details remain blurred, it seems
that he intended first to remove the trouble-maker Athanasius and his Nicene
supporters from the scene through universal ecclesial condemnation, followed by
exile, and subsequently to impose a credal formula which was wide enough to
unite all bishops under its doctrinal umbrella. At first, however, his sympathies
may not have lain with the opponents of Nicaea. An encyclical letter Athanasius
sent to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, whose date is, unfortunately, uncertain
(356 or 361), includes a report about a creed which ‘Arians’, followers of Eusebius
of Nicomedia,342 had drawn up to stir up public opinion against the Nicenes and
to win the emperor over to their side.343 Unfortunately, Athanasius fails to quote
this document directly; but he concedes that its phrasing is scriptural and that its
terminology is ‘orthodox’344 – and he goes on to give a long list of bishops whom
he deems defenders of the right faith.345 This description fits the First Sirmian
Creed quite well – indeed, it seems that Athanasius does not deal with this (or a

 Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2,39,5 (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 50.2).
 Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) B II 10,1–3(27;
FaFo § 135d1) and (perhaps somewhat later) Lucifer of Cagliari, De non parcendo in deum deli-
quentibus 18 (§ 135d2). The Synod of Milan is discussed in Brennecke 1984, pp. 147–95; Hanson
1988, pp. 332–4.
 Cf. the discussion in Brennecke 1984, pp. 184–92 (listing earlier literature); Hanson 1988,
pp. 329–34; Ulrich 1994, p. 219 n. 17.
 Cf. Klein 1977, esp. pp. 86–93; Barnes 1993, pp. 138–41; Barceló 2004, pp. 148 f., 168–77; Craw-
ford 2016, pp. 112 f.
 Here and elsewhere Athanasius provides a long list of bishops supportive of ‘Arian’ views;
cf. Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 7,2–6. For further lists cf. Metzler/Hansen/Savvidis
1996, p. 46, app. ad loc.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, esp. 5,1–4; 6,1; 7,2; 8,1–2; 18,3 (FaFo
§ 153).
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 8,2: ‘For even though they may write
with phrases from the Scriptures, do not endure their writings; even though they may speak
with the expressions of orthodoxy, do not pay attention to what they say in this way.’ Cf. also 9,6;
11,1.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 8,4.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 301

similar) creed in greater detail, precisely because he has some difficulties proving
his opponents’ heterodoxy. Instead he emphasizes time and again that they hide
their true (Arian) views and avoid the contentious issues.346 Had this letter been
written after the Second Creed of Sirmium (357), it would have been easy for
Athanasius to show its ante-Nicene character – which is why a date before 357 is
perferable.347
However, with this Second Creed of 357 things began to shift significantly. It
was drafted by the bishops Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, and Germi-
nius of Sirmium348 in Latin,349 perhaps in the context of a small synod.350 Strictly
speaking, it is no creed (avoiding the formula credo/credimus351), but a kind of
memorandum discussing contentious doctrinal issues. The text (which need not
be cited here in full) first names those issues on which there was unanimity: the
generation of the Son before the ages and God’s oneness (section 2). It then ad-
dresses the points on which there was dissension, suggesting that the controver-
sial terms homooúsios and homoioúsios (the latter as yet not having been used in
a creed) ought to be avoided, because these terms were unscriptural and inappro-
priate for describing the Son’s generation whose precise nature was unknown to
us. Here the authors referred to Is 53:8 (cf. Acts 8:33): ‘Who can describe his gener-
ation?’ (section 3). The text then affirms the Son’s subordination to the Father
(sections 4–5), because

the Father is greater in honour, dignity, glory, majesty (honore, dignitate, claritate, maies-
tate), and in the very name of Father [. . .]. No one is ignorant that it is catholic doctrine
that there are two persons (duas personas) of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater,

 Cf. esp. Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 3,5; 8,2; 9,6; 10–11; 19,7.
 Cf. also Metzler/Hansen/Savvidis 1996, p. 39 app.
 Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arianos 8,2 names Potamius of Lisbon as the creed’s third au-
thor (instead of Germinius). Hilary quotes the creed under the title Exemplum blasphemiae apud
Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscriptae / ‘A copy of the blasphemy written by Ossius and
Potamius in Sirmium’ (De synodis 10 (PL 10, col. 487A)). Authorship by Ossius is, however, un-
likely (cf. Hanson 1988, pp. 336 f., 345 f. and below in the text). According to Hanson, ‘it is best to
assign the authorship of this creed to Valens, Ursacius, Potamius and Germinius’ (p. 346).
 Cf. Council of Sirmium (357), Fidei confessio altera (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 51; FaFo
§ 154a). We also possess a Greek translation (§ 154b) which differs from the Latin original in
some respects.
 Cf. Brennecke 1984, pp. 312–25; Hanson 1988, pp. 343–7; Barnes 1993, pp. 231 f.; Brennecke
et al. 2014, p. 376. However, in the introductory section it is said that the text was discussed be-
tween the three bishops only. We do not know whether or not the Emperor Constantius was
present.
 In section 2 the expression creditur is used but no equivalent is found in the Greek transla-
tion which reads καταγγέλλεται / ‘it is proclaimed’ instead.
302 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

and the Son has been subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father
has subordinated to him [cf. 1Cor 15:28] [. . .].

Although this was no formal synodal creed, its implications were considerable, be-
cause if its agenda was to become official doctrine, then it was not only N that was
rejected, but all attempts at bridging the terminological gaps between supporters
and critics of N would be thwarted. In other words, it would no longer be possible
simply to express the Nicene faith by quietly dropping its homooúsios. Now the
claim was that it was theologically impossible as well as inappropriate to describe
the Son’s generation with any predicates. Furthermore, the text was so vague that
it did not exclude the possibility that the Son ultimately belonged to the created
order and might be posterior in some way to the Father. Incidentally, it is striking
that the authors of these texts no longer focussed on the old enemies Marcellus
and Photinus. (Marcellus was by that time rather isolated;352 likewise, Photinus’
sphere of activity had been temporarily reduced with his deposition in 351.353)
It seems that the Second Creed of Sirmium was circulated across the empire
to be signed by the bishops.354 Among the signatories was Ossius, erstwhile de-
fender of the Nicene faith; however, he refused to condemn Athanasius. The rea-
sons for his change of heart are unknown.355

6.5.7 The formation of the Homoiousians in Ancyra (358)

In response to the Second Creed of Sirmium356 a group of twelve bishops led by

Basil of Ancyra and also including Macedonius of Constantinople and Eustathius
of Sebaste met in early 358, issuing a lengthy statement in which a theological po-
sition was formulated that saw itself in continuity with the creed of the eastern
council of Serdica.357 This is usually seen as the founding document of the Homoi-

 Cf. Vinzent 1997, pp. XXIV–XXV.

 Cf. Williams 2006, pp. 191–2.
 Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Liber (I) in Constantium imperatorem 26; id., De synodis 2.
 Athanasius claims that the reason for his turnabout was a one-year detention in Sirmium
(Historia Arianorum 45,4; cf. also Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,31 (who even claims that Ossius
was tortured); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,12,6). Cf. De Clercq 1954, pp. 474–525; Klein 1977,
pp. 135 f.; Hanson 1988, pp. 336–7; Just 2003, pp. 88–93; Barceló 2004, p. 155.
 The historical background which also involves the complicated situation at Antioch is de-
scribed in Hanson 1988, pp. 348 f.
 Cf. Council of Ancyra (358), Epistula synodalis (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 55). Its first
part also in FaFo § 155. An English translation is found in Steenson/DelCogliano 2017.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 303

ousians, although the term ὁμοιούσιος (‘of similar substance’) is not used.358 It
consists of an introduction (sections 1–5), a theological treatise (sections 6–25),
and nineteen anathemas (section 26) and was signed by Basil, Eustathius of Se-
baste (d. after 377), and ten further bishops.
As this letter contains no creed, we will touch upon it only very briefly. Its
authors do, however, present themselves as the torchbearers of the faith as set
out in a series of earlier creeds which are enumerated twice (sections 2, 4): the
Fourth Creed of Antioch359 – Serdica (east) – Sirmium 351 – Macrostich Creed.360
The Father is described in long biblical exegeses as the ‘cause of a substance simi-
lar to his’ (αἴτιον ὁμοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας) – which is, in effect, the same as homoioú-
sios (section 6; cf. also 8–9, 13–14, 16, 19, 21, 25). The reverse is, then, also true: that
the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, although the text, interestingly,
phrases it differently: ‘When we hear the name of “Son” we understand him to be
similar to the Father, whose Son he is.’361 This change in terminology is no doubt
influenced by the ‘Homoian’ passage in the Macrostich Creed which I discussed
above, giving it, as it were, a Homoiousian twist.362 The relationship between Fa-
ther and Son can henceforth no longer (explicitly or by implication) be described
as homooúsios, but neither is theirs ‘only’ some kind of (accidental) similarity;
rather, it is something in between: the Son’s substance derives from the Father’s
substance by way of generation which defines their similarity in substance as
being like the way in which an image is similar to the original (Col 1:15) without
actually sharing its substance (cf. sections 8–9, 19; anathemas 9–10). Here the au-
thors, at first glance, seem to come close to the argument in Ant2.363 It must be
borne in mind that the reason for the explicit rejection of homooúsios in anath-
ema 19 is no longer its unbiblical provenance,364 but fear that it may be confused
with a complete identity of substance and mode of subsistence which leaves no
more room to describe the different operations of Father and Son, leaving one

 Cf. Hanson 1988, pp. 349 f. Kelly 1972, p. 288 is inaccurate on this point. Homoioúsios was
never used in any creed in an affirmative sense. ‘It certainly was not a slogan designed to unite a
party, but a convenient way of referring to a theological group, used perhaps more by those who
did not form part of the group than by those who did’ (Hanson 1988, p. 350).
 Cf., however, Hanson 1988, pp. 351 f.; Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 387 n. b: Ant2.
 The identification of the Macrostich Creed is not quite certain.
 Cf. Council of Ancyra (358), Epistula synodalis (Dokument 55, 6 in Brennecke et al. 2014,
p. 390, ll. 8–14): [. . .] ἵνα [. . .] καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀκούοντες ὅμοιον νοήσωμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
πατρός, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός.
 Cf. above pp. 292 f.
 Cf. above p. 274 and Hanson 1988, p. 253.
 Cf., however, above p. 301.
304 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

exposed to the danger of patripassianism.365 This is also the reason why the
Son is termed the Father’s ‘image’ – the ‘image’ terminology rightly understood
can no longer be used to downgrade the Son’s ontological status. Here the text
clearly distances itself from the Asterian theology expressed in Ant2 (cf. esp.
sections 19–20).366
On the basis of such theological considerations, then, the authors rejected all
forms of Arianism, especially the new version as championed by Eunomius (to
become bishop of Cyzicus in 360; d. 396/397).367 Again and again they describe the
Son’s generation from the Father as fundamentally different to the relation be-
tween creator and creature. The Father’s ‘generative energy’ (ἐνέργεια γεννητική)
to which the Son owes his existence is distinct from his ‘creative energy’ (ἐνέργεια
κτιστική):

Instead he [sc. the apostle Paul in 1Cor 1:17] wants to proclaim – without the use of logic –
the Father and the Son without [recourse to] passions: the Father had begotten the Son
from himself without emission or passion, while the Son subsisted from the Father, being
similar in substance, perfect from perfect [and] only-begotten. [These doctrines] are <either
believed> by the believing or suspected <by the unbelieving>.368

The phrase ὅμοιον κατ’ οὐσίαν (‘similar in substance’) indicated that a new posi-
tion was emerging here whose proponents would soon be some of the key players
in the further struggle for orthodoxy.

 Cf. Council of Ancyra (358), Epistula synodalis (Dokument 55, 26(19.) in Brennecke et al. 2014,
p. 408, ll. 3–6): Καὶ εἴ τις ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ οὐσίᾳ λέγων τὸν πατέρα πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ, ὁμοούσιον δὲ ἢ
ταὐτοούσιον λέγοι τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. / ‘And if anyone says that the Father is the
Father of the Son by authority and substance and then says that the Son is consubstantial or of
identical substance with the Father, let him be anathema.’ Cf. also section 25: the Son is God, but
he is not ‘the’ God. This distinction does not serve to assign the Son to the created order as, e.g.,
in Asterius (cf. frg. 63 (Vinzent)), but to safeguard some kind of distinction between Father and
Son while retaining the Son’s full divinity (cf. also anathema 13).
 Cf. above pp. 274 f.
 Cf. the references to Eunomius’ works in Brennecke et al. 2014, app. ad Dokument 55. Anho-
moianism is explicitly rejected in anathemas 3, 5, 7, 9, 11–12, 14, 18.
 Council of Ancyra (358), Epistula synodalis (Dokument 55, 15 in Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 396,
ll. 24–32): [. . .] ἀλλ’ ἀπαθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, πατέρα μὲν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ γεγεννηκότα ἄνευ ἀπορροίας
καὶ πάθους τὸν υἱόν, υἱὸν δὲ ὅμοιον καὶ κατ’ οὐσίαν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, τέλειον ἐκ τελείου, μονογενῆ
ὑποστάντα, <πιστευόμενα> τοῖς πιστοῖς ἢ ὑποπτευόμενα <τοῖς ἀπίστοις> ἀσυλλογίστως κηρύξει.
The conjecture <ἢ πιστευόμενα> suggested by Brennecke et al. seems unwarranted.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 305

6.5.8 A union failed? The so-called Third Creed of Sirmium (358)

By the late 350s we see an increasing hardening of doctrinal frontlines: if the status
of the Son as a creature and his temporal posterity with regard to the Father are
considered the hallmarks of Arianism, then the Anhomoians (Neo-Arians) led by
Aetius (d. 365/366) and Eunomius who worked out the ontological implications with
much greater precision were the true heirs of the first-generation Arians.369 They
taught a marked subordinationism: as God’s creature the Son does not originate
from the ousía or hypóstasis of the Father and is therefore not homooúsios. This
applies in a similar way to the Spirit who is, in turn, subordinate to the Son. Al-
though the Anhomoians (so called by their opponents) de facto posited the dissimi-
larity of the ousía of Father and Son, they probably did not qualify the relationship
between Father and Son explicitly as ‘dissimilar’ (ἀνόμοιος), but preferred the pred-
icate ‘of a different substance’ (ἑτεροούσιος). Right from the beginning they were
largely isolated and rarely involved in synodal discussions which may be the rea-
son why no Anhomoian creed seems to have been produced until the Council of
Constantinople (381). According to Basil of Caesarea the only brief creed-like text
which is found in Eunomius’ writings stems from Arius himself who presented it to
Alexander of Alexandria.370 It displays no distinctive theological features.371
The Anhomoians notwithstanding, two groups were gradually starting to for-
mulate their theological platforms: the Homoians led by the ‘Illyrian trio’372 of Va-
lens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, and Germinius of Sirmium, and the
Homoiousians led by Basil of Ancyra. They agreed in their rejection of the Neo-
Arian positions: for both groups the Son was fully God, begotten from the Father
before the ages. At the same time, there were considerable differences between
them: the Homoians wished to leave the precise meaning of generation undefined
(and might thus be suspected of clandestinely acknowledging the identity of gener-
ation and creation) and rejected, therefore, all talk of homooúsios and homoíousios
(a terminology which they considered unbiblical), without suggesting a more ap-
propriate term (such as ὅμοιος which had, at that point, not yet been introduced
in the debate373). In sum, their trinitarian doctrine as outlined in the Second Creed

 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Neuarianismus’, 2018, pp. 1491–6.

 Cf. Eunomius, Apologia 5 (FaFo § 163a) and Basil of Caesarea, Contra Eunomium 1,4. In addi-
tion, a credal text is found in Apologia 28 (FaFo § 163b).
 Eunomius only produced a Confessio fidei (which is, in fact, a brief theological treatise) in
383 after having been ordered by Emperor Theodosius I to outline his position (cf. FaFo § 163c).
 Cf. Ritter 2011, p. 194.
 Cf., however, Macrostich Creed 10 and above pp. 292 f.
306 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

of Sirmium was clearly subordinationist, strongly resembling Origen’s description

of the Trinity.374
By contrast, although the Homoiousians also rejected homooúsios, they did it
not do so primarily because it was unbiblical (they knew full well that their own
terminology of substance was not biblical either), but because for them it implied
an insufficient distinction between Father and Son. Yet they held that the Son’s
ousía derived from the Father’s and was, therefore, in every respect similar with-
out being identical. Thus they insisted on the Son’s full divinity in much stronger
terms than the Homoians, leaving no doubt that the Son could in no way be con-
sidered created. However, their notion of ousía was still rather imprecise, be-
cause they lacked a clearly defined ontological category to describe the ‘kinship’
between Father and Son. The concept of an ‘image’ made it possible to explain
this simultaneous distinction and similarity; above all, it was derived from Scrip-
ture, though it left the question unanswered as to what the Father’s ontological
substratum was that continued to exist in the Son and which constituted his es-
sential similarity to the Father.
It appears that even at that point agreement between the parties would have
been possible. Sozomen includes a report in his Church History about a meeting
which had been called in Sirmium in 358 by Constantius II.375 It consisted of the
leaders of the Homoians who were associated with the court (Valens, Ursacius,
and Germinius) and the Homoiousians led by Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Se-
baste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. Apparently, Constantius demanded that the bishop
of Rome, Liberius – who had, for this meeting, been recalled from exile (into
which he had meanwhile been sent) – condemn the homooúsios but was unsuccess-
ful. The result of this meeting was the so-called ‘Third Creed of Sirmium’ (which is,
unfortunately, lost). In fact, according to Sozomen’s account it was no creed proper,
but a collection of documents which included unspecified condemnations of Paul
of Samosata and of Photinus and Ant2 (unless Sozomen confuses it with Ant4).376
Liberius was forced to sign this document, followed by four African priests in his
retinue. However, he does not appear to have been entirely satisfied, because he
submitted a personal ‘confession’ (ὁμολογία), denouncing ‘those who affirm that
the Son is not similar to the Father in substance nor in any other respect (ἀποκηρ-

 Cf. above ch. 6.5.

 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,15,1–3 (FaFo § 156); cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument
56.1 (in part).
 Sozomen’s remark that the creed included homooúsios is incorrect.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 307

ύττουσαν τοὺς μὴ κατ’ οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀποφαίνον-
τας)’.377 Probably, Liberius was by now espousing some form of Homoiousian posi-
tion and may have thought that Ant2 was not going far enough as it did not
specifically exclude Anhomoian and Homoian views. Not all bishops present ap-
proved of Liberius’ confession.

6.5.9 The victory of the Homoians: The Fourth Creed of Sirmium (359)
and its successors

The attempts of 358 at a union failed. Although the Homoians, the Homoiousians,
and even Liberius and Ossius had been brought into the fold then, something must
have gone awry afterwards. Unfortunately, we have no details. Perhaps Constantius
thought that the document produced at Sirmium in 358 was insufficient as a creed
to be used throughout the empire. Be that as it may, on 22 May 359 yet another
creed (the so-called ‘Fourth Creed of Sirmium’) was promulgated,378 also mockingly
called the ‘Dated Creed’ because of its precise date.379 We know the background to
its composition from a letter by Germinius of Sirmium.380 According to Germinius
Constantius assembled a group of bishops at his court in Sirmium. It consisted of
Mark of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Pancratius of Pelusium, Basil of Ancyra,
Valens, Ursacius, Hypatian of Heraclea,381 and Germinius himself. Here, the contro-
versial doctrinal issues between Homoians and Homoiousians were discussed in
the emperor’s presence late into the night, until, finally, a compromise was found
with Mark commissioned by all to write a creed summing up the results.382 After
Athanasius had also been condemned by the bishop of Rome and after the silencing
of Marcellus and Photinus, the purpose of this meeting was to reach agreement be-
tween those bishops who all rejected the homooúsios (although for various reasons)
but differed in how they described the relation between Father and Son. However,

 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,15,3 (FaFo § 156). Cf. also Liberius’ letter to the oriental
bishops in Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) B VII 8,2(6;
quoted above p. 297 n. 324).
 Council of Sirmium (359), Fidei confessio quarta (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 57.2; FaFo
§ 157).
 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 3.
 Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) B VI 3 (Bren-
necke et al. 2014, Dokument 57.1).
 He is mentioned in Epiphanius, Panarion 73,22,8.
 Cf. also Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,22,6 and 4,16,19–20; 4,17,3–5. 10; Socrates, Historia
ecclesiastica 2,37,16–17. The original Latin text, if it ever existed (cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 421),
no longer survives.
308 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

rejecting the use of ousía and its cognates did not imply that there was any ontolog-
ical dissimilarity between Father and Son as the Anhomoians had suggested. The
resulting creed, therefore, attempts to steer a middle course between the Nicene
and Neo-Arian positions which are both deemed unacceptable.

Fourth Creed (‘Dated Creed’) from Sirmium (359)

(Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 57.2; FaFo § 157)
[1] Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα τὸν μόνον καὶ [1] We believe in one only and true God,
ἀληθινὸν θεὸν πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, the Father Almighty, the Creator and
κτίστην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων, Demiurge of all things;
[2] καὶ εἰς ἕνα μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [2] and in one only-begotten Son of God,
τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ before all ages, before every beginning,
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ πρὸ παντὸς ἐπινοουμέ- before all conceivable time, and before
νου χρόνου καὶ πρὸ πάσης καταληπτῆς all comprehensible thought begotten
ἐπινοίας γεγεννημένον ἀπαθῶς ἐκ τοῦ from God without passion; ‘through
θεοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ οἵ τε αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν whom’ the ages were framed and ‘all
καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, γεγεννημένον δὲ things came into being’ [Jn 1:3; 1Cor
μονογενῆ, μόνον ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός, 8:6]; who was begotten as the only-
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, ὅμοιον τῷ γεννήσαντι begotten, the only one from the only Fa-
αὐτὸν πατρὶ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, οὗ τὴν ther, God from God, similar to the Fa-
γέννησιν οὐδεὶς ἐπίσταται εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ ther who begot him according to the
γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ. Scriptures; whose birth no one knows
except only the Father who begot him.
[3] Τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ [3] We know that this only-begotten Son
υἱόν, νεύματι πατρικῷ παραγενόμενον of his descended from the heavens by
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας his Father’s command ‘for the destruc-
καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου tion of sin’ [Heb 9:26], was born from
καὶ ἀναστραφέντα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν the virgin Mary, dwelt with the disci-
καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν πληρώσαντα ples, and fulfilled every dispensation
κατὰ τὴν πατρικὴν βούλησιν, σταυρω- [cf. Eph 1:10] according to the Father’s
θέντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ εἰς τὰ κα- will; was crucified, died, descended into
ταχθόνια κατελθόντα καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε the lower parts of the earth, and dis-
οἰκονομήσαντα, ὃν πυλωροὶ ᾅδου ἰδόντες posed matters there; at the ‘sight’ of
ἔφριξαν καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ whom the ‘door-keepers of the under-
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀναστραφέντα μετὰ τῶν world trembled’ [Job 38:17]; after rising
μαθητῶν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν from the dead on the third day, he
πληρώσαντα καὶ πεντήκοντα ἡμερῶν again dwelt with the disciples; com-
πληρουμένων ἀναληφθέντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρα- pleted the whole dispensation [cf. Eph
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 309

νοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πα- 1:10]; after fifty days were completed he
τρὸς καὶ ἐλευσόμενον ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ascended into the heavens; sits at the
ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῇ δόξῃ τῇ πατρι- right hand of the Father; and at the
κῇ ἀποδιδόντα ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα last day of the resurrection he will
αὐτοῦ. come in his Father’s glory to render ‘to
everyone according to his works’ [Prov
24:12; Ps 61(62):13; Mt 16:27 v.l.; Rom 2:6;
Rev 22:12].
[4] Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ὃ αὐτὸς ὁ [4] [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit,
μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς whom the only-begotten Son of God
Χριστὸς ἐπηγγείλατο πέμψαι τῷ γένει Jesus Christ himself promised to send to
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸν παράκλητον, κατὰ the human race as the Comforter, ac-
τὸ γεγραμμένον· Ἀπέρχομαι πρὸς τὸν cording to that which is written: ‘I go
πατέρα μου καὶ παρακαλέσω τὸν πατέρα away to my Father, and will ask him,
καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον πέμψει ὑμῖν τὸ and he will send you another Com-
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τοῦ forter, the Spirit of truth. He shall re-
ἐμοῦ λήψεται καὶ διδάξει καὶ ὑπομνήσει ceive of mine, and shall teach you, and
ὑμᾶς πάντα. bring all things to your remembrance’
[Jn 16:7, 13–14; 14:16–17; 15:26].
[5] Τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας διὰ τὸ [5] As for the term ‘substance’ (which
ἁπλούστερον παρὰ τῶν πατέρων τε- was used by our fathers for the sake of
θεῖσθαι, ἀγνοούμενον δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν λαῶν greater simplicity, but not being under-
σκάνδαλον φέρειν διὰ τὸ μήτε τὰς stood by the people has caused offense
γραφὰς τοῦτο περιέχειν ἤρεσε τοῦτο since the Scriptures do not contain it), it
περιαιρεθῆναι καὶ παντελῶς μηδεμίαν seemed desirable that it should be re-
μνήμην οὐσίας ἐπὶ θεοῦ εἶναι τοῦ λοι- moved, and that henceforth no mention
ποῦ διὰ τὸ τὰς θείας γραφὰς μηδαμοῦ at all should be made of substance in
περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐσίας μεμνῆσθαι. reference to God, since the divine Scrip-
Ὅμοιον δὲ λέγομεν τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρὶ tures have nowhere made mention of
κατὰ πάντα, ὡς καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέ- the substance of the Father and the Son.
γουσί τε καὶ διδάσκουσι. But we say that the Son is similar to the
Father in all things, as the holy Scrip-
tures also affirm and teach.

This creed is divided into five sections:

– At first sight section 1 deals with the Father in a fairly traditional manner.
However, the predicates ‘one only and true God’ were as yet unknown in the
credal tradition and were added here to emphasize the oneness and full di-
vinity of the Father. This implied, of course, that the Son was no ‘true’ God.
310 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

– The christological article is divided into two sections: section 2 deals with the
pre-existent Son (the title of Logos is avoided). His pretemporal generation is em-
phasized in the strongest terms,383 but the authors avoid affirmation of the Son’s
coeternity with the Father. The text is rather opaque in what follows: on the one
hand, the Son is ‘God from God’, on the other, he is ‘similar to the Father who
begot him according to the Scriptures’.384 The term ‘similarity’ is undefined, and
it remains open what its precise implications are regarding the Son’s ontological
status: does he possess his own ousía and/or hypóstasis? Just as in the Second
Creed of Sirmium, the mode of the Son’s generation is said to be unknown.
– Section 3 deals with the incarnation. Oddly, it is introduced by ἴσμεν (‘we
know’). It is unclear whether or not this change of verb has any theological
implications. The ‘fulfilment of the dispensation’ (which is mentioned twice)
is already found in the Macrostich Creed 11. Other than that, this christologi-
cal summary is fairly traditional, except for the reference to Job 38:17 and the
descent to hell which occur here for the first time in a synodal creed.
– Section 4: The creed contains not much information regarding the Spirit. The
composite quotation of passages from John is unique to this text.
– Section 5: Here the term ousía is rejected as unscriptural, but not as errone-
ous. It is even acknowledged that it was used in Nicaea ‘for the sake of
greater simplicity’ (ἁπλούστερον).385 Instead the Son is called ‘similar to the
Father in all things’, an expression which, by contrast, is termed scriptural
and which the authors may have found in the Macrostich Creed.386
This is the founding document of Homoianism. It now contained the rejection of
homooúsios that Constantius had been demanding for some time. Yet its phrasing
suggests that a compromise was sought at least with the Homoiousians. Neverthe-
less, the terminology proposed did not quite suffice to bridge the gulf between the
parties. On the one hand, for staunch Homoians the creed went not far enough in
its distinction between Father and Son; on the other hand, to a Homoiousian like
Basil of Ancyra it left too much open to misinterpretation. He may have been
right: in his signature Valens added that the Son was like the Father, but even

 The addition δι᾿ οὗ οἵ τε αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν, that was later to become one of the hall-
marks of the Antiochene creed (cf. below p. 351), occurs here for the first time.
 The argument is obscure: ὅμοιος and cognate lexemes are not used in the New Testament in
this context.
 Much depends on the translation of ἁπλούστερον: Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 423, l. 21 translate
it as ‘allzu einfältig’ (‘too naively’), but the authors hardly wished to imply a low degree of intelli-
gence among ‘our fathers’.
 Cf. Macrostich Creed 10 and above pp. 292 f.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 311

wanted to go as far to drop ‘in all things’. (He was forced by the emperor to re-
insert the missing phrase.) By contrast, Basil added:

I believe thus and I agree with what was written above, confessing that the Son is like the
Father in all things. But in all things, not merely in [his] will, but, as the Divine Scriptures
teach, in hypóstasis, subsistence, and being just like a son (κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν
ὕπαρξιν καὶ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι ὡς υἱόν); spirit from spirit, life from life, Light from Light, God
from God, true Son from true <Father>;387 the Son, being Wisdom, from a wise God and Fa-
ther; and in short, the Son similar to the Father in all things as a son is to [his] father (καὶ
καθάπαξ κατὰ πάντα τὸν υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ πατρί, ὡς υἱὸν πατρί).
And if someone says that [the Son] is similar [to the Father] in some [undefined] way
(καὶ εἴ τις κατά τι λέγει ὅμοιον), as has been written above, he is alien to the Catholic
Church, since he is not saying that the Son is similar to the Father in accordance with the
Divine Scriptures.388

Basil then agreed to the use of hómoios but interpreted the adjective in a different
manner from Valens – not as a term signifying distinction and difference, but par-
entage and proximity in the sense of the declaration of Ancyra 358.389 He wanted
to exclude an Anhomoian interpretation of the creed by explicitly rejecting the
similarity in will only.390
On the one hand, then, the creed was very successful, because it could serve
as an umbrella document allowing agreement by theologians from very different
camps. On the other hand, the differences which continued to exist were only
plastered over rather than settled. It was much easier for the Homoians to agree
to this text than it was for the Homoiousians, let alone the Nicenes, because the
points which mattered in their doctrinal controversies (the consubstantiality and
coeternity of the Son with the Father) were not addressed. Therefore, once it had
received imperial approbation, the document was subsequently seen as a victory
of Homoianism.
✶
The Emperor Constantius II planned to enforce what he saw as a doctrinal settle-
ment at two parallel synods in the western and eastern parts of the empire.391 The
western synod was to take place in Ariminum (Rimini), the eastern in Seleucia in

 The phrasing resembles the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea; cf., e.g., Epistula ad ecclesiam
Caesariensem 4 (FaFo § 134a; cf. above pp. 236 f.); id., De ecclesiastica theologia 1,8 (FaFo § 134b2).
 Epiphanius, Panarion 73,21,5–8; the quotation at 7–8.
 Cf. above ch. 6.5.7.
 Cf., e.g., Eunomius, Liber Apologeticus 23–24. The book which was written in 360 (cf. Vag-
gione 1987, pp. 5–9) is almost contemporaneous.
 On the emperor’s strategy, cf. especially his letter to the Synod at Rimini: Constantius II,
Epistula ad synodum Ariminensem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.1).
312 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Isauria (Silifke). Obviously, he thought that the Dated Creed could serve as a plat-
form for these deliberations ‘on faith and unity’ (de fide atque unitate). After agree-
ment had been reached at each of the synods they were supposed to send a
delegation to the court at Constantinople to negotiate a final settlement. The pur-
pose of the emperor’s involvement was also clearly stated: after all strife had been
settled, ‘the prosperity of all peoples would spread everywhere and firm concord
would be safeguarded’.392
However, things did not quite work out as planned.393 The Synod in Rimini, the
largest clerical assembly so far,394 met first (July 359). At its first session the Dated
Creed was discussed. When it did not meet with the approval of the participants,
alternative versions were drawn up but immediately dismissed.395 In the end, a ma-
jority of the synod condemned all attempts at stepping back from the position
reached at Nicaea.396 N was declared sacrosanct and the use of substantia (= ousía)
reaffirmed. The majority synod went so far as to say that the term had been ‘sug-
gested’ by the Sacred Scriptures.397 Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius (plus a Bishop
Gaius whose identity is unclear), who had submitted the Dated Creed to the assem-
bly, were solemnly declared heretics.398 In order to make their position crystal-clear
the western bishops also adopted a series of anathemas which explicitly condemned
all forms of Arianism and the doctrine of two or three substantiae (= ousíai/hypostá-
seis).399 Furthermore, the doctrines of Marcellus and Photinus were, once again, re-
jected. The synod then sent a delegation to the emperor, led by Bishop Restutus or
Restitutus of Carthage. It carried a letter in which Constantius was apprised of the
western synod’s views on the contentious theological issues.400

 Constantius II, Epistula ad synodum Ariminensem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.1) 1.
 For what follows cf. also Brennecke 1984, pp. 352–9 (listing earlier literature); Hanson 1988,
pp. 362–80; Williams 1995, pp. 11–37; Ayres 2004, pp. 160–6; Brennecke et al. 2014, pp. 445–6; Grau-
mann 2016/2017, pp. 58–68.
 On the number of participants (figures oscillate between 300 and 600 participants), cf. Bren-
necke et al. 2014, p. 445.
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Epistula synodalis episcoporum Catholicorum ad Constantium II
imperatorem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.5) 8.
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Definitio (FaFo § 564a).
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Definitio (FaFo § 564a): ‘[. . .] likewise, the term and the matter
“substance”, suggested to our minds by many sacred Scriptures, should be firmly maintained.’
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Fragmentum gestorum synodalium (Brennecke et al. 2014, Doku-
ment 59.4).
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Damnatio blasphemiae Arii (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.3;
the text is mutilated).
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Epistula synodalis episcoporum Catholicorum ad Constantium II
imperatorem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.5; FaFo § 564b, in part).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 313

As a result of the majority’s defence of Nicaea, some eighty Homoian bishops,

led by the bishops who had been condemned as heretics, walked out from the
synod and met separately. They dispatched their own embassy to Constantinople
to present their own exposition of the faith (probably the Dated Creed).401
In the end, the Homoians gained the upper hand: In October 359, the Nicene
delegation abandoned their brief, after waiting first in Adrianople (Edirne) and then
in Niké (a town in Thrace; perhaps modern Havsa in Turkey402; not to be confused
with either Nicaea or modern Nice) and having been intimidated by long waits and
imperial threats, and revoked the condemnations of the Homoians, also signing a
creed to that effect.403 Subsequently, this creed was endorsed by the Synod of Rimini
(which had been ordered to stay put) at a second session in the same year.
It is often said that this creed was the Dated Creed with some minor altera-
tions.404 At first glance it seems obvious that the Dated Creed served as the basis
for the creed of Niké. However, a closer look reveals that some considerable
changes were introduced:

Creed of the Synod of Niké (359)

(Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.9; FaFo § 159a)
[1] Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀλη- [1] We believe in the one and only true
θινὸν θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, ἐξ God, the Father Almighty, ‘from whom
οὗ τὰ πάντα· are all things’;
[2] καὶ εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [2] and in the only-begotten Son of God,
τὸν πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ πάσης who before all ages and before every be-
ἀρχῆς γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ ginning was begotten from God, ‘through
πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρα- whom all things came into being’ [Jn 1:3;
τα, γεννηθέντα δὲ μονογενῆ, μόνον ἐκ 1Cor 8:6], ‘things’ both ‘visible and invisi-
μόνου τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, ὅμοιον ble’ [Col 1:16]; begotten as only-begotten,
τῷ γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν πατρὶ κατὰ τὰς the unique one from the unique Father,
γραφάς, οὗ τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ God from God; similar to the Father who
μὴ μόνος ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ. begot him, according to the Scriptures,
whose generation no one knows, except
only the Father who begot him.

 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,37,52; 2,37,75; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,17,11.
 For discussion of its precise identity cf. Den Boeft et al. 2018, p. 186.
 Cf. Confessio fidei synodi Nicaeae Thraciae (FaFo § 159a).
 Cf., e.g., Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 446 (‘die ursprünglich vorgesehene theologische Erklärung
mit kleinen Modifikationen’); p. 471 (‘eine nur in Details veränderte Fassung der vierten sirmi-
schen Formel’).
314 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

[3] Τοῦτον οἴδαμεν μονογενῆ θεοῦ υἱὸν [3] This only-begotten Son of God, sent
πέμποντος τοῦ πατρὸς παραγεγενῆσθαι by his Father, we know to have come
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καθὼς γέγραπται, εἰς down from the heavens, as it is written,
καθαίρεσιν ἁμαρτίας καὶ θανάτου καὶ for the destruction of sin and death; be-
γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μα- gotten from the Holy Spirit and the vir-
ρίας τῆς παρθένου, καθὼς γέγραπται, gin Mary, as it is written, according to
κατὰ σάρκα καὶ συναναστραφέντα μετὰ the flesh; dwelt together with his disci-
τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς οἰκονομίας ples, and, when all the dispensation was
πληρωθείσης κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν τοῦ πα- fulfilled [cf. Eph 1:10], according to the
τρὸς σταυρῷ προσηλωθέντα, ἀπο- Father’s will, was nailed to the cross,
θανόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ εἰς τὰ dead, and buried, and descended to the
καταχθόνια κατελθόντα, ὃν αὐτὸς ὁ ᾅδης lower parts of the earth, at whom the
ἐτρόμασε, καὶ ἀνελθόντα ἀπὸ τῶν νεκ- underworld itself trembled [cf. Job
ρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, συναναστραφέντα 38:17]. On the third day he rose from the
μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν τεσσαράκοντα dead and dwelt together with his disci-
ἡμερῶν πληρουμένων καὶ ἀναληφθέντα ples for a period of forty days; was
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ taken up into the heavens and sits at
δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός, ἐρχόμενον δὲ τῇ the right hand of his Father, but will
ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως μετὰ come with his Father’s glory on the
δόξης πατρικῆς ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ last day of the resurrection, to render
τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ· ‘to everyone according to his works’
[Prov 24:12; Ps 61(62):13; Mt 16:27 v.l.;
Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12].
[4] καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ὅπερ αὐτὸς ὁ [4] And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit,
μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς whom the only-begotten Son of God
Χριστὸς θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἐπηγγείλατο himself, Jesus Christ, God and Lord,
ἀποστεῖλαι τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, promised to send to the human race, the
τὸν παράκλητον, καθὼς γέγραπται· τὸ Paraclete [cf. Jn 14:26], as it is written,
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ‘the Spirit of truth’ [Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13;
ἀπέστειλεν ἀνελθὼν εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς 1Jn 4:6], whom he himself sent after he
καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖ- had ascended into the heavens and sat
θεν δὲ ἐρχόμενος κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ at the right hand of the Father, thence to
νεκρούς. come to judge the living and the dead.
[5] Τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας, ὅπερ ἁπλούσ- [5] But the term ‘substance’, which was
τερον ἐνετέθη ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων, ἀγνοού- inserted by the fathers for the sake of
μενον δὲ τοῖς λαοῖς σκάνδαλον ἔφερε διὰ greater simplicity, but not understood
τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦτο μὴ ἐμφέρεσθαι, by the people, was a cause of scandal on
ἤρεσε περιαιρεθῆναι καὶ παντελῶς μηδε- account of the fact that it is not con-
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 315

μίαν μνήμην οὐσίας τοῦ λοιποῦ γίνεσθαι, tained in the Scriptures; it has seemed
διὰ τὸ μάλιστα τὰς θείας γραφὰς μηδα- good to us to remove [it], and that there
μοῦ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσίας should no longer be any mention at all
μεμνῆσθαι, μήτε μὴν δεῖν ἐπὶ προσώπου of ‘substance’, above all because the di-
πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος vine Scriptures nowhere make any
μίαν ὑπόστασιν ὀνομάζεσθαι. Ὅμοιον δὲ mention of the ‘substance’ of the Father
λέγομεν τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς καὶ αἱ and the Son. Nor must one hypóstasis
θεῖαι γραφαὶ λέγουσι καὶ διδάσκουσι. be predicated of the person of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. But we say that the
Son is similar to the Father, as the di-
vine Scriptures also say and teach.
[6] Πάσας δὲ τὰς αἱρέσεις τὰς ἤδη πρό- But all the heresies, both those already
τερον καθαιρεθείσας ἢ καὶ εἴ τινες previously condemned and any which
νεωστὶ ἀνεφύησαν ὑπεναντίαι ταύτης have also recently arisen against this
τῆς γραφῆς τῆς ἐκτεθείσης, ἀνάθεμα statement which is being set forth, let
ἔστωσαν. them be anathema.

In what follows I will indicate some of the major differences between the Dated
Creed and the Creed of Niké:405
– Section 1: Κτίστην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων (‘the Creator and Demiurge of
all things’) in the Dated Creed was dropped and the reference to 1Cor 8:6
added instead (cf. Ant2).
– Section 2:
– The reference to the ‘one’ (ἕνα) only-begotten Son of God was dropped.
– The repeated insistence on the preexistence of the Son (τὸν πρὸ πάντων
τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ πρὸ παντὸς ἐπινοουμένου χρόνου
καὶ πρὸ πάσης καταληπτῆς ἐπινοίας γεγεννημένον ἀπαθῶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ /
‘before all ages, before every beginning, before all conceivable time, and
before all comprehensible thought begotten from God without passion’)
was replaced by the simpler πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ πάσης ἀρχῆς
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (‘before all ages and before every beginning was
begotten from God’).
– The mention of the framing of the ages (αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν) was
excised.
– By contrast, the reference to Col 1:16 was added.

 For the Dated Creed cf. above pp. 308 f.

316 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

– Section 3:
– The reference to the ‘Father’s command’ (νεύματι πατρικῷ) was replaced
by ‘sent by his Father’ (πέμποντος τοῦ πατρὸς; cf. Jn 20:21).
– ‘As it is written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται) was added twice.
– The reference to Heb 9:26 was altered (this may be due to translation
from the original Latin) and extended by ‘and death’ (καὶ θανάτου).
– The Holy Spirit was added to the virgin birth (ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου) – this is
clearly a western addition as it is first found in the creeds from Rome.406
– ‘According to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα) was added.
– Reference to Jesus’ burial (ταφέντα) was added (cf. Ant4 and the Roman
creeds407).
– The phrase καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε οἰκονομήσαντα (‘and disposed matters there’)
was excised.
– The reference to Job 38:17 was shortened and its wording altered.
– The second reference to Eph 1:10 was dropped (καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν
πληρώσαντα / ‘and fulfilled every dispensation’).
– The number of days for Christ’s sojourn on earth was changed from fifty
to forty (cf. Acts 1:3). This is particularly interesting, because it may re-
flect the introduction of the Feast of the Ascension (which was originally
celebrated jointly with Pentecost) on the fortieth day after Easter. If so,
this is the earliest (indirect) evidence for this feast.408
– Section 4:
– After Ἰησοῦς Χριστóς, ‘God and Lord’ (θεὸς καὶ κύριος) was added.
– The composite quotation of passages taken from the Gospel of John was
abbreviated.
– Instead the phrase ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπέστειλεν ἀνελθὼν εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἐρχόμενος κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ
νεκρούς (‘whom he himself sent after he had ascended into the heavens
and sat at the right hand of the Father, thence to come to judge the living
and the dead’) was added, thus creating an odd repetition in relation to
section 3: (καὶ ἀναληφθέντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξ-
ιῶν τοῦ πατρός, ἐρχόμενον δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως μετὰ
δόξης πατρικῆς ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ / ‘was taken up
into the heavens and sits at the right hand of his Father, but will come

 Cf. above pp. 146, 151.

 Cf. above pp. 146, 151.
 For background cf. Cabié 1965, esp. pp. 185–97; Kinzig 2009, cols. 914 f.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 317

with his Father’s glory on the last day of the resurrection, to render to
everyone according to his works’).
– Section 5:
– ‘In reference to God’ (ἐπὶ θεοῦ) was dropped.
– The phrase μήτε μὴν δεῖν ἐπὶ προσώπου πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύ-
ματος μίαν ὑπόστασιν ὀνομάζεσθαι (‘nor must one hypóstasis be predi-
cated of the person of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’) was added.
– The expression κατὰ πάντα (‘in all things’) was dropped.
– At the end a clause was added, thus creating a sixth section.
Other differences obviously result from different translations of the original (?)
Latin text into Greek.
Not all changes are easily explicable – this need not detain us here. A certain
western (Roman) influence becomes visible in section 3 through the additions of
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου and ταφέντα. The most important changes occurred in sec-
tions 5 and 6: the use of ousía was now forbidden not only with regard to God but
altogether. Likewise, it was no longer permitted to speak of the one hypóstasis of
the ‘person’ (πρόσωπον in the singular) of Father, Son, and Spirit. Here the creed’s
language was quite fuzzy: thus it remained unclear whether the authors intended
their prohibition of the use of the term to be read as meant with regard to the
Trinity as a whole (which is more likely given the fact that in Heb 1:3 hypóstasis
was used for the Father) or to each ‘person’ (taken individually). In addition, the
omission of κατὰ πάντα ‘weakened’ the similarity of Father and Son even further.
It looks as if some negotiations between the delegation of the majority council
and the minority, supported by the court, may have taken place prior to the sign-
ing of this creed. The omission of κατὰ πάντα was clearly due to the influence of
Valens who, in the negotiations at Sirmium, had already tried to get κατὰ πάντα
excised from the document at the last minute.409 In return, the addition of θεὸς
καὶ κύριος in section 4 may have been pushed through by the Homoiousians. It is
clear, however, that when all was said and done the Homoian position had car-
ried a resounding victory.
Possibly, there were renewed negotiations after the return of the delegation to
Rimini which led to further alterations to the creed. Jerome refers to the events at
the second session of Rimini in his Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (written in
c. 378/379410), quoting sections of the creed allegedly signed at Rimini,411 which he

 Cf. above pp. 310 f.

 Cf. Fürst 2016, p. 369.
 Cf. Jerome, Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 59.11) 17–18.
The creed is also found in FaFo § 159b.
318 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

perhaps took from the acts of that council. Whereas the beginning is largely identi-
cal with the creed of Niké, this formula is clearly an attempt, in its christological
summary, at a harmonization with the Roman Creed (or one of its descendants):

[. . .] qui de caelo descendit, conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine, cruci-
fixus a Pontio Pilato, tertia die resurrexit, ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram dei patris
uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos.

[. . .] who descended from heaven, was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born from the virgin
Mary, crucified by Pontius Pilate, on the third day rose again, ascended into heaven, sits at
the right hand of God the Father, will come to judge the living and the dead.

Brennecke et al. presume that Jerome correctly cites the version endorsed at Rimini
and that this text is authentic, in which case the Homoian creeds of Rimini and of
Niké (and later of Constantinople) would have differed considerably from each
other, the western version being much closer to R.412 However, the differentiation
between the conception of the Holy Spirit and the birth from the Virgin Mary that
occurs in Jerome’s version is not found elsewhere until the fifth century when it
first appears in Gaul.413 It is, therefore, more likely that the text of the creed was
altered at some stage during the transmission of the text of the Altercatio.414
Jerome goes on to quote a series of condemnations by which Valens of Mursa
distanced himself from Arianism which was endorsed by the council. Sulpicius sug-
gests that these anathemas were drawn up by Phoebadius of Agen and Servatius,
bishop of the Tungri, and that only the fourth was added by Valens himself.415
The eastern Synod in Seleucia in September of 359 charted yet another course.
We are fairly well informed about the proceedings at this assembly, because Socrates
quotes extensive extracts from its acts which he had found in a collection of synodal
documents by Sabinus of Heraclea.416 The theological controversies were intertwined
with charges brought against a number of bishops (Macedonius of Constantinople,
Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Basil of Ancyra, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eustathius of Se-
baste) which need not detain us here. As regards the question concerning the faith,
Hilary of Poitiers, who also took part in the proceedings, gives us some numbers con-

 Cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 477.

 Cf. cf., e.g., FaFo §§ 265–7 etc. and above pp. 165–7.
 Unfortunately, the account by Sulpicius Severus (Chronica 2,44) does not shed further light
on the proceedings. The problem is also discussed in Simonetti 1975, p. 321–3 esp. n. 19.
 The fourth anathema (Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 481, ll. 13–14): ‘Si quis dixerit “creaturam fil-
ium dei ut sunt ceterae creaturae”, anathema sit.’ / ‘If anyone calls “the Son a creature like any
other creature”, let him be anathema.’ Cf. Sulpicius, Chronica 2,44,6–7.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,39–40 (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 60.1). On other
sources cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, p. 484.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 319

cerning the distribution of theological views:417 the vast majority (105 bishops) were
Homoiousians; but only some of them actually said that the Son was ‘from God (ex
deo)’ in the sense that ‘the Son was from God’s substance’ (id est de substantia dei
filius). A minority of nineteen bishops were defenders of anomoeusion (which proba-
bly included both Homoians and, perhaps, some Anhomoians, although Hilary de-
scribes their views all as Anhomoian). Finally, there was an unspecified number of
Egyptian bishops who championed homooúsios (except for the Homoian patriarch
George of Alexandria (d. 361)). According to Socrates’ account the synod fairly soon
split into two parties. The smaller group consisted mainly of Homoian opponents to
N. They were led by Acacius of Caesarea (sedit 341–364), George of Alexandria, Ura-
nius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch. The majority group, headed by George of Lao-
dicea, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, were largely made up of
Homoiousians. They were, in principle, ready to accept N, but rejected the homooú-
sios. They discussed Ant4 instead and, in the end, subscribed to that.418
In the end, the two parties met again in the presence of Macedonius of Con-
stantinople and Basil of Ancyra. Acacius proposed a different creed, perhaps with
the intention to serve as a compromise between the parties.419 In its introduction
Ant4 was accepted as an ‘authentic faith’ (αὐθεντικὴν πίστιν). Both homooúsios
and homoioúsios were then rejected as being unscriptural, whereas anhómoios
was even solemnly condemned. Instead the similarity of Father and Son was con-
firmed on the basis of Col 1:15. The creed itself was surprisingly simple (Hanson
called it ‘a wholly characterless, insignificant creed’420), affirming the divinity of
the Son without further qualifications. However, in the end a sentence was added
in which the identity of this creed’s content with that of the Dated Creed was con-
firmed. Acacius’ proposal met with fierce criticism by some of the council partici-
pants who defended N, while others took recourse to Ant4. In the end, his proposal
was not accepted.
Much of the theological discussion then focussed on the term hómoios to de-
scribe the relationship between Father and Son. Was it a similarity by will only
(κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν μόνον) or a similarity in substance (κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν)?421 The
argument became so heated that the comes Leonas who presided over the pro-
ceedings in the end had to dissolve the synod, because it seemed impossible to

 Cf. Hilary, Liber (I) in Constantium imperatorem 12.

 Here and in the following proceedings it is not quite clear whether Ant2 or Ant4 is being
referred to. Following Brennecke et al. I tend to assume that Ant4 was under discussion, but cf.,
e.g., Hanson 1988, p. 373.
 Cf. Acacius, Expositio fidei (FaFo § 158a).
 Hanson 1988, p. 374.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2,40,31.
320 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

reach any kind of consensus. However, the Homoiousians assembled once again
and, in the end, deposed Acacius, George of Alexandria, Uranius, Eudoxius, and
other Homoian bishops.
Both the embassies of the deposed Acacians and of the Homoiousian majority
group travelled to Constantinople where they met representatives from the Synod of
Rimini in December 359. The leader of the Anhomoians Aetius was condemned and
exiled. However, the further details of these negotiations are hazy.422 In the end all
attempts at reversing the decisions made at Niké failed. On New Year’s Eve 359 al-
most all bishops signed a revised version of the creed of Niké, among them Wulfila,
the bishop of the Goths, who transmitted his version of Homoianism to the Gothic
Tervingi.423 It marked the triumph of Homoian theology for almost two decades:424

Creed of the Synod of Constantinople (359/360)

Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 62.5; FaFo § 160
[1] Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, [1] We believe in one God, the Father Al-
παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα· mighty, ‘from whom are all things’;
[2] καὶ εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [2] and in the only-begotten Son of God,
τὸν πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ πάσης who before all ages and before every be-
ἀρχῆς γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, δι’ οὗ τὰ ginning was begotten from God, ‘through
πάντα ἐγένετο, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, whom all things came into being’ [Jn 1:3;
γεννηθέντα δὲ μονογενῆ, μόνον ἐκ 1Cor 8:6], ‘things visible and invisible’
μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, ὅμοιον [Col 1:16]; begotten as only-begotten, the
τῷ γεννήσαντι αὐτὸν πατρὶ κατὰ τὰς unique one from the unique Father, God
γραφάς, οὗ τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ from God; similar to the Father who
μὴ μόνος ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ. begot him, according to the Scriptures;
whose generation no one knows, except
only the Father who begot him.
[3] Τοῦτον οἴδαμεν μονογενῆ θεοῦ υἱὸν [3] This only-begotten Son of God, sent
πέμποντος τοῦ πατρὸς παραγεγενῆσθαι by his Father, we know to have come
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὡς γέγραπται, ἐπὶ κα- down from the heavens, as it is written,
ταλύσει τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου for the destruction of sin and death; be-
καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ gotten from the Holy Spirit and the vir-
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, gin Mary according to the flesh, as it is

 Cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, pp. 521–55, esp. 521 f.

 Cf. Schäferdiek, ‘Wulfila’, 2004. On the spread of Homoianism in the west cf. also Heil 2011,
pp. 117–22; Berndt/Steinacher 2014.
 Council of Constantinople (359/360), Confessio fidei (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 62.5;
FaFo § 160).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 321

ὡς γέγραπται, καὶ ἀναστραφέντα μετὰ written; dwelt with the disciples; and,
τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς οἰκονομίας when all the dispensation was fulfilled
πληρωθείσης κατὰ τὴν πατρικὴν βούλη- [cf. Eph 1:10], according to the Father’s
σιν σταυρωθέντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ will, was crucified, dead, and buried,
ταφέντα καὶ εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελη- and descended to the lower parts of the
λυθέναι, ὅντινα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ᾅδης ἔπ- earth; at whom the underworld itself
τηξεν, ὅστις καὶ ἀνέστη ἀπὸ τῶν trembled [cf. Job 38:17]; who also rose
νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ διέτριψε from the dead on the third day, dwelt
μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ πληρωθεισῶν with his disciples, and, forty days being
τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἀνελήφθη εἰς fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens;
τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθέζεται ἐν δεξιᾷ and sits at the right hand of the Father,
τοῦ πατρὸς ἐλευσόμενος ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ to come in his Father’s glory on the
ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐν τῇ πατρικῇ last day of the resurrection, that he may
δόξῃ, ἵνα ἀποδῷ ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα render ‘to everyone according to his
αὐτοῦ· works’ [Prov 24:12; Ps 61(62):13; Mt 16:27
v.l.; Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12].
[4] καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ὅπερ αὐτὸς [4] And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit,
ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς ὁ Χριστός, ὁ whom the only-begotten Son of God
κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐπηγγείλατο himself, Christ, our Lord and God, prom-
πέμπειν τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρά- ised to send to the human race, the Para-
κλητον, καθάπερ γέγραπται· Τὸ πνεῦμα clete [cf. Jn 14:26], as it is written, ‘the
τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅπερ αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψεν, ὅτε Spirit of truth’ [Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn
ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς. 4:6], whom he sent to them when he had
ascended into the heavens.
[5] Τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας, ὅπερ [5] But the term ‘substance’, which was
ἁπλούστερον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων inserted by the fathers for the sake of
ἐνετέθη, ἀγνοούμενον δὲ τοῖς λαοῖς greater simplicity, but not understood by
σκάνδαλον ἔφερε, διότι μηδὲ αἱ γραφαὶ the people, was a cause of scandal be-
τοῦτο περιέχουσιν, ἤρεσε περιαιρε- cause the Scriptures do not contain it. It
θῆναι καὶ παντελῶς μηδεμίαν μνήμην has seemed good to us to remove [it],
τοῦ λοιποῦ τούτου γίνεσθαι, ἐπειδήπερ and that there should no longer be any
καὶ αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ οὐδαμῶς ἐμνημό- mention at all of it since the divine Scrip-
νευσαν περὶ οὐσίας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ. tures also have made no mention of the
Καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ὀφείλει ὑπόστασις περὶ ‘substance’ of Father and Son. For nei-
πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ther ought hypóstasis be predicated of
ὀνομάζεσθαι. Ὅμοιον δὲ λέγομεν τῷ the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we
πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν, ὡς λέγουσιν αἱ θεῖαι say that the Son is similar to the Father,
γραφαὶ καὶ διδάσκουσι. as the divine Scriptures say and teach.
322 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

[6] Πᾶσαι δὲ αἱ αἱρέσεις, αἵ τε ἤδη πρό- [6] But all the heresies which are con-
τερον κατεκρίθησαν καὶ αἵτινες ἐὰν και- trary to this statement which is being
νότεραι γένωνται, ἐναντίαι τυγχάνουσαι set forth, both those which were already
τῆς ἐκτεθείσης ταύτης γραφῆς, ἀνάθεμα previously condemned and whichever
ἔστωσαν. have come to be more recently, let them
be anathema.

Alterations with regard to the creed of Niké were largely stylistic. Among the
more important differences one might mention:
– Section 1: Omission of καὶ μόνον ἀληθινόν (‘and only true’).
– Section 4:
– Reversal of ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν.
– Omission of καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἐρχόμενος κρῖ-
ναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (‘and sat at the right hand of the Father, thence
to come to judge the living and the dead’; a repetition from the christo-
logical summary).
– Section 5: The fuzzy phrase μήτε μὴν δεῖν ἐπὶ προσώπου πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ
ἁγίου πνεύματος μίαν ὑπόστασιν ὀνομάζεσθαι (‘nor must one hypóstasis be
predicated of the person of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’) was replaced by the
unequivocal expression καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ὀφείλει ὑπόστασις περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ
καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὀνομάζεσθαι (‘for neither ought hypóstasis be predi-
cated of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’) which made it clear that the use of
hypóstasis was not forbidden altogether (it could be used of the Father; cf.
Heb 1:3), but that a one hypóstasis-theology was prohibited.

The creed marked the temporary victory of the Homoian party. Although synods
continued to debate the faith, no further synodal creed was produced until the
Council of Constantinople in 381. Leading bishops who were unsympathetic to the
new faith were deposed and exiled, often on trumped-up charges of violating
Church discipline. They were replaced by Homoians.425 These harassments con-
tinued under Emperor Valens (r. 364–378).426
The damage that the emperor’s religious policy, but also the bishops’ theolog-
ical bickerings, had done was enormous. Hilary of Poitiers, who had been an eye-
witness to these developments, wrote a letter to Constantius in which he bitterly
complained about the doctrinal chaos that had been created by changing the

 Cf. Hanson 1988, pp. 381 f.; Barceló 2004, p. 172; Brennecke et al. 2014, pp. 552 f.
 Cf., e.g., the descriptions in Basil of Caeasarea, Epistula 243, 2 and Theodoret, Historia eccle-
siastica 4,13–19. Further details in Lenski 2002, pp. 255–61.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 323

creed and thus unsettling simple believers. It is worth quoting some of his re-
marks to conclude this chapter:

For after the meeting of the Council of Nicaea we are aware of nothing other than our tak-
ing turns in writing the faith. While there is battle of words, dispute about novelties, occa-
sion for ambiguities, complaint about the originators, struggle over aims, difficulty in
agreement, while one anathema rises against another, almost nobody belongs to Christ. ‘We
wander in an uncertain wind of doctrines’ [Eph 4:14], and either cause confusion when we
teach or go astray when we are taught. Indeed, what change does last year’s faith now con-
tain? The first creed decrees to remain silent about homousion; the second, on the contrary,
decrees and proclaims homousion; next, the third absolves [the use of] ousía as it had been
previously used by the fathers in a simple fashion; finally, the fourth does not absolve but
condemns [the term]. In the end where have we got to that nothing any more remains sa-
cred and inviolable either to us or to anybody prior to us. But if the wretched faith of our
time concerns the likeness of God the Son to God the Father, lest [the former] be unlike [the
latter] either wholly or only partially, then we, the illustrious arbiters of heavenly mysteries,
we inspectors of invisible mysteries, cheapen the faith in God through our professions. We
determine ‘faiths’ about God yearly and monthly; we do penance for decrees; we defend the
penitent; we anathematize those defended; we condemn either what is foreign in ours or
ours in the foreign [creeds]; and as we bite one another we are already consumed by one
another [cf. Gal 5:15].427

6.5.10 Debates about the sufficiency of N among Nicene theologians

When we consider the aforementioned events we must remember that even pro-
Nicene bishops did not use N in their catechesis, their preaching, or their liturgy
in the decades immediately following Nicaea. As Kelly put it:

For as much as a whole generation after the council one hears singularly little, either from
the ‘orthodox’ or from the ‘Arianizing’ camp, of the creed which bears its name. So far from
occupying a position in the foreground of the controversy, the symbol and its characteristic
key-word are rarely mentioned and practically never quoted in the literature of the period.
Only in the ’fifties of the fourth century did they begin to emerge from their obscurity and
play a prominent role as the rallying-point of the Athanasian party.428

This would be unusual only if the doctrinal developments between 325 and the
mid-350s had been considered a part of a victorious reception of N which they
clearly were not. The ongoing debate about the relationship between Father and
Son notwithstanding, N was deeply unpopular because of its use of the unbiblical
homooúsios. It was unpopular even among those who sympathized with the doc-

 Hilary, Liber (II) ad Constantium imperatorem 5 (FaFo § 151e1).

 Cf. discussion in Kelly 1972, pp. 254–62; quotation on p. 255.
324 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

trinal stance which the fathers had taken at Nicaea. Even Athanasius struggled
with the homooúsios and did not use it in his writings at all until the 350s.
However, this fact is even less astonishing than Kelly considered it to be when
we remember that, in general, the use of declaratory creeds was not yet widespread
in the Church. (We have dealt with the two exceptions of Rome and Jerusalem in
earlier chapters.429) For this reason, the Traditio and Redditio fidei as formalized
rites had not yet been introduced either. In their baptismal catechesis most bishops
probably preached ad hoc about the rule of faith, and at baptism candidates were
simply asked whether they agreed to a set of doctrinal propositions which may, to a
certain extent, have varied in wording. It is, therefore, not surprising either that
there is virtually no evidence for the use of homooúsios in the literature of the first
half of the fourth century. Even later on it is rarely N in its pure form that is used at
baptism and/or in preaching, but rather some adaptation such as the creed of Anti-
och which is first found in the Catechetical Homilies by Theodore of Mopsuestia.430
N ‘was a conciliar and not a baptismal creed’431 – it was at that time considered
unsuitable for catechesis and preaching. However, this does not mean that it was
not considered important – the reverse is true: as we will see the normativity of N
increased over the fourth century. But its normativity was restricted to a clerical
level – as far as we can see, it played – as yet – no role in the life of the laity.
However, in the mid-350s things began to change. Athanasius was the first to
quote N (after Eusebius) in the appendix to his De decretis Nicaenae synodi which
probably has to be dated to 352/353 and again in his letter to the Emperor Jovian
(363/364).432 He also presented N as the dogmatic rule against which all other creeds
were to be measured in his letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya (356).433 Like-
wise, in his other works of the period such as the De synodis Arimini in Italia et
Seleuciae in Isauria (361/362) he emphasized the importance of Nicaea and of N as
point of reference in doctrinal questions.
This is precisely the time when the first Latin translation of N appeared in the
writings of Hilary of Poitiers and Lucifer of Cagliari.434 Hilary, who had ‘never

 Cf. above chs. 5.1 and 5.5.

 Cf. below ch. 6.5.13.
 Kelly 1972, p. 256.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad Iouianum imperatorem 3.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 5,4 (FaFo § 153); 6,4–7,1; 8,1; 13; 18,3
(§ 153); 21,1. 5.
 Cf. Hilary, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) B II 10,1–3(27; written in
356; FaFo § 135d1); id., De synodis 84 (358/359; § 135d3); Lucifer, De non parcendo in deum delin-
quentibus 18 (356/360; § 135d2). In his Commentaria in euangelia, ll. 2922–2928, 2935–2941 (CSEL
103, pp. 236 f.) Fortunatianus of Aquileia also seems to allude to N in which case the date of com-
position could be narrowed down from 330–360 to the last years of this period. Cf. Lukas
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 325

heard of the Nicene Faith’ until he was about to be exiled in 353 (fidem Nicaenam
numquam nisi exulaturus audiui),435 now considered it ‘full and perfect’ (plena
atque perfecta).436 The participle future exulaturus here is important, because it
points to an event that happened not long before his exile. Indeed, the event may
well be the Synod of Milan in 355 at which N was no doubt discussed. The transla-
tion Hilary quotes may be that of Milan which is also referred to by Pope Liberius
in his letter to Constantius II (written in 353/354).437 This could point to Hilary’s
participation in this assembly, but this is uncertain,438 whereas the participation
of Lucifer is attested by Hilary himself.439
N appeared in Milan in particular circumstances. Eusebius of Vercelli was
asked to sign the deposition and condemnation of Athanasius. However, he first
demanded a debate about the creed. For this purpose he ‘placed in [their] midst
the faith set forth at Nicaea [. . .] pledging himself to do all they required, as soon
as they had written a confession of faith’.440 Dionysius of Milan was about to fulfil
this request when Valens of Mursa wrestled the document out of his hand and
shouted that such a procedure was unacceptable.
The story (if indeed it is historical441) is interesting for a number of reasons:
first, because Eusebius of Vercelli (who was a staunch supporter of Nicaea) seems
to have carried a copy of the creed with him to the synod which may suggest that
a generation after Nicaea the text of N was no longer generally known and, in
any case, was unfamiliar in the west. Eusebius’ version of N must have been in
Latin (which may well be the translation later quoted by Hilary and Lucifer442).
Second, Eusebius did not demand that the bishops simply subscribe to N, but
asked the council members to draft their own creeds. Third, Valens of Mursa in-

R. Dorfbauer in CSEL 103, pp. 1–105; Houghton 2017, pp. IX–XXIV. On the appearance of N in the
west cf. Ulrich 1994, pp. 140–58.
 Hilary, De synodis 91 (FaFo § 151d2).
 Hilary, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica) B II 11,1(28) (FaFo § 151b1).
 Cf. Liberius, Epistula ad Constantium imperatorem (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 50.1), 7.
Brennecke thinks that this was, in fact, the creed of Serdica (west); cf. Brennecke 1984,
pp. 158–64. On the Synod of Milan cf. also above ch. 6.5.6.
 Cf. Brennecke 1984, p. 229.
 Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica), app. II 3(8),1.
 Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta historica), app. II 3(8),2 (FaFo § 152): ‘Expositam
fidem apud Niceam [. . .] posuit in medio spondens omnia se, quae postularent, esse facturum, si
fidei professionem scripsissent.’
 Hanson 1988, p. 333; Williams 1995, pp. 57; and Ayres 2004, p. 136 consider the episode histor-
ical; by contrast, Brennecke 1984, p. 178–82; Brennecke 1986, p. 316; and Ulrich 1994, p. 320 think
it is an invention by Hilary.
 Cf. above 300 and n. 339.
326 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

tervened and rejected this demand, apparently on procedural grounds. Thus we

can see that for Eusebius N apparently represented the doctrinal rule by which
the faith of the bishops was to be measured. But he did not expect the other bish-
ops simply to agree with the letter of N; instead he conceded each bishop some
leeway to express their faith in personal statements.443
Three years later Phoebadius of Agen defended N over against the Second
Creed of Sirmium.444 He exclaimed:

What did you accomplish, O men of blessed memory, who gathered from all parts of the
world in Nicaea and, after having perused the sacred volumes, fixed the perfect rule of the
catholic faith (perfectam fidei catholicae regulam) with circumspect wording, extending in
common faith the right hand to those who believe aright, while [offering] the formula of
belief (formam credendi) to those in error?445
✶
As time went by and new political and theological constellations emerged, discus-
sions arose among the supporters of N as to whether the creed was sufficient as it
stood or whether it had to be safeguarded against new ‘heresies’ through addi-
tions.446 These discussions gained momentum when an opposition had formed
against the official, Homoian creed, which intended to bring N to new prominence
instead. Even if N’s inclusion of homooúsios, together with the ensuing discussion,
had made clear that N was immune to Homoiousian or Homoian misunderstand-
ings, the question arose as to (1) whether, conversely, the christological article pro-
tected against views in which the humanity of Christ incarnate was insufficiently
described, and (2) whether its short pneumatological article sufficed to ensure the
consubstantiality of the Spirit.
I mentioned above that there had already been debates about the sufficiency
of N at the (western) Council of Serdica (343) in the presence of Athanasius.447
Among the then council members there seems to have been a view that more de-
tailed explanations would make it possible to protect the Nicene faith against
Arian misunderstandings and misinterpretations.448 Serdica’s declaration of faith
aimed at leaving the text of N unchanged, while elucidating it with a small theo-

 Cf. above p. 299.

 Cf. above ch. 6.5.6.
 Phoebadius, Contra Arianos 6,3 (FaFo § 154c).
 This section is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 63–79.
 Cf. above ch. 6.5.2.
 Cf. the fragment of the letter of Ossius of Córdoba and of Protogenes of Serdica to Julius of
Rome (FaFo § 144b) and the summary in Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 3,12,6 (Brennecke et al.
2007, Dokument 43.6). The creed is found in FaFo § 144a.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 327

logical treatise, which, however, was not stricto sensu considered a pístis. Rather,
as a letter of Ossius of Córdoba and Protogenes of Serdica to Julius of Rome testi-
fies, the so-called canonization formula applied with regard to N itself; this for-
mula was from then on repeated time and again, according to which one should
‘add nothing to nor take anything away from’ a given text.449 It is attested in the
Bible in Acts 22:18–19, where, in turn, Deut 4:2 and 13:1 is cited (cf. also Eccles
3:14), but it was also widely used elsewhere.450 It was applied here for the first
time to a credal text, namely N, thus contributing significantly to its sacralization
and thus also its immutability. As a result of this procedure, Athanasius was able
to claim two decades after the event that Serdica had not adopted a new pístis.451
After the eventual victory of neo-Nicene theology, this principle of immutability
was repeated for centuries like a mantra with reference to the formula of canoni-
zation,452 although it was not always obvious what this meant in concrete terms,
for instance, whether it excluded any clarifying additions and, if not, what form
the latter might take (such as an amendment of the formula itself or perhaps an
appendix).
In the west, the Council of Rimini attempted to solve the problem in July 359
by confirming the unshakeable validity of N and adopting the principle that noth-
ing was to be changed or added to it.453 Further developments in Rimini and the
subsequent imposition of the Homoian creeds of Niké and Constantinople made it
clear that such a position could not be maintained in view of the prevailing reli-
gio-political conditions.454
The sufficiency of N was also on the agenda, just a few years later, in the east,
at the Synod of Alexandria, held in 362 after Athanasius’ return to the Egyptian
capital.455 Here the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s assumption of the

 Cf. Ossius of Córdoba and Protogenes of Serdica, Epistula ad Iulium papam (FaFo § 144b[1]).
 Cf. van Unnik 1949(1980); Meunier 2017.
 Cf. Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 5,1 (FaFo § 144c).
 Cf., e.g., the statement of the Council of Rimini 359 (FaFo § 564a); Ambrose, Explanatio sym-
boli 7 (§ 15a2); Pseudo-Athanasius (Didymus?), De sancta trinitate dialogus 3, 1 (§ 183); Council of
Ephesus (431), Collectio Atheniensis 48, 4 (Relatio orientalium; § 205); Council of Ephesus (431),
Collectio Vaticana 163/Orientalium relatio ad imperatores (ACO I 1,5, p. 134, l. 38 – 135, l. 4); Cyril
of Alexandria, Epistula 33 (Collectio Atheniensis 107), 5 (to Acacius of Beroea); John of Antioch in
Council of Ephesus, Collectio Atheniensis 105; Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 6 (§ 570d[6]). On the
evidence from Ephesus II (449) cf. below p. 384. On Chalcedon and later evidence cf. below p. 388,
398 and n. 93; 399 and n. 96.
 Cf. Council of Rimini (359), Definitio (FaFo § 564a). The Latin translation of N is found in
§ 135d4.
 On events in Rimini cf. above pp. 311–13, 317 f.
 On events in Alexandria cf. Brennecke et al. 2014, pp. 589 f; Graumann 2016/2017, pp. 55–8.
328 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

whole human being in the incarnation were debated. Again, the solution pro-
moted by the synod was not to change N itself (it was even denied that Serdica
had adopted a new definition of faith456), but to add further anathemas condemn-
ing whoever claimed that the Holy Spirit was ‘a creature and separate from the
substance of Christ (τοὺς λέγοντας κτίσμα εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ διῃρημέ-
νον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ)’.457 Accordingly, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus
of Antioch also emphasized the sufficiency of N in their signatures to the tome.458
In addition, Paulinus specifically underlined that the Incarnate was ‘begotten
from the holy virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit (ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μαρίας καὶ
<τοῦ> ἁγίου πνεύματος γεννηθείς)’459 and condemned those who deviated from
the right doctrine of the incarnation and of the Holy Spirit.460 Furthermore, the
circular letter that was probably associated with this synod stated that it was the
intention of Nicaea that the Son be confessed as homooúsios with the Father and
the Spirit glorified together with Father and Son, whereupon the christological
statements of N were briefly recapitulated.461 The reference to a trinitarian doxol-
ogy is peculiar, given that one searches in vain for a corresponding formula in
N. However, we will see in a moment to what extent this remark has left its mark
on subsequent developments.
A Roman synod under Pope Damasus (sedit 366–384), which may have taken
place in 371,462 took a different route in its synodal letter (Confidimus quidem),
which was widely circulated though addressed specifically to the Illyrian bish-
ops.463 Rejecting the Homoian position of Auxentius of Milan it succinctly ex-
plained the consubstantiality expressed in Nicaea; it was to be believed that

 Cf. above pp. 284 f. and Tetz 1975(1995), pp. 115–17; De Halleux 1985(1990), pp. 37–9; De Hal-
leux 1991, pp. 28 f.; Karmann 2009, pp. 214–8; Fairbairn 2015 (citing earlier scholarship); Smith
2018, pp. 22 f.
 Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 3,1. On the sufficiency of N cf. also Athanasius, Tomus ad
Antiochenos 5,3; 6,4. In addition, Tetz 1975(1995), pp. 112–15.
 Cf. Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 10,3; 11,2. In addition, Tetz 1975(1995), pp. 130–2.
 Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 11,2.
 On the subscription by Paulinus cf. also Amidon 2002.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula catholica 8 (FaFo § 166b). In addition, Smith 2018, p. 23.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, p. 307; Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, pp. 194 n. 264, 195; Peter L. Schmidt/Michaela
Zelzer in Berger/Fontaine/Schmidt 2020, p. 24 f. Other suggestions concerning its date are listed
in Field 2004, p. 117 n. 2. Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, pp. 735 f. date Confidimus quidem to 366/
367.
 Athanasius and Basil seem to have known it. On the addressees cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 289–307;
Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 194 n. 263.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 329

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constituted ‘one godhead (deitas), one power (uirtus),
one likeness (figura), and one substance (substantia)’.464
Basil of Caesarea responded to this in a letter of 372 to the western bishops,
praising their orthodoxy and bitterly lamenting the conditions in the east. For him,
too, N was the orthodox reference document, the contents of which he summed up
as follows: it had confessed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and
the Spirit had been ‘ranked and worshipped as of equal honour (ὁμοτίμως συναρι-
θμεῖταί τε καὶ συλλατρεύεται)’.465 Basil thus essentially reverted to the aforemen-
tioned language that had already been adopted ten years earlier at the council in
Alexandria under Athanasius.466 Furthermore, Basil agreed with the decisions of
the west.467 Athanasius, too, in his letter to Epictetus of Corinth of c. 372, still held to
the sufficiency of N, given it contained all that was necessary ‘for the warding off
of all ungodliness and for the strengthening of pious faith in Christ (πρὸς ἀνα-
τροπὴν μὲν πάσης ἀσεβείας, πρὸς σύστασιν δὲ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἐν Χριστῷ πίστεως)’.468
In a synodal letter from Meletius of Antioch and a number of other bishops
(including Basil) to the bishops in Italy and Gaul,469 these eastern prelates asked
their western colleagues for help both in the fight against the Homoians and in
the resolution of the schism in Antioch, and for cooperation in a synod. The aim
of this planned meeting was to confirm N, to ward off any heresy, and to bring
about unity among the orthodox party. They expressly declared their agreement
with the ‘faith’ and the synodal letter of Nicaea.470 Still, there was no mention of
any change of or addition to N.
The western bishops initially refused these advances because Rome did not
support Meletius in the Antiochene schism, but rather his Nicene opponent Pauli-
nus.471 However, they also stipulated that the eastern bishops should first confirm

 Damasus, Epistula 1 (Confidimus quidem; FaFo § 438). Cf. also Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 792 f.,
797–800; Field 2004, pp. 117–22; Vinzent 2013, pp. 278 f.; Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 196 n. 274. On
the following cf. also Hanson 1988, pp. 797 f.
 Basil, Epistula 90, 2. Likewise, in Epistula 91 (to Valerian of Aquileia) Basil repeats his alle-
giance to the ‘sound doctrine’ of Nicaea. Cf. also Kelly 1972, p. 342; Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 800 f.;
Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, pp. 760, 763.
 On the reception of the Tomus ad Antiochenos in Basil’s works cf. De Halleux 1991, pp. 30 f.;
Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 270–6.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 209 f.
 Athanasius, Epistula ad Epictetum 1.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 92 (written in 372). On the background of this letter cf. id., Epistula 89 and
Reutter 2009, p. 310; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 765.
 Cf. Council of Nicaea, Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam et episcopos Aegypti, Libyae et Pen-
tapolis (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 23).
 Cf. Brennecke 2016, cols. 809 f.
330 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

verbatim an unspecified letter from Rome; in addition, an embassy should be

sent to Rome to establish personal contact.472 Unfortunately, we do not know
whether the demand for literal agreement refers to a western creed (which
would in that case have been lost) or to the letter Confidimus quidem already
mentioned above.473 The joint synod never took place – in retrospect, Theodore of
Mopsuestia blamed the ‘Arian persecution’ in the east for this,474 but the refusal
of Basil to reach out by first sending an embassy to the west may also have played
a role.475 In addition, Basil also strictly opposed any change in the wording of N,
as will be shown below, which could indicate that the contentious issue between
west and east may also have been the approval of a revised version of N (which
the easterners refused).
The problem soon intensified when it came to the pneumatological article of N,
as can be seen from the confession which Basil presented to Eustathius of Sebaste to
sign in the summer of 373.476 After quoting N, the author stated that it defined suffi-
ciently all points except for one. This one point concerned the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, which was only mentioned in passing in N, since his divinity had not been
disputed at Nicaea. Basil then sketched out a concise Pneumatology and condemned
those who denied the divinity of the Spirit without naming the proponents of this
doctrine. Obviously, the bishop of Caesarea continued to try to fill the gap that had
been identified in the meantime by supplementing the relevant doctrinal points and
anathemas in the form of a commentary, rather than by adding to the wording of N.
He repeated this in a shorter form in the autumn of 373 in a letter to the
church of Antioch:477 here he rejected both a new creed written by others or add-
ing explanations of his own regarding the Holy Spirit. N was the confession that
had been in use in Caesarea ‘since the fathers’. To his knowledge, this also applied
in Antioch. Nevertheless, Basil again quoted N in full. He then stated that there
had not yet been any need to condemn the Pneumatomachians at Nicaea, whence
its teaching on the Holy Spirit remained ‘indeterminate’ (ἀδιόριστος).478 Here,

 Cf. Basil, Epistula 138, 2. Cf. also Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 803–6.
 On Confidimus quidem cf. FaFo § 438 and above pp. 328 f. In addition, Reutter 2009, p. 313.
Hanson 1988, p. 798 calls it a ‘confession of faith’.
 Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 1 (FaFo § 180b1), quoted below pp. 339 f.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 156, 3 and Hanson 1988, p. 798; Reutter 2009, p. 315.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 125 (FaFo §§ 135c, 174a) and Dörries 1956, pp. 166 f.; De Halleux 1985(1990),
pp. 40–2; De Halleux 1991, pp. 30 f.; Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 270–6; Reutter 2009, p. 314. On
dating cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 16.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 140, 2 (373; FaFo §§ 135c, 174b) and Dörries 1956, p. 167; Pietri 1976, vol. I,
p. 806; Reutter 2009, p. 313; Vinzent 2013, p. 281; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 773. On dating cf.
Fedwick 1981, p. 16.
 Basil, Epistula 140, 2 (FaFo § 174b). On the Pneumatomachians cf. below p. 356.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 331

too, Basil was apparently playing with the idea that one could compensate for the
missing pneumatological precision in N with additional anathemas.
When the comes Magnenianus asked Basil for an exposition on the faith (374),
Basil refused not only ‘to leave behind a treatise on the faith (περὶ πίστεως σύν-
ταγμα καταλιμπάνειν)’ in his letter of reply, but also rejected the composition of
new creeds on the grounds that it was sufficient to ‘confess the names (ὀνόματα)
which we have received from Holy Scripture’. One should ‘avoid all innovation in
this respect’. ‘Our salvation’, he continued, ‘does not lie in the invention of forms
of address, but in the sound confession of the Godhead in which we believe.’479
Similarly, Basil defended the normativity of N, briefly paraphrasing its con-
tent,480 in the letter to an otherwise unknown Eupaterius and his daughter (Epis-
tula 159, of uncertain date481). Again he stated that the pneumatological section at
Nicaea did not answer certain questions that had recently arisen, and therefore
briefly presented his own doctrine of the Holy Spirit, drawing a theological connec-
tion between baptism into the triune God, the trinitarian ‘confession of faith (τὴν
ὁμολογίαν τῆς πίστεως)’, and the doxology used by Basil. That doxology is based on
the creed which in itself is based on the baptismal formula. The Spirit is glorified
together with the Father and the Son because he is not alien to the divine nature
(συνδοξάζοντες πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τῷ πεπεῖσθαι μὴ ἀλλότριον εἶναι
τῆς θείας φύσεως).482 Basil introduced corresponding doxological formulae in his
own congregation, for which he was apparently severely criticized.483
The situation was further complicated by the fact that in the 370s, Rome and
Antioch were apparently negotiating several creeds with each other. On the one
hand, Damasus tried to establish church unity with Paulinus on the basis of a supple-
mented N; on the other hand, he produced his own confessions and doctrinal letters,
which have only been preserved in fragments and are therefore difficult to place.
We know from a letter of Basil (Epistula 216, summer/autumn 376484) that a
confession circulated in Antioch in the summer of 376 that played a role in the

 Basil, Epistula 175. Cf. also Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 210 f. On dating cf. Fedwick 1981,
p. 16.
 Cf. also Dörries 1956, p. 166.
 Written in 374/375? Cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 16.
 Basil, Epistula 159, 2. The same connection between baptism and confession is also found in
Basil, De spiritu sancto 12,28 (FaFo § 174c). Cf. also Kelly 1972, p. 342; Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996,
p. 210.
 Cf. Basil, De spiritu sancto 1,3 and Hauschild 1967, pp. 50–2; Benoît Pruche in SC 17bis,
pp. 41–52; De Halleux 1979(1990), p. 326; Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 196, 209–12.
 On the date cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 17 (pace Pietri 1976, vol. I, p. 808 n. 3 and 821 n. 1, who dates
the letters 214–218 to 375; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 876: late 376). For background cf. also
Reutter 2009, pp. 374–7; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 876.
332 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

negotiations between the Paulinians and Meletians about church unity in the
eastern metropolis.485 Given the circumstances this confession must have been
Nicene in character, since both Paulinus and Meletius represented the two Nicene
camps in the dispute between the Antiochene bishops. However, this creed can-
not simply have been identical with N, because N formed the credal basis in both
camps from the outset, so no negotiations would have been necessary if it had
simply been its original text.
If this formula was not identical with N, where did it come from? André de
Halleux attributes authorship of this pístis to the Paulinians of Antioch,486 whereas
Ursula Reutter thinks that it was identical with the Roman fides mentioned in the
letter Per ipsum filium (Epistula 3).487 In this letter from Damasus to Paulinus (pre-
sumably written in 376488), the Roman bishop says that he had sent a fides to the
east, which was to be signed by those who sought church unity with Paulinus.489
Damasus writes further down:

If, then, my aforesaid son Vitalis and those who are with him wish to join you, they must
first sign the exposition of the faith (expositione fidei) which was established at Nicaea by
the pious will of the fathers. Then, since no one can apply medicine to future wounds, this
heresy must be eradicated, which is said to have arisen later in the east; i.e. it must be con-
fessed that Wisdom itself, the Word, the Son of God assumed a human body, soul, and mind,
i.e. the entire Adam, and, to put it more plainly, our whole old man without sin.490

In my view, these remarks only make sense if Damasus had sent a fides to Antioch
which he regarded as essentially identical to N, though it did not correspond to the
original version of N (knowledge of which he could assume in Antioch in any case)
in all its formulations. His further explanations make clear that one of the heresies
repelled here was Apolinarianism.491 The fact that the teachings of Apolinarius
were being discussed in Rome at that time is also evident from the letter fragment

 Cf. also Basil, Epistula 214, 2 to the comes Terentius; however, Basil does not explicitly men-
tion the creed, but speaks generally of ‘writings’ (γράμματα). On the confused situation in Anti-
och cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 358–61 who quotes further literature.
 Cf. De Halleux 1984(1990), p. 119.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 351 and nn. 352, 374–80. Furthermore, Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 211
n. 313.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 372 and 517.
 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 3 (Per ipsum filium; Reutter 2009, pp. 350 f.).
 Damasus, Epistula 3 (Per ipsum filium; Reutter 2009, pp. 352 f.).
 As regards the knowledge of Apolinarianism in Rome which was closely linked to the activi-
ties of the presbyter and later bishop of Antioch Vitalis, cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 362–74. Vitalis’ creed
is found in FaFo § 177 (where further literature is cited).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 333

Illud sane miramur,492 which can be dated to the year 377 or earlier (375).493 In this
case, the fides must have preceded the letter Per ipsum filium. However, this is not
explicitly stated in Basil’s Letter 216 – Basil merely says in general that a pístis was
‘presented’ without explicitly naming its authors.
For reasons of textual history, it is probable that the fides mentioned in Per
ipsum filium refers to the original version of the Tomus Damasi (Damasus, Epis-
tula 4), which was issued by a Roman synod in around 375,494 since Per ipsum
filium and the Tomus Damasi were handed down together.495 The Tome of Dama-
sus is a doctrinal letter which, according to the title preserved in some manu-
scripts, Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus of Antioch and which in its present form
consists of 24 anathemas.496 They were indeed (also) directed against Apolinarian-
ism and introduced by N. As I have shown elsewhere,497 the fides (= N) in the
Tome actually contained the addition neque facturam neque creaturam sed de sub-
stantia deitatis appended to the third article: ‘and <in> the Holy Spirit which is
neither a product nor a creature but of the deity’s substance’.498 The Tome ap-
pears to refer to this very addition in the introduction (or transition from N) to its
anathemas499 and in anathemas 3 and 18. It is quite clear that the addition is di-
rected against those who deny the divinity of the spirit. According to anathema 3,
these include Arius and Eunomius, who consider both Son and Spirit to be crea-
turae. It is not stated in anathema 18 which opponent speaks of the Spirit as fac-
tura. If Ursula Reutter’s observation is correct, according to which anathemas
10–24 are intended ‘as a kind of commentary on the Nicene Creed’,500 then anathe-
ma 18 clearly presupposes the addition neque facturam in the Tomus’ version of N.
The Greek syntagma corresponding to facturam and creaturam, i.e. κτίσμα καὶ

 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 3 (Illud sane miramur; FaFo § 439b).
 Cf. in detail Reutter 2009, pp. 367–74. On dating cf. Reutter 2009, p. 371 n. 456 and p. 517. In
addition, Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 204 n. 301.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 409 f. By contrast, Charles Pietri originally ascribed the entire Tomus to
the Synod of 377 (cf. Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 834–40; 873–80). Yet cf. also Pietri 1996(2010), p. 442,
where the two parts of the Tomus are seen as originating from the Roman Synods of 378 (!) and
382 respectively. Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 215: 377/378. In addition, Markschies 1995, pp. 144–64;
Field 2004, pp. 139–43 (with a list of possible dates on p. 139 n. 10); Peter L. Schmidt and Michaela
Zelzer in Berger/Fontaine/Schmidt 2020, pp. 27–9.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 398 f., 410.
 Edition: Reutter 2009, pp. 381–97.
 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 71–5.
 Cf. FaFo § 135d8. This addition to the earliest Latin version of the Tomus Damasi seems to be
missing in the entire Greek tradition. Cf. Dossetti 1967, p. 236, app. ad loc.
 The anathemas were formulated against those heretics who claim ‘that the Holy Spirit was
made through the Son (spiritum sanctum factum esse per filium)’.
 Reutter 2009, p. 406.
334 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

ποίημα, is in any case well attested in the eastern debates in the second half of the
fourth century.501
It is equally striking that the addition to N contains the consubstantiality of
the Spirit with the Father. The anathemas display certain differences at this point:
in anathema 1 the consubstantiality is clearly presupposed, as it is in the sentence
that concludes the entire text.502 However, in anathema 16 the formulation is less
distinct.503
In any case, I see no compelling reason to regard the addition of neque fac-
turam neque creaturam sed de substantia deitatis to N in the Tomus Damasi as a
later interpolation.504 If one assumes with Reutter that the original version of this
text existed in N + sentence 1 + anathemas 10–24505 and was issued around the year
375, then this would mean that an attempt to affirm the consubstantiality of the
Spirit in N was already made in Rome before the Council of Constantinople, by add-
ing an explanation to the text of N as well as corresponding condemnations (1
and 18).
Basil requested help from the bishops in Italy and Gaul in another letter (Epis-
tula 243), probably in the same year 375.506 They were also asked to inform the
western emperor of the conditions in the east. Basil described the Homoian perse-
cution of the eastern Church, especially in Anatolia, in drastic terms. The bishop
added that not only Christology, but also the doctrine of the Spirit were in dispute.
His opponents did not consider ‘Son’ to be a designation of divine nature but of
rank, whereas the Holy Spirit was seen as no more than a creature.507
Rome probably reacted to this with the doctrinal letter Ea gratia (only frag-
ments of which survive), which was presumably addressed to Basil.508 In this let-

 Cf. the references in Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 74 n. 293.

 The same in Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 2 (Ea gratia; FaFo § 439a), where the una usia is ex-
pressly named in section 1 and 2.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, p. 391 (version 1): ‘Si quis non dixerit Spiritum sanctum de Patre esse vere
ac propriae, sicuut Filium, de divina substantia et Deum verum: hereticus est.’ Depending on the
translation of this syntactically opaque sentence, the Spirit is stated as coming from the Father as
vere ac propriae, analogously to the Son, who comes from the Father’s substantia and is therefore
‘true God’; or else the Spirit, too, is seen as coming from the Father’s substance and as, therefore,
being truly divine.
 Pace Ritter 1965, p. 163 n. 2; Abramowski 1992, p. 494.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, p. 406. Similarly, Markschies 1995, pp. 155–60.
 Cf. also Pietri 1976, vol. I, p. 822 and n. 1, 824; Hanson 1988, p. 798; Reutter 2009, pp. 329–31;
Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 829.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 243, 4.
 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 2 (Ea gratia; FaFo § 439a). In general, cf. Pietri 1976, vol. I,
pp. 824 f., 828–31; Reutter 2009, pp. 317–49; Vinzent 2013, pp. 279–81; Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I,
p. 200 n. 280; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 837.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 335

ter, the western bishops confirmed the divine union with words similar to those
in Confidimus quidem.509 The Son’s divinity was described by recourse to Nicene
terminology, while at the same time also emphasizing his full humanity. The
Spirit was confessed as ‘uncreated’, being ‘of one majesty, one substance, one
power with God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ’. The bishops expressly de-
scribed this trinitarian confession as their fides and granted communion to those
who followed this doctrinal view. It is possible that the fragment Non nobis quid-
quam also formed part of this letter.510 The latter contained an explicit commit-
ment to Nicaea, the wording of which was not to be altered, and to the divinity of
the Spirit. One ‘worships’ the Spirit, ‘perfect in all things, in power, in honour, in
majesty, in godhead, together with the Father and the Son’. Photinus’ idea, ex-
pressed rather casually in Ea gratia, that the Son is a ‘spoken utterance’ (uerbum
prolatiuum), was rejected; rather, he must be seen as ‘born’ and ‘not remaining in
the Father’.511
The letter Ea gratia was not initially met with great enthusiasm by Basil,
since the west evidently still did not recognize the Nicene sentiments of Meletius,
whom the bishop of Caesarea had supported in the Antiochene schism, and re-
jected communion with him in favour of that with Paulinus. Later, however, he
seems to have assented to a list of signatures which signalled approval of Ea gra-
tia/Non nobis quidquam by the eastern bishops.512 It may, possibly, have been this
Liber de fide that Basil mentioned in a letter to three exiled Egyptian bishops in
early 377.513
Further evidence concerning the debate as to whether N could be safe-
guarded against heresy by additions is found in a letter that Basil had addressed
to pious women in Colonia in Cappadocia (Epistula 52; autumn 376514). The bishop
first noted that N’s homooúsios was not accepted by everyone, then offering a
long explanation of its meaning. In addition, the women had apparently also in-
quired about the status of the Holy Spirit. In his reply, their correspondent dealt

 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 1 (Confidimus quidem; FaFo § 438) and above pp. 328 f.
 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 4 (Non nobis quidquam; FaFo § 439c). For a different view cf.
Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, pp. 771 f.
 Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 4 (Non nobis quidquam; FaFo § 439c). On Photinus’ doctrine on this
point cf. Reutter 2009, p. 320 n. 235. Cf. also above nn. 292, 295.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 335–44. I doubt, however, that this is the list of subscriptions preserved
in the codex Veronensis LX (Reutter 2009, pp. 344–9). Cf. below pp. 345 f.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 265 (to Eulogius, Alexander and Harpocration), 3. On dating cf. Fedwick 1981,
p. 18. In addition, Reutter 2009, pp. 424 f.; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 863 (autumn 376/377?).
 On dating cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 17. On this letter cf. Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 276–81; in
addition, Dörries 1956, pp. 114–6, 167 f.; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, p. 814 (giving as date 375/
376).
336 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

inter alia with the view according to which the Spirit was older than the Son and
therefore should be placed before him in the doxology, a view for which Basil
himself seems to have been reproached.515 In fact, he vehemently rejected this
view – but there was no talk of changing N in this letter either.
By far the most important letter in our context is his Epistula 258 to Epipha-
nius of Salamis from the end of 376.516 A dispute had apparently broken out
among the monks on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem about the third section of
N, the details of which we unfortunately do not know. However, it made great
waves: both Epiphanius and Basil saw themselves compelled to intervene, with
Epiphanius initially seeking a theological consensus with Basil. However, the lat-
ter had already written to the monks in his turn when the letter to this effect
from the bishop of Salamis arrived. The fathers, Basil wrote, had treated the arti-
cle rather casually because there had not yet been any dispute about the Spirit.517
Nevertheless, he continued to remain sceptical about possible changes, saying
that he could not make even the smallest addition to the third section, apart from
a doxology of the Holy Spirit (πλὴν τῆς εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον δοξολογίας), which
he had obviously added to the third article in some form after all. This trinitarian
doxology represented, for him, a strong confession of the consubstantiality of the
Spirit, and he therefore defended it vehemently in De spiritu sancto against the
objections of Eustathius of Sebaste and others.518
However, the disputes were not only about the Pneumatomachians, but also
about an effective defence against Apolinarianism.519 In this context, Basil also
mentioned additions to the christological article, especially concerning the incar-
nation. It is possible that he was referring here to the extended Nicene Creed of
Epiphanius, which we will discuss below.520 Basil rejected these additions too, as
he felt they were too expansive. He warned against changes that would only lead
to unnecessary discussion and confuse the minds of the simpler people.521
We do not know the details of the additions that were under discussion be-
tween the Jerusalem monks, Epiphanius, and Basil. If we follow Epistula 159,522
Basil evidently allowed only one addition, which is then found later in C1/2. His

 Cf. Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 278–80.

 Cf. Basil, Epistula 258, 2 (FaFo § 174e). On dating cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 17. In addition, Dörries
1956, pp. 116 f., 168 f.
 Similarly also Epiphanius, Panarion 74,14,4–8; cf. also Kösters 2003, pp. 324 f.
 Cf. Dörries 1956, pp. 154–6; Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, pp. 183–269.
 Concerning the chronology of the controversy with Apolinarianism cf. Andrist 2005,
pp. 65–8. A survey of the condemnations in the fourth century is found in Andrist 2015, pp. 286 f.
 Cf. Smith 2018, p. 26.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 258, 2 (FaFo § 174e). Cf. also Smith 2018, p. 25.
 Cf. above p. 331.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 337

third section read: καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ [συμπροσκυ-
νούμενον καὶ?] συνδοξαζόμενον / ‘and in the Holy Spirit who is [worshipped
and?] jointly glorified with the Father and the Son’. The solution was elegant:
Basil could thus conclude his confession with a doxology that did not earn him
the reproach of falsifying the wording of N, while yet having – in his view – suffi-
ciently expressed the divinity of the Spirit.
We have an expanded version of N from Epiphanius, which sheds light on
the way in which other easterners were experimenting at this time:523 in his An-
coratus, the bishop of Salamis first quoted the original version of N (which in
later manuscripts was replaced by C2, leading to considerable confusion524) and
then appended an expanded version of the same creed.525 The latter version is
preceded by a protocol which contains a date (374) as well as an address to fellow
bishops, suggesting that the text originated from a synodal letter. The extensions
included here are directed against the Pneumatomachians, the Apolinarians, and
against the deniers of the bodily resurrection (Origenists).526
Basil’s unwavering view of the final doxology as a textual element which was
distinct from N is also indirectly attested to by his Epistula 251 to the Christians of
Euaisa of early 377.527 In it he affirmed that he had always adhered to the same
pístis and subsequently developed his Neo-Nicene Pneumatology, which he linked
with the creed once more via its concluding doxology.528
Similarly, Amphilochius of Iconium wrote around 377 that N was directed pri-
marily against the Arians, but that the pneumatological question was not dis-
cussed because it had not yet been an issue. Therefore, it was necessary ‘to glorify
the Spirit together with the Father and the Son in the doxologies’ (ἐν ταῖς δοξολο-
γίαις τὸ πνεῦμα πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ χρὴ συνδοξάζειν).529
The formation of Neo-Nicene theology thus led, from the 370s onwards, to
broad discussions about possible additions to N, the content of which was aimed
at emphasizing that Christ had assumed full humanity in the incarnation, the
bodily resurrection, and the divinity of the Spirit.530 The time was ripe to think

 On the following cf. Kösters 2003, pp. 322–30.

 Cf. FaFo § 175, introduction. In addition cf. above p. 32.
 Cf. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,1–12 (FaFo § 175). The combination of N and the explanation in
Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (FaFo § 176) may be a similar experiment.
 Cf. Kösters 2003, p. 324; Kim 2017, pp. 16–20.
 On its date cf. Fedwick 1981, p. 18.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 251, 4. Cf. also Drecoll, Entwicklung, 1996, p. 211; Brennecke/Stockhausen
2020, p. 809 (date: end 376).
 Cf. Amphilochius, Epistula synodalis 2 (FaFo § 178) and 4.
 Cf. also Smith 2018, pp. 24–8.
338 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

about whether the text of N sufficed for coping with the new challenges that had
arisen in order to reach agreement among Neo-Nicene theologians.

6.5.11 The Roman Synod of 377/378

In 377/378,531 yet another fides was negotiated between Rome and Antioch. The
synod that was ultimately responsible for the Roman/Antiochene recension of N
as preserved in NAnt and the circumstances of its convocation are unfortunately
shrouded in darkness.532 Rufinus reports of a Roman assembly which was also
attended by Peter of Alexandria, in his continuation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History, after summarizing the teaching of Apolinarius.533 The patriarch of Alex-
andria had been expelled from his episcopal see and resided in Rome since 373.534
It was probably not until 378 that he had been able to return, which is why the
synod must be dated to the years 377/378.535 The fact that the two leading patri-
archs of Christendom were jointly responsible for this gathering must have given
it a special weight. According to Rufinus, the synod had turned against Apolinar-
ius, stating inter alia that whoever claimed that ‘the Son of God, who was both
true God and true man, lacked something of either his humanity or divinity’ was
to be condemned (‘[. . .] ut decernerent, si quis filium dei, qui sicut vere deus, ita
et vere homo fuit, vel humanitatis aliquid vel deitatis minus diceret habuisse, ali-
enus ab ecclesia iudicaretur’).536
Rufinus’ wording is closely related to a synodal letter sent by Damasus to
the eastern bishops. This letter is lost, although parts of it are quoted in another
synodal letter from Rome that was again directed against the Apolinarians and
preserved in Theodoret’s Church History.537 Here we learn that not only Apoli-

 This chapter is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 80–8.

 On the following cf. especially Schwartz 1935(1960), pp. 79–84; Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 811–18,
833–44; Abramowski 1992; Pietri 1996(2010), pp. 442–4; Field 2004, pp. 131 f. The reconstruction of
events differs between these scholars.
 This summary closely resembles that of Augustine, Contra Iulianum opus perfectum 4,47 and
seems to come from the same source (Theodore of Mopsuestia, De incarnatione?). Cf. Lietzmann
1904, pp. 47 f.
 Cf. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 4,21,2; Basil, Epistula 266, 2; in addition, Griggs 2000,
p. 182; Reutter 2009, p. 337 and n. 312; Brennecke/Stockhausen 2020, pp. 877 f.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 4,37,1–2; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 6,39,1; in addition,
Reutter 2009, p. 436 n. 34.
 Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 11,20. Cf. also Kelly 1972, p. 335.
 Cf. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,5. On this second letter cf. Lietzmann 1904, pp. 26 f.;
Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 841–4; Reutter 2009, pp. 429–40; Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 222 n. 336.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 339

narius but also his follower Timothy had previously been condemned.538 Again,
Peter of Alexandria’s participation in the earlier synod is mentioned here.539
Differences in wording540 indicate that Rufinus did not take his information
from the same letter that Theodoret quotes, but from the original synodal letter
which contained anathemas (directed against Apolinarius or Timothy), which
the (second) letter in Theodoret summarizes.
This (second) synodal letter, which may belong to the year 381,541 is also of great
interest in the present context because in it Damasus exhorts the eastern bishops to
remember the ‘apostolic faith’ (τῆς ἀποστολικῆς πίστεως), ‘and above all the (faith)
which was set out in writing by the fathers in Nicaea (ταύτης μάλιστα ἥτις ἐν Νικαίᾳ
παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἐγγράφως ἐξετέθη)’.542 He continues:

For we have already given a formula (τύπον), such that anyone who professes himself a
Christian may preserve what has been handed down by the apostles.543

Obviously such a τύπος (in the Latin original probably: forma) is a formula that
was used in catechetical teaching. This formula cannot be the older fides men-
tioned by Basil in Epistula 216, because then one would have to assume that Dam-
asus refers back, in the synodal letter of the year 381, to a formula that was by
then four years old, if this formula did in fact at all originate from the west.544 In
addition, Basil does not mention the participation of Peter of Alexandria in its
composition.
So it appears that, rather, the synod that elaborated the τύπος is probably
identical with the western synod mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia in ser-
mon 9 of his Catechetical Homilies:

The question will deal now with the Holy Spirit, and our blessed fathers who assembled
from all parts in the town of Nicaea for the sake of that wonderful council wrote about him
simply and without amplification by saying, ‘And in the Holy Spirit’. They thought that this
would be sufficient for the ears of that period. Those who after them handed to us a com-
plete doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit were the western bishops who by themselves as-
sembled in a synod, as they were unable to come to the east on account of the persecution
that the Arians inflicted on this region. And later, when divine grace put an end to the per-

 Cf. Theodoret Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,2. Likewise, Leontius, Aduersus fraudes Apollinaris-
tarum (Daley 2017, pp. 568–570). Cf. also Lietzmann 1904, p. 27.
 Cf. Theodoret Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,5.
 The relative clause quoted by Rufinus ‘qui sicut uere deus, ita et uere homo fuit’ is missing
in Theodoret.
 Cf. Reutter 2009, p. 437. Sieben 2014/2015, vol. I, p. 223: between 377 and 381.
 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,3.
 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,4.
 Cf. above pp. 331–3.
340 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

secution, the eastern bishops gladly accepted the formula handed down by [the bishops of]
that western synod, concurred in their decision, and, by subscribing to what they had said,
showed their adhesion to them.
If one looks deeply into the matter, however, one will find that they derived their rea-
son for the complementary addition that they made later in their teaching concerning the
Holy Spirit from the blessed fathers who had assembled from the whole world in the first
council held in the town of Nicaea.545

Theodore mentions an extension of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The ‘complete
doctrine’ referenced was therefore obviously not a detailed synodal letter (or at
any rate was not limited to that) but consisted in an expansion of the pneumato-
logical section of N.
The western synod had met separately because no empire-wide assembly
could be held due to the persecution by the ‘Arians’ in the east. It has been sug-
gested on this evidence that this synod must have taken place in Rome before the
end of the reign of Emperor Valens (378), who continued to harrass the Nicene
bishops,546 whereas the second (eastern) synod which Theodore mentions hap-
pened afterwards.547
In the same sermon Theodore then expends some energy (chapters 3–13) on
demonstrating why Nicene Pneumatology was already laid out in nuce in the
Holy Scripture, the Church’s baptismal practice, and in N, and why, in principle, a
more detailed pneumatological article would not have been necessary. Only then
does he return to the later additions to N to explain them in more detail, stating,
among other things:

It is with a sense of duty, therefore, that the doctors of the Church, who assembled from all
parts of the world (οἰκουμένη) and who were the heirs of the first blessed fathers, pro-
claimed before all people the wish of their fathers and in accurate deliberations made mani-
fest the truth of their faith and also interpreted what they had in mind. They wrote to us
words which warn the children of faith and destroy the error of the heretics. As their fa-
thers did in the profession of faith concerning the Son for the refutation of the ungodliness
of Arius, so they did in their words concerning the Holy Spirit for the confutation of those
who blasphemed against him.548

 Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 1 (FaFo § 180b1). Here the relevant literature is quoted. In
addition, cf. Witkamp 2018, pp. 10–18 on the basic information concerning the Catechetical Homi-
lies. He thinks they originated in Antioch ‘between the mid-380s and 392’ (p. 13). However, Wit-
kamp is not interested in the wording of the creed; cf. p. 10 n. 45.
 Cf. above p. 322.
 Cf. Bruns 1994, p. 203 n. 1; Gerber 2000, p. 128.
 Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 14 (FaFo § 180b2).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 341

Here, then, Theodore speaks of teachers of the Church having come together
‘from all parts of the world’ and, as it were, having spelled out the Pneumatology
implicit in N. Adolf Martin Ritter, Luise Abramowski, and others have assumed
that only the Council of Constantinople of 381 could have been meant, because of
the ecumenicity claimed here. Both Ritter and Abramowski saw the synod held
by the followers of Meletius in Antioch referenced in the eastern synod of chapter
1, but the council of 381 in that of chapter 14.549 But this assumption suffers from
the weakness that, if it were the case, a new assembly would have been intro-
duced in chapter 14 – in passing, as it were – without in any way specifying a
location or date, meaning that Theodore would therefore have had to assume
prior knowledge of it among his (non-baptized) listeners. This actually contradicts
the whole style of this homily. So if chapters 1 and 14 are about one and the same
eastern synod, is it that of Constantinople, as Mingana tentatively suggested?550
Of course, this cannot be completely ruled out, but the ecumenicity of Constanti-
nople may not have been as famous at the time as chapter 14 claims.551 Con-
versely, the Meletian synod was by no means inferior to that later synod in terms
of ‘ecumenicity’, given the number of bishops attending.552
Furthermore, apart from a doctrinal letter, the most important result of the
synod in Theodore’s eyes was the following addition to the creed: ‘and in one (ἕν)
Holy Spirit’.553 This insertion is, however, neither contained in N nor in C2 nor
does it occur in older western creeds. It is found for the first time in J (FaFo § 147),
which is attested around the middle of the fourth century by Cyril of Jerusalem.554
For this reason alone, Theodore cannot be referring to Constantinople.555 Instead,
it must be assumed that, for Theodore, ecumenicity resulted either from the fact

 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 154 f., 201; Abramowski 1992, p. 496. Strangely, at a later point Abramow-
ski calls the synod in ch. 16 once more that of the Meletians. Cf. also the criticism in Ritter 1993,
p. 559. In addition, cf. above ch. 2.2.3.
 Cf. Mingana 1932, p. 93 n. 1 (on ch. 1, considering the ascription to Antioch or Constantinople)
and p. 100 n. 4 (on ch. 14; ascription to Constantinople).
 Cf. Staats 1999, pp. 175 f.
 Cf. below pp. 345 f. Likewise, Bruns 1994, vol. I, pp. 33–5 and 214 n. 15 compared with p. 203
and n.1. Reutter 2009, pp. 408 f. is undecided.
 Theodore, Homilia Catechetica 9, 16 (FaFo § 180b2).
 Cf. above ch. 5.5. The Latin translation of the creed of the eastern Synod of Serdica (343) in
cod. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LX (58; FaFo § 143b) also contains in unum spiritum sanctum,
yet not the other witnesses to this text. Cf. also § 184f26 from the same codex (translation of C2).
The same in the Latin translation of N in Cyril of Alexandria, Epistula 55 (§ 135d25). Abramowski
1992, pp. 497 f. assumes that the addition came from the Synod of Damasus. However, neither the
Roman documents nor R offer any evidence for such an assumption.
 Cf. Gerber 2000, pp. 146 f. and again Smith 2018, p. 31 and n. 150.
342 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

that the patriarch of Alexandria had been present at the Roman synod, in addition
to the local patriarch, or from the fact that bishops of both west (Rome) and east
(Antioch) had agreed to the additions that had been negotiated between them. In
other words, chapter 14 refers to the same (separate) Synods of Rome and Antioch
as chapter 1 does.
What is the ‘formula’ mentioned by Theodore (the týpos of the synodal letter
preserved in Theodoret)? It is of course not simply N. R is also ruled out, because
it had already been used as a creed earlier. However, I also consider it highly un-
likely that Theodoret’s remarks apply to the original version of the Tomus Damasi
(N + anathema 1 concerning the Holy Spirit + detailed commentary on N with ex-
tended Pneumatology in anathemas 10–24), as some scholars have suggested.556 It
is true that ‘there was a special emphasis on the doctrine about the Holy Spirit
and the Nicene Creed was interpreted with an emphasis on the Holy Spirit’ in the
Tomus Damasi,557 but in his own interpretation of the third article Theodore does
not say a single word about the anathemas contained in the Tomus, although he
considered the expansion to the creed made at the western and eastern councils,
which he himself mentions, normative. Apart from that, none of the definitions
and condemnations of Damasus in Epistulae 1–4 were intended for catechesis.
But there is something else: after quoting Gal 1:9 the pope mentions, in the
synodal letter that Theodoret has preserved, a major point of the týpos:

For Christ, the Son of God, our Lord, by his own suffering, gave abundant salvation to the
human race that he might free from all sin the whole human being (ὅλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον)
entangled in sin.558

The phrase ὅλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον indicates that Christ saves the whole human being
(and not, for instance, only the flesh). However, there is no mention of homo totus
anywhere in the Tomus Damasi. In the synodal letter, however, Damasus refers to
N to combat Apolinarianism, emphasizing Christ’s suffering in this context. But this
very passion is presented in greater detail in R, in NAnt, and finally in C1 and C2
than it is in N, with N’s simple παθόντα expounded as referring to crucifixion and
burial. In other words, I still find Abramowski’s thesis most plausible, according to
which there was a ‘Romano-Nicene Creed’ which was largely identical with NAnt,
and that it is this creed in its final, i.e. Antiochene, recension that was preserved by

 Cf. Reutter 2009, p. 409. Likewise, Bruns 1994, p. 203 n. 1; Gerber 2000, pp. 136–43. Cf. also
above p. 334.
 Reutter 2009, p. 409.
 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,4.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 343

Theodore of Mopusestia.559 The additions it included concerned (a) the full assump-
tion of human nature (expressed by the insertion of the Mother of God, the crucifix-
ion, and the burial) and (b) the third article.
Finally, there is another reference to the Roman Synod which has received too
little attention in research so far in this context: the famous imperial edict Cunctos
populos of 28 February 380. This edict, which I will discuss in a later chapter,560
prescribes, as is well known, the trinitarian faith to the inhabitants of the empire
as follows:

We desire that all the nations which are governed by the moderate rule of Our Clemency
shall abide by that religion which was handed over by the divine Peter the apostle to the
Romans, as the religion which he introduced itself proclaims up to this day, and which is
clearly followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, a man of
apostolic sanctity; that is, according to apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we
should believe in the one godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as equal in
majesty and as a pious Trinity (secundum apostolicam disciplinam euangelicamque doctri-
nam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate
credamus).561

Sozomen writes that Theodosius had found out that in the west (extending as far
as Macedonia) all churches were unanimous in their worship of the entire Trin-
ity, but that the east was divided on this question. He therefore issued a law ad-
dressed to the inhabitants of the eastern capital in order to enforce his own
(trinitarian) faith in the east without coercion.562 This can probably only be ex-
plained by the fact that the Roman Synod of 377/378 had discussed this subject
and that the result (in the form of a creed and a synodal letter) had been circu-
lated in the eastern part of the empire. By contrast, it would not have been feasi-
ble to appeal to the bishop of the eastern capital, given that it was divided on
religious issues. In other words, Theodosius’ edict refers specifically to the Roman
Synod at which – as we have seen – both Damasus and Peter had been present.
Accordingly, it is quite conceivable that the final words quoted above derive from
the synodal letter of this very synod. It is striking that the edict makes no mention
of a unity of substance of the three persons of the Trinity. We will see in the next
chapters that this is also missing in the ‘Romano-Nicene Creed’ (i.e. NAnt).

 Likewise, Bruns 1994, pp. 33 f. Typical ‘Antiochene’ traits include the reference to Col 1:15
(‘first-born of all creation’). Similarly, Abramowski 1992, p. 498. Cf. also above p. 35. However,
Abramowski’s suggestion that the additions regarding the Holy Spirit were originally quoted in
the introduction to the Tomus Damasi is less plausible; cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 86.
 Cf. below ch. 10.2.2.
 Codex Theodosianus 16,1,2 (FaFo § 532a).
 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,4,4–5 (FaFo § 532b).
344 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

6.5.12 The Synod of the Meletians in Antioch (379)

As563 I explained in the previous chapter the eastern council mentioned by Theo-
dore in Homilia catechetica 9, 1 is probably not Constantinople 381 as has often
been assumed in previous scholarship. In addition, it is unlikely that this council,
which was not exactly Rome-friendly, would simply have adopted a western doc-
trinal letter or creed.564 Furthermore, the creed Theodore mentions cannot be
identical with C2 because the pneumatological section he cites differs from C2.565
Nor does Theodore report anything about a (further) change of this section by the
eastern synod, instead explicitly speaking of an ‘adoption’.566 Rather, he must be
referring to the Synod of the Meletians in Antioch (379)567 whose purpose it was
to demonstrate ‘who was in charge in Antioch and enjoyed the trust and recogni-
tion of the easterners’.568
Once again, only very scant information is available about this assembly too,
though we do know it was convoked by Meletius after his return from exile. Greg-
ory of Nyssa also took part – he was apparently still busy reconciling the adher-
ents of Marcellus of Ancyra with the Nicenes.569 We know from the synodal letter
of the Synod of Constantinople of 382 that the assemblies of both Antioch and of
Constantinople (381) published Tomoi in which their faith was confessed and spe-
cific heresies condemned.570 In the so-called canon 5 of Constantinople 381 (which
probably in fact belongs to the synod of the following year), we can see that the
Antiochenes had ‘confessed the one godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.571 In
the collection of canons by Palladius of Amaseia (who lived at the time of the
Council of Ephesus in 431), those who do not confess the ‘consubstantial Trinity

 This chapter is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 89–92.

 Cf. Gerber 2000, p. 129.
 Cf. above p. 341.
 Cf. Bruns 1994, pp. 31 f. and 203 n. 1.
 As regards this synod (which scholars have described in various ways) cf. Schwartz 1935
(1960), pp. 91–3; Ritter 1965, p. 76; Simonetti 1975, pp. 446–9; Pietri 1976, vol. I, pp. 844–9; De Hal-
leux 1984(1990), pp. 180–6; Hanson 1988, pp. 802–4; Abramowski 1992; Pietri 1996(2010), p. 448;
Staats 1999, pp. 175–9; Hausammann 2007, pp. 130–4; Karmann 2009, p. 458 and n. 19; Brennecke/
Stockhausen 2020, pp. 892 f., 895 f. On the dating cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Vita Macrinae 15: the coun-
cil in which Gregory participated took place in the ninth month (or a little later) after the death
of Basil of Caesarea. Basil died on 1 January 379; the council, therefore, took place in the early
autumn of that year.
 Gerber 2000, p. 130.
 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Epistula 5,2; id., Vita Macrinae 15.
 Cf. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,9,13 (FaFo § 566a).
 Council of Constantinople (381), canon 5 (FaFo § 566b).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 345

according to the exposition of the tome of Antioch (τὴν ὁμοούσιον τριάδα κατὰ
τὸν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἐκτεθέντα τόμον)’ are maligned as Pneumatomachians.572
Apart from this confession of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, the synod
had agreed to a synodal letter from Rome and sent it back there, as can be seen
from a note from the Roman archives, to be discussed below. The note states that
the Antiochene synod had declared its ‘unanimous faith’ (consona fide) with the
Romans and had agreed to the statement of faith by the signatures of all its par-
ticipants. On this occasion, a creed had apparently also been sent from Rome to
Antioch as part of the western tome, as we learn from the aforementioned Ninth
Catechetical Homily of Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to Theodore, a more
detailed doctrine of the Holy Spirit formed part of this ‘formula’. Its teaching was
then accepted by the eastern bishops after the persecution had ended. In this con-
text, Theodore speaks of an addition that the fathers had made to their teaching
on the Holy Spirit.573
Later he mentions that the doctors of the Church from all over the world had
gathered to condemn the false doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit and to clarify
the faith on this point. They had achieved this by adding the word ‘one’ to the
Holy Spirit: ‘and in one Holy Spirit’.574 As I showed in the previous chapter Theo-
dore did not refer to a separate assembly, for instance Constantinople 381, but
rather to the combined western (Rome) and eastern (Antioch) synods.
Such a series of events is also suggested by the Roman note mentioned,
which contains a list of signatures that probably stems from the Antiochene coun-
cil and was sent back to Rome.575 It survives as part five of a collection of Latin
documents contained in cod. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LX (58; Verona?, c. 700
or s. VIII ex.) which was edited by Schwartz. Its introduction states:

Here ends this letter or exposition of the Roman Synod held under Pope Damasus. It was
sent to the east, where, at a synod held at Antioch, the whole eastern Church unanimously
expressed its faith and all who agreed in this way with the very faith set forth above indi-
vidually confirmed [their consent] by their signatures.576

 Cf. Palladius, Kanonikon, canon 18 (FaFo § 566b note).

 Cf. Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 1 (FaFo § 180b1) and above pp. 339 f.
 Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 16 (FaFo § 180b2).
 Cf. Ritter 1965, p. 61; Peter L. Schmidt and Michaela Zelzer in Berger/Fontaine/Schmidt 2020,
pp. 26 f. Reutter 2009, pp. 347–9 is more sceptical.
 Schwartz 1936, p. 23 = Field 2004, p. 20 (ll. 114–7; explicit refers to what follows): ‘Explicit
haec epistula uel expositio synodi Romanae habitae sub Damaso papa et transmissa ad Orientem,
in qua omnis Orientalis ecclesia facta synodo apud Antiochiam consona fide credentes et omnes
ita consentientes eidem super expositae fidei singuli sua subscriptione confirmant.’ Cf. already
Schwartz 1926, pp. 42 f.
346 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

It is not necessary here to consider which of the preceding pieces eidem super ex-
positae fidei references exactly, indeed whether it refers to any of the previous
documents.577 A total of 152 signatures are then mentioned, among which only the
first six signatories, led by Meletius, are expressly named.
If one adds the presumed number of bishops assembled in Rome, as cited in the
heading of the collection in the Veronensis LX (Exemplum synodi habitae Romae
ep<isco>por<um> XCIII), to that of the bishops who had gathered in Antioch, one ar-
rives at 245 bishops from west and east578 – which could indeed be regarded as an
ecumenical assembly in the sense that Theodore of Mopsuestia likely intended.

6.5.13 The text and theology of the ‘Romano-Nicene Creed’ (NAnt)

It579 is easiest to understand what the revision of N in Rome and Antioch was
about when we place it side by side with NAnt. In this respect, it is important to
note that two versions of this revision, NAnt1 and NAnt2, are both reconstructions,
derived from Theodore’s Catechetical Homilies and from quotations by Eusebius
of Dorylaeum and John Cassian respectively. NAnt3 is a creed contained in cod.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Syr. 4 (olim Or. 147), written in 1607, which
was first edited by Caspari and later revised by Hort who used additional manu-
scripts. (Both recensions of NAnt3 can be found in FaFo § 208.) I quote Caspari’s
version in what follows. (There are slight differences in Hort’s reconstruction.)

N () Theodore of Antioch ‘Nestorian Creed’

(FaFo § c) Mopsuestia (NAnt; c. ) (NAnt)
(NAnt; –) (FaFo § )
(FaFo § a)

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα καὶ Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα
θεόν, θεόν, μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, θεὸν
πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα,

 In principle, this could be a reference to either Epistula 2, frg. 2 (Ea gratia; FaFo § 439a) or to
frg. 4 (Non nobis quidquam; FaFo § 439c) or to both (cf. Reutter 2009, pp. 344–9), but in that case
the fragments could not be dated to 375/376. Cf. above pp. 334 f.
 This presupposes, of course, that the title and the initial salutation refer to the Roman syn-
odal letter in question. Cf. the reasons given in Reutter 2009, p. 318.
 This chapter is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 33–7.
 Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Contestatio (FaFo § 198) and John Cassian, De incarnatione domini
contra Nestorium 6,3,2; 6,4,2; 6,9,1–2 (FaFo § 203).
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 347

(continued)

N () Theodore of Antioch ‘Nestorian Creed’

(FaFo § c) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (NAnt; c. ) (NAnt)
–) (FaFo § )
(FaFo § a)

παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα,

πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ πάντων ὀρατῶν τε καὶ
ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀοράτων κτισμάτων ἀοράτων
ποιητήν· ποιητήν· ποιητήν [or: κτιστήν, ποιητήν·
or: δημιουργόν]·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς τὸν κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ, μονογενῆ,
τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης καὶ τὸν πρωτότοκον τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης
κτίσεως, πάσης κτίσεως, κτίσεως,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντα τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
πατρός, γεννηθέντα γεννηθέντα
μονογενῆ,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
τοῦ πατρός,
πρὸ πάντων τῶν πρὸ πάντων τῶν πρὸ πάντων τῶν
αἰώνων αἰώνων αἰώνων
καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα, καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα, καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα,
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ
ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί,

δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ

οἱ αἰῶνες οἱ αἰῶνες οἱ αἰῶνες
κατηρτίσθησαν κατηρτίσθησαν κατηρτίσθησαν
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ
τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς
ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐλθόντα σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
348 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

(continued)

N () Theodore of Antioch ‘Nestorian Creed’

(FaFo § c) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (NAnt; c. ) (NAnt)
–) (FaFo § )
(FaFo § a)

καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα

ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
καὶ ἄνθρωπον
γενόμενον καὶ
συλληφθέντα
γεννηθέντα καὶ γεννηθέντα καὶ γεννηθέντα
ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς
παρθένου παρθένου παρθένου
καὶ παθόντα
καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ
Ποντίου Πιλάτου, Ποντίου Πιλάτου Ποντίου Πιλάτου
παθόντα
ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ, ἡμέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ
κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς
οὐρανούς, οὐρανοὺς οὐρανούς οὐρανούς,
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν
δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι νεκροὺς καὶ
νεκρούς· νεκρούς· νεκρούς. < . . . > ζῶντας·
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα
πνεῦμα. ἅγιον, ἅγιον,
[anathemas] πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς
ἀληθείας,

 ‘I believe in the one and only true God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all visible and invisi-
ble creatures;
and in [our] Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, first-born of all creation; born from him
before all ages and not made; true God from true God; consubstantial with the Father; through
whom also the ages were framed and all things came into being; who for us came and was born
from the virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried; on the third day rose
again according to the Scriptures; ascended into the heavens; and will come again to judge the liv-
ing and the dead < . . . >.’
 English translation above pp. 246–8.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 349

(continued)

N () Theodore of Antioch ‘Nestorian Creed’

(FaFo § c) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (NAnt; c. ) (NAnt)
–) (FaFo § )
(FaFo § a)

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς

ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκπορευόμενον,
πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν, πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν,

μίαν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν καὶ

καθολικήν, ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν
καθολικήν.
Ὁμολογοῦμεν
ἓν βάπτισμα
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἀμαρτιῶν,
ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς
καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

 ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation [cf.
Col 1:15], who was begotten from the Father before all ages and not made, true God from true
God, consubstantial with the Father, through whom the ages were fashioned [cf. Heb 11:3] and all
things came into being [cf. Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6]; who because of us humans and because of our salva-
tion descended from the heavens, became incarnate and became human, being born from the
virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate; was buried and on the third day rose again ac-
cording to the Scriptures; ascended into the heavens; sits at the right hand of God; and will come
again “to judge the living and the dead” [2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5];
and in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth [cf. Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn 4:6], who proceeds from
the Father, a life-giving Spirit; one catholic Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the
flesh, and eternal life.’
 ‘We believe in one God Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, begotten
from the Father before all ages and not made, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Fa-
ther, through whom the ages were fashioned and all things came into being; who for us humans and
for our salvation descended from the heavens, became incarnate from the Holy Spirit, became
human, was conceived and born from the virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
was buried, on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, ascended into the heavens, sits at
the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the dead and the living;
and in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, the life-giving Spirit;
and in one holy and apostolic catholic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life.’
350 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

A detailed philological comparison which I have undertaken elsewhere shows that

all versions of NAnt are closely related to each other.585 It is, therefore, legitimate to
speak of one recension of NAnt. It is this recension which was produced in Rome
and adopted in Antioch that subsequently spread in the Dyophysite churches of the
east.586 N clearly served as its basis, but R and J also seem to have been used. This
recension is likely to have been based on the following considerations:
In the first section the text of N remained largely unaltered. However, in the
christological section there were major changes:
(1) (Τὸν) μονογενῆ was cited earlier (with R and J) in order to achieve an align-
ment with biblical (Johannine) language.
(2) The explanatory apposition τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός was dropped
because it disturbed the context and had in fact become superfluous in the
light of the other corrections and the state of theological discussion.
(3) In addition, the omission of the explanation τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πα-
τρός and the inclusion of the quotation from Col 1:15 may have been intended
to accommodate the Homoiousians. If one looks through the other mentions
of the syntagma ‘first-born of all creation’ in the creeds of the fourth century,
it becomes clear that we are dealing with a specifically Antiochene tradition,
which continued to be invoked especially in Homoiousian circles.587 Its inclu-
sion here could be explained by the fact that at some point attempts were
made in Antioch to find a ‘soft’ Neo-Nicene compromise that would be accept-
able to as many theologians as possible, including those from the Homoiou-
sian camp.
(4) The word sequence τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα (with J) instead of γεννη-
θέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός may again be a matter of style.
(5) The addition of οὐ ποιηθέντα, now moved forward, made it possible to delete
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα which was mentioned in N further down. The addi-
tion of πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (cf. J) also emphasized the pre-existence and
uncreated nature of the Son and served primarily to ward off the Eunomians.
The phrase may, therefore, have been added in Antioch. However, the em-
phasis on the (unique) generation and the eternity of the Son may also have

 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 19–33.

 Cf. below ch. 9.1.3.
 Cf. Eus (FaFo § 134a); Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei/Formula altera (§ 141b[2]); Eu-
nomius, Confessio fidei 3 (§ 163c2); Constitutiones apostolorum 7,41,5 (§ 182c). In addition, Sozo-
men, Historia ecclesiastica 6,12,4 and Ritter 1965, pp. 71, 75.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 351

been a particular Roman concern as is evident from Damasus, who explicitly

mentions both items in Non nobis quidquam.588
(6) Θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ was (with R and J) probably omitted for stylistic reasons in
order to erase the duplication with the following θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
ἀληθινοῦ.
(7) This deletion then had consequences for φῶς ἐκ φωτός: the phrase was also
omitted (in line with R and J), because otherwise ‘light from light’ would have
preceded ‘true God from true God’ which was ontologically ‘stronger’. (This
alteration was reversed in C2.)
(8) The omission of γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα resulted from moving οὐ ποιη-
θέντα forward (see above).
(9) The addition (δι᾽ οὗ) οἱ αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν alluded, on the one hand, to
Heb 11:3 and emphasized once more the pre-existence of the Son, who was
involved in the ‘establishment’ of the aeons (that is, of time itself) and whose
existence therefore preceded the aeons (against the Eunomians).589 Other-
wise, it appears only in the Fourth Creed of Sirmium (359, so-called Dated
Creed; FaFo § 157), written by Mark of Arethusa in Syria, which, however, has
a different overall structure. It is unclear whether there is a direct connection
here, in that a local Antiochene tradition was incorporated in both cases. Al-
ternatively, we may be dealing once more with a western addition.590
(10) Conversely, since the entire universe had been designated by the phrase δι᾿ οὗ
οἱ αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, one could dispense with the re-
dundant addition of τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ (in line with R and J).
(11) The addition ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν served to clarify κατελθόντα.
(12) The addition γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου corresponded to Roman
tradition. However, the mention of the Spirit (as in R) would perhaps have
created misunderstandings and was therefore omitted here. At the same
time, the addition served to ward off any docetism (as was attributed to the
Apolinarians591) and also to oppose an interpretation as later advocated by

 Cf. Damasus, Epistula 2, frg. 4 (Non nobis quidquam; FaFo § 439c): ‘[. . .] ita etiam plenitudi-
nem dei verbi non prolatiui sed nati neque in patre remanentis, ut non sit, sed ex aeterno in
aeternum subsistentis perfectum, id est, integrum transgressorem assumpsisse et saluasse confi-
dimus.’ / ‘In like manner we are also convinced that the fullness of the Word of God (not uttered
but born; not remaining in the Father, as if he did not exist, but subsisting from eternity [and]
into eternity) assumed and saved the perfect, that is, the whole sinner.’
 However, this rejection of Anhomoioan theology was rather cautiously worded. On the dis-
cussion about preexistence in this context cf. Vaggione 2000, pp. 141–3.
 Cf., e.g., Hilary of Poitiers, De trinitate 7,6 (FaFo § 151c3): ‘Credendus est filius, per quem sae-
cula facta sunt [. . .].’ / ‘You ought to believe in a Son through whom the worlds were made [. . .].’
 Cf. below p. 369.
352 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Nestorius, according to which the incarnation in N was to be understood as

an ‘indwelling in man’ (ἐνοίκησις εἰς ἄνθρωπον).592 Finally, the emphasis on
the virgin birth was probably also due to the growing devotion to Mary.
(13) The addition of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, which was also only at-
tested in the west, again served anti-docetic purposes and, moreover, firmly
established the passion as a fixed historical event. It most clearly shows the
Roman influence.593
(14) By contrast, the participle παθόντα may have been seen as implying patripas-
sianism.594 In any case, it was now superfluous and could be deleted (as do R
and possibly J). (The earlier position in NAnt3 is probably secondary.)
(15) The addition (καὶ) ταφέντα again came from R or, perhaps, J and served once
more to reject docetic ideas of whatever provenance.
(16) The addition κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, which is attested nowhere else, is not fully ex-
plicable. Possibly, it was yet again intended to be antidocetic. In any case, the
resurrection was thereby authenticated by recourse to 1Cor 15:4.
(17) The ‘sitting at the right hand’ (only attested in NAnt1 and NAnt3) may again repre-
sent Roman tradition but is also attested for Jerusalem. Its inclusion strength-
ened the biblical connection (especially Col 3:1) and served to emphasize the
permanent distinction between Father and Son and (against the Arians) their
equal rank (against Marcellus of Ancyra).595

As regards the pneumatological section it is helpful also to take into account The-
odore’s explanations:
(1) The addition of the oneness of the Holy Spirit has been discussed above;596 it
may have come from J (Homilia 9, 16–18; 10, 1–3).
(2) According to Jn 15:26 etc. the bishops added ‘Spirit of truth’ (πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη-
θείας) (Homilia 10, 3–7).
(3) The addition ‘who proceeds from the Father’ (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμε-
νον; Homilia 10, 7–10) also came from Jn 15:26, without, however, expressing
strict consubstantiality.
(4) The addition ‘life-giving Spirit’ (πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν) alludes to Jn 6:63, 1Cor
15:45, and 2Cor 3:6 (Homilia 10, 11–12).597

 Cf., e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Nestorium 1,7,3 (ACO I 1/6, p. 27, ll. 15–17).
 Cf. Staats 1990, pp. 211 f.; Bruns 1994, pp. 29 f.; Staats 1999, pp. 168 f.
 I owe this idea to Maria Munkholt Christensen.
 Cf. Markschies 1993(2000), esp. pp. 47–59; Staats 1999, pp. 251 f.
 Cf. above p. 341.
 Cf. also De Halleux 1979(1990), pp. 325 f. (discussing C2), who thinks that this was directed
against Pneumatomachians.
 6.5 Creeds between Nicaea and Constantinople 353

These are the additions to the third article that were presumably made in Rome
(with, perhaps, the exception of no. 1) to clarify the divinity of the Spirit and
which clearly served to strengthen its scriptural basis (cf. Homilia 10, 13).
However, further additions follow, which Theodore took from the same re-
cension of N, but which are no longer explained by him. These are the fruits of
baptism (which itself was presumably not mentioned in NAnt),598 all of which are
also attested in R and J (Homilia 10, 14):
(1) faith ‘(in) the one (holy and apostolic) catholic Church’ ([καὶ εἰς] μίαν [ἁγίαν
καὶ ἀποστολικὴν] ἐκκλησίαν καθολικήν; Homilia 10, 15–19);
(2) ‘(for/in) the forgiveness of sins’ ([εἰς] ἄφεσιν ἀμαρτιῶν; Homilia 10, 20);
(3) ‘(for/in) the resurrection of the flesh and eternal life’ ([εἰς] ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς
καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον; Homilia 10, 21).
There are some uncertainties on minor points (bracketed here), but on the whole
the text is clear. The elements Church – forgiveness of sins – resurrection of the
flesh – eternal life even correspond exactly to R. The single change in the Church,
i.e. its catholicity, may also go back to western influence, for it is also found in the
version of R quoted by Leo (FaFo § 255g). However, like the oneness of the
Church, it is also attested in J and elsewhere.599
It is thus clear that the revised version of N, as Antioch adopted it from Rome
(and modified it in certain respects), was guided by the following principles:
(1) N was made more uniform in terms of style.
(2) The biblical references were strengthened (one can almost speak of a Johan-
nine redaction), while unbiblical phrases were deleted.
(3) The consubstantiality of the Son was not phrased too ‘strongly’ in the sense of
a complete equality of the two divine persons in order to build bridges with
the Homoiousians (and possibly also ‘mild’ Homoians).
(4) Conversely, an Anhomoian Christology was rejected.
(5) All in all, the alignment with R built a bridge between east and west.
(6) The additions in the section on the Holy Spirit served to emphasize his divin-
ity. In doing so, the council fathers dispensed with the unbiblical homooúsios
and instead resorted to passages from the Gospel of John. The oneness of the

 Cf. Gerber 2000, pp. 118 f. The mention of baptism in NAnt3 is probably secondary.
 The oneness and catholicity of the Church are named in conjunction in Arius’ and Euzoius’
Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 30; FaFo § 131c) 3; Alexander of
Alexandria, Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum; Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 14;
§ 132) 53; Council of Antioch (325), Epistula synodica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 18; § 133) 12; Epiph-
anius, Ancoratus 119,11 (§ 175). Oneness: Apolinarius, Fides secundum partem 32 (§ 164a2); Didas-
calia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (§ 176[9]); catholicity: Martyrium Calixti 3 (FaFo § 90); Dêr
Balyzeh Papyrus (§ 146); Constitutiones apostolorum 7,41,7 (§ 182c).
354 6 Eastern Synodal Creeds from Nicaea up to Constantinople

Spirit (like the inclusion of Col 1:15, the begetting from the Father before all
time, and the inclusion of Heb 11:2 in the second section) is not a western but
eastern heritage (namely, perhaps from Jerusalem), so that one may assume
that the two versions of the creed were not completely identical, meaning
that sent from Rome to Antioch and the revision that then was sent back
from there, with the signatures of the Meletians.
(7) In addition, there were further explanations which Theodore obviously did
not consider to be statements regarding the Spirit, but which were separated
from the doctrinal part of the confession in Homily 10, 14.600 Theodore tried to
play down these additions, which apparently caused him difficulties, by de-
taching them from the (in the narrower sense) theological statements and dis-
cussing them in the context of baptism instead. We also find most of them in J.

In summary, N was expanded in the years 377–379 in Rome and Antioch in such a
way that specifically ‘Roman’ propositions concerning the birth from the Virgin
Mary and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate were added, which were directed
against Apolinarius and his followers. The statements about the Church and (de-
pending on how one assesses the role of J) the forgiveness of sins, the resurrec-
tion of the flesh, and eternal life were probably also of Roman origin. In contrast,
the allusion to Col 1:15, the generation from the Father before all ages (which was
possibly lifted from J and expanded), and the emphasis on the Son’s involvement
in the creation of the aeons (allusion to Heb 11:3) were Antiochene. We may see
concessions to Homoian or Homoiousian groups in the complicated ecclesiastical
landscape of Antioch in for instance the inclusion of Col 1:15.601 Likewise, the
third section was supplemented in Antioch with statements that could be helpful
in the controversy with the Pneumatomachians. However, there may still have
been some room for compromise because the consubstantiality of the Spirit was
not explicitly stated.

 Cf. the caesura in Theodore, Homilia catechetica 10, 14: ‘This is the reason why our Lord
caused baptism to follow the teaching so that baptism should be the completion of the teaching’
(tr. Mingana 1932, p. 111; altered).
 Cf. Staats 1999, p. 173.
7 The Council of Constantinople (381)
and its Creeds

7.1 The council’s origin and history

The later so-called Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople (381)
was both a result and the expression of what modern scholarship called ‘Neo-
Nicene’ theology.1 The victory of the Neo-Nicene way of describing the mystery of
the Trinity was ultimately due to two factors coming together: for one, the direction
indicated by N was taken up and developed further by Church leaders in the east-
ern half of the empire, who had considerable political influence. In addition, the
emperor adopted the stance set out by these theologians.
Oddly, the confusing situation in Antioch was the starting point for this process.
The governance of its church was in complete disarray, with at times up to four
bishops competing with each other as a result of complicated local schisms. Athana-
sius tried to intervene in 362, proposing a compromise in the aforementioned syn-
odal letter (Tomus ad Antiochenos) by suggesting a clear distinction between ousía
and hypóstasis.2 The term hypóstasis was to be applied to the individual persons of
the Trinity, which, strictly speaking, Nicaea had excluded in its anathemas and
which had also been avoided in the confession of faith as worded by the western
Synod of Serdica (343).3 (Athanasius denied that the western Church had ever
adopted such a confession.) Homooúsios, however, was an appropriate designation
for the relationship between Father and Son. Moreover, the Spirit was now also to
be described as ‘indivisible’ from the essence of Father and Son.
In addition, the most important protector of Homoiansm had left the stage
when Constantius II died in 361. Now the moment had come for a counterattack
by those who championed N in one way or another (which also included ‘soft’
Homoians). It was one of the Nicene bishops of Antioch, Meletius (sedit 360–381),
who successfully brought together this initially relatively diffuse group. He recog-
nized that Athanasius’ explanations offered the chance for a compromise be-
tween those who grappled in their different ways with the problem of describing
the relations between the persons of the Trinity. They did so while also avoiding

 For what follows cf. Ritter 2011, pp. 201–12.

 Cf. above p. 328.
 Cf. Council of Serdica (343, east), Professio fidei ab episcopis occidentalibus promulgata (FaFo
§ 144a), 3: ‘This we have received and have been taught; we hold this catholic and apostolic tradi-
tion, faith, and confession: that the hypóstasis (which the Greeks call ousía) of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit is one.’

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-007
356 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

both a purely modalist (‘Sabellian’) view or the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra

(which was seen as a kind of ‘economic’ modalism) and an Anhomoian (Neo-
Arian) view in which Son and Spirit were relegated to the status of creatures.
Athanasius did not live to see the outcome of the controversy (he died in 373).
But his cause found prominent supporters, albeit with some delay, namely the
most important bishop of the west, Damasus of Rome, and the bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, Basil. Basil argued in his work On the Holy Spirit (De spiritu
sancto, 374/375) that the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was not an in-
novation, but in line with Scripture and the tradition of the fathers. In other writ-
ings he also adopted the differentiation between the Godhead’s ‘one substance’
(μία οὐσία) and its ‘three manifestations’ (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις), which Athanasius
had introduced into the debate. Basil was supported in this theological work by
his friend Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) as well as his own younger brother Greg-
ory of Nyssa (d. c. 396). The theology of these so-called ‘three Cappadocian Fa-
thers’ (sometimes Amphilochius of Iconium (d. before 403) is added as a fourth) is
often referred to in research as ‘Neo-Nicene theology’, which on the one hand is
intended to record the conscious link to Nicaea, and on the other hand to make
clear that the work of the Cappadocians, introducing new conceptual differentia-
tions, went beyond the mere reiteration of Nicaea.
However, the question of the consubstantiality of the Spirit led to divisions,
especially among the Homoiousians who were not unsympathetic to Nicaea. This
group, headed by Basil of Ancyra, had emerged at a synod in that city in 358.4
Some of its members, who were labelled ‘Spirit-fighters’ (Pneumatomachians) by
their opponents, rejected the consubstantiality of the Spirit, whereas its majority
gradually moved towards a Neo-Nicene position.
At the same time, the political climate for the Nicene party continued to
brighten: Emperor Theodosius I, ruler of the Eastern Empire since 379, was an
ardent supporter of the Nicene party, determined to prescribe belief in the one
Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ‘in like majesty and holy trinity’ (sub par-
ili maiestate et sub pia trinitate) as obligatory for all his subjects, which he did
soon after coming to power in his famous edict Cunctos populos of 28 Febru-
ary 380.5 Those who were not prepared to subscribe to this belief were threatened
with both divine and secular punishments, which, however, remained unspeci-
fied.6 In practice, Theodosius proceeded quite pragmatically, with his determina-
tion to strive for a synodal solution to the faith disputes evident in his convening

 Cf. above ch. 6.5.7.

 Cf. also above p. 343 and below p. 475–7.
 Cf. the discussion in Riedlberger 2020, pp. 396–402.
 7.1 The council’s origin and history 357

a new empire-wide council for this purpose, which took place in Constantinople
from May until July 381 (Second Ecumenical Council).
Although7 it is not possible to be completely certain in view of the scanty evi-
dence, it is most probable that the creed which modern scholars (not very ele-
gantly) call the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (C2) was formulated in connection
with the Council of 381. This follows from the fact that it was cited as the ‘Creed of
the 150 (fathers)’ (the alleged number of those who assembled in Constantinople)
since Chalcedon and was nowhere attributed to any other place of origin. Further-
more, this is also the conclusion from the synod’s letter to Theodosius I, in which
its dogmatic8 agenda was succinctly summarized by stating that the fathers had
‘ratified the faith of the Nicene fathers and condemned the heresies directed
against it (τήν τε τῶν πατέρων πίστιν τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ κυρώσαντες καὶ τὰς κατ᾽ αὐτῆς
ἐπιφανείσας αἱρέσεις ἀναθεματίσαντες)’.9 Finally, the same results of this Synod of
381 are found summed up in the tome of another synod, held in the same place the
following year, according to which the Synod of Antioch of 379 and that of Constan-
tinople of 381 had ‘confessed the faith at greater length’ in their respective tomes
and had ‘produced a written anathema against the heresies which had recently
sprung up’ (ἐν οἷς πλατύτερον τὴν πίστιν ὡμολογήσαμεν καὶ τῶν ἔναγχος καινοτο-
μηθεισῶν αἱρέσεων ἀναθεματισμὸν ἔγγραφον πεποιήκαμεν).10 The anathemas sur-
vive in canon 1 of Constantinople (381).11 The ‘more detailed’ confession of faith
could refer to a confession longer than N. But would this document, technically
speaking, be a creed, and was it part of the tome of Antioch or the tome of Constan-
tinople or both? And, finally, is this the same confession that Nestorius preserved
as Creed of Constantinople (C1) or is it rather the creed that has gone down in
Church history as that of ‘the 150 fathers’ (of Constantinople) (C2)?
In my opinion, the following picture emerges taking into account the few sour-
ces available as well as previous research on these questions: Theodosius convened
the council of 381, among other things,12 in order to clarify the question of faith
through a ‘reaffirmation’ of Nicaea. The dogmatic issues had still not been settled,
not least because the so-called ‘Macedonians’, a group of Pneumatomachian Homo-
iousians named after Macedonius of Constantinople (sedit 342–360), had not yet

 The following sections are based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 93–101.
 There were other items which concerned matters of church order (canons 2–3).
 Council of Constantinople (381), Epistula synodalis ad Theodosium imperatorem (FaFo § 565b).
 Council of Constantinople (382), Epistula synodalis (FaFo § 566a[13]).
 Cf. Council of Constantinople (381), canon 1 (FaFo § 565c).
 On the other items on the agenda cf. Ritter 1990, p. 519.
358 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

been won over to the (Neo-)Nicene cause.13 Among them was a relatively large
group from the Hellespont that fell under the jurisdiction of the now Nicaea-
oriented patriarchate of Constantinople. They were specifically invited by the em-
peror, who evidently took a lively part in the negotiations,14 to persuade them to
accept the pístis of Nicaea. On the side of the Neo-Nicenes, the synod was attended
by Timothy I of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Meletius of Antioch, Acholius of Thes-
salonica, Diodorus of Tarsus, Acacius of Beroea, Pelagius of Laodicea, Eulogius of
Edessa, Isidore of Cyrus, Gelasius of Caesarea, and others, some of whom (like Timo-
thy, Dorotheus of Oxyrhynchus, and Acholius) probably arrived late.15 The Macedo-
nian group included Eleusius of Cyzicus, the leader of the Pneumatomachian wing
of the Homoiousians,16 Marcian of Lampsacus, and thirty-four other bishops.
The exact dogmatic agenda of the negotiations is not entirely clear: Socrates
and Sozomen intimate that the debates revolved around the consubstantiality of
the Son.17 In the process, according to Sozomen, the Macedonians formally with-
drew the consent to N they had formerly given to Liberius of Rome. This refers to
the embassy a synod at Lampsacus had sent to the capital in 364, 365, or 366, dur-
ing the course of which leading Macedonians (Eustathius of Sebaste, Theophilus
of Castabala, Silvanus of Tarsus) had indeed consented to a creed that was almost
identical with N, at the request of the Roman bishop.18 Adolf Martin Ritter and
scholars that followed him, however, have suspected that this was not the only
matter under negotiation in Constantinople. For
the readiness of the Emperor, and certainly of the leading representatives of the council, to
come to an understanding could not possibly have gone so far as to do the Pneumatomachians
around Eleusius the great favour of passing over the main point of contention during the last
years, namely the question of the nature and intra-trinitarian rank of the Holy Spirit.

 As regards the following cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,1–10 (FaFo § 184b); Sozomen,
Historia ecclesiastica 7,7,1–5 (§ 184c); and Ritter 1965, pp. 68–85.
 Ritter 1965, p. 231 n. 2 is more sceptical concerning the emperor’s participation. However, cf.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmen de uita sua 1709, which Ritter 1965, pp. 260 f. sees as referring only
to the negotiations with the Macedonians. Cf. also below p. 362.
 On the extant lists of participants cf. CPG 8601 and the surveys in Ritter 1965, p. 38 n. 4; Ritter
1990, p. 522. As regards the ‘Egyptians and Macedonians’ who arrived late (or were invited at a
later stage) cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmen de uita sua 1800 and Ritter 1965, pp. 97 f.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 73–6.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,1–10 (FaFo § 184b); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica
7,7,1–5 (§ 184c).
 Cf. Eustathius of Sebaste et al., Epistula ad Liberium papam (FaFo § 170).
 7.1 The council’s origin and history 359

Ritter continues: ‘So there must have been more at stake in the negotiations with the
Pneumatomachian embassy than Socrates and Sozomen were able to report.’19
This is, of course, not impossible, but we do not know for sure whether there
was any room at all for discussions on the pneumatological questions, after the de-
bates on the consubstantiality of the Son had failed. The bishops of the anti-Nicene
party around Eleusius continued to reject homooúsios and left the synod.20
Since the Macedonians also sent letters to their followers all over the world,
according to both Church historians, warning against agreeing with N,21 and Socra-
tes (and Sozomen?) possibly drew part of their information from these very let-
ters,22 it is striking to say the least that they apparently did not contain a single
word about negotiations on the divinity of the Spirit. Furthermore, it is not quite
understandable why, after the negotiations with the Pneumatomachians had col-
lapsed, C2 would not have simply been formally approved and solemnly pro-
claimed, when the way was now clear for recognizing the consubstantiality of the
Spirit. Instead it is more likely that – perhaps as a result of the controversy with
Apolinarianism – Christology was negotiated first and that the discussion moved
on to the pneumatological questions only later (i.e. only after the departure of the
Macedonians), questions which, as we will see below, then led to renewed debates
among the council participants about the wording of the pneumatological section.
On the one hand, our sources state unanimously that N was ‘confirmed’ in Con-
stantinople.23 On the other hand, it does not seem that this confirmation was a sim-
ple ratification of N or NAnt. Rather, as the synodal letter of 382 attests, a ‘more
detailed’ confession of faith was developed, which seems to have been contained
both in the tome of the council of Antioch and in that of Constantinople in 381.24
This means, however, that both these confessions of faith must have been closely
interrelated, although they were presumably not identical (otherwise Constantino-
ple would only have ‘confirmed’ the confession of faith as elaborated at Antioch).
In other words, the tome of 382 suggests, on closer inspection, that the creed of

 Ritter 1965, p. 83. Similarly, for example, also Kelly 1972, pp. 326–9; Staats 1999, pp. 37 f.
 According to Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,10 (FaFo § 184b) and Sozomen, Historia eccle-
siastica 7,7,5 (§ 184c) this happened at the beginning of the negotiations. Similarly, Hauschild
1994, p. 448; Staats 1999, p. 36. For a different view cf. Ritter 1965, p. 79 and n. 1.
 Pseudo-Athanasius (Didymus the Blind?), De sancta trinitate dialogus 3, 1 (FaFo § 183) also
suggests that the Macedonians rejected additions to N. Cf. also Ritter 1965, pp. 152 f.; Smith 2018,
p. 27.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,10 (FaFo § 184b); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,7,5
(§ 184c).
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,10,14 (FaFo § 184b); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,9,1
(§ 184c); Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,10 (§ 184d).
 Note the plural of the relative pronoun: ἐν οἷς (FaFo § 566a[13]). Cf. above p. 357.
360 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

Antioch had not been adopted without changes in Constantinople in 381, but sub-
jected to further revision, and that this pístis had been more ‘detailed’ than N.
One can only speculate about the reason for this: NAnt had, after all, been estab-
lished at a synod under Meletius, who was later also to preside the Council of Con-
stantinople. After his premature death during this latter council, however, the
assembly’s new president, Gregory of Nazianzus, had expressed his sympathy for a
solution according to which Meletius’ episcopal throne in Antioch should remain
unoccupied until his Nicene rival Paulinus had also died; yet he did not succeed
with this proposal – the succession of Meletius remained unresolved, with the Me-
letians favouring the presbyter Flavian.25 As a result, NAnt was probably also drawn
into these negotiations and was now branded by Meletius’ opponents as being too
accommodating towards the anti-Nicene party – for example, because of its inclu-
sion of the quotation from Col 1:15.26 One of these opponents may have been Timo-
thy I of Alexandria (this patriarchate was to be the guardian of the ‘pure’ N in the
fifth century27), about whom we, unfortunately, know very little.
The ‘confirmation’ of N by the council can also hardly mean C2, which – as
we will see in the next chapter – was a heavily revised and extended version of N
and therefore later rightly called the (new) ‘Creed of the 150 fathers’.28 However,
a much-discussed29 passage in the autobiographical poem of Gregory of Nazian-
zus makes clear that the ‘confirmed’ N cannot simply have been the authentic
creed of Nicaea either, but that something was actually changed in the text itself:

I saw the sweet and beauteous spring of our ancient faith, which gathered in unity the ven-
erable nature of the Trinity, which had once been conceived of in Nicaea, being wretchedly
befouled with briny infusions poured into it by double-minded men sharing the beliefs fav-
oured by the power [or: [His] Majesty], people who claim to be mediators – had they really
been mediators and not blatantly [adherents] of the contrary cause, that would have been
welcome!30

 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 62–8; Staats 1999, p. 43.

 Cf. above p. 350.
 Cf. below p. 399.
 Cf. below pp. 382 f.
 Cf. the various interpretations of these verses and the entire passage of Gregory of Nazianzus,
Carmen de uita sua 1703–1759 in Ritter 1965, pp. 258–64; Jungck 1974, pp. 220 f., 223; Hauschild
1977; Ritter 1979(1993), pp. 171–173; Staats 1999, p. 36; Behr 2004, vol. II, pp. 374, 379.
 Carmen de uita sua 1703–11 (FaFo § 184a2; Jungck 1974, p. 136):
[. . .] τὴν γλυκεῖαν καὶ καλήν
πηγὴν παλαιᾶς πίστεως, ἣ τριάδος
εἰς ἓν συνῆγε τὴν σεβάσμιον φύσιν,
ἧς ἦν ποθ’ ἡ Νικαία φροντιστήριον,
 7.1 The council’s origin and history 361

At first it remains unclear in this fairly cryptic passage whether μέσοι ὄντες (liter-
ally ‘those in the middle’) in v. 1710 refers to an active mediating role assumed by
certain bishops, possibly initiated by the emperor, or simply refers to their (in Greg-
ory’s view) fickleness and opportunism. Even if this must remain open, it cannot
really be doubted that the ‘briny infusions’ actually refer to textual changes in the
creed. It is also just as clear that what Gregory terms the ‘sweet and beauteous
spring’ must be N and not NAnt, since he still quoted N as the confession that was
authoritative for him several years after Constantinople. It was necessary, he said,
to ‘add the words that had been missing to those about the Holy Spirit’, since ‘at
that time [i.e. in Nicaea] this question had not yet been raised’, such that the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit were confessed as one Godhead and thus the divinity of the
Spirit was fully acknowledged.31 This can hardly refer to the already quite broadly
developed Pneumatology in NAnt and certainly not to C2, but must apply to N.
On the basis of all this evidence the conclusion is inescapable that there were
two versions of C in Constantinople: namely, a version that was ‘confirmed’ as N
(but according to Gregory contained changes: C1) and a version that was later
quoted as the ‘Creed of the 150’ whose third section had been expanded further.
The version that was ‘confirmed’ as N survives in a recently discovered homily of
Nestorius, who always speaks of his creed as that of Nicaea.32 It may also be this
creed of which Nicephorus Callistus (d. after 1328) says that Gregory of Nyssa sup-
plemented it in Constantinople with regard to the Spirit’s ‘equality of honour and
praise’ (ἰσοτιμία and ὁμοδοξία) with Father and Son, in his Church History in a
note based on an unknown source.33 We do not know which addition he exactly
refers to, but it is noteworthy that Nicephorus does not speak of a new creed ei-
ther. Unfortunately, it is impossible to decide whether this information is correct.
As we saw above, it was assumed in earlier scholarship that the ‘Creed of the
150’ (C2) had been designed to negotiate with the Macedonians (Pneumatoma-
chians).34 This thesis was plausible based on the sources available at the time. In
the meantime, however, the picture has changed considerably as a result of the dis-

ταύτην ἑώρων ἁλμυραῖς ἐπιρροαῖς

τῶν ἀμφιδόξων ἀθλίως θολουμένην,
οἳ ταῦτα δοξάζουσιν, οἷς χαίρει κράτος,
μέσοι μὲν ὄντες – ἀσμενιστὸν δ’ εἰ μέσοι,
καὶ μὴ προδήλως κλήσεως ἐναντίας,
[. . .].
 Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistula 102, 2 (FaFo § 184a1).
 Edition, translation, and commentary in Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, 2020(2022).
 Cf. Nicephorus, Historia ecclesiastica 12, 13 (PG 146, col. 784A–B).
 Cf. above pp. 358 f.
362 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

covery of C1. Comparing the two creeds (as we will do in the next chapter), it is
immediately clear that C2 contains no additional phrases that are theologically sig-
nificant with regard to the pneumatological question. In any case, had the situation
been as assumed earlier, why did the Macedonians warn against the acceptance of
N after the council’s conclusion? It would certainly be difficult to imagine that C2
could simply have been referred to without further explanation, as that would pre-
suppose that N was named but C2 was meant which is difficult for methodological
reasons.35
So was C1, which might well have been called ‘N’, the sole basis of the negotia-
tions with the Macedonians? We do not know. But if one takes the sources seri-
ously according to which these negotiations took place at the beginning of the
council, the following scenario would be conceivable: first of all, the emperor (the
‘power’ in Gregory’s Carmen de uita sua 1709) obviously exerted considerable
pressure on the council participants, which led to negotiations with the Macedo-
nians about drafts that seemed to Gregory to be theologically too ambiguous to
exclude (malicious) misinterpretations. The details of these debates, which per-
haps took place in a committee still under Gregory’s presidency of the council,
are unknown to us. Apparently, at the end, i.e. after the failure of the negotiations
and Gregory’s withdrawal, two drafts were on the table (under the chairmanship
of Nectarius36), one of which, C2, could not be agreed upon. The main reason is
probably that it had moved too far away from N to pass as a simple supplement
to it. Furthermore, C2 may have been considered unsuitable for catechesis. Per-
haps there were also discussions about the extent to which elements of J or also
from the western tradition should be included in the third section. In this context,
the confessional ‘hierarchy’ in this section37 may also have been controversial. Be
that as it may: C2 was set aside.38
Such a scenario also solves the mystery of why N was – at times – named but
C actually intended as the referent: in none of these (few39) cases is the pneuma-
tological section quoted (as it is found in C2) – reference was primarily made to
the christological article, which was obviously quoted from the ‘confirmed’ ver-
sion C1. As will be shown in the next chapter the Vorlage for both versions was
presumably NAnt, which had been aligned with N and J in some formulations.

 Cf. above ch. 2.4.

 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,9,1 (FaFo § 184c).
 Cf. below p. 373.
 However, on its inclusion in collections of canonical law cf. below pp. 386 f., 416, 468 f.
 Cf. below pp. 376 and n. 106; 381 f.
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 363

It is quite doubtful whether minutes were taken in Constantinople as we

know was the practice since Ephesus 431.40 Rather, its outcomes were probably
captured in four documents: the synodal letter to the emperor, the ‘confirmed’
but in actual fact extended text of N (= C1), the four authentic so-called41 canons
(including canon 1 with the confirmation of N [= C1] and the condemnation of her-
esies),42 and the subscription list. (This is not the place to address the question as
to whether the creed, canons, and list combined formed the tome of the council
or whether there was another separate doctrinal letter which has been lost, as is
widely assumed. However, assuming an additional epistle to have existed does
not seem compelling to me). Furthermore, there was another creed (C2), which
was expanded especially in its third section but which had probably not been
generally accepted. Instead, ‘N’ was to apply unchanged, i.e. a confession that in-
corporated ‘western’ and Antiochene additions (NAnt), which had been partially
reversed in accordance with N and J,43 as well as given an expanded third section.
It is this confession (C1) which was later quoted by Nestorius44 and (in Chalcedon)
by Diogenes of Cyzicus.45 In this sense N had been both ‘confirmed’ and modified.
We will have to investigate below how it came about that in the end C2 rather
than C1 came to be regarded as the ‘Creed of the 150 fathers’.46

7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople

Before47 we do so, however, we will first look at the revisions that were made to
NAnt in Constantinople. The following table places N, J, NAnt1, C1, and C2 side by side.
The other versions of NAnt (i.e. NAnt2 and NAnt3) are found above on pp. 346–9.

 Cf. below p. 386 n. 42.

 Originally, the canons were not separate from each other; cf. Ohme 1998, pp. 523 f.
 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8 (FaFo § 184b; in part); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica
7,7–9 (§ 184c, in part); Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,10 (§ 184d); Council of Constantinople
(381), canon 1 (FaFo § 565c). On the inauthenticity of canons 5–7 cf. Ritter 1965, p. 123 n. 1.
 Cf. below p. 375.
 Cf. below p. 376 and n. 106.
 Cf. below p. 381.
 Cf. below ch. 8.1.
 This chapter is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 37–52.
364 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

N () J Theodore of C C
(FaFo § c) (FaFo § ) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei (according to the
–) neuentdeckte Council of
(FaFo § a) Predigten’, Chalcedon (),
(), p. ; Actio II(III)  (FaFo
furthermore, FaFo § e))
§ a–g)

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα [καὶ Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα
θεόν, θεόν, θεόν, μόνον] θεὸν θεόν,
[ἀληθινόν],
πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα,
παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα,
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ κτίστην ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ
γῆς γῆς
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε ὁρατῶν τε πάντων πάντων ὁρατῶν τε πάντων ὁράτων τε ὁρατῶν τε πάντων
καὶ ἀοράτων καὶ ἀοράτων· καὶ ἀοράτων καὶ ἀοράτων καὶ ἀοράτων·
ποιητήν· ποιητήν· ποιημάτων.
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ,
τὸν πρωτότοκον
πάσης κτίσεως,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
πατρός, γεννηθέντα γεννηθέντα γεννηθέντα γεννηθέντα
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν
μονογενῆ,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός,
πρὸ πάντων τῶν πρὸ πάντων τῶν πρὸ πάντων τῶν πρὸ πάντων τῶν
αἰώνων, αἰώνων αἰώνων, αἰώνων,
καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα,
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ
θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ
ποιηθέντα, ποιηθέντα, ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί,
δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ δι᾿ οὗ

 Cf. above ch. 6.4.

 Cf. above ch. 5.5.
 On the difference between versions cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, 2020(2022),
pp. 43–52.
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 365

(continued)

N () J Theodore of C C
(FaFo § c) (FaFo § ) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei (according to the
–) neuentdeckte Council of
(FaFo § a) Predigten’, Chalcedon (),
(), p. ; Actio II(III)  (FaFo
furthermore, FaFo § e))
§ a–g)

οἱ αἰῶνες
κατηρτίσθησαν
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ τὰ πάντα τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,
ἐγένετο,
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν κατελθόντα καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν σωτηρίαν σωτηρίαν
κατελθόντα κατελθόντα κατελθόντα
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
καὶ σαρκωθέντα, [τὸν σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
καὶ Μαρίας τῆς καὶ Μαρίας τῆς
παρθένου παρθένου
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, καὶ] καὶ καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
γεννηθέντα
ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς
παρθένου
[τὸν σταυρωθέντα καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ καὶ σταυρωθέντα σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ
Ποντίου Πιλάτου, ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου
παθόντα καὶ παθόντα
καὶ ταφέντα Ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ καὶ] ἀναστάντα [ἐκ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, νεκρῶν] τῇ τρίτῃ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
ἡμέρᾳ
κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς
οὐρανούς, τοὺς οὐρανοὺς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν
δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐρχόμενον καὶ ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον
ἐν δόξῃ μετὰ δόξης
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ
νεκρούς· νεκρούς, νεκρούς· νεκρούς. νεκρούς,
366 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

(continued)

N () J Theodore of C C
(FaFo § c) (FaFo § ) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei (according to the
–) neuentdeckte Council of
(FaFo § a) Predigten’, Chalcedon (),
(), p. ; Actio II(III)  (FaFo
furthermore, FaFo § e))
§ a–g)

οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ

ἔσται τέλος· ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ εἰς ἓν ἅγιον καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα Πιστεύω καὶ εἰς τὸ καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ
πνεῦμα. πνεῦμα, ἅγιον, πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἅγιον,
τὸν παράκλητον,
[anathemas] πνεῦμα τῆς
ἀληθείας,
τὸ κύριον καὶ τὸ κύριον καὶ
ζωοποιόν, ζωοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκπορευόμενον,
πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ
συμβασιλεῦον
καὶ συμπροσκυνούμενον
συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν
προφήταις· προφητῶν. προφητῶν·
μίαν ἐκκλησίαν Πιστεύω εἰς μίαν εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν,
καθολικήν, καθολικὴν καὶ καθολικὴν καὶ
ἀποστολικὴν ἀποστολικὴν
ἐκκλησίαν. ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογοῦμεν

 English translation above pp. 246–8.

 ‘I believe in the one [and only] [true] God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all creatures visible
and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father
before all ages, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; who
descended; became flesh from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary; became human; was crucified
and was buried; on the third day rose again; ascended into the heavens; and will come again to
judge the living and dead.
I also believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who
is jointly ruling, worshipped, and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the
prophets.
I believe in one catholic and apostolic Church.’
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 367

(continued)

N () J Theodore of C C
(FaFo § c) (FaFo § ) Mopsuestia (NAnt; (cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei (according to the
–) neuentdeckte Council of
(FaFo § a) Predigten’, Chalcedon (),
(), p. ; Actio II(III)  (FaFo
furthermore, FaFo § e))
§ a–g)

καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα ἓν βάπτισμα

μετανοίας
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
καὶ εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν
καθολικήν
ἐκκλησίαν·
Προσδοκῶμεν
καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν
ἀνάστασιν·
καὶ εἰς ζωὴν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ
αἰώνιον. μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν.

I will first turn to C2. Since Theodore, as explained, is not commenting on C2 but
on an older version of N in use in Antioch (namely the one agreed with Rome),56
and since C2 is closely linked to NAnt in literary terms57 and is presumably youn-

 English translation above pp. 202 f.

 English translation above p. 349 n. 583.
 ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible
and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before
all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the
Father; through whom all things came into being; who because of us humans and because of our
salvation descended from the heavens; became flesh from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary;
became human; was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried; on the
third day rose again according to the Scriptures; ascended into the heavens; sits at the right hand
of the Father; and will come again with glory to judge the living and dead; of whose kingdom
there will be no end;
and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is jointly
worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.’
 Cf. above ch. 6.5.12.
 Cf. the detailed analysis in Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 19–33.
368 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

ger, C2 itself is probably a revision of NAnt. In this revision, N and the creed of
Cyril of Jerusalem (J) were also taken into account. (Cyril was also one of the par-
ticipants in the Council of Constantinople).58

First section
(1) The rearrangement of ποιητήν leads to a smoother flow of words.

(2) The addition of οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, which is also found in J,59 further expands
the reference to Col 1:1660 (ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων; cf. also Gen 1:1; Acts 4:24;
14:15; Rev 14:7).

(3) Πάντων was transposed, thus achieving agreement with J.

Second section
(1) The omission of τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως led to agreement with N. It
may be that the quotation of Col 1:15 had been felt to be too strong a concession to
the Homoiousians or Homoians.

(2) The reinsertion of φῶς ἐκ φωτός not only strengthened the reference to N, but
at the same time also built a bridge to the non-Nicene confessional tradition.61

(3) Conversely, the reinsertion of γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, a phrase which is

also found in N, drew a red line for the Anhomoians, signalling clearer opposition
to their views than NAnt had done.

(4) In the process, the now superfluous reference to the creation of the aeons was
also excised again.

(5) The changes concerning the incarnation are striking. The authors of C2 may
have wished to reduce the inelegant triple designation of the incarnation in NAnt
(σαρκωθέντα – ἐνανθρωπήσαντα – γεννηθέντα). Thus, the Virgin was moved for-

 Cf. also Gerber 2000, pp. 153–5. On Cyril’s participation cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,3
(FaFo § 184b); Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,7,3 (§ 184c).
 Cf. also Council of Antioch, Epistula synodica (325; Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 18), 8 (FaFo § 133);
Acacius of Caesarea, Expositio fidei (FaFo § 158a[4]).
 [. . .] ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
[. . .]. / ‘[. . .] for in him all things in the heavens and on earth were created, things visible and
invisible, [. . .].’
 Cf. Eus (FaFo § 134a); Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei/Formula quarta (§ 141d); Council
of Serdica (343, east), Fides synodi (§ 143a2 and c); Ecthesis macrostichos (§ 145); Council of Sir-
mium (351), Fidei confessio prima (§ 148); Council of Sirmium (357), Fidei confessio altera (§ 154).
On this formula cf. also Staats 1999, pp. 227, 231–4.
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 369

ward to the Son’s becoming flesh (σαρκωθέντα). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was
added – one would like to attribute this to direct Roman influence, but this was
minimal at the Constantinopolitan Synod.62 Attributing the incarnation to both the
Spirit and the Virgin also occurs elsewhere in the credal tradition of the fourth cen-
tury.63 However, this combination usually referred to Christ’s birth, not his incarna-
tion.64 The moving forward of the Virgin and the addition of the Spirit to the
incarnation have always been understood in the tradition as directed against Apoli-
narianism.65 Ritter and Kelly have vehemently denied this interpretation,66 How-
ever, I have shown elsewhere that Apolinarius and his followers were charged
with advocating the idea that the incarnate Christ had been generated before he
had been born from the virgin in such a way that the Logos had assumed the eter-
nal flesh (without a human soul). In addition, they were accused of championing a
double consubstantiality of Christ (with the divine Logos and with the flesh).67 Both
views could be understood as if the Apolinarians advocated docetism.68 In addition,
Athanasius accused his (Apolinarian?) opponents of introducing a divine quater-
nity.69 The question as to whether or not Apolinarius and his followers advocated
such ideas would require a detailed investigation of Apolinarius and his ‘school’. It
suffices here to say that the Apolinarians were accused of holding such views and
that, therefore, his opponents sought to mitigate them by additions to N/NAnt. It is
probable that in this case, too, a phrase was chosen that was as broad as possible
and thus acceptable to both Neo-Nicenes and (mild) Apolinarians such as Timothy
of Berytus, a participant in the council,70 and Vitalis, bishop of a schismatic congre-
gation in Antioch,71 while, at the same time, aiming at the greatest possible theolog-
ical precision: the Spirit mentioned in Lk 1:35 is, on the one hand, linked to Christ’s

 Cf. Ritter 1965, p. 39 and n. 3.

 Cf. TAG (FaFo § 89c); Council of Niké (359), Confessio fidei (§ 159a[4]); Council of Constantinople
(359/360), Confessio fidei (§ 160[3]); Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,5 (§ 175). In addition, Ritter 1965,
p. 194 n. 2.
 Cf., however, Melito, De pascha 784 (FaFo § 107): ὁ ἐπὶ παρθένῳ σαρκωθείς / ‘who became
flesh upon the Virgin’. Council of Antioch (325), Epistula synodica (FaFo § 133[11]): καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐκ
τῆς θεοτόκου Μαρίας τεχθείς / ‘was also born in flesh from Mary the Theotokos’.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 337 referring to Santer 1971; Grillmeier 1975, pp. 330 f.; Hübner 1989,
pp. 209–29; Staats 1999, pp. 55, 109, 176, 239, 242.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 192–195; Kelly 1972, pp. 332–7. In addition, Behr 2004, vol. II, p. 378.
 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 39–45.
 Cf. Apolinarius, Ad Iouianum 3 (FaFo § 164b). On the charge of docetism cf., e.g., Grillmeier
1975, pp. 330 f.; Andrist 2005, pp. 71 f.
 Cf. Athanasius, Epistula ad Epictetum 2. Cf. especially Grelier 2011.
 Apparently he was one of the signatories of the decrees of Constantinople. Cf. Lietzmann
1904, pp. 31, 153 f.; Raven 1923, p. 145.
 On him cf. Mühlenberg 1969, pp. 45–63 and above p. 332 and n. 491.
370 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

(historical) flesh, which is named after the descent, thus ensuring the factuality of
the incarnation in the sense of a material ‘reification’. On the other hand, he is also
connected with Christ’s becoming human (καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα), which means that
in relation to Christ’s humanity the incarnation is not reductive (‘only the flesh’)
but involves the assumption of the entire human being.
This suggestion that Christ’s becoming flesh and his becoming human must
be considered one and the same is also confirmed by a look at the synodal letter
of the Synod of Constantinople of 382. It does, in fact, make this connection ex-
plicit: the ‘economy of the flesh’ is understood in the sense of the perfect incarna-
tion (that is, involving both soul and noûs).72

(6) The addition ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in relation to the crucifixion is striking, strengthening
the idea of redemption by recourse to Scripture (Rom 5:8; 8:32; 1Thess 5:10, etc.). It
is also attested in the Antiochene tradition.73

(7) The sequence crucifixion – passion is probably the result of a conflation of καὶ
σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου in NAnt and παθόντα in N.74

(8) The addition of the coming ‘in glory’ (μετὰ δόξης) is already found in J (ἐν δόξῃ).

(9) The addition οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος after Lk 1:33 is commonly re-
garded as directed against Marcellus.75 The phrase is also found in J. As regards
Antioch, this expectation is also attested in the Constitutiones apostolorum.76

Third section
(1) Compared to NAnt (and J) C2 lacks the oneness of the Spirit expressed by the
addition of ἕν. For Ritter this was one of the reasons why he did not want to ac-
cept Gerber’s thesis that NAnt was the Vorlage for C2. According to him, it was in-
explicable why the (undisputed) oneness of the Spirit had been deleted.77 It seems

 Cf. Council of Constantinople, Epistula synodalis (FaFo § 566a[12]): ‘We also preserve unper-
verted the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord (τὸν τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως δὲ τοῦ κυρίου λόγον),
affirming the tradition that the dispensation of the flesh was neither soulless nor mindless nor
imperfect (οὔτε ἄψυχον οὔτε ἄνουν ἢ ἀτελῆ), and knowing full well that God the Word was both
perfect before the ages, and became perfect man in the last days for our salvation.’
 Cf. also (Pseudo-)Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Smyrnaeos (middle and long recension) 1,2
(FaFo § 98e1 and e2); Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei/Formula altera (§ 141b); Constitu-
tiones apostolorum 7,41,5 (§ 182c). In addition, Cyprian, De mortalitate 21 (§ 122c); Pseudo-
Athanasius, Expositio fidei 1 (§ 149); Apolinarius, Ad Iouianum 2 (§ 164b).
 Cf. also Gerber 2000, p. 153.
 Cf., e.g., Molland 1970; Kelly 1972, pp. 338 f.; Behr 2004, vol. II, p. 378.
 Cf. Constitutiones apostolorum 7,41,6 (FaFo § 182c).
 Cf. above p. 37.
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 371

that the agreement between NAnt and J on this point is indeed no coincidence.78
But if one takes a closer look at the interpretation of Cyril as well as that of Theo-
dore, it becomes clear that neither of them knew why the explicit ‘oneness’ had
been added here. Cyril thought that it was a matter of warding off the Marcion-
ites’ idea that a different spirit spoke in the Old Testament than it did in the
New.79 But this was by now hardly a burning issue anymore. Theodore, however,
explained the added ‘one’ with reference both to the one divine nature and to the
oneness of Father and Son, hinting at the debate with the Pneumatomachians.80
However, unless the third section in J and NAnt was simply aligned with the first
and the second, one might instead suppose that καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πνεῦμα
τῆς ἀληθείας must be read together. There is one Holy Spirit, and this is the Spirit
of truth (cf. Jn 16:13). At the same time, there exists also a ‘spirit of error’ (τὸ πνεῦμα
τῆς πλάνης; 1Jn 4:6), but this is not the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of truth confesses ‘that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh’, whereas the spirit of the antichrist does not (1Jn
4:2 f.). We do not know what the context was that meant this issue may have played
a role in Antioch, whereas it was obviously no longer ventilated in Constantinople. In
Constantinople, however, the definite article τό was added.81 Possibly, it was thought
in the eastern capital that this article sufficed to describe the oneness of the Holy
Spirit. Thus τό in the third section stood in for ἕνα in the two preceding sections. In
those earlier sections ἕνα, which emphasizes his oneness even more strongly, had
been inserted in allusion to 1Cor 8:6, in order to ward off the idea of a multiplicity of
gods and lords. In 1Cor 8:6, however, the Holy Spirit was not mentioned, so that the
phrasing in C2 may be seen as an adaptation to this biblical usage. The oneness of the
Spirit was seen as sufficiently determined by the definite article.

(2) Conspicuously, the doxological formula τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμε-
νον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον appears in the middle of the passage on the Holy Spirit.
In terms of form criticism, this may indicate an earlier stage of editing here: καὶ
εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον had at first been concluded in the discussions at the council
by the doxology τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον –
this reflects the considerations by Basil and was also the solution favoured by

 It is not correct to state that ‘most eastern creeds’ contained the oneness of God (pace Gerber
2000, p. 152).
 Cf. Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 16, 4.
 Cf. Theodore, Homilia catechetica 9, 16–18; 10, 1–3.
 I am indebted to Thomas Brüggemann for the following idea.
372 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

Gregory of Nazianzus, because it concluded the creed in a liturgical fashion, thus

elegantly emphasizing the consubstantiality of the Spirit without using homooú-
sios itself. It would have permitted an assertion that N had remained unaltered.82

(3) This position apparently did not prove sufficient in the discussions with the
critics of the Spirit’s full divinity. However, homooúsios was not inserted either to
leave these critics room for manoeuvre on this point. At the same time, some
characteristics of the Roman creed, which had already been adopted in NAnt,
were also given more prominence in C2, albeit indirectly. Thus, further elements
from NAnt were copied:
– τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
– (πνεῦμα) ζωοποιόν,
– μίαν ἐκκλησίαν καθολικήν, now rephrased as εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ
ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν (cf. R),
– (εἰς) ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (cf. R),
– ἀνάστασιν (cf. R),
– ζωήν (cf. R).

(4) The problem of the strange duplication πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας – πνεῦμα ζωο-
ποιόν in NAnt was solved by deleting the former syntagma and instead emphasiz-
ing the lordship and creative work of the Spirit through a new phrase. The
deletion of the Johannine ‘Spirit of truth’ (rather than of πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν) could
be due to the fact that the council wanted to distance itself from the Homoian or
Anhomoian creeds, in which this predication often occurs.83

(5) Instead, the title of ‘Lord’84 – with recourse to biblical language (2Cor 3:17–18) –
underlined the divinity of the Spirit and connected this with the biblical epithet ζωο-
ποιόν from NAnt,85 so that this epithet could then be moved further up in the text.

(6) The reference to the prophets (τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν) was probably
inserted in order to define the Spirit more precisely by connecting him with the
Old Testament: it is the Spirit of the prophets who is worshipped here and whose
identity can be ascertained from Scripture – this made it possible to ward off en-

 Cf. above pp. 331, 336 f., 361. In addition, Kelly 1972, p. 337.
 Cf. Council of Antioch (341), Expositio fidei/Formula tertia (FaFo § 141a[4]); Council of Niké
(359), Confessio fidei (§ 159a[6]); Council of Constantinople (359/360), Confessio fidei (§ 160[4]); Aux-
entius, Confessio fidei (§ 453); Eunomius, Confessio fidei 4 (§ 163c2); Pseudo-John Chrysostom, In
illud: Simile est regnum caelorum patri familias 3 (§ 196[7]); Charisius, Confessio fidei (§ 204a).
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 341; De Halleux 1979(1990), p. 324; Abramowski 1992, p. 500; Staats 1999,
pp. 24 f., 257 f.
 Cf. above p. 352.
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 373

thusiastic pneumatologies as, for example, those of the Montanists, who wor-
shipped Montanus as the Paraclete as Montanism still existed in various forms in
the fourth century,86 or of the Messalians and similar ascetic groups.87 So the
Trinitarian doxology could not be, as it were, ‘undermined’ by an ‘enthusiastic’
interpretation.88 Conversely, it was thus emphasized that the hypóstasis of the
Spirit had already been present and active in the Old Testament. The formula is
attested in older creeds, above all again in J, which may also have had an influ-
ence here.89

(7) Discussions must have followed about whether the Church, baptism with for-
giveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh or of the dead, and eternal life in
NAnt were also objects of faith and to what extent they were to be assigned to the
Holy Spirit and his activity. In the end, it must have been decided to include these
items, but to assign them a lower ‘pisteological’ status.

(8) Therefore, a differentiated ‘affirmation hierarchy’ of the remaining credal

clauses both in J and NAnt (Church, baptism and forgiveness of sins, resurrection,
and eternal life), was now introduced (possibly with recourse to a similar approach
in NAnt):90 while the Church was demarcated from the Trinity by the doxological cae-
sura it still remained an object of faith – indeed, it may even have been promoted to
one in comparison to the Vorlage (a contention that remained controversial in the
interpretation of R or its descendants, at least in the west91). Here, too, Cyril of Jeru-
salem could have been an influence.92 It fits with this ‘upgrading’ of the Church
(which was now actually added to the Trinity as a fourth article of faith) that its holi-

 Cf. Markschies, ‘Montanismus’, 2012, cols. 1218 f. (however, the available evidence is scarce
and unreliable).
 Cf. Staats 1992, pp. 608 f.
 On the fathers’ understanding of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament cf., e.g.,
Crouzel 1976, cols. 532 f. (Irenaeus), 535 (Origen).
 Cf. also Ecthesis macrostichos (FaFo § 145[10]); Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,9 (§ 175); Didascalia
CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (§ 176[4]); Amphilochius of Iconium, De recta fide (§ 181[2]);
Pseudo-Athanasius, Interpretatio in symbolum (FaFo § 185). It is not altogether clear whether 2Pet
1:21 is alluded to, as Kelly and Staats have assumed (cf. Kelly 1972, p. 341; Staats 1999, p. 258 and
Staats 1999, pp. 261–4) Cf. also Rom 1:2 and Heb 1:1.
 However, the ‘confession’ of the one baptism in NAnt3 could also be due to a later influence
from C2 on NAnt3.
 Cf. Westra 2017 and above pp. 174 f.
 Cf. also Arius and Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde
30; FaFo § 131c) 3; Apolinarius of Laodicea, Fides secundum partem 32 (§ 164a2); Epiphanius, An-
coratus 119,11 (§ 175); Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (§ 176[9]); Pseudo-Athanasius, In-
terpretatio in symbolum (§ 185).
374 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

ness and apostolicity were specifically emphasized, at least compared to NAnt1. (The
reference to its holiness is also found in J.)

(9) By contrast, the confession of one baptism ‘for’ the forgiveness of sins (whereby
the reference to one baptism, which precludes further ablutions, seems to have
been taken once more from J), as well as the expectation of the resurrection of the
dead and of eternal life, were now no longer regarded as being part of the πίστις
in the narrower sense (as it had been in J), but relegated to a lower tier of dog-
matic normativity: single baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ was now merely ‘con-
fessed’ (which is doctrinally less ‘strong’ than ‘believed in’), while the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the future aeon were no more than ‘expected’. It is not
entirely clear which of the following elements were drawn from NAnt: τὸ ἐκ τοῦ
πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, μίαν ἐκκλησίαν καθολικήν, (εἰς) ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, and
ἀνάστασιν. The confession of baptism ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ may have been
taken from J in which case it would, perhaps, be secondary in NAnt3 where it also
occurs.

(10) The differences between NAnt1 and NAnt3 also mean that it remains unclear
whether the ‘holiness’ and ‘apostolicity’ of the Church and the confession of bap-
tism were already included in NAnt or whether, which I consider more likely
given the current state of the evidence, C2 influenced NAnt3.

(11) Replacing the term ‘flesh’ with the ‘dead’ certainly served to ward off a ‘carnal’
understanding of this process, which was current in the eschatology of Apolinarius
and Jewish-Christian circles in the second half of the fourth century.93

(12) The mention of the ‘world to come’ (or, more literally, ‘future aeon’) was
taken from Heb 6:5. Such a ‘future aeon’ is already combined with ‘expectation’
in the Apology of Aristides and in Origen,94 but also corresponds to (Neo-)Nicene
theology.95
✶

 Cf. Kinzig 2003.

 Cf. Aristides, Apologia, frg. 15,3 (Vona 1950, p. 125); Origen, Fragmenta in Lucam, frg. 154 on Lk
9:58, ll. 3 f. (Rauer 1959, p. 288).
 Cf. Athanasius, Expositiones in Psalmos, on Ps 111:1 (PG 27, col. 465B); on Ps 60:6 (col. 572C-D;
ascribed to Eusebius and Athanasius). Cf. also Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos, on Ps 60:6 (PG
80, col. 1325C); Basil of Caesarea, Regulae morales 68 (PG 31, col. 805C); Didymus, Fragmenta in Psal-
mos, frg. 22 (Mühlenberg 1975–1978, vol. I, p. 130, ll. 1 f.); frg. 624a on Ps 60:6b (vol. II, p. 35, ll. 17 f.).
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 375

By way of summary, it can be seen that:

(1) the third section in particular was further revised in Constantinople, result-
ing in a new creed (C2), the ‘Faith of the 150 fathers’. A comparison with its
Vorlage NAnt shows that C2 underlines the divinity of the Spirit even more
strongly than the Vorlage.96
(2) It is also clear that the Antiochene creeds offer little that is not found in C2,
while conversely the text of C2 is more detailed in some places. It is, there-
fore, reasonable to assume that C2 represents a further revision.
(3) The similarities between N and C2 and between J and C2 indicate that the revi-
sion of C2 was not carried out solely on the basis of the Antiochene creeds,
but that N and J were also available to the fathers at Constantinople.
(4) In the third section two stages of revision are discernible. At the first stage, the
creed concluded with a doxology, which may have run as follows: καὶ εἰς τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμε-
νον. It was certainly older than C2. However, this version of the pneumatologi-
cal section was discarded because the wider development of creeds suggested
that further phrases be included in (or appended to) the third article.
(5) The resulting revision C2 presumably did not meet with approval because in
the end it had moved too far away from N and was therefore not accepted by
the council fathers.
✶

As regards C1, I have shown elsewhere through philological analysis that this text,
which must be considered the council’s official creed, also resulted from a revi-
sion of NAnt1 for which N and J were used.97 Let us look more closely at the rea-
sons for these revisions.
(1) In the first section the addition καὶ μόνον ἀληθινόν referring to Jn 17:3 was
adopted from NAnt2. Furthermore, ποιημάτων was added to πάντων ὁράτων
τε καὶ ἀοράτων (perhaps for the sake of clarity) which, in turn, led to the
change of ποιητήν to κτίστην for stylistic reasons. In C2 this was solved differ-
ently (and, in my view, better).98
(2) For the omission of τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως see above on C2.99
(3) For the omission of καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα see above on C2.100

 Cf., however, Kelly 1972, p. 342: ‘A feature of this article about the Spirit which is often thought
somewhat puzzling is the comparative mildness of its tone.’
 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 51–60.
 Cf. above p. 368.
 Cf. above p. 368.
 Cf. above p. 368.
376 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

(4) The insertion of γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα corresponds to N (so also C2).101

(5) The omissions of a number of clauses from NAnt1 (partly in agreement with J)
in what follows were probably due to a concern that the creed be useful in
catechesis.
(6) Conversely, the same reasons as suggested above for C2 may have been re-
sponsible for the addition of Holy Spirit and Virgin.102
(7) The omission of Pontius Pilate and of κατὰ τὰς γραφάς corresponds to N
and J.
(8) The omission of καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ corresponds to N.
(9) As regards the section on the Spirit, in so far as C1 is identical with C2, what
has been said above on C2 also applies.103
(10) I cannot explain the addition συμβασιλεῦον, which is unique in the credal
tradition, though not uncommon in theological discussion of the time.104
(11) Significantly, in C1, too, the pneumatological section did not conclude with
the (certainly older) doxological formula τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ (συμβασιλεῦον
καὶ) συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, although this must be the for-
mula with which Basil ended his recitation of N.105
(12) The excision of the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eter-
nal life (NAnt1) can again be explained by an effort to be brief.

What can we conclude from this?

(1) C1 and C2 must have originated in close proximity to each other; however,
they do not descend from each other.
(2) It is clear from the statements of Nestorius that he regarded his creed as a
version of N.106

 Cf. above p. 368.

 Cf. above pp. 368–70.
 Cf. above pp. 370–2.
 Cf. also Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, 2020(2022), pp. 35 f.
 Cf. above pp. 331, 336 f.
 Cf. Graumann 2002, p. 286 n. 30; Smith 2018, pp. 38–42. Particularly instructive in this regard
is Cyril’s confrontation with Nestorius in Contra Nestorium 1,7–8: both sides argue about the
exact wording of N, with Cyril accusing Nestorius of altering the creed, even though Nestorius
believed he was referring to the original text (especially ACO I 1/7, pp. 28, ll. 24–7; 29, ll. 11–13; cf.
Schwartz 1926, pp. 82 f.; cf. also Gerber 2000, p. 277; Smith 2018, pp. 49 f.). This confrontation was
repeated in a modified form during the first session of Chalcedon between Diogenes of Cyzicus
and the Egyptian bishops, who certainly knew that N had been altered later (cf. below pp. 381 f.).
Furthermore, Proclus of Constantinople, in his Tomus ad Armenios 33, refers to N (FaFo § 210b),
although he probably had the same creed as Nestorius, i.e. C1 (cf. below p. 498 and n. 93).
 7.2 The text and theology of the creeds of Constantinople 377

(3) It follows from the way that C2 was presented in Chalcedon that this confes-
sion was no longer regarded as N, but as that of ‘the 150 fathers’.107
(4) This cannot really mean anything other than that two versions of C were
drafted in Constantinople in 381, C1 being the version approved there and
then, which continued to be considered as still being N.

Incidentally, this may also explain why C2 played no role in the Council of Aqui-
leia of September 381. As Daniel H. Williams observes, this synod

produced no symbol nor is known to have formally reaffirmed an existing one. [. . .] It

seems rather that the major purpose of Aquileia was to dispose of the leaders of western
Homoianism and other local pockets of resistance, which de facto confirmed the state’s re-
cent wedding to Nicene Christianity.108

✶
The result of our investigations into the transformation of the creed from N first
to NAnt and, finally, to C1 and C2 can now be presented in the following stemma
(regarding the reception of N and C2 at Chalcedon see the next chapter):

 Cf. below pp. 382 f.

 Williams 1995, pp. 182 f.
378 7 The Council of Constantinople (381) and its Creeds

italics = hypothetical because not preserved or directly attested

direct influence (adoption of basic structure and text)
indirect influence (adoption of individual phrases)

Eus?

Synod of Damasus in Rome (377/78)

Synod of the Meletians Alexandria: N

in Antioch (379): NAnt1

Constantinople 381:
C1 (N ‘confirmed’)
NAnt2

NAnt3 Constantinople 381: C2

(not ‘confirmed’)

Collection of canons (Corpus canonum)

N + C2 in Chalcedon (second(third) and fifth/sixth session)

short text of N + C2 (fifth/sixth session;

cod. R and Latin tradition)

remaining tradition = textus receptus

8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin
and Greek Churches until the Time
of Charlemagne

8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds

at the Council of Chalcedon (451)
There is not a single piece of evidence that C2 was quoted between the Council of
Constantinople and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, let alone that C2 had the
same status as N.1 The first explicit mention of C2 is not found until that later
council. However, in order to understand what happened at Chalcedon, we first
have to take a brief look at the Council of Ephesus of 431 which took place in ses-
sions that were each separately attended by, on the one hand, the followers of
Cyril of Alexandria (sedit 412–444) and, on the other hand, the ‘eastern’ bishops
supporting John of Antioch (sedit 429–441). In its session of 22 June, which was
attended by the supporters of Cyril of Alexandria, this council adopted N as the
standard of faith. It was, therefore, read out in its original version, as it was cur-
rent among the Alexandrians.2 A letter, which was sent to the emperors after the
session, mentioned the confession of the ‘318 most-holy fathers who were gath-
ered to the city of Nicaea by Constantine’, i.e. N, and went on to explain that let-
ters of Cyril had been compared with this creed and found to be orthodox.3
At the next ‘Cyrilline’ meeting a month later on 22 July,4 the synod issued a
church law (hóros),5 which has also been handed down as canon 7 of Ephesus. It
confirmed the mandatory nature of N6 and forbade the handing-over of a creed
other than N to converts. If they did otherwise, bishops and other clerics were
threatened with dismissal and lay people with excommunication.7 In his famous
letter to John of Antioch of 433, after the council, in which he agreed to a compro-

 Cf. the detailed analysis in Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 102–8. This chapter is based
on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 105–27.
 Cf. Collectio Vaticana 43 (FaFo § 568a) and also 82, 5 (ACO I 1,3, p. 6, ll. 30–5); 92, 1 (ACO I 1,3,
pp. 28, l. 24 – 29, l. 3); 94, 3 (ACO I 1,3, p. 33, ll. 19–22).
 Collectio Vaticana 81, 5 / Synodi relatio ad imperatores (FaFo § 568b). Cf. also the report to Pope
Celestine in Collectio Vaticana 82, 5 / Synodi relatio ad Caelestinum (§ 568c).
 On the problem of this session and its acts cf. Price/Graumann 2020, pp. 431–43. Further litera-
ture in FaFo § 204 and Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, p. 105 n. 446.
 The legally binding character is expressed in the introductory formula ὥρισεν (‘it is decreed’).
 Cf. already Collectio Atheniensis 74, 2–4 / Gesta Ephesena (ACO I 1,7, p. 89, ll. 1–20).
 Cf. Collectio Atheniensis 77 (FaFo § 568e).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-008
380 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

mise formula in the christological debate, the Formula of Union, Cyril of Alexan-
dria invoked the authority of N by referring to this canon and emphasizing that
no syllable of N must be changed.8
The synod of the ‘eastern’ bishops in Ephesus also confirmed the sufficiency of
N, but without quoting the text of the creed in its Definition of Faith of August 431.9
Instead, it presented its own confession, which later served as the basis of the For-
mula of Union (433).10 Nevertheless, the easterners now presented the Twelve Chap-
ters of Cyril11 as a falsifying addition to the ‘pure’ text of N, meaning that the
latter’s ‘authentic wording’ now had to be officially reaffirmed. This was done, on
the one hand, through their memorandum to the emperor of July 431, which was
preceded by the text of N (no longer preserved),12 and on the other hand by means
of a letter carried by a delegation to Constantinople in which the text of N, quoted
in its original form, was presented as absolutely authoritative.13
Therefore, it was clear to everyone, since Ephesus 431 at the latest, that –
when N was invoked – a specific credal text was referred to, which had by now
been officially authorized at least twice, namely the authentic creed of Nicaea.
We shall see, however, that outside of Egypt C1 continued to be quoted under the
name of N, which led to new disputes about it at Chalcedon. At the same time, it
was clear that any subsequent extensions of N, including C1 and even more so C2,
could no longer be regarded as identical with the ‘faith of Nicaea’, in future nego-
tiations at empire-wide councils, as soon as the acts of Ephesus were consulted,
but at best as an interpretation of N.
✶
We have to keep this development in mind when we now turn to the Council of
Chalcedon. At its first session, an earlier letter by the staunchly Miaphysite Archi-
mandrite Eutyches (d. 456), who was charged with heresy, was read out from the
acts of the so-called Robber Synod (Ephesus 449), where, under dubious circum-

 Cf. Cyril, Epistula ad Iohannem Antiochenum (Epistula 39 (Collectio Vaticana 127); ACO I 1,4,
p. 19, ll. 20–4; cf. ACO II 1,1, p. 110, ll. 25–9). Cf. also id., Epistula 33 (Collectio Atheniensis 107), 5
(ACO I 1,7, p. 148, ll. 42–4).
 Cf. Collectio Atheniensis 48, 2. 4–7 (FaFo § 205) and already Collectio Vaticana 146 (§ 197g); Col-
lectio Vaticana 84, 1 (ACO I 1,3, pp. 10, l. 29 – 11, l. 2); 151, 10 (ACO I 1,5, p. 121, ll. 6–14). 12 (ACO I
1,5, p. 122, ll. 3–6). 15 (FaFo § 568g); 155 (ACO I 1,5, p. 127, ll. 16–23); 156 (ACO I 1,5, p. 128, ll. 16–21);
157, 3 (ACO I 1,5, p. 129, ll. 20–5); Collectio Casinensis II,96 (ACO I 4, p. 45, ll. 3–7).
 Cf. FaFo § 207.
 This document of Cyril’s had condemned the theology of Nestorius in twelve short statements
before the council.
 Cf. Collectio Vaticana 163 title and 3 (ACO I 1,5, p. 133, ll. 34–7; pp. 134, ll. 38 – 135, l. 4).
 Cf. Collectio Vaticana 96 (Mandatum orientalium; ACO I 1,3, p. 39, ll. 1–11) and FaFo § 205 (ex-
tract from the same document).
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 381

stances, the Alexandrians had confirmed Eutyches’ Christology as orthodox. The

reading created a disturbance: Eutyches had begun his epistle by confirming that
his own faith accorded with that defined in Nicaea, while quoting, in this context,
N in its original version as adopted in 325.14 Subsequently he had pointed out that
this confession had then been sanctioned in Ephesus in 431 under Cyril’s presi-
dency, referring to the so-called canon 7. When the reading had been completed
Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused Eutyches of lying and said that there was no such
hóros or canon.15 This statement, in turn, drew heavy criticism from the Patriarch
of Alexandria, Dioscurus (sedit 444–451). He said that he possessed a copy of the
relevant conciliar documents which substantiated Eutyches’ claim. In addition,
Dioscurus emphasized that canon 7 was in fact a hóros, thus implying that the
decision of the Council of Ephesus (431) was even more binding than a simple
canon. This brusque statement makes it clear that both C1 and C2 were either un-
known to the Alexandrian Miaphysites or were rejected by them.
Now it was the turn of Diogenes of Cyzicus to address the meeting. His dio-
cese lay within the sphere of influence of the patriarch of Constantinople. While
no friend of Eutyches, he did not advocate any punitive measures.16 He pointed
out that Eutyches’ appeal to N had been erroneous, because, in order to refute the
pernicious doctrines of Apolinarius (of Laodicea), Valentinus (a follower of Apoli-
narius), and of Macedonius,17 the holy fathers had, after Nicaea, added the words
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου (‘from the Holy Spirit and the vir-
gin Mary’) to the phrase κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα (‘who descended and be-
came flesh’). This addition to N had been omitted by Eutyches because he, too,
was an Apolinarian. Apolinarius, Diogenes continued, had rejected ‘from the Holy
Spirit and the virgin Mary’ in order not to have to express the unification (of God)
with the flesh. Diogenes’ statement almost certainly refers to the events in Con-
stantinople, where Apolinarius and the Macedonians (Pneumatomachians) had
actually been condemned in canon 1.18 This also means that Diogenes was quoting
C1 here, which he regarded as an (extended) version of N.19 Invariably, Diogenes
did not speak of another confession, but of an addition to N – this fits perfectly
with our assumption that C1 was seen as a revision of N rather than as a new

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 157 (FaFo § 213b). The variants in the credal text are
minimal.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 159. Eusebius probably did not know the acts of the relevant
session of 22 July 431; cf. Smith 2018, p. 187. Furthermore De Halleux 1985(1990), p. 60.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 160.
 Cf. above pp. 357 f.
 Cf. above p. 264 n. 183.
 Cf. above pp. 375–7.
382 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

confession.20 Only if C1 was a revision of N and was also seen as such, does the
reaction of the Egyptian bishops make sense who cried out that nothing should
be added to or taken away from the Nicene Creed, but that it ought to be con-
firmed in accordance with the emperor’s orders (although in his letter of invita-
tion Marcian (r. 450–457) had not specifically referred to N).21 However, they also
held that the reference to the Holy Spirit in relation to the incarnation belonged
to the original wording of N.22
There was, therefore, considerable confusion among the council fathers at
Chalcedon as to what was to be regarded as the authoritative text of the Nicene
Creed. The presidents of the council, the magister militum Anatolius and a com-
mittee of imperial officials, decided at the end of this agitated session that the
matters of faith would have to be postponed until the next session. After the im-
position of disciplinary measures (a number of bishops, including the Patriarchs
Dioscurus of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem, were suspended), the bishops
were given a homework assignment: each of them was to produce a declaration
of faith, with the presiding officials supplying the dogmatic standard they must
employ: this was the Emperor Marcian’s own faith which was described as agree-
ing with the ‘exposition (ἔκθεσις) of the 318 holy fathers of Nicaea’ and the ‘expo-
sition (ἔκθεσις) of the 150 after that’, as well as with the Church Fathers Gregory
of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Cyril
of Alexandria, whose writings had been judged orthodox at the Council of Ephe-
sus in 431. No agreement was required with the Tomus Leonis – which is the fa-
mous letter sent by Pope Leo the Great (sedit 440–461) to Patriarch Flavian of
Constantinople (sedit 446–449) explaining his position in the christological contro-
versy – which was only vaguely alluded to.23 In other words, the imperial confes-
sion (in a broader sense) as defined by the aforementioned writings was to be
established as the general ecclesial confession. Relevant normative writings now
also included C2 (which was understood as directed against the Miaphysites), but
not Leo’s Tome, because Rome’s influence had to be curbed. Thus, a reference to
both creeds, N and C2, (and other writings) suddenly appeared in the negotiations,
without it being made clear how they related to each other.
It is also noticeable that the exact place and date of origin of the ‘exposition
of the 150’ is not mentioned – the council’s presidents obviously assumed it to be

 Cf. above p. 376 and n. 106, 380.

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 161. 163 and Smith 2018, pp. 189 f.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 163. Interestingly, the Virgin is not mentioned – it may that
they were referring to a version of N that merely read ‘and became flesh from the Holy Spirit’
(καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου), as it is still preserved in in its later ‘Nestorian’ form, NAnt3.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 1072 (FaFo § 570b).
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 383

common knowledge that this confession of the ‘150 fathers’ was that of Constanti-
nople, or to be more precise, that everyone would take this to be C2. It is clear
from the account of the events at Constantinople by Socrates (writing in c. 439/
440, so a decade before Chalcedon) that the ‘150 fathers’ referred to the number
of bishops who had gathered there.24 It must therefore have been obvious to all
those involved that Anatolius was referring to a creed adopted at Constantinople.
Mentioning the comparatively large number of council fathers probably also
served to emphasize the authority of this creed. By expressing themselves in the
way they did the imperial commissioners suggested that C2 had always been an
authentic interpretation (or extension) of N, a fact which had been (implicitly)
confirmed by the ecclesial authorities who were subsequently enumerated. It re-
mains unclear, however, whether in fact all members of the council at Chalcedon
actually knew C2 (as its presidents did) or whether some may not rather have as-
sumed that this confession of ‘the 150’ was, in fact, C1!
Why did the imperial commissioners proceed in this manner? As I mentioned
before, there were discussions about the question of the authentic wording of N
and about what the council fathers had agreed in Constantinople, how C1/C2 was
related to N, whether it was to be regarded as an extended confirmation or as a
change and innovation (which would have been prohibited according to canon 7 of
Ephesus I). The appeal of the council’s presidents to the authentic text of N and, in
addition, now clearly to C2 was obviously initially intended to resolve this confu-
sion, to restore the pure (but dogmatically incomplete) text of N, and to establish
the authenticity of the credal texts N and C2. However, another point was at least as
important: by citing N and (as its extended confirmation) C2, the imperial commis-
sioners reaffirmed the normativity of the Nicene faith in Chalcedon also in terms
of secular law, as it had been laid down in Nullus haereticis (Codex Theodosianus
16,5,6; FaFo § 533) and Episcopis tradi (16,1,3; FaFo § 534), where N had been pre-
scribed throughout the Empire.25 At the same time, they forced the council fathers
to recognize this state of affairs as applying also to the entire Church. To put it suc-
cinctly: the commissioners had made it clear, in unmistakable terms, that the em-
pire defined the faith of the Church using traditional ecclesial formulae.26 Thus, the
imperial presidents of the council also sought to position themselves in theological
terms against the Miaphysites, having already rehabilitated Flavian of Constantino-
ple and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who had both been deposed at the Robber Synod
of 449.

 Cf. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5,8,4 (FaFo § 184b).

 Cf. below pp. 477 f.
 On the wider context cf. below ch. 10.2.
384 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

The presidents’ suggested agenda, however, involved extensive consultation to

ascertain the ‘true faith’ which was to be carried out at the council’s second(third)
session,27 when council members were given the task of laying it down in an ‘un-
adulterated’ (καθαρῶς) fashion.28 But whereas at the end of the first session it had
seemed as if each father was to set out his own faith in writing, it now sounded
more as if the debates were aimed at agreeing on one single creed.29 To this end,
the dogmatic rule for the subsequent discussions was reaffirmed once more,
namely that of the ‘orthodox faith transmitted by the 318 and the 150 [holy fathers]
and likewise by the rest of the holy and glorious fathers (τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν τὴν
παρὰ τῶν τιη′ καὶ παρὰ τῶν ρν′, ἔτι μὴν καὶ παρὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἐπιδόξων
πατέρων παραδοθεῖσαν)’. Marcian had thus altered the strategy of his predecessor
Theodosius II: the latter had maintained in his opening letter to the Second Council
of Ephesus in 449 (the ‘Robber Synod’) that the rule of the orthodox faith was to be
found solely in N and its confirmation in Ephesus I.30 In this context he had also
quoted the canonization formula in a letter to Dioscurus of 6 August 449, which
could be seen as referring to canon 7 of Ephesus I.31 Ultimately, the Robber Synod
had acted as Theodosius had suggested and had left N unchanged.32
The inclusion of C2 in the series of witnesses for the orthodox faith was,
therefore, by no means uncontroversial, but met with considerable resistance.
Moreover, the bishops also refused to issue yet another confession. Faced with
this situation, the presiding commissioners attempted to form a committee con-
sisting of one or two bishops from each patriarchate who were entrusted with the
task of drawing up a consensus paper, but this plan, too, met with protest: many
bishops rejected it outright.
It also emerged as the debate progressed that not only was the composition
of a new conciliar creed controversial, but so was the status of C2. Cecropius of

 The majority of scholars assume that the session which in the Greek acts (and in Schwartz’
edition and FaFo) stands in third place should probably in fact be considered the second session.
Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 113 n. 476. Another approach is found in Bevan 2017, who
wants to change the dates of the second and third session in the sequence of the Greek acts. We
may leave this matter unresolved here.
 For what follows cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 2–15 (FaFo § 570c).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 2 (FaFo § 570c).
 The letter of invitation and the acts of Ephesus II are quoted in the acts of Chalcedon. Cf. here
Actio I, 51 (ACO II 1, p. 73, ll. 28 f.).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio I, 52 (ACO II 1, p. 74, ll. 24–27). Later Theodosius added Ephesus II
to the list of orthodox councils. Cf. his edict addressed to Dioscurus (FaFo § 540) and his letter to
Juvenal of Jerusalem (§ 541); cf. Smith 2018, pp. 167 f.
 For details cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 108 and n. 459.
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 385

Sebastopol, for example, referred to N and a number of fathers as well as the

Tomus Leonis as means to help determine the faith, but did not name C2. Further-
more, he requested that N and the Tome be read out.33
But things turned out differently. The presiding officers first demanded that
Eunomius of Nicomedia read out the Nicene Creed from an unspecified ‘book’
(βιβλίον), which the council fathers then acclaimed as the orthodox faith.34 This
was not followed, however, by the reading of the Tome; rather, the Archdeacon
Aetius, who acted as the chief notary of the Patriarch of Constantinople, likewise
read from a ‘book’ (βιβλίον), which was again not actually identified, ‘the holy
faith which the holy 150 fathers set forth, in harmony with the holy and great
Council of Nicaea’ (ἡ ἁγία πίστις, ἣν ἐξέθεντο οἱ ἅγιοι ρν′ πατέρες, συμφωνοῦσα
τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ).35 The minutes then again record the
unanimous consent of all the bishops.36 Even at that stage, the reading of the
Tome did not follow straight away, rather Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius was
read next, together with his Letter to John of Antioch, in which he had agreed to
the union, before at long last Leo’s letter was read out. This also led to over-
whelming agreement, and so it was decided to have a committee draw up a con-
sensus document, which was to be presented at a later meeting.37
The headings of the creeds as they appear in the acts of this session deserve a
closer look. The text of N is preceded by a title, a precise date (19 June 325), and
the place of composition:

(1) Ἔκθεσις συνόδου γενομένης ἐν Νικαίᾳ (2) ἐν ὑπατείᾳ Παυλίνου καὶ Ἰουλιανοῦ τῶν λαμπ-
ροτάτων (3) ἔτους ἀπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου χλϛ′ ἐν μηνὶ Δαισίῳ (4) ιθ′ τῇ πρὸ ιγ′ Καλανδῶν Ἰουλίων
(5) ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῇ μητροπόλει Βιθυνίας.

(1) Exposition of the Council held at Nicaea (2) under the consulate of the most illustrious
Paulinus and Julianus, (3) in the 636th year after Alexander, on the 19th of the month Daisius,
(4) and on the 13th day before the Kalends of July, (5) at Nicaea, the capital of Bithynia.38

The title and authorship (1) are presented in a peculiar manner, for after ἔκθεσις
(which simply means ‘exposition’) a specifying genitive is missing, e.g., τῆς (καθο-
λικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς) πίστεως, in order to make clear what is being interpreted
here; instead we find a reference to the Council of Nicaea, so specifying the origin

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 9 (FaFo § 570c).

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 11 (FaFo § 570c).
 Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 13–14 (FaFo § 570c).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 15 (FaFo § 570c).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 29–45.
 Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 10–11 (ACO II 1, p. 79, ll. 12–15). The header should be added
in FaFo § 570c.
386 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

rather than the object of the exposition. The dating consists of three elements: (2)
date according to the consulate of Paulinus and Julianus, (3) date according to the
Seleucid calendar,39 and (4) date according to the Julian calendar. Finally (5) the
place and province of origin are given.
The order of the elements in the dating of N is rather odd – one would have
expected (4) before (3); in addition, the place of the synod is named twice. The
latter is perhaps due to the fact that the date did not originally follow directly
after the title, but is a secondary addition (originally, the title probably simply
read: Ἔκθεσις [ + addition?, see above] συνόδου γενομένης ἐν Νικαίᾳ).
The heading of C2 reads:

Ἡ ἁγία πίστις, ἣν ἐξέθεντο οἱ ἅγιοι ρν′ πατέρες, συμφωνοῦσα τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ τῇ
ἐν Νικαίᾳ.

The sacred faith which the holy 150 fathers set forth, in harmony with the holy and great
Council of Nicaea.40

In this instance, place and date are absent from the heading. Instead, both the
sheer size of the council and its agreement with Nicaea are emphasized. This is,
as we will see, probably no coincidence.
Returning to the second(third) session of Chalcedon, it seems odd that there
was a change of readers: N was recited by the Bishop of Nicomedia and Metropol-
itan of Bithynia (where the Council of Nicaea had taken place); C2, however, was
read out not by Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, but by one of his officials,
Archdeacon Aetius, Anatolius’ chief notary (primicerius notariorum)41 – perhaps
because there was as yet no agreement on the acceptance of C2 and the patriarch
who was a partisan of Cyril was sceptical about that confession.
The twice-mentioned βιβλίον is likely to have been a single codex, though
hardly the actual minute book of the councils of Nicaea and/or Constantinople,42
but rather a collection of council decisions. Such a collection featuring an (ex-
tended) date43 – N – C2 – list of signatures of Nicaea actually survives in Syriac
translation in a Corpus canonum which was originally written in Greek and
whose most important witness in our context is the cod. London, British Library,

 Cf. Lietzmann 1984, p. 6.

 Council of Chalcedon, Actio II(III), 13 (FaFo § 570c).
 Cf. Graumann 2021, p. 120.
 ‘Official minutes’ seem to have been taken neither in Nicaea nor in Constantinople. For de-
tails cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 116 n. 496; Graumann 2021, pp. 17 f. On minute-taking
at synods in general cf. Graumann 2021; Weckwerth 2023, cols. 601–3.
 It was extended here by the Antiochene numbering of years (373 after Antiochus) which was
widely used in Syria.
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 387

Add. 14528 (s. VI).44 The model for this translation (which dates from 501/502) was,
according to Schwartz, ‘a copy of the Corpus canonum which had been slightly
revised after 451 and which was in general use in the Greek east before Chalce-
don’.45 Schwartz had assumed, however, that C2 had been inserted between N
and the signature list in this collection only after Chalcedon. The finding in Actio
II(III), however, rather suggests the opposite. For the ‘harmony’ with N, as stated
in the heading for C2, only makes sense if N immediately preceded C2 in the copy
used by Archdeacon Aetius – it will, therefore, probably have been one and the
same codex to which the readers Eunomius of Nicomedia and the chief notary
Aetius lent their authority and which may have come from the patriarchal ar-
chives of the eastern capital. In this ‘book’ C2 had obviously been appended to N,
having thus been separated from the associated canons and the list of signatures
of Constantinople, as in Add. 14528.46
In this way, the imperial commissioners established the authentic text of N
and also safeguarded its ‘correct’ interpretation by, as it were, conjuring up C2
from nothing as the authentic explanation of N. Before Chalcedon, C2 had been a
relatively insignificant synodal draft document,47 which at an unknown point in
time had been inserted, probably in Constantinople, into a collection of canons as
the ‘Faith of the 150 fathers’. As a result, it must have become known to a limited
extent – though at least sufficiently well known that its authenticity was not ques-
tioned; yet it was no longer regarded (as C1 was) as a revision of N, but as an inde-
pendent creed. This enhancement of the status of C2 (and, as it were, its belated
‘approbation’) only happened at Chalcedon.48 But even here its exact status (new
creed or explanatory ‘appendix’ to N?) had initially remained unclear.49 The pur-
pose of this move was to enhance the eastern capital’s importance (also strength-

 Cf. Schulthess 1908, pp. V–XIII; Schwartz 1904(1959), p. 80; Schwartz 1936(1960), pp. 161–9; Dos-
setti 1967, pp. 119–23, 158, 166 f.; Vööbus 1975/1976, vol. I (translation), p. 4. An older translation is
found in Cowper 1861, pp. 5–21. For retroversions of the Syriac text into Greek cf. Dossetti 1967,
pp. 122 f. (N: authentic text) and 192 f. (C2: the text is not quite identical with that of the
second(third) session of Chalcedon). For the state of research cf. Selb 1989, vol. II, pp. 98–110;
Mardirossian 2010; Kaufhold 2012, p. 244; Wagschal 2015, pp. 90 f.; Troianos 2017, pp. 53–7. Cf. also
below p. 416.
 Schwartz 1936(1960), p. 169. Cf. already Schwartz 1930, pp. 29–32.
 For the content of Add. 14528 cf. the surveys in Schwartz 1936(1960), pp. 161–4; L’Huillier 1996,
pp. 206–14.
 Cf. above p. 362.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, pp. 204 f.
 At the fourth session even the terminology used for N and C2 had become blurred. Some bish-
ops used πίστις for the one faith as set out at Nicaea and Constantinople (and Ephesus), or spoke
of two πίστεις. Likewise, the term ‘exposition (of the faith)’ could be used for both Nicaea and
388 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

ened by adopting canon 28 which accorded Constantinople second place in rank

after Rome)50 and to curb the influence of the Tomus Leonis as well as of the urbs
in general. This may also be indicated by the number of ‘150 fathers’, which per-
haps does not refer to the actual number of participants, but could have symbolic
meaning (just as the number 318, which is mentioned in relation to Nicaea and
was probably taken from Gen 14:1451). If so, it may refer to the 150 Jews who sat
around Nehemiah’s table together with leaders of the Gentiles while the wall of
Jerusalem was being built (2Ezra 15:17 LXX = Neh 5:17).52
C2 was thus regarded as the creed of the imperial city and was therefore en-
dowed with a special authority: it functioned, as it were, as a ‘creed of govern-
ment’. In this way, the influence of the capital of the east in ecclesial matters
could be further increased.53 At the same time, the mention of C2 anticipated an
anti-Miaphysite interpretation of N.54 C2 thus served as a precedent for the estab-
lishment of a new formula of faith in Chalcedon, bypassing canon 7.55
On 17 October, at the fourth session, the matter of doctrine was brought up
again (the third session of 13 October having dealt with the case against Dioscu-
rus).56 Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, spokesman for the Roman delegation, now con-
firmed that the faith was defined by three sets of testimonies, first by N, as
confirmed by C2, second by the interpretation of N given at Ephesus, and third by
the Tomus Leonis. Thus he tried to reverse the downgrading of Rome as expressed
in the final declaration of the first session. To this end, Paschasinus also empha-
sized that the canonization formula (and thus canon 7 of Ephesus) would not be
violated by what he proposed. His suggestion at first appeared to succeed, for
shouts of approval could be heard from the council fathers: this, they said, was
the consensus of faith. Some confirmed that they had been baptized in N and that
it was the creed with which they themselves baptized. But this was not enough

Constantinople individually, or ἔκθεσις (singular) could also be taken to refer to the one ‘exposi-
tion’ of Nicaea and Constantinople jointly (and, perhaps, also Ephesus). In addition, other terms
were used too. Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 119 n. 509.
 Cf. Ritter 1965, p. 205. Henry Chadwick has suggested that in Chalcedon C2 was probably also
propagated, ‘because it [sc. Constantinople] had enacted the famous canon according special dig-
nity to Constantinople as New Rome. Anatolius had an interest in stressing the high dignity of
this assembly’ (Chadwick 1983(2017), p. 110). In general cf. also Pigott 2019, pp. 141–84.
 Cf. above p. 244 n. 113.
 Cf. Staats 1999, p. 36; Riedl 2004, pp. 32 f. Cf. also 1Chron 8:40. Furthermore, CPG 8601 and the
literature cited there.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 317.
 Cf. also Ritter 1965, pp. 205 f.
 Cf. esp. Ritter 1965, pp. 206 f.
 For what follows cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 5–8 (FaFo § 570d).
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 389

for the council presidency. Instead, they demanded that the bishops individually
signal their assent that the Tome was in agreement with N and with the confes-
sion of the imperial city (!), i.e. C2, which they did. Furthermore, they also signed
the Tome.57
However, a number of bishops continued to oppose this procedure. Some cited
N alone in their statement.58 In particular, a group of Egyptian prelates named only
N, not C2 – alongside a number of fathers – in a petition addressed to the emperors.59
Later in the session, another petition was read out which had been composed by fol-
lowers of Dioscurus, including the Constantinopolitan archimandrite Dorotheus, who
insisted that Chalcedon should only have confirmed N and not dealt with any disci-
plinary measures (again, C2 is not mentioned). They specifically appended the creed
(N) and its confirmation in Ephesus I to their document.60 Subsequently, they reaf-
firmed that they had been ‘baptized in N’ and therefore recognized no other confes-
sion, so consequently opposed the establishment of a new definition of faith, but also
indirectly the promotion of C2 and the Tomus Leonis.61 In doing so, Archimandrite
Dorotheus stated that he believed in the Saviour Christ ‘who descended, became
flesh from the holy Virgin, became human, and was crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate (τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν Χριστὸν τὸν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας
παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου)’.62
While he too explicitly referred only to N as his baptismal confession,63 he was in
fact – similar to Diogenes of Cyzicus in the first session64 – quoting C1 (omitting the
Spirit). Thus even Dorotheus was confused about the text of N. He seems to have no-
ticed this himself, because he added: ‘Βear with me and if anything escapes me, cor-
rect me.’65
This Miaphysite protest against the drafting of a new confession was, how-
ever, unsuccessful. At the beginning of the fifth session (22 October 451), the ap-
pointed committee presented a draft hóros dealing with the questions of faith,
which was rejected not only by the Roman legates (because the Tomus Leonis

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 9.

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 9, no. 12: Seleucus of Amaseia; 14: Theodore of Damascus;
117: Polychronius of Epiphaneia; 131: Romanus of Myra. By contrast, Lucian of Ipsus (no. 139)
probably omitted N by mistake.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 25.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 88 (FaFo § 570e).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 93–97, 108 (FaFo § 570f), 112, 115.
 Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 108 (FaFo § 570f).
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 94, 110, 112, 115 and already 88 in the petition to the
council.
 Cf. above p. 381.
 Council of Chalcedon, Actio IV, 108 (FaFo § 570f).
390 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

had, once again, been omitted from the list of orthodox writings) but also by
some eastern bishops and was not even included in the council records. It should
be noted here that the term creed is nowhere used for this draft of the final defi-
nition66 – rather, this definition was understood from the outset to be an explana-
tion of N (and C2) which did not itself bear the character of a creed in a formal
sense. In view of the lack of consensus on this draft, the council presidents pro-
posed to appoint of another committee, consisting of Patriarch Anatolius of Con-
stantinople, the Roman delegation, six eastern bishops, and three representatives
each from the (secular) dioceses of Pontica, Asiana, Thracia, and Illyricum to re-
vise the draft, referencing both the title of Theotokos (which had been omitted in
the draft document) and the Tomus Leonis.67 The latter was rejected by the major-
ity of the council: the Definition of Faith had already confirmed the Tome in its
content (apparently meaning: without explicitly mentioning it).
As it progressed, the fifth session had thus produced the ambivalent result
that the omission of the Tome posed no problem for the majority of the synod,
while it was rejected by the Roman delegation, as was to be expected: a serious
rift between the western and the eastern churches threatened to derail the coun-
cil. The session was, therefore, paused, and the council secretary hurried to the
palace to report to the Emperor Marcian and await his instructions regarding fur-
ther proceedings. The latter instructed the assembly ‘to produce a correct and un-
impeachable definition of the faith (τὰ περὶ τῆς πίστεως ὀρθῶς καὶ ἀνεπιλήπτως
τυπῶσαι)’ and to convene a committee for this purpose consisting of the afore-
mentioned prelates. Alternatively, he said, each metropolitan might demonstrate
the orthodoxy of his clergy by producing appropriate statements. (This was the
procedure which had been announced at the end of the first session, but had
then tacitly been changed in the second(third) session.68) If this were to prove un-
successful, the synod would have to meet again in the west (and that meant in
Rome).69 Back at the council its presidents then stated that the decisive point of
dissent, namely whether Christ existed ‘in two natures’ after the incarnation (as
Leo had claimed) or whether Dioscurus’ formula ‘of two natures’ should be cho-
sen instead, still required clarification. The council majority was clearly in favour
of Leo’s view. When the presidents ordered that this should indeed be inserted
into the draft, the committee, which had been enlarged by additional members,
withdrew for deliberation. The result, which was subsequently read out at the

 The only exception is found in Council of Chalcedon, Actio V, 8.

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio V, 10.
 Cf. above p. 382.
 Council of Chalcedon, Actio V, 22 (FaFo § 542).
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 391

full council,70 was the famous christological Definition of Faith, which was not in-
tended to be a new creed (it was, not least, completely unsuitable for catechetical
and liturgical use), but a ‘learned’ clarification of the disputed christological ques-
tions. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider its christological statements in
more detail here. Rather, what matters here is the position and meaning of N and
C2 in this context.
According to the final Definition agreed at Chalcedon, the basis of the Chris-
tian faith was clearly the creed (σύμβολον) of the 318 fathers (N) in the form
quoted in the Definition itself. The 150 fathers assembled in Constantinople had
subsequently ‘sealed’ this faith of Nicaea (καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπισφραγισάμενοι
πίστιν) in the face of new heresies. In order to avoid the accusation of violating
canon 7 of Ephesus, the hierarchy of the confessions was then explicitly stated to
be: the ‘exposition of faith’ (πίστεως τὴν ἔκθεσιν) of Nicaea was ‘pre-eminent’
(προλάμπειν); likewise, those things that had been decreed by the 150 holy fathers
at Constantinople were also ‘to prevail’ (κρατεῖν δὲ καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῶν ρν′ ἁγίων
πατέρων ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ὁρισθέντα), because they served to fend off here-
sies and because they confirmed the ‘catholic and apostolic faith’ (πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν
μὲν τῶν τότε φυεισῶν αἱρέσεων, βεβαίωσιν δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστο-
λικῆς ἡμῶν πίστεως). The implication clearly is that the wording of N was not af-
fected by this in any way and thus canon 7 was not violated.
Subsequently, both creeds were successively quoted, with N again being
called a ‘symbol’ in the heading, while it was merely stated of C2 that it said ‘the
same thing’ (καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῶν ρν′ ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει συ-
ναχθέντων). This was a remarkable demotion if compared with how C2 had been
described in the council presidents’ statement made at the first session and in the
canonical collection from which the confession had been recited during the
second(third) session: there the text had still been termed an ἔκθεσις and a ἁγία
πίστις, now it no longer bore any such generic designation.71
The subsequent explanation, which stated that ‘this wise and salutary symbol
of divine grace’ (τὸ σοφὸν καὶ σωτήριον τοῦτο τῆς θείας χάριτος σύμβολον) was
sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of godliness,72 accordingly re-
ferred primarily to N, to which C2 was an explanatory appendix, repeating N’s theo-
logical statements while clarifying disputed points (which were expressly named:
‘complete’ doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation: περί τε γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς
καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκδιδάσκει τὸ τέλειον καὶ τοῦ κυρίου τὴν

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio V, 30–34 (FaFo § 215).

 Cf. above p. 382. For the complex problem of the headings of the creeds in the manuscript
tradition of the Definition cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, p. 125 n. 540.
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio V, 34 (FaFo § 215).
392 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῖς πιστῶς δεχομένοις παρίστησιν / ‘for it both teaches the perfect
[doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and presents the incarnation of
the Lord to those that faithfully accept it’). Thus the divinity of Son and Spirit and
the full incarnation of the Lord were emphasized both against Dyophysite and
Pneumatomachian reductionism and against Miaphysite one-sidedness.
A further exposition followed, rehearsing the dogmatic controversies of the
time: the council held to ‘the faith of the 318 holy fathers’ (τῶν τιη′ ἁγίων πατέρων
τὴν πίστιν) both against the Nestorians and the Eutychians. By contrast, the fa-
thers gathered in the ‘imperial city’ had explained ‘the doctrine concerning the
substance of the [Holy] Spirit’ (περὶ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος οὐσίας διδασκαλίαν) with-
out adding anything that was substantially new. This statement is perplexing in
that C2, as we know, does not mention the consubstantiality of the Spirit at all. It
indicates, therefore, how C2 had come to be interpreted – probably rightly – by
the middle of the fifth century. This was followed by a host of witnesses from the
fathers against Nestorius and Eutyches, with the Tomus Leonis now being cited
among them. Only then does the actual, now famous Definition of Faith follow.
This Definition was confirmed at the sixth session on 25 October 451 by Em-
peror Marcian and Empress Pulcheria. In his address,73 the emperor referred
only to the apostolic teachings as handed down by the 318 fathers and confirmed
by the Tomus Leonis, obviously trying to heal the rift between Rome and the east-
ern churches.74 C2 (as well as the writings of the other fathers) was not men-
tioned. Finally, the Definition of Faith was solemnly read out and signed by the
bishops present.
✶
Finally a word must be said about the Greek text of N and C2 which was adopted
at the fifth and sixth sessions. As can be easily seen from the following table, the
credal text printed by Schwartz in his edition of Actio V of Chalcedon is not iden-
tical with that of the second(third) session (the Greek text of the Definition quoted
at the sixth session no longer survives):

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Actio VI, 4.

 Cf. ACO II 1, p. 336, ll. 4–8; cf. also ll. 20 f. (Greek) = ACO II 2, p. 97, ll. 29–31 and 98, ll. 11 f. and
II 3, p. 409, ll. 22–4 and 410, ll. 5 f. (Latin).
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 393

N C N C
Actio II(III)  Actio II(III)  Actio V  Actio V 
(= version of ; FaFo (MB = ed. Schwartz) (ed. Schwartz) (R = Vat. ,
§ c = ed. f. r–v = ed.
Schwartz) Schwartz)

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα
θεόν, θεόν, θεόν, θεόν,
πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα, πατέρα,
παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα, παντοκράτορα,
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ
γῆς γῆς γῆς
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ὁρατῶν τε πάντων.καὶ ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ
ἀοράτων ἀοράτων· ἀοράτων· ἀοράτων·
ποιητήν·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ
πατρός,
μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν μονογενῆ,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
τοῦ πατρός,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
γεννηθέντα πρὸ γεννηθέντα πρὸ γεννηθέντα πρὸ
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ, ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ
ποιηθέντα, ποιηθέντα, ποιηθέντα, ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί,
δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ
τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,

 ACO II 1, p. 275, ll. 16–26 and app.

 ACO II 1, p. 276, ll. 3–16 and app.
 ACO II 1, p. 323, ll. 10–19.
 I checked the scans at URL <https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1431> (16/11/2023).
 ACO II 1, p. 324, ll. 2–14 and app.
394 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

(continued)

N C N C
Actio II(III)  Actio II(III)  Actio V  Actio V 
(= version of ; FaFo (MB = ed. Schwartz) (ed. Schwartz) (R = Vat. ,
§ c = ed. Schwartz) f. r–v = ed.
Schwartz)

τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους ἀνθρώπους
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου Πιλάτου
παθόντα καὶ παθόντα καὶ παθόντα
καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ, ἡμέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ
κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς
οὐρανούς, οὐρανοὺς οὐρανοὺς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν
δεξιᾷ [ἐκ δεξιῶν M] τοῦ δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς
πατρὸς
καὶ ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον καὶ ἐρχόμενον καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον
μετὰ δόξης μετὰ δόξης
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ
νεκρούς· νεκρούς, νεκρούς· νεκρούς,
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ
ἔσται τέλος· ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ
πνεῦμα. ἅγιον, πνεῦμα. ἅγιον,

 Probably not contained in the authentic text of N.

 Missing in R.
 Probably not contained in the authentic text of N.
 8.1 The adoption of N and C2 as normative creeds at the Council of Chalcedon (451) 395

(continued)

N C N C
Actio II(III)  Actio II(III)  Actio V  Actio V 
(= version of ; FaFo (MB = ed. Schwartz) (ed. Schwartz) (R = Vat. ,
§ c = ed. Schwartz) f. r–v = ed.
Schwartz)

[Anathemas] τὸ κύριον καὶ [Anathemas] τὸ κύριον καὶ

ζωοποιόν, ζωοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ
συμπροσκυνούμενον προσκυνούμενον καὶ
καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν
προφητῶν· προφητῶν·
εἰς μίαν, εἰς μίαν,
ἁγίαν,
καθολικὴν καὶ καθολικὴν καὶ
ἀποστολικὴν ἀποστολικὴν
ἐκκλησίαν. ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν
βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν. ἁμαρτιῶν.
Προσδοκῶμεν Προσδοκῶμεν
ἀνάστασιν [ἐκ Bb] ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν
νεκρῶν
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν. Ἀμήν.

From the comparison of these different versions it becomes clear that versions of
N and C2 have been aligned with each other in Schwartz’ edition of the Definition
of Faith. They are now identical in the first section and in the second section up
to κατελθόντα; only then do various additions follow in C2:
(1) ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου
(2) σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου
(3) καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός
(4) the extension of καὶ ἐρχόμενον to καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης
(5) οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος
(6) the entire pneumatological section.
In addition καὶ παθόντα was replaced by καὶ ταφέντα.
396 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

Since the original text of N is well known, it would be pointless to list the dif-
ferences between the text of the fifth session and the original version. Matters are
different with C2, whose original text must first be determined. The text of the
fifth session features five omissions and one variant reading compared to that of
the second(third) session:
(1) φῶς ἐκ φωτός
(2) ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
(3) καὶ παθόντα
(4) κατὰ τὰς γραφάς
(5) προσκυνούμενον instead of συμπροσκυνούμενον
(6) ἁγίαν.
None of these differences seems to be particularly significant theologically. Three
of them (nos. 1, 2, and 4) align it more closely with the text (also revised) of
N. However, the reason for the omission of nos. 3 and 6 and the change of no. 5
remains unclear.
In order to decide whether or not Schwartz’ decision to print these versions
as those of the fifth session is correct one must look at the complicated textual
transmission of the Greek and Latin acts of the council. I have done this else-
where and may, therefore, for the sake of brevity, refer the reader to these reflec-
tions.83 They lead to the conclusion that it is more plausible that the original text
of C2 in the fifth/sixth session was the same as that in the second(third). It is so far
unknown where the shortened text of C2 in the Definition originated.84
Apart from these philological considerations, reasons connected to the recep-
tion history of the creeds make it very unlikely that the text of C2 in the Definition
was different from the one read in the second(third) session. In view of the facts
that N and C2 had already been authoritatively established in the second(third)
session, that moreover its textual tradition is unproblematic, and that it was this
text of the second(third) session that was received at the Third Council of Con-
stantinople in 680/681 as part of the Chalcedonian Definition,85 it is hardly con-
ceivable that the text of the creeds at the fifth/sixth session should have been any
different. On the contrary, precisely because the text of N had already been read
out in an authoritative version, it is difficult to assume – in view of canon 7 of
Ephesus – that this version, of all things, should have been changed. This would

 Cf. Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 128–63.

 Cf. also Drecoll, ‘Edition’, 2015, pp. 122 f.
 On Ν cf. Actio XVIII (ACO2 II 2, p. 770, ll. 6–18); cf. FaFo, vol. I, p. 292 (no. 32; here the council
followed the version contained in cod. B for Chalcedon which includes the addition of καὶ ἐν
δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καθήμενον in the christological section). On C2 cf. Actio XVIII (ACO2 II 2, p. 770,
ll. 22–35; cf. FaFo, vol. I, p. 512).
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 397

have caused a storm of indignation, especially among the Egyptian participants in

the council (as the debate at the first session and the Egyptian protest in response
to Diogenes’ remark had shown86).
It is indisputable that at a certain point in the tradition an alignment took place,
but there is no compelling reason to assume that this should have happened at Chal-
cedon itself. It is much more plausible to assume that the credal texts of the two
sessions were identical and corresponded to the text of the second(third) session. In
other words, the version of C2 read out at the second(third) session is the one that
had first been discussed in Constantinople but not adopted there in the end.

8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon

The view traditionally held in classical credal research is that C2 established itself
relatively quickly as the ‘standard’ creed after Chalcedon.87 According to Kelly,
‘broadly speaking, C [ = C2], to all intents and purposes in its original form, has en-
joyed a monopoly of baptism since the sixth century’. At the same time, Kelly was
quite aware that this did not apply to various oriental churches (he names ‘the Jac-
obite church of Syria, and the Nestorian, Armenian and Abyssinian churches’) and
that ‘the writings of Philoxenus of Hierapolis (Mabbug) and Severus of Antioch’
showed ‘that forms far from identical with C continued in use’. But after the Fifth
Ecumenical Council of 553, the position of C2 had been ‘assured’:

As the creed of the metropolis of the patriarchate, it was, after all, only a matter of time
before it was adopted wherever the writ of Constantinople ran.

In Kelly’s view there was ‘nothing surprising or out of the ordinary in this devel-
opment: we should in any case have expected C eventually to oust all other creeds
in the East.’88 In truth, this process was clearly more complicated. In what follows,
I will first look at the reception of C2 within the Later Roman Empire and its west-
ern successor states. The credal developments in the oriental churches will be
considered in chapter 9.

 Cf. above pp. 381 f.

 This chapter is based on Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 164–84.
 Kelly 1972, pp. 345 f.
398 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

8.2.1 Reception in the east

In the period after Chalcedon, there was resistance in Palestine and Egypt, di-
rected not only against its christological Definition, but also against C2, which
formed an integral part of it. Subsequent emperors had to take this into account:
the first imperial edict confirming Chalcedon mentioned, in addition to the Defi-
nition of Faith, the expositiones et statuta of the 318 and the 150 fathers, which
obviously referred to N and C2 as well as the canons of Nicaea and Constantino-
ple.89 Emperor Marcian proceeded similarly in his Second Edict of 13 March 452
and in his fourth edict of 18 July 452, wherein the results of the Council of Ephesus
(431) were also mentioned.90
However, he then adopted a different tactic towards the Palestinian and
Egyptian Miaphysites: he only mentioned N and the Council of Ephesus in a letter
to the Palestinian monks (late 452/early 453).91 Empress Pulcheria endorsed her
husband’s view in a letter to the same addressees.92 And in a letter to a synod
convened under Juvenal in Jerusalem from the end of 453, Marcian affirmed only
N, now even alluding to the canonization formula and thus canon 7 of Ephesus.93
The emperor adopted the same approach as over against Juvenal in a letter
to the abbot-bishop Macarius and the Sinaitic monks from about the same time.94
In 454 he gave his decurio silentiariorum John a letter to deliver to the Alexan-
drian monks, which he hoped would bring about ecclesial peace.95 Here, too, he
referred twice to N alone, again alluding to canon 7, and even referred to the

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Collectio Vaticana 8 (FaFo § 543).

 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, Collectio Vaticana 9 (FaFo § 544); Council of Chalcedon, Gestorum
Chaledonensium Versio a Rustico Edita 108 (§ 545). Cf. also Smith 2018, p. 204.
 Cf. ACO II 1, pp. 483–6 (Council of Chalcedon, Gesta Chalcedone 26), esp. 485, ll. 20 f., 34–7; 486,
ll. 2–4 (Greek) = II 5, pp. 4–7 (Council of Chalcedon, Collectio Sangermanensis 2), esp. 6, ll. 11 f.,
26–9, 30 f. (Latin).
 Cf. ACO II 1, pp. 487 f. (Council of Chalcedon, Gesta Chalcedone 27), esp. 487, ll. 15–18 (where
Constantionople is likewise omitted between mentions of Nicaea and Ephesus); 487, ll. 22–4
(Greek) = II 5, pp. 7 f. (Council of Chalcedon, Collectio Sangermanensis 3), esp. 7, ll. 39 – 8, l. 2; 8, ll.
6–8 (lat.).
 Cf. ACO II 1, pp. 492 f. (Marciani Imperatoris Epistula ad Synodum Palaestinam), esp. 493, ll.
11 f., 22–4, 32–5 (canonization formula/canon 7). Likewise, Pulcheria’s letter to Bassa of Jerusalem
(Council of Chalcedon, Gesta Chalcedone 31; ACO II 1, pp. 494 f., esp. 494, ll. 10 f., 14–17, 31 f.; 495,
ll. 2 f.: canonization formula/canon 7).
 Cf. ACO II 1, pp. 490 f. (Council of Chalcedon, Gesta Chalcedone 29), esp. 490, ll. 13–15 (canoni-
zation formula/canon 7); 491, ll. 26–9.
 It was related to unrest in Alexandria after Dioscurus’ death in Gangra on 4 September 454.
Cf. Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Historia ecclesiastica 3,11; furthermore Grillmeier 1987, pp. 105 f.;
Maraval 2001(2010), pp. 121 f.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 399

creed as his baptismal confession at the second mention.96 Subsequently, he

seemed to quote the text of N,97 although he used the form expanded by μονογενῆ
after τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ and by the reference to the Holy Spirit and the Virgin,
thus in fact in the version preserved in C1 (and C2).
The omission of any reference to the Council of Constantinople cannot have
been an oversight. Rather, Marcian refrained from explicitly mentioning C2 in an
attempt to accommodate the Miaphysite monks in the Egyptian capital, leading to
the conclusion that C2 remained controversial in Egypt, because the incarnation
from the Virgin, as stated in C2, was widely interpreted as being anti-Miaphysite.
However, it is clear from Marcian’s letter to the praefectus praetorio Orientis Pal-
ladius of 1 August 455, which declared the faith of Nicea and of Constantinople as
mandatory, that this approach was only tactical.98
Even when Emperor Leo I (r. 457–474) issued his circular letter regarding the
legitimacy of Timothy II Aelurus (Patriarch of Alexandria 454–460, 475–477) and
the recognition of Chalcedon in October 457, the Egyptian bishops refused to rec-
ognize C2 and Chalcedon, citing the canonization formula/canon 7. They even
went so far as to claim that they had no knowledge at all of a ‘synod of 150’.99
Timothy Aelurus himself also quoted only N, not C2,100 although he affirms in a
letter to the city of Constantinople (c. 460/464) that he had learned ‘the formula-
tion of God’s law [. . .] from the 318 and the 150 holy fathers’.101
It is uncertain which confession Peter Fuller (who intermittently served as
Miaphysite patriarch of Antioch in the period 471–488) allegedly introduced in
mass, as Theodore the Reader who reports this event is rather unreliable.102 The

 Cf. ACO II 1, pp. 488 f. (Council of Chalcedon, Gesta Chalcedone 28; FaFo § 546), esp. 489, ll. 1–3
(canonization formula/canon 7), 16–18 (Greek) = II 5, pp. 3 f. (Council of Chalcedon, Collectio San-
germanensis 1), esp. 3, ll. 17–19; 3, l. 32 – 4, l. 3 (Latin).
 ACO II 1, p. 489, ll. 19–22 (FaFo § 546): [. . .] πιστεύουσα τὸν δεσπότην ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρα
Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν συναΐδιον καὶ ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς
θεοτόκου παρθένου [. . .]. The emperor believed ‘that our Lord and Saviour Christ the only-
begotten Son of God, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, for us and for our salvation
became human and was born from the Holy Spirit and the virgin, Theotokos Mary, [. . .]’.
 Cf. ACO II 2, pp. 116, l. 29 – 117, l. 2 (Council of Chalcedon, Collectio Vaticana 15).
 Cf. ACO II 5, pp. 21, l. 32 – 22, l. 10; 22, ll. 17–21 (partly in FaFo § 571). The text is apparently
shortened. Cf. the paraphrases in ACO II 5, pp. 52, ll. 28–35; 68, ll. 6–15. In addition, Schwartz 1926,
pp. 84 f.; Price 2009, pp. 308 f.; Siebigs 2010, vol. I, pp. 353–5 and n. 309; Smith 2018, pp. 205 f.;
Leuenberger-Wenger 2019, pp. 408–11.
 Cf. FaFo § 216.
 Timothy, Epistula ad Constantinopolitanos (ed. Ebied/Wickham 1970, p. 333; tr. Ebied/Wick-
ham 1970, p. 351).
 Cf. Theodore the Reader, Historia ecclesiastica, epit. 429 (FaFo § 685a) and below pp. 508 f.
400 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

so-called Liturgical Homily (no. 35/17) attributed to Narsai of Edessa (d. c. 502) also
offers no evidence for the reception of C2 around the end of the fifth century, be-
cause it almost certainly dates from a later period. The creed found there is essen-
tially NAnt.103
Emperor Basiliscus (r. 475–476), leaning towards Miaphysitism, made no
mention of C2 either in his Encyclical but merely wrote in rather vague terms that
the 150 fathers had ‘affirmed’ the council and opposed the Pneumatomachians. At
the same time, he rejected not only the Definition of Faith of Chalcedon, but also
the ‘explanation of the creed’ (ἔκθεσις συμβόλου), which probably referred to
C2.104 Likewise, the Henoticon (482) of Emperor Zeno (r. 474–475, 476–491) only
vaguely references the ‘affirmation’ of N by the 150 fathers.105
This evidence may shed new light on an incidental remark made by Theodore
the Reader. In his Church History, he claims that the ‘Creed of the 318 fathers’ had
originally been recited in the eastern capital during the bishop’s Good Friday ser-
mon (apparently as part of the Traditio or Redditio symboli). Subsequently, the Mia-
physite Patriarch Timothy I (sedit 511–518) had introduced it into the ordinary of
the mass in order to differentiate himself from his predecessor, the Chalcedonian-
minded Macedonius II (sedit 496–511).106 It may well be that Theodore is, in fact,
referring to C1, which was already established in Constantinople and which, as we
have seen, was considered ‘Nicene’. Even the Constantinopolitan Synod endemousa
of 518 spoke of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon as having merely ‘reaf-

 Cf. below p. 424.

 Cf. Basiliscus, Encyclion (FaFo § 548).
 Cf. Zeno, Henoticon 5 (FaFo § 550). However, he may, perhaps, allude to C2 in the phrase:
σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς θεοτόκου ἀεὶ παρθένου (‘having become incar-
nate from the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary’). Furthermore cf. Martyrius of Jerusalem
(sedit 478–86) in his definition of faith (FaFo § 217), which may have served as the Vorlage of the
Henoticon: ‘Then everyone who holds, has held, or has taught an opinion contrary to the defini-
tion of the faith of our 318 holy fathers, the bishops [who assembled at] Nicaea, which the 150
believing and true bishops [who met] in the imperial city upheld and confirmed, as well as the
Council of Ephesus, let him be condemned. [. . .] If any man teaches, innovates, maintains, or
explains anything that is contrary to the tested and orthodox teaching of the faith of those 318
holy [bishops], of the 150 bishops, or of those [bishops] of [the Council of] Ephesus, or has a dif-
ferent definition or faith, he is alien to the holy Church.’ There is no mention of a creed regarding
to Constantinople. The ‘orthodox teaching of the faith’ could also refer to a synodal letter. A Mia-
physite confession of Egyptian clergy also dates from the time of the Henoticon. Here the baptis-
mal creed is N which had been ‘confirmed’ by the 150 holy fathers (FaFo § 219[1]). Cf.
furthermore the letter of a number of Miaphysite bishops to Justinian of 532 (FaFo § 222[15c]).
Sophronius of Jerusalem (sedit 634–8) in his Epistula synodica ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum
2,5,2 (FaFo § 235b) expresses himself in a similar vein.
 Cf. also below p. 509.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 401

firmed’ the baptismal creed N (or C1),107 and Barsanuphius of Gaza (d. c. 545) calls
‘the faith of the 318 fathers’ the ‘royal road’ (τὴν βασιλικὴν ὁδόν; Num 21:22) to be
kept to.108 Given its close connection to the Council of Chalcedon this meant that C2
remained fiercely contested.
However, it found its way into the already mentioned collection of canon law
of the fifth century, the Corpus canonum, which has come down to us in Syriac
translation.109 Likewise, it is quoted by prominent Miaphysite theologians such as
Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523) and Severus of Antioch (sedit 512–538).110 In Coptic
canon law sources, the tradition of C2 also begins in the sixth century.111
The Emperor Justinian (r. 527–565) also seems to refer to C2 when, in a letter
to Epiphanius of Constantinople, he speaks of the 150 fathers having ‘explained
and interpreted’ N. This document is also remarkable in that Justinian explicitly
mentions the additions in C2 compared to N which he considers of summary im-
portance: the divinity of the Spirit and the incarnation ‘from the holy ever-virgin
and Theotokos Mary’.112
Justinian also uses a very similar wording in his Edictum rectae fidei: Con-
stantinople had turned against the Pneumatomachian Macedonius and the ‘Apoli-
narian Magnus’ and had clarified the teaching on the Holy Spirit.113 The reference
to the Apolinarian Magnus is puzzling and shows how poorly informed even au-
thorities in Constantinople were about this event.
In his instruction to the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553, Justinian repeated
these phrases, now saying that Apolinarius and Magnus had blasphemed against
the incarnate Logos, claiming that the latter had not possessed a sensus humanus,
but had been united with flesh, which had only possessed an anima irrationabilis.
This had been rectified in Constantinople and thus the recta fides had been pro-
claimed.114 In this instance, therefore, the ‘right faith’ of Constantinople was set
alongside that of Nicaea, C2 even surpassing N insofar as it had clarified the ques-
tions about the incarnation and the Holy Spirit that had been left unanswered in
Nicaea.

 Cf. Collectio Sabbaitica 5,27 / Acclamationes et allocutiones (FaFo § 574a1). Cf. also FaFo
§ 574a2 and b.
 Cf. Barsanuphius, Epistula 58, ll. 28–32 (SC 426, p. 284). As regards context cf. Perrone 2019,
pp. 195 f.
 Cf. above p. 386 f. and below p. 416.
 Cf. below pp. 416 f.
 Cf. below p. 441.
 Justinian, Epistula ad Epiphanium Archiepiscopum Constantinopolitanum 11 (FaFo § 554). Cf.
also Kelly 1972, p. 334.
 Justinian, Edictum rectae fidei (FaFo § 556[16]).
 Cf. Justinian, Actio I 7 / Iustiniani forma ante synodum lecta 14 (FaFo § 557).
402 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

Justinian’s authoritative intervention, however, by no means settled the mat-

ter. His successor Justin II (r. 565–578) even took a backwards step. At a meeting
with the Miaphysites in the Monastery of Mar Zakai in Callinicum (around 568),
he spoke again of the ‘confirmation’ of N by the fathers in Constantinople (and in
Ephesus).115 Later, he changed his policy, taking a consistently Chalcedonian posi-
tion after all. Furthermore, according to John of Biclaro, he decided that the
‘creed of the 150 fathers gathered in Constantinople’ (i.e. C2) was now to be ‘sung’
in every mass before the Lord’s Prayer.116 This assertion, which scholars, includ-
ing myself, have in the past always dismissed as unhistorical,117 although it came
from an eyewitness,118 can now possibly be brought into connection with the tes-
timony of Theodore the Reader in such a way that N (= C1) was replaced by C2
(although its position before the Lord’s Prayer continues to be a problem).119
Nevertheless, the relationship of N to C2 and the problem of the authority of
the latter creed remained unresolved. John IV of Jerusalem (sedit 575–594) re-
ferred to the first four ecumenical councils in a letter to Abas, catholicos of the
Albanians (sedit 552–596), in 575, in order to persuade Abas to accept the Chalce-
donian Christology; in it he quoted a trinitarian and a christological creed as well
as the central part of the Definition of Chalcedon but neither N nor C2.120 Maxi-
mus the Confessor (d. 662) deals with the question of the sufficiency of N in a de-
bate with Miaphysites, in a – presumably early – work which only survives in
fragments, rejecting the claim that Chalcedon had contradicted N and introduced
a new faith. The fathers of Nicaea, Maximus argues, established the faith once
and for all, whereas Constantinople (and later councils) only defended it ‘in their
own words and doctrinal statements’ (διὰ τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν καὶ δογμάτων)
against heretics like Eunomius and Macedonius.121 This seems to refer to the
Tomus of Constantinople rather than the creed (even though he undoubtedly
knew the latter).122
Furthermore, the Third Council of Constantinople (680/681) still referred to N
as ‘put forth by the 318 fathers’ (τὸ παρὰ τῶν τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ πατέρων

 Cf. Justin II., Edictum primum de fide (FaFo § 558).

 John of Biclaro, Chronicon 2 (FaFo § 689). Cf. also below p. 510.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Das Glaubensbekenntnis’, 2017, p. 319.
 On John of Biclaro’s stay in Constantinople cf. below p. 406.
 Cf. below pp. 499, 508 f.
 Cf. John IV of Jerusalem, Epistula ad Abam 9–10. 12 (Terian 2020, pp. 23 f., 26 f.).
 Two fragments from an unknown writing, fragment 2 (CPG 7697[22]; Jankowiak/Booth 2015,
p. 71; PG 91, cols. 260B–C). Cf. already 257D–260A. However, in Maximus’ Relatio motionis (CPG
7736) 4 (Allen/Neil 2002, p. 56) his opponent clearly quotes the first section of C2, which Maximus’
response relates to Nicaea.
 Cf. below p. 411.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 403

ἐκτεθέν) and ‘confirmed’ (βεβαιωθέν) by the 150 fathers.123 However, the Greek
text of the council’s Definition of Faith terms both N and C2 an ἔκθεσις πίστεως,124
continuing: ‘This pious and orthodox σύμβολον of the divine grace sufficed for
both the full knowledge and the confirmation of the orthodox faith.’125 This sen-
tence is taken almost verbatim from the Chalcedonian Definition – but the contin-
uation, which indicated that ‘symbol’ primarily denoted N, commented on above,
has been omitted here.126 The present wording leaves open whether only N is to
be seen as a ‘symbol’ or whether the term refers to both formulae. Likewise, it
remains unclear whether ‘knowledge’ (N) and ‘confirmation’ (C2) applied to both
formulae. Be that as it may, the conciliar upgrading of C2 is already apparent in
this instance.
By the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 the situation is unam-
biguous. The creed cited in its hóros is now exclusively C2.127 Nonetheless, the
council fathers also implicitly referred to canon 7 of Ephesus when they claimed
that they had ‘taken nothing away, added nothing’, but preserved ‘all (teachings)
of the Catholic Church undiminished’.128 However, N had by now in actual fact
been dropped.
The use of C2 in baptism is then also attested by the so-called Barberini Eucho-
logion, a worship book which contains a Constantinopolitan baptismal service
(composed before the second half of the eighth century).129 Likewise, the confes-
sion used in the Liturgies of St James, St Basil, and St Chrysostom was now C2.130
But even at that point the use of N persisted, in particular – as Kelly had cor-
rectly seen – in certain eastern churches.131 In addition, a whole series of Greek

 Third Council of Constantinople, Actio XVIII (FaFo § 242c).

 Cf. ACO2 II, p. 770, ll. 5–35 (Third Council of Constantinople, Actio XVIII). However, cf. the
titles of the Latin translations of C2 in Actio XVII and XVIII, ACO2 II, pp. 716, l. 12 (Actio XVII, Col-
lectio Hispana): Item et CL sanctorum Patrum Constantinopoli congregatorum and 717, l. 15 (Actio
XVII) = 771, l. 20 (Actio XVIII): Et centum quinquaginta sanctorum patrum Constantinopolim con-
gregatorum. In the latter passage Codex L offers for N: Symbolum CL patrum in Constantinopolim
congregatorum and for C2: Symbolum Constantinopolim CL sanctorum patrum. Cf. also FaFo
§§ 135d42 and 135d43. Here I cannot deal with the complex question of the textual transmission
of the Greek and Latin acts; cf. Rudolf Riedinger in ACO2 II, pp. XVIII–XXII.
 Third Council of Constantinople, Actio XVIII (FaFo § 242c).
 Cf. above p. 391.
 Cf. ACO2 III 3, p. 822, ll. 16–19 (Second Council of Nicaea, Actio VII).
 ACO2 III 3, p. 822, ll. 14–16 (Second Council of Nicaea, Actio VII).
 Cf. FaFo § 677.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 693 (Liturgy of St James); 694b (Liturgies of St Basil and St Chrysostom – unfortu-
nately the text of the creed is omitted here, but cf. Brightman 1896(1965), p. 383, ll. 7–25 and
FaFo, vol. I, p. 518).
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 345 and below ch. 9.
404 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

and Coptic inscriptions, papyri, wooden tablets, and ostraca up to at least the sev-
enth century survives, which all testify to a continuing use of N (as opposed to C2)
especially in Egypt, above all in popular culture.132 In one case, N also seems to
have been used in a eucharistic liturgy.133

8.2.2 Reception in the west

The western reception of C2 was different, but likewise greatly delayed. There is
no evidence of the use of this creed in the writings of Leo the Great (sedit
440–461) – he almost always refers to the Roman one instead.134 The confessio to
which Leo refers in his famous Tomus is also clearly R.135 This had already led to
the accusation that Leo had not preserved the wording of N by the fifth century.
An example from the end of the century, is Vigilius of Thapsus’ book Against Eu-
tyches in which he does not dispute this charge at all, but tries to parry it with the
argument that the faith of Rome is apostolic and as such older than N.136 This re-
mark probably again refers to R, to which the dignity of N is subordinate.
We possess a Fides whose theology is rather unremarkable from Pope Hor-
misdas (sedit 514–523). He sent this document, in which neither Nicaea nor Con-
stantinople are mentioned, to Constantinople in the summer of 515.137
Sometimes the letter Dum in sanctae (552) of Pope Vigilius (sedit 537–555) is
cited as the first evidence of the reception of C2 in the Latin Church.138 But Vigilius
attributes a creed as such only to Nicaea, noting summarily with regard to Con-
stantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon that these councils ‘declared and widely dis-
seminated the same faith in one and the same opinion and spirit’ (eandem fidem
uno eodemque sensu atque spiritu declarantes latissime ediderunt).139 Since nei-

 Cf. below pp. 443, 538 f.

 Cf. below pp. 507 f.
 Cf. the references in FaFo §§ 255, 360, 441.
 Cf. Leo, Epistula 28, 14 (FaFo § 255a): ‘[. . .] credere se in deum, patrem omnipotentem, et in
Christum Iesum, filium eius unicum, dominum nostrum, qui natus est de spiritu sancto et Maria
virgine [. . .]’. In addition, Smith 2018, p. 159.
 Cf. Vigilius, Contra Eutychetem 4,1 (FaFo § 318a2).
 Cf. the Fides Hormisdae papae (FaFo § 442).
 Cf., e.g., Kelly 1972, p. 346; Riedl 2004, pp. 26 f. (‘a slight allusion’).
 Vigilius, Dum in sanctae (Epistula 15; FaFo § 444[1]). Similarly, the phrase ‘ex spiritu sancto
et ex beata Maria semper uirgine humanitatis sumpsit initium’ (‘he took the beginning of human-
ity from the Holy Spirit and from the blessed, ever-virgin Mary’) later in the text is not a direct
quotation of C2. Further down he says, ‘Passus carne est pro nobis dei filius, crucifixus carne est,
mortuus carne est et die tertio resurrexit’ (‘the Son of God suffered for us in the flesh, was cruci-
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 405

ther Ephesus nor Chalcedon adopted creeds, it is rather unlikely that in the case
of Constantinople a creed is referred to, even though the word fides is used.140
Vigilius merely cites C2 as part of Chalcedon’s Definition of Faith in his letter on
the Three Chapters of early 554.141
Likewise, Pope Pelagius I (sedit 556–561), who expressed his orthodoxy on
various occasions,142 does not explicitly mention N or C2 anywhere in his relevant
letters 10 and 11, but states in the former epistle that he ‘preserves the faith estab-
lished by the sacred teaching of the apostles’ and ‘confirmed by the authority of
the Synod of Nicaea, which had been expounded by the decisions of the holy Syn-
ods of Constantinople, Ephesus I, and Chalcedon’.143 (Whether or not sacra apos-
tolorum doctrina refers to R remains uncertain.) In Epistula 11 he merely vows to
faithfully observe what the first four ecumenical councils had decided ‘in defence
of the holy faith and in condemnation of heresies and heretics’ (in sanctae fidei
defensione et damnationibus heresum atque hereticorum).144
It is also instructive to note a statement of Pelagius II (sedit 579–590), whose
first letter to the bishops of Histria (perhaps in fact authored by the later Pope
Gregory) says the following:

For with an entirely pure conscience we preach, hold, and defend to the last drop of our
blood that faith which has been handed down by the apostles, was preserved inviolate by
their successors, and was taken up and rendered into a creed by the reverend Nicene Coun-
cil of the 318 fathers [. . .].145

Subsequently, Constantinople (along with Ephesus and Chalcedon) is indeed men-

tioned, but without reference to a creed. It is highly probable that Pelagius II is no
longer referring to either R or T nor to C2 when mentioning the fides handed
down by the apostles, but most likely to N.146
Bishop Mansuetus of Milan mentions the composition of N in a brief outline
about the councils included in a synodal letter (680) to the Byzantine Emperor

fied in the flesh, died in the flesh, and on the third day rose again’) – here the sequence of the
cola seems to follow T.
 Similarly, Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 286 and n. 418.
 Cf. Pope Vigilius, Constitutum II 6 (FaFo § 184f17.3).
 An extensive confession from his pen is preserved in Epistula 7 (FaFo § 445) which, however,
offers no help as regards the question which interests us here.
 Pope Pelagius I, Epistula 10, 4.
 Pope Pelagius I, Epistula 11 (D/H 444 = Gassó/Batlle 1956, p. 38, ll. 35–8).
 Pope Pelagius II, Epistula I ad episcopos Histriae 8 (FaFo § 367).
 Cf. also Pelagius, Epistula I ad episcopos Histriae 15 (ACO IV 2, p. 106, ll. 25–9).
406 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

Constantine IV (r. 668–685), but only references the condemnation of Macedonius

with regard to Constantinople.147
Nonetheless, the reception of C2 can be demonstrated in two ways, starting
from the end of the sixth century: on the one hand, by means of synodal theologi-
cal declarations; on the other hand, through the liturgy of baptism and of the
mass. The earliest evidence of this reception is found not in Italy, but in Spain.
Here, N and C2 were cited as sancta fides in the confessions of Reccared and of
the Visigoths at the Third Council of Toledo (589), in the course of their conver-
sion from Homoianism to the Nicene faith (both creeds presumably taken from
the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith).148 At the same time, its canon 2 prescribed
that C2 (and not N) was to be recited by the congregation before the Lord’s Prayer
during mass in accordance with the eastern model.149
The adoption of N and C2 by Reccared is thus linked to the reception of the
Chalcedonian Definition in Spain. But how did this Definition reach Spain? Kelly
suggested that the reception was linked to Justinian’s conquests on the Iberian
Peninsula from 554 onwards.150 This may be so, but more recent research shows
that the eastern Roman presence in Spain, which ended for good in 624, seems
not to have had any lasting cultural impact.151 Today the eastern influences in the
Mozarabic rite, which Kelly also highlighted, are explained rather differently as
well.152 When it comes to these influences, Burns’ earlier suggestion may be cor-
rect according to which Abbot John of Biclaro (d. c. 621) could have played an im-
portant role,153 as he was influential at court, had spent seventeen years in
Constantinople (c. 558–575),154 and presumably also took part in the Third Council
of Toledo (589).155 It was he who brought the knowledge of the liturgical practice

 Cf. Mansuetus, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (CPL 1170; PL 87, cols. 1261C–1263A).
 Cf. Third Council of Toledo (589), Regis professio fidei (FaFo § 135d26.1.4(3)) for N and Regis
professio fidei (§ 184f24.3) and Gothorum professio fidei (§ 184f24.4) for C2. However, the term
sancta fides does not occur in the Chalcedonian definition, but only in the title of C2 as quoted at
the second(third) session. Cf. above p. 386 and ACO II 3, p. 265, l. 22.
 Cf. Third Council of Toledo (589), canon 2 (FaFo § 687b = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument
120.2), p. 294, ll. 7–21); cf. also Third Council of Toledo (589), Canones / Allocutio Reccaredi
(§ 687a = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 120.2), pp. 291, l. 5 – 292, l. 13) and below pp. 510 f.
 Cf. Kelly 1972, p. 352. Similarly, Heil/Scheerer 2022, p. 254.
 Cf. Heather 2018, p. 298.
 Cf. Spinks 2013, p. 192.
 Cf. Burn 1899, p. 115; cf. also Heil/Scheerer 2022, p. 254.
 Cf. Isidore of Seville, De uiris illustribus 31,44. In addition, Campos 1960, pp. 17–19; Kollautz
1983, p. 467.
 Cf. Campos 1960, pp. 25 f.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 407

of singing C2 in mass first introduced by Justin II in Constantinople to Spain.156

Only C2 (which by now included the filioque) is regularly quoted at the synods of
the capital and other places from the Eighth Council of Toledo (653) onwards.157
In Rome, the reception of C2 can be traced to Gregory the Great (sedit 590–604).
A ‘private confession’ is contained in an appendix to his letters and in his Life
which has not yet been critically edited; it represents a skillful combination of C2
and R.158 But even a Pope as late as Theodore I (sedit 642–649) still speaks in tradi-
tional terms, referencing the confirmation of N at the Council of Constantinople.159
The confession of the Lateran Synod of 649160 is also based on C2 – this creed
had in actual fact been read out at this gathering.161 It is striking that the same
terms are used to designate N and C2 in this confession: both are called ἔκθεσις
πίστεως or symbolum. We will have to examine below how this change to the sta-
tus of C2 came about.162
The next time C2 is found in Rome is in the baptismal liturgy. A rite of the
Traditio symboli has been preserved in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (around
650), in which C2 is ‘handed over’ as a baptismal confession, first in Greek and
then in Latin.163 This is also the case in a number of later sacramentaries that are
closely related to this one,164 while other service books that are also related to the
OGS refer to R/T or even quote it.165
C2, however, had by no means formed part of the Traditio symboli in Rome
from the beginning. John the Deacon describes the scrutinies in his famous letter
to Senarius from the early sixth century, and in this context clearly speaks of the

 Cf. above p. 402.

 Cf. FaFo § 184f24.5 until 24.14.
 Cf. PL 77, cols. 1327D–29A (Appendix); PL 75, cols. 87B–8B (Life). The text is found in FaFo
§ 446.
 Cf. his letter Synodicas fraternitatis uestrae litteras (CPL 1732) to the patriarch of Constanti-
nople Paulus (PL 129, cols. 581B–582A).
 Cf. FaFo § 447.
 Cf. ACO2 I, p. 218, ll. 19–34 (Greek) // p. 219, ll. 19–32 (Latin) = FaFo § 184f25.
 Cf. below pp. 411–13.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 675a and 184f2.2 and below pp. 503 f.
 Cf. the Pontifical of Donaueschingen (uncertain; s. IX ex.; FaFo § 683a) and the sacramenta-
ries of Angoulême (768–781; §§ 796a and 184f14), Gellone (s. VIII ex.; §§ 797a and 184f4), and
Reims (uncertain; c. 800; § 799a) as well as the Ordines Romani XI (s. VII/2; §§ 808a, b and 184f4)
and XV (uncertain; before 787; § 809a, b). In these sources the baptismal questions are based on
R. On the Ordo Romanus XI cf. also below p. 409.
 Cf. the baptismal questions in the Sacramentaries of Prague (s. VIII/2; FaFo § 679b) and Rhei-
nau (795/796; § 798a). In addition, cf. the Spanish Liber ordinum de ordinibus ecclesiasticis (before
1052; § 684c4) and the Liber misticus (s. IX/X?; § 684d) and the medieval sources quoted in the
note on § 684 where creeds are preserved which are similar to T.
408 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

creed ‘handed down by the apostles’ (symboli ab apostolis traditi), which was
transmitted.166 This is a strong indication that R or a descendant of it was still in
use in Rome around 500. This older practice also becomes apparent when one
looks at the exhortation handed down as part of the Traditio in the OGS, which is
attributed to Pope Leo the Great and which, in its second part, also deals with the
content of the creed.167 This summary exhortation, in fact, does not, as one might
expect, mention the important doctrinal features of C2 (first and foremost the in-
clusion of homooúsios), but essentially deals with those points that are also men-
tioned in R. Only the references to the one, equal potestas of Father and Son and
to the existence of the Holy Spirit in the same godhead as Father and Son could,
perhaps, be seen as a dogmatically tempered expression of the consubstantiality
established at Constantinople. This evidence can probably be explained by the
fact that R initially stood in this place, but had later been replaced by C2, without
the exhortation framing the creed being adapted sufficiently. By contrast, Peter
Gemeinhardt and Susan Keefe have assumed that C2 was the original confession
and that it was replaced by R/T in Gaul.168 Yet the letter to Senarius notwithstand-
ing, this does not explain why it was precisely R/T (and not C2) that was ex-
pounded in countless homilies during the celebration of the Traditio symboli in
the west, and by no means just in Gaul, from the fourth century onwards.169 This
popularity can hardly be explained if the Roman creed had not also been the sub-
ject of the Traditio symboli in Rome, finding its way into the western provinces
from there.
But there is also more concrete evidence. In the Rituale Romanum of 1584 the
Traditio symboli forms part of the third scrutiny. It follows the OGS almost verba-
tim: at the beginning there is the first part of the aforementioned preface of Leo
the Great. However, this is not followed by the recitation of C2, but first by the
Traditio of the Symbolum apostolorum, i.e. T, which is to be recited by the priest
three times ‘slowly in a loud voice’ (clara et lenta uoce). This is to be done in such
a way that the catechumens are able to learn and memorize the creed.170 Then, in
a short dialogue in Greek, an older candidate for baptism who speaks this lan-
guage or – if no such candidate is present – the acolyte is asked by the priest in
which language the confession is spoken, to which the candidate for baptism or

 John the Deacon, Epistula ad Senarium 4 (FaFo § 655). Cf. Ferguson 2009, pp. 766–8.
 Cf. Leo the Great, Tractatus 98 (FaFo §§ 255g and 675a). Cf. also below pp. 527 f.
 Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 50 n. 26; Keefe 2002, vol. I, p. 45 n. 8.
 Cf. below ch. 13.
 Rituale Romanum 1584, p. 41: ‘Interim verò Catechumeni suscipientes symbolum, addiscant,
& memoriae mandare studeant.’ / ‘Meanwhile, however, the catechumens who receive the creed
should learn and seek to memorize it.’
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 409

the acolyte answers: Ἑλληνικῇ / ‘in Greek’. The priest then calls for the confession to
be recited. Only now does C2 follow, both in Greek and in Latin. Apparently the com-
petentes are expected to memorize this confession as well, for it is recorded after-
wards: ‘However, if the boys and the adults have already learned the creed, they
recite it by themselves.’171 The reading of C2 is expressly adhered to even if there are
no Greek-speaking baptismal candidates at all (neither children nor adults).172
If (with due caution) we may draw a conclusion from this later practice
about what it may have looked like earlier, this may mean that C2 had originally
been added to R or its descendant T for the benefit of Greek-speaking baptismal
candidates, thus doubling the creed. This duplication seems to have been elimi-
nated in the OGS and in the sacramentaries dependent on the tradition it repre-
sents, to the effect that R was dropped at an unknown point in time. It is possible
that this took place no longer in Rome, but at a later time in the Frankish-Gallic
area, because otherwise R/T would have been first abolished in Rome but then
later reintroduced – as the Rituale Romanum testifies.
Some early medieval witnesses even allow us to directly trace the original
rite of the Traditio of R/T. A number of Carolingian manuscripts that contain a
baptismal rite closely related to the OGS, which since Michel Andrieu’s pioneering
edition has been called Ordo Romanus XI and which may belong to the second
half of the sixth century,173 offer T instead of C2 in both the Traditio and Redditio
symboli. In these manuscripts, the presbyter asks the acolyte in which language
the creed will be confessed. After the acolyte has answered that this should be in
Latin, the priest asks him to recite the creed. However, this is not followed by C2,
but by a confession that is almost identical with T.174 This practice can also be
observed in the Ordo Romanus XV (before 787) and in the Sacramentary of Gellone

 Rituale Romanum 1584, p. 42: ‘Pueri verò & adulti, si iam didicerunt symbolum, etiam ipsi
pronuntiant.’
 Cf. also below pp. 504 f.
 Cf. FaFo § 808. For the date cf. below p. 410 n. 179.
 In the manuscripts of the so-called Collection B (FGKYZ) according to the apparatus in An-
drieu the text reads (somewhat simplified) as follows (nos. 62–5 in Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II,
pp. 434, l. 3 – 435, l. 5): ‘Qua lingua confitetur dominum nostrum Iesum Christum? Resp. <acoli-
tus>: Latina. Et dicit ei presbiter: Adnuntia fidem ipsorum qualiter credent. Et ille cantat sym-
bolum. [Here follows T.] Et dum hoc cantat semper manum super caput infantis tenet.’ / ‘In which
language does he/she confess our Lord Jesus Christ? <The acolyte> answers: “In Latin.” And the
priest says to him: “Proclaim their faith as they believe.” And he [i.e. the acolyte] chants the creed.
[Here follows T.] And while chanting this he always places his hand upon the head of the infant.’
Furthermore, cf. the note on FaFo § 344 and Angenendt 1977(2005), pp. 40–2, esp. 41 n. 26; Ange-
nendt 1987, pp. 293 f. On Collection B cf. Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. I, pp. 471–3; II, pp. 365 f., 370–4;
Vogel 1986, pp. 150–2.
410 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

(late eighth century), a Frankish descendant of the tradition represented in the

Old Gelasian Sacramentary.175 Unless there are any other reasons relating to the
manuscript tradition of these texts not to do so,176 one may cautiously conclude
from the explicit question put to baptizands relating to the language to be used
that this liturgy originates from a time when the congregation was still bilingual.
Therefore, it first had to be established with regard to the baptized persons or
their family, in which language the confession was to be recited (here, however,
referring to R/T rather than to C2), and that R/T was then spoken in either Latin or
Greek. In any case, Carolingian sources which I mentioned above clearly attest
that R/T was handed over at baptism.
The question remains as to when and why C2 came to be included in the lit-
urgy of the Traditio symboli in the Roman sacramentaries, or those influenced by
Rome to be precise. Assuming that the above-mentioned exhortation (Tractatus
98) still refers to R and that it was written by Leo the Great, the adoption of C2
into the Traditio must have taken place after Leo. The time of the Acacian Schism
(484–519) or the first half of the sixth century have been suggested,177 but I believe
this is very unlikely, in view of the fact that there is no evidence of a wider recep-
tion of N or C2 in papal letters until at least the second half of the sixth century,178
while the use of R continues to be attested. Michel Andrieu, on the other hand,
has suggested that C2 was adopted when Italy reverted to the control of the Byz-
antine Empire in the mid-sixth century and has narrowed the period down to
from about 550 to the early seventh century.179
This is possible. However, it is also a possibility that Gregory the Great (sedit
590–604) was responsible, as he is known to have been a liturgical innovator and
was indeed even accused of following the custom of Constantinople in this respect.180
As shown above,181 he is also the first person for whom the reception of C2 in Rome

 Cf. Ordo Romanus XV, nos. 106–8 (FaFo § 809a); Sacramentarium Gellonense nos. 2281–3
(FaFo 797d).
 According to Andrieu, however, the text of the manuscript group A (with Greek and Latin
C2) is superior to B. Cf. his stemma in Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II, p. 374.
 Cf., e.g., Willis 1994, p. 124; Ferguson 2009, p. 766 and n. 32: between 500 and 550, however,
without any reasons being given.
 Cf. above p. 405.
 Cf. Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II, p. 394. He gives as terminus ante quem the composition of Ordo
Romanus XI, which, in the relevant section, is based on the OGS and dated by Andrieu to the
period 550–700, ‘perhaps even after the second half of the sixth [century]’ (Andrieu 1931–1961,
vol. II, p. 413); followed by Dossetti 1967, pp. 181–3. Cf. now also Romano 2019.
 Cf. Gregory, Epistula 9,26. On his reform of the liturgy cf. Markus 1997, pp. 73–5; Mews/Renkin
2013, pp. 323 f.
 Cf. above p. 407.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 411

can be proven with certainty. But it remains unclear why he should have replaced
the confession in this way.
We had seen above that the confession of the Lateran Synod of 649 already put
C2 on a par with N.182 What was the reason for its reevaluation? We know from the
letter of Maximus the Confessor to the priest Marinus in Cyprus (which was written
in 645/646, but only survives in fragments) that at that time there were disputes in
Rome about the filioque, which had above all been triggered by a (lost) synodal let-
ter of Pope Theodore I (sedit 642–649). Theodore had claimed that the Spirit ‘also’
proceeds from the Son, a doctrine that had been objected to in Constantinople
though subsequently defended by Maximus.183 It is unclear whether Theodore ex-
plicitly referred to C2. However, he was not able to prevail with his view: the letter
of the Graeco-Sicilian Pope Agatho (sedit 678–681) and the Roman Synod of 125 Bish-
ops of 680, presented at the Third Council of Constantinople, referred to C2 and em-
phasized the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone.184 Under the bilingual
Pope Leo II (sedit 682–683) the liturgy was increasingly held in Greek, which was
also due to the high proportion of Greek speakers in Rome. The details of this com-
plex and controversial process cannot be examined here.185 However, we should
note that it is possible that the replacement of R/T by C2 in the Traditio symboli in
the preparation for baptism falls into this period, when the OGS, which does not
contain the filioque,186 also came into being.187
It was at that very time of the Greek-speaking popes Agatho, Leo II, and Ser-
gius I (sedit 687–701) that the OGS also came to Francia.188 It now already con-
tained the bilingual C2 in the Traditio, but without the filioque – in contrast to the
Spanish tradition, where the filioque as a component of C2 (as shown above189)
had long been established not only at synods but also as part of the liturgy.190 In
Francia it now competed with the use of R/T.

 Cf. above p. 407.

 Cf. Maximus, Ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum (PG 91, col. 136A). Its authenticity is disputed;
cf. Larchet in Larchet/Ponsoye 1998, pp. 76–84. On recent scholarship cf. Sode 2001, pp. 163–8;
Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 79 f. n. 22; Larchet 2003, pp. 129–31; Siecienski 2010, pp. 73–86; Jankowiak/
Booth 2015, p. 49; Blowers 2016, pp. 297–301.
 Cf. FaFo § 449. In addition, Siecienski 2010, p. 88.
 On the following cf. Atkinson 1982; Kaczynski 1988, pp. 99–113; Ekonomou 2007(2009),
pp. 250–3; Wanek 2018; Romano 2019, p. 45; Westwell 2019, pp. 68 f.; Lang 2022, pp. 202–4.
 Cf. FaFo § 184f2.
 Cf. above p. 407.
 Cf. Vogel 1986, p. 70.
 Cf. above pp. 406 f. and also below 551–3.
 Cf. also the quotation in the Liber misticus (FaFo § 184f13). Furthermore the Mozarabic Mis-
sale Mixtum (§ 184f30) and below p. 553 n. 27.
412 8 The Reception of N and C2 in the Latin and Greek Churches

The fact that the Greek text of C2 (still without the filioque191) was retained in
Rome, even when it had become completely unintelligible to baptismal candi-
dates, indicates that the retention of the Greek text was not primarily a matter of
comprehensibility and also no longer a matter of accommodating Greek-speaking
baptismal candidates,192 but of dogmatic authority – which included the language:
only the Greek text of C2 was dogmatically binding.193 Incidentally, this also ex-
plains why Pope Leo III (sedit 795–816) held so steadfastly to the authentic word-
ing of C2 in his discussions with the Carolingian envoys in 810 about the filioque,
and even publicly displayed this confession in Rome on silver shields at the apos-
tles’ tombs. We will look at this evidence in the context of the controversy over
the filioque below in chapter 16.
In the west, too, C2 did not completely replace N until the Carolingian period
and beyond.194 Several synodal canons inculcate the authoritative nature of the
creed of Nicaea or of the ‘318 bishops’ – although it is not altogether clear whether
they actually reference N.195 However, an unknown author (Pseudo-Amalarius of
Metz) claims in a letter to Charlemagne that he considered the ‘faith of the Nicene
Council of the 318 fathers’ authoritative, whereupon he quotes N and not C2.196
Similarly, in a manual for missionaries or catechists written in Passau around 850
(cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19410, pp. 3–4), the faithful were
to learn N and not C2.197 Finally, Meinhard of Bamberg (Bishop of Würzburg
1085–1088), mentions both N and C2 as distinct confessions in his brief history of
creeds, alongside the Apostles’ Creed, calling N a ‘most gentle and beneficial exposi-
tion of the faith’ (mitissima et saluberrima fidei expositio) which was ‘accepted and

 This was different in the Rituale Romanum of 1584.

 Pace Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 50. As regards the presence of Greek-speaking groups among
Rome’s inhabitants as late as the early middle ages cf. Romano 2014, p. 12.
 Later it was said that the use of the Greek and Latin creed during the scrutinies signified the
universality of the creed. Cf. Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma animae 3,67 (PL 172, col. 661B): ‘“I
believe in one God” is chanted over the males in Greek and over the females in Latin, because
every tongue is denoted by these two languages. For the Greeks surpassed all nations in philoso-
phy, whereas the Romans ruled over all nations. Hence the Greek language signifies the sages,
the Latin the princes. Therefore, the faith is chanted in Greek and Latin, because all languages
confess God.’ Cf. Kaczynski 1988, pp. 111 f.
 Cf. Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, no. 51 (= CPL 1746; s. V in.), 142 (= CPL 1745; 350–400), 201 (= CPL
551), 215 (= CPL 171; s. V/VI), 345 (s. VIII/IX). In addition, cf. the later Latin versions of N outside
the translations of synodal acts or the writings of the Greek fathers: FaFo §§ 135d32, 38, 44, 45.
 Cf. the Synod of Chalon-sur-Saône (c. 647–654), canon 1 (FaFo § 580); the Synod of Soissons
(744; § 586); the so-called Legatine Councils in England (786), canon 1 (§ 588).
 Cf. Pseudo-Amalarius, Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem 6 (Keefe 2002, vol. II, p. 544, ll.
15–16); for the quotation of N cf. FaFo § 135d38.
 Cf. FaFo § 135d45.
 8.2 Reception of C2 after Chalcedon 413

preserved with the veneration due to it throughout Christendom’.198 Although C2

had by now also replaced N in the west at synods and in the Roman baptismal lit-
urgy, the older creed continued to be used occasionally for some time.199
The fact that C2 would come to replace R and N was therefore not a foregone
conclusion in either east or west, but took place as part of a longer process. Ini-
tially, the introduction of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith and its reception at
subsequent councils played a central role in laying the foundations for rendering
C2 acceptable. Later, however, the decisive factor in C2 eventually prevailing was
its reception in the liturgy of both west and east.200 At the end of that process, the
Creed of Constantinople had replaced that of Nicea all across both the Latin and
Greek churches, although originally it had only been intended to supplement N.

 Meinhard, De fide, uarietate symboli, ipso symbolo et pestibus haeresium (Caspari 1883,
p. 260). Cf. also FaFo § 135d46. The attribution to Meginhard of Fulda is no longer tenable; cf. URL
<https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/repOpus_03385.html?pers_PND=PND118579924> and <https://
www.geschichtsquellen.de/repPers_119063085.html> (29/11/2023).
 Cf. also the other examples in FaFo, vol. I, p. 333 and below ch. 17.
 Cf. below ch. 17.
9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin
and Greek Churches

A full account of the development of the creeds outside the Latin- and Greek-
speaking areas would exceed the scope of this book and the expertise of its author.
I will limit myself in what follows to some preliminary notes on the reception of N
and C2 within the period under investigation, with the addition of some informa-
tion (no doubt incomplete) as regards other creeds, as far as they are accessible to
me.1 Much groundwork remains to be done in this area.

9.1 Syriac Christianity

9.1.1 Baptism and the creed

It has been said that the earliest signs indicating the existence of a baptismal creed
in the Sasanian Empire are found in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat (c. 270 –
c. 345).2 Usually, the following passage from the first Demonstration ‘On Faith’
(which was written in 336/3373) is quoted in support of this view:

Now this is faith: when a person believes in God, the Lord of all, who made heaven and
earth, and the seas and all that is in them, and who made Adam in his image. He gave the
Torah to Moses, sent [a portion] of his Spirit into the prophets, and sent his Anointed One
into the world. Such a person also believes in the resurrection of the dead and the mystery
of baptism. This is the faith of the Church of God.4

 On the place of the creed in present-day baptismal and eucharistic liturgies of the eastern
Churches the surveys by Bryan D. Spinks and Nikolaus Liesel are immensely useful. Cf. Spinks
2006(2016), pp. 71–108; Liesel/Makula 1963. In addition, Dalmais, ‘Die nichtbyzantinischen orienta-
lischen Liturgien’, 1989; Dalmais, ‘Die Mysterien’, 1989; Suermann 2010.
 On earlier research cf. Connolly 1906, pp. 203 f. On Aphrahat in general cf. Ramelli, ‘Aphrahat’,
2018. In the Acts of Mari (which describe Mari’s mission to Syria in the first century) we also find
credal formulae which may, however, not date to before the end of the sixth century; cf. Abra-
mowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 15–18.
 Cf. Lehto 2010, pp. 1 f.
 Aphrahat, Demonstratio 1, 19. Edition: Parisot 1894, p. 44. Translation: Lehto 2010, p. 84. Cf. too
the preceding letter to its author which also contains a creed-like statement which Pass assumed
to be of Jewish origin (cf. Pass 1908, p. 270–80): Edition: Parisot 1894, p. 3; Lehto 2010, p. 65 f.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-009
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 415

However, this passage has no parallel in any of the otherwise known creeds and
must be regarded as a rule of faith rather than a fixed creed.5 In addition, through-
out the Demonstrations the ritual connection of faith with baptism remains unclear.
R.H. Connolly once tried to cull credal clauses from the remainder of Aphrahat’s
writings, from the Acts of Thomas, and from the Doctrine of Addai in order to recon-
struct their respective creeds,6 but such a method presupposes that baptismal creeds
were already used in Adiabene in the early fourth century and that their basic struc-
ture resembled that of N or R. We also possess a Syriac commentary on baptism
from the first half of the fifth century in which the renunciation is followed by a
confession, but we do not know what was confessed and whether it was even made
using a fixed declaratory creed.7
In Syriac baptismal ordines the creed ‘We believe in one God’ (it is never
quoted in full) is usually said after the renunciation, although the liturgical context
varies:8
– In the Melkite ordo attributed to Basil the creed is repeated three times.9
– A Maronite baptismal liturgy ascribed to Jacob of Serugh contains, a confes-
sion which is found nowhere else after the renunciation, followed by the
creed ‘We believe in one God’.10
– In the various versions of the Syrian Orthodox ordo attributed to Severus the
creed is usually said after the catechumens’ dismissal following the Sýntaxis
(formula of engagement to Christ).11 In the version which is still in use in the

 For discussion cf. Connolly 1906; Pass 1908.

 Cf. Connolly 1906, esp. pp. 209 f., 218 f., 220.
 Cf. Brock 1980, pp. 30–33. Cf. also the baptismal questions in the Syriac translation of the Testa-
mentum Domini (FaFo § 615a) which resemble R as they probably derive from the Traditio Apos-
tolica (cf. above pp. 129 f.). The translation dates from 686/687.
 For what follows cf. the surveys and abbreviations in Brock 1970, p. 369; Brock 1972, pp. 16–21.
 Edition and Latin translation: Assemani 1750, p. 211; Latin translation only: Denzinger 1863/
1864, vol. I, p. 321.
 Edition and Latin translation: Assemani, vol. II, 1749, p. 328; Latin translation only: Denzinger
1863/1864, vol. I, p. 340. French translation: Dib 1910, p. 76.
 Cf., e.g., SA I (Assemani, vol. II, 1749, p. 282 // Denzinger 1863/1864, vol. I, p. 305); SA IV (Asse-
mani, vol. I, 1749, p. 252 // Denzinger 1863/64, vol. I, p. 283); SA V (Assemani, vol. I, 1749, p. 271 //
Denzinger 1863/1864, vol. I, p. 292); SA VI (Assemani, vol. II, 1749, p. 252 // Denzinger 1863/1864, vol.
I, p. 298). No such dismissal: SA III (Assemani, vol. I, 1749, p. 238 // Denzinger 1863/1864, vol. I,
p. 273). Cf. also Brock 1972, pp. 22, 40–4. Abbreviations are those of Brock.
416 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

Syrian Orthodox Church today, the creed is C2 with some variants.12 It is said
by the godparents immediately after the renunciation.13
– Another ordo is ascribed to a Timothy of Alexandria who may be identical
with Timothy Aelurus.14 Here the creed (which begins ‘I believe in one God’
without being quoted in full) is said twice, once as part of a complex rite of
renunciation and then after the dismissal of the catechumens before the bap-
tismal water is consecrated.15

9.1.2 Miaphysites (‘Jacobites’)

We have little evidence as regards the Miaphysite tradition of N and C2 up to the

ninth century.16 In the early sixth century both creeds made their way, as part of
the Chalcedonian Definition, into the already mentioned collection of fifth-century
canon law, the Corpus canonum, preserved in a Syriac translation in cod. British
Library, Add. 14528, which was produced in 501/502 in Mabbug (Hierapolis).17 Later
C2 is attested in a number of related codices, always together with (or as part of) the
Definition of Chalcedon.18 Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523) makes it clear that C2 was
also held in high esteem in Miaphysite circles independently of the Chalcedonian

 Cf. The Sacrament 2011, p. 44 (English); Cf. also Çiçek 2010, p. 44 (German). Variants: ‘in one true
God’ (not in German); ‘before all worlds’ instead of ‘before all ages’ (but German: ‘vor allen Zeiten’);
‘by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary’ // ‘durch den Heiligen Geist aus der heiligen Jungfrau
Maria’; addition of ‘Mother of God’ and of ‘died’; ‘according to his will’ instead of ‘according to the
Scriptures’; German: ‘er wurde sogar für uns gekreuzigt’ (not in English); ‘with great glory’; Ger-
man: ‘an den einen lebendigen Heiligen Geist’ (not in English); ‘the giver of life to all’; ‘who spoke
through the prophets and the apostles’.
 Cf. Spinks 2006(2016), p. 82. In an early baptismal ordo published by Sebastian Brock ‘which
stands directly between the Maronite rite and Severus’ the creed is said after the formula of Sýn-
taxis. Cf. Brock 1971, pp. 368, 374; Spinks 2006(2016), p. 88 (quotation).
 Cf. above p. 399.
 Edition and translation: Brock 1970, pp. 380, 382; cf. also the commentary on pp. 411 and 415.
In addition, Spinks 2006(2016), pp. 80 f.
 The following texts are beyond the scope of this book: Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith
by Dionysius Bar Ṣalibi (d. 1171), edited by Rabo 2015, and the unpublished explanations of the
creed by the same author (Baumstark 1922, p. 296). For later creeds cf. Baumstark 1922, pp. 300
and 315. A curious Miaphysite creed attributed to the Council of Antioch (251) is found in cod.
London, British Library, Add. 14528 (s. VI). English translation in Cowper 1861, pp. 40 f.
 Cf. above pp. 386 f.
 Cf. the list in Schulthess 1908, pp. VIII–IX and Dossetti 1967, pp. 191–5. On these codices cf.
Dossetti 1967, pp. 119–23. Additional manuscripts are mentioned in Kaufhold 2012, p. 244, nn. 77,
79. Dossetti (loc. cit.) and Kaufhold 2012, pp. 244 f. also deal with the problem of translation.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 417

Definition. Philoxenus clearly distinguishes C2 from N by claiming that the fathers

of Constantinople extended N in order to combat Macedonius and Apolinarius.19
Oddly enough, Philoxenus’ own text of C2 displays some peculiarities which are not
easily explainable.20 In a very similar vein, Severus of Antioch (sedit 512–538), recog-
nizing the authority of the Council of Constantinople, mentions the addition to the
third article of C2, associating it with the defence against Macedonius.21 However,
like Philoxenus, Severus was no stickler when it came to the text of the creed.22 His
prohibition to change the creed did not extend to its text, but to its doctrines, be-
cause otherwise the Council of Constantinople would also have to be blamed for vio-
lating N as Severus wrote in 509/511 in a letter to an otherwise unknown Isaac
Scholasticus:

For it is not saying what agrees with the 318 fathers that is prohibited to us, but adding any-
thing to or detracting anything from the correctness of the doctrines. If not, the synod of the
150 also incurs blame, because it widened the theology relating to the Spirit, and, when the
confession had been laid down with regard to the only Son who became incarnate for us, it
added the words ‘from the Holy Spirit and from Mary the Virgin’, and ‘he was crucified in
the days of Pontius Pilate’; for these things were not stated by the 318.23

The codex London, British Library, Add. 12156 (written in 562)24 contains a collection
of credal texts which comprises N and C2,25 among letters and treatises of Timothy
Aelurus (hence in a Miaphysite context).26
In both Miaphysite (‘Jacobite’) and Dyophysite (‘Nestorian’) churches psalters
were used which also contained the canticles and the creed.27 The Miaphysite ver-
sion of the creed is C2 (which in some manuscripts is ascribed to Nicaea), with minor
variations.28

 Cf. Lebon 1936, pp. 866 f. with 866 n. 4. Furthermore De Halleux, ‘La philoxénienne’, 1978.
 Cf. Lebon 1936, p. 867. Cf. also Connolly 1906, p. 222. For further credal texts from Philoxenus’
pen cf. De Halleux 1963, pp. 168–178 (information kindly supplied by Hubert Kaufhold).
 Severus, Liber contra impium Grammaticum 3,11. Cf. Lebon 1936, p. 869 and n. 1.
 Cf. Gribomont 1975/1976, esp. pp. 149 f.
 Text and translation: Brooks 1919, pp. 291 f. Cf. also Gribomont 1975/1976, p. 150 n. 57.
 On this manuscript cf. Abramowski 2021, pp. 21–85.
 Edition and German translation: Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I, pp. 101–3. Cf. also Schwartz 1926,
pp. 71 f.; Dossetti 1967, p. 90. In N ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς is added, in the anathemas ἢ κτιστόν is
missing. In C2 ἕνα is missing before κύριον. Further analysis in Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I,
pp. 103–12.
 Cf. above p. 399.
 A survey of Syriac psalters is found in Dickens 2013(2020).
 Translation in Barnes 1906, pp. 442b–445b. Further examples in Mearns 1914, pp. 27 f., 43–9
(partly in Karshunic); Williams 2013, pp. 388 f. Sometimes ‘and died’ (ἀποθανόντα) is added in the
christological section, and all manuscripts offer διὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων / ‘through
418 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

A staunchly anti-Chalcedonian affirmation of the faith of Nicaea, Constantino-

ple, and Ephesus is found in the Profession of Faith (written in c. 536/537) by John
of Tella (482/483–538, bishop 519–521/522). He does not, however, cite the text of
the respective creeds.29
In his Commentary on the Liturgy, Gabriel of Qatar (s. VII in.) mentions that
the creed is said at the beginning of the eucharistic service:

This indicates that everyone who does not correctly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Dis-
pensation effected in Christ, is alien to the truth, and deprived of delight with our Lord
Christ who was sacrificed for the salvation of the world.30

Here the creed clearly serves to confirm the orthodoxy of the worshippers.31
Likewise, a letter by Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) mentions the ‘faith of the 318 fa-
thers’ as the introductory element of the Qurobo (eucharist) after the closing of the
doors, which corresponds to its original place in the Byzantine liturgy.32 Unfortu-
nately, he does not quote it so that it is unclear whether he refers to N or C2.33 In
addition, in a description of the baptismal rite he says that a three-fold creed fol-
lowed the renunciation and the Sýntaxis when the catechumens registered for bap-
tism and that, after entering the baptistry at the beginning of the baptismal rite
itself, they recited the creed ‘We believe in one God’, but again he does not quote it
in full.34
By contrast, Moses bar Kepha (d. 903) clearly refers to C2 in his commentary on
the liturgy. It is worth quoting his explanation in full:

the prophets and the apostles’ in the pneumatological section. The holiness of the Church is not
mentioned in all of them. Instead one sometimes finds ‘and glorious’. In the end the text reads
‘and for the new life (εἰς καινότητα ζωῆς? cf. Rom 6:4 and below p. 427) of/in the world to come’.
 Cf. the edition, translation, and commentary in Menze/Akalin 2009.
 Gabriel of Qatar, Memra 5, 2,52 (ed. Brock 2009, pp. 232 f.; tr. Brock 2009, p. 213). I owe this
reference to Jibin Thomas Abraham. Gabriel’s text was partly quoted by his contemporary (and
perhaps relative) Abraham bar Lipeh in his commentary on the liturgy; cf. Brock 2009, pp. 199 f.
 Cf. also below p. 515.
 Cf. below pp. 509 f.
 Cf. Jacob, Epistula 35 (ed. Labourt 1903(1955), p. 7; Latin translation: Labourt 1903(1955), p. 37;
English translation: Varghese 1998, p. 8 = Brightman 1896(1965), p. 491; cf. van Ginkel 2008,
pp. 80 f.). In addition, Varghese 2008, pp. 248 f. (I owe this reference to Jibin Thomas Abraham.).
 Cf. Mai 1838, app., p. 15; Whitaker/Johnson 2003, p. 62. The baptismal ordo for infant baptism
which survives under Jacob’s name (and that of Barhebraeus) confirms this practice. Here the
first creed (which is pronounced by the sponsor) runs like this: ‘I believe in you, Christ God, I,
N.N., who is baptized, and all your doctrines which you have inspired through the prophets, the
apostles, and the orthodox teachers. I confess and I believe and I am baptized in you and in your
Father and in your living and holy Spirit.’ The second creed begins: ‘We believe in one God’, but
is not quoted in full; cf. Denzinger 1863/1864, vol. I, p. 283.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 419

It is right to know that, from the holy apostles until (the time of) Constantine the believing
king, after the thurible of incense nothing was said, but the priest used to begin the Offering
(Qurrābhā). But after the same king had assembled the Synod of the 318, and it had set forth
this orthodox faith which we both believe and confess, the Synod also commanded that the
faithful should recite it first, before the Qurrābhā, and then the priest should begin the Qur-
rābhā. The faithful therefore recite it for these reasons. First: that they may let it be known
that they believe and confess aright. Second: [to show] that their faith and their confession
are one. Third: that by it minds and hearts and mouths may be hallowed. And it is right that
he who offers should begin it, since he is the tongue of the whole body of the Church.
Again, it is right to know that the Synod set down ‘I believe’, and not ‘We believe’. And it
set down ‘I believe’, because it is not a prayer or a petition – for that we should pray and make
petition each for other and each with other, [this] we are commanded, and this is fitting – but
it is a faith and a confession; and that we should believe or confess for or with each other we
are not commanded, nor is it becoming; but let each one confess by himself and for himself.
Therefore it is right that each person should say ‘I believe’, as the holy Synod set down, and
not ‘We believe’.
Again, it is right to know that this faith is divided into five heads: the first, the theology;
the second, the incarnation; the third, concerning baptism; the fourth, concerning the gen-
eral resurrection; the fifth, concerning the future judgement and recompense.35

John (Iwannis) of Dara (s. IX/1) notes in his Commentary on the Eucharist that the
creed should follow the second Sedro (opening prayer), because it symbolized ‘the
law of the Gospel, which demanded faith from all those who wished to be bap-
tized’.36 John then goes on to give a long (and fanciful) account of the origin of N
and C2, appending a long commentary on each individual clause of an unconven-
tional version of C2.37

 Moses bar Kepha, Commentarius in liturgiam, ff. 152b–153a (ed. Connolly/Codrington 1913,
pp. 236 f.; tr. Connolly/Codrington 1913, pp. 37 f.; slightly altered). I owe this reference to Jibin
Thomas Abraham. On this commentary cf. also Gemayel 1965, pp. 157–160.
 John, De oblatione 3,2 (ed. Sader 1970, p. 48; French translation: Sader 1970, p. 35; English transla-
tion: Varghese 1999, p. 60; slightly altered). Cf. also Gemayel 1965, pp. 154–6. A Sedro ‘(lit. a row,
order, or series) [. . .] is a long prayer in the form of a series of expositions or meditations, usually
preceded by a Promiun (introduction). Often, a Sedro summarises Syrian Orthodox theology’ (Var-
ghese 2019, p. 400). Dionysius Bar Ṣalibi (d. 1171) emphasizes that the recitation of the creed by the
faithful denotes their consent to the Sedro of entrance (which is ‘like an edict, written by the viceroy
of the king, who is the priest’; Expositio liturgiae 6,12. 13 (ed. Labourt 1903(1955), pp. 28 f.; Latin trans-
lation: Labourt 1903(1955), pp. 52 f.; English translation: Varghese 1998, pp. 33, 35). I owe these refer-
ences to Jibin Thomas Abraham.
 He omits καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν. Instead of καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου he reads ἐν τῇ
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου γαστρί (‘in the womb of Mary the Virgin’). Ἀποθανόντα is added after πα-
θόντα. The third section reads: ‘life-giver of all’ (= τὸ ζωοποιὸν τῶν πάντων?). It goes on: ‘who
spoke through the prophets and the apostles and through the one apostolic Church’ (τὸ λαλῆσαν
διὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων καὶ διὰ μιᾶς ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας). Finally, καινήν was
added after ζωήν.
420 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

9.1.3 Dyophysites (‘Nestorians’)

In the Dyophysite Church of the East38 N or C2 (although well-known in the Syriac

tradition39) were, by and large, not adopted in their ‘pure’ form. Nor did it imme-
diately receive the creed that was later called that of the ‘Nestorians’ (NAnt3; FaFo
§ 208) which is a version of the Antiochene creed (NAnt2; §§ 198 and 203), although
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Catechetical Homilies containing NAnt1 were translated
into Syriac in mid-fifth century Edessa.40 We are informed about the synods this
church held by the Synodicon Orientale, a collection of legal documents pertaining
to them which was compiled in the eighth century.41 Many of these synods pub-
lished statements that included creeds or credal passages which I will briefly
touch upon in what follows.
The canons of the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon 410 which led to the establish-
ment of a Persian church have been preserved in both a western and an eastern
Syriac version.42 The eastern version contains N in its ‘pure’ form with few var-
iants.43 The western version44 is today generally regarded as the original version
agreed by the synod. Here the creed (so-called Persicum), which is said to agree
with N, runs as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, who in his Son made heaven and earth and in
whom the worlds were established, the one above and the one below, and in whom he pro-

 The creeds and credal texts of the synods of the Church of the East are conveniently collected
in translation in Brock 1985(1992).
 For Syriac witnesses cf. CPG 8521 (N) and Dossetti 1967, pp. 87 (N and C2 as part of the Declara-
tion of Chalcedon), 89 f. (N in Syriac translations of the works of the Miaphysite Patriarch Timo-
thy Aelurus; cf. also Lebon 1936, pp. 864–866), 90, 119–23 (N), 191–5 (C2).
 Cf. Bruns 1994, p. 22.
 Edition and French translation: Chabot 1902; German translation: Braun 1898; Braun 1900(1975).
There is no complete English translation. Cf. also Van Rompay 2011; Morgan Reed at URL <https://
syri.ac/synodiconorientale> (17/11/2023).
 For discussion of the background and the philological problems cf. Dossetti 1967, pp. 38–41
(who gives on p. 41 a Greek retroversion of the eastern text); Vööbus 1972; Gribomont 1977; De Hal-
leux, ‘Le symbole’, 1978; Brock 1985(1992), p. 126; Gillman/Klimkeit 1999, pp. 112 f.; Bruns 2000; Win-
kler 2000, pp. 102 f.; Garsoïan 2001(2010), pp. 1169–71, 1174; Baum/Winkler 2003, pp. 14–17; Bruns
2005, pp. 48–50; Bruns 2008, pp. 47–9; Williams 2013, pp. 389 f.; Winkler 2013, pp. 624–7; Baumer
2016, pp. 74–8; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 23.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 22 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 262 f.; English transla-
tion: Brock 1985(1992), p. 133; Greek retroversion: Dossetti 1967, p. 41. In the first section the text
given by Dossetti reads: ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορατῶν. In the second
section ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν is added after κατελθόντα. In the anathemas ἢ κτιστόν is omitted. All other
differences are stylistic.
 Edition: Vööbus 1972, p. 295.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 421

duced an awakening and a renewal for the whole creation [or: in whom he produced conso-
lation and joy for the whole creation45].
And in him, his only Son, who was born of him, that is, from the essence of his Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten and not made, who is of
one nature with his Father, who because of us humans, who are created by him, and for our
salvation descended and put on body and became human, suffered and rose on the third day,
and ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of his Father, and will come to judge the
dead and the living.
And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who [is] from the Father
and the Son, one Trinity, one essence, one will,
agreeing with the faith of the 318 bishops that took place in the town of Nicaea.46

It is not necessary here to provide a full analysis of this text.47 It would show that
the Persicum is dependent on N (not on NAnt nor on C2), but is not simply a transla-
tion, as the pneumatological section most clearly shows. Instead it displays certain
theological features that are typically ‘Syriac’.48 Likewise, the reverse word order of
‘to judge the dead and the living’ is often found in Syriac versions of N as well as in
Armenian translations from the Syriac.49 Most importantly, the text may, perhaps,
provide one of the earliest examples of the insertion of filioque.50
The canons which are ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqaṭ (d. 420/421), and
which may also have played a certain role at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon
410,51 contain two versions of the creed among their supplementary texts. The
first is N with minor variations.52 The second creed is basically C2 which is, how-
ever, ascribed to Nicaea.53 In addition, the recension of C2 is rather idiosyncratic.
For the sake of comparison with C2 I give my Greek retroversion (which as such
may never have existed); the translation is that of Vööbus (from the Syriac):

 Cf. Bruns 2000, p. 10 n. 51.

 The translation is that of Vööbus 1972, p. 294 with the corrections in De Halleux, ‘Le symbole’,
1978, pp. 162–4 and Bruns 2000, p. 10. A slightly different translation in Brock 1985(1992), p. 133.
 Cf. De Halleux, ‘Le symbole’, 1978; Bruns 2000, pp. 11–16; Bruns 2005, pp. 48–50.
 Cf. Bruns 2000, p. 16.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 128 (18) = 131 (18), 130 (46) = 133 (46) and comm. on pp. 136, 551–4, 581–3;
Winkler 2004, p. 116.
 However, this is uncertain; cf. below p. 550 and n. 10.
 The question of authenticity is unresolved; cf. Vööbus 1982, vol. II, pp. V–X. In addition,
Drijvers 2001; Stutz 2019.
 Edition: Vööbus 1982, vol. I, p. 116; English translation: Vööbus 1982, vol. II, pp. 96 f.; German
translation: Braun 1898, p. 113. The text reads νεκροὺς καὶ ζῶντας. In the anathemas: ἔστι ποτε ὅτε
(cf. Vööbus 1982, vol. II, p. 96 n. 10; in Greek retroversion); ἢ κτιστόν is omitted.
 Vööbus 1982, vol. I, p. 141; English translation in Vööbus 1982, vol. II, pp. 117 f. The colophon
reads: ‘The symbol of the general synod of the 318 bishops who were gathered in the town of
Nicaea through the care of Constantinus, the victorious kind, worthy of goof memory’ (Vööbus
1982, vol. II, p. 117).
422 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς mighty, the Creator of heaven and
ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων· earth, all that is visible and all that is
invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ,55 the only
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, θεὸν ἀλη- Son of God, true God from true God,
θινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Light from Light, the Maker, and not
ποιητήν, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ made, of the same nature with his Fa-
πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννη- ther; who was born from the Father be-
θέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ δι᾿ οὗ fore all the worlds, and through whom
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ everything has become that in heaven
τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους and that on earth; who because of us
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κα- men and because of our salvation de-
τελθόντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σαρκω- scended from heaven, and became in-
θέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου [literally: carnate from the Spirit of Holiness and
ἁγιότητος] καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου καὶ from Mary the Virgin, and became
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα κατὰ ἡμᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ human like we and because of us; and
ἡμῶν καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πι- he was crucified in the days of Pontius
λάτου καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ Pilate and he died and was buried and
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς rose on the third day as is written, and
γραφὰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ascended into heaven and sits at the
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς right [hand] of his Father, and he is
αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶν- about to come again to judge the living
τας καὶ νεκρούς ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐπιφανείᾳ and the dead in the great revelation of
τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ,54 οὗ τῆς βασιλείας his coming, whose kingdom has no end;
οὐκ ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον [literally: and in one Spirit of Holiness who is the
ἁγιότητος], τὸ κύριον <καὶ> ζωοποιὸν Lord <and>56 the vivifier of all, who
πάντων, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμε- proceeds from the Father, is wor-
νον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυ- shipped together with the Father and
νούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον καὶ the Son, glorified and acknowledged;
συγγνωριζόμενον [?], τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ who has spoken in the prophets and the
τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων· apostles;

 Cf. 2Thess 2:8.

 Vööbus translates ‘and in our Lord Jesus Christ’, but the Syriac text is identical with C2. I am
grateful to Hubert Kaufhold for pointing this out to me.
 Hubert Kaufhold has kindly pointed out to me that ‘and’ is missing in the Syriac text.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 423

καὶ εἰς μίαν, καθολικὴν, ἔνδοξον57 καὶ and in one catholic, glorious, and apos-
ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν· tolic Church,
καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· and in one baptism for the remission of
guilts;
καὶ εἰς ἀνάστασιν σωμάτων ἐκ τῆς οἰ- and in the resurrection of bodies from
κίας τῶν νεκρῶν the dwelling of the dead;58
καὶ εἰς τὴν κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων 59
and in the judgement that is over all;
καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. and in the life that is for ever and ever.

The differences with C2 are considerable: in the second section Mārūtā omitted τὸν
ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, reversed φῶς ἐκ φωτός and
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, and read ποιητήν instead of γεννηθέντα.60 Fur-
thermore, his creed reads τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, followed by τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννη-
θέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καί (which had been omitted before). Tά τε ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ was added. Ἐνανθρωπήσαντα was followed by κατὰ ἡμᾶς;
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν refers to ἐνανθρωπήσαντα instead of σταυρωθέντα; καὶ παθόντα was re-
placed by καὶ ἀποθανόντα. Αὐτοῦ was added after τοῦ πατρὸς; μετὰ δόξης was omit-
ted, whereas ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς αὐτοῦ παρουσίας was added. The third
section reads εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον; πάντων is added after ζωοποιόν; καὶ συγγνωρι-
ζόμενον and καὶ ἀποστόλων were also added, as was ἔνδοξον. The resurrection is
expressed like this: εἰς ἀνάστασιν σωμάτων ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῶν νεκρῶν; this refers to
the realm of the dead, which is their graves. The phase καὶ εἰς τὴν κρίσιν κατὰ πάν-
των was added. The creed probably concluded with καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον instead of
καὶ εἰς ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. The omission of ὁμολογοῦμεν and προσδοκῶμεν
in the fourth and fifth section makes this, in fact, a seven-part creed.
It is obvious that the biblical character of C2 was strengthened by the addition
of certain phrases: ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (2Thess 2:8); ἔν-
δοξον (Eph 5:27); καὶ εἰς τὴν κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων (Jude 15). However, not all vari-
ant readings can be explained that way. Some we will find again in creeds
discussed below.
Mārūtā’s canons (whether or not authentic) gained wide recognition by their
inclusion with other canonical texts in manuscripts of the Church of the East.61

 Cf. Eph 5:27.

 Vööbus: ‘from the dead’ which is not a precise translation of the Syriac (note by Hubert
Kaufhold).
 Cf. Jude 15.
 According to the apparatus in Vööbus two manuscripts read (like C2) ‘begotten’ instead of
‘Maker’. Cf. also Braun 1898, p. 113.
 Cf. Vööbus 1982, vol. I, pp. VI–XVIII.
424 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

They were then also translated into Arabic, although the creed may not have been
included.62
The creed of the Synod of 486 under Catholicos Aqaq (sedit 485–495/496) con-
tains in its first part a trinitarian and its second part a Dyophysite christological
declaration, but no creed proper.63
The Syriac translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Catechetical Homilies not-
withstanding,64 the Antiochene version of N is not attested in the Syriac Church
until the sixth century. The reasons for this change are unknown and do not
seem to be based on Antiochene jurisdiction over the Persian church which did
not exist.65 A creed in the so-called Liturgical Homily (no. 35/17), attributed to Nar-
sai (d. c. 502)66 but probably written in the sixth century,67 is a Dyophysite para-
phrase of the creed of the Church of the East (‘Nestorians’; NAnt3; FaFo § 208).68 It
runs like this (words identical with NAnt3 in italics):69

And as soon as the priests and the deacons together have taken their stand, they begin to
recite the faith of the Fathers:
Now we believe in one God the Father who is from eternity, who holds all by the hidden
nod of his divinity; who made and fashioned all things visible and invisible; and he brought
the creation of the height and depth out of nothing.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God – one person, double in natures and their
hypostáseis. He is the Only-begotten in his godhead and first-born in his body, who became
first-born unto all creatures from the dead: he who of his Father is begotten and is without
beginning, and he in no wise became nor was made with creatures; for he is God who is
from God, Son who is of the Father, and of the nature of his Father, and equal with him in
all his proper things; and by him the worlds were shown forth and everything was created
that was [made]; and in authority and worship and glory he is equal with his Father; who
for our sake came down from heaven without change (of place), that he might redeem our
race from the slavery of the evil one and death, and fashioned (as a body) a temple by the

 Cf. Vööbus 1982, vol. I, pp. XXII–XXIII. In addition, Stutz 2019.

 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 54 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, p. 302; English translation: Brock
1985(1992), pp. 133–4. Cf. also Baum/Winkler 2003, pp. 29 f.; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 224–8.
 Cf. above pp. 346–9.
 Cf. Baum/Winkler 2003, pp. 17, 20 f.
 Cf. Kitchen 2019.
 On the pseudonymity of this text cf. Abramowski 1996; Witkamp 2018, p. 22 n. 131; Abramowski/
Hainthaler 2022, p. 66. On the date cf. Abramowski 1996, p. 88. Kitchen appears to regard it as genu-
ine; cf. Kitchen 2019. This creed may also be alluded to by John of Dalyatha (fl. 600–670), Homilia
25, 4 (cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 689 and n. 161) and by the Catholicos Timothy I (sedit
780–823), Epistula 41 (edition: Bidawid 1956, p. 639 f. (of the codex); Latin translation: Bidawid 1956,
p. 122; cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 750 and nn. 410 and 411).
 Cf. Bruns 2005, pp. 51–3.
 Edition: Mingana 1905, vol. I, p. 274–5; translation: Connolly 1909, pp. 5 f. (slightly adapted); cf.
also Connolly 1909, pp. LXXII–LXXV.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 425

power of the Holy Spirit from a daughter of David; and he became human, and he deified his
temple by the union. And his body was conceived in the temple of Mary without wedlock,
and he was born above the manner of men. And he suffered and was crucified and received
death through his humanity, while Pilate held the governorship. And he was in the grave
three days like any dead [man]; and he rose and was resuscitated according as it is written
in the prophecy; and he ascended to the height, to the heaven of heavens, that he might ac-
complish everything; and he sat in glory at the right hand of the Father that sent him. And
he is ready to come at the end of the times for the renewal of all things, and to judge the
living and the dead also who have died in sin.
And we confess also the Holy Spirit, an eternal being, equal in ousía and in godhead to
the Father and the Son, who proceeds from the Father in a manner unsearchable, and gives
life to all reasonable beings that by him were created.
And we confess again one Church, catholic, patristic, and apostolic, sanctified by the Spirit.
And again, we confess one bath and baptism, wherein we are baptized unto pardon of
debts and the adoption of sons [cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5].
And we confess again the resurrection which is from the dead;70 and that we shall be in
new life for ever and ever.
This did the 318 priests seal; and they proscribed and anathematized everyone that
confesses not according to their confession. The Church confesses according to the confes-
sion of the Fathers, and she employs their confession also at the time of the mysteries. At
the time of the mysteries her children thunder forth with their faith, reciting it with mouth
and heart, without doubting.

The Synod of 544 produced a long trinitarian creed followed by a brief section on
the Trinity which is contained in an encyclical letter of Catholicos Mar Aba (sedit
540–552).71 It is obviously an attempt not only to fill in the ‘gaps’ in N (for exam-
ple, with regard to Jesus’ teaching and miracles), but also to reinterpret the creed
in biblical language and referencing texts from Scripture. This renders it ulti-
mately impossible to discern whether N, NAnt, or C2 served as the basis of this
text. However, canon 40 of the canons attributed to Mar Aba in the Synodicon Ori-
entale explicitly refers to N in the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia
which may point to NAnt.72

 Here the text in FaFo § 208 corresponds only to the reconstruction by Hort. The creed by Cas-
pari/Bruns/Lietzmann reads: σαρκός.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 541–3; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 551–3; English transla-
tion: Brock 1985(1992), pp. 134 f. Cf. also Baum/Winkler 2003, pp. 33 f.; Bruns 2008, pp. 50 f.; Abra-
mowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 243–50. ‛Abdīšō‛ bar Brīḵā (Ebedjesus of Nisibis) cites the first part
of Mar Aba’s creed in his Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum 1,1; cf. Kaufhold 2019, pp. 22–7 (edition
and German translation; information kindly supplied by Hubert Kaufhold).
 Edition: Chabot 1902, p. 550; French translation: Chabot 1902, p. 561; German translation: Abra-
mowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 253. Cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 253 f.
426 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

In a brief statement the Synod of 554 under the Catholicos Joseph (sedit
552–567), while summarily confirming the canons of Nicaea and Constantinople,
again concentrated on christological questions.73
The confession of the Synod of 576 under the Catholicos Ezekiel (sedit 570–581)
is a theological declaration on the Father (interpreted in a trinitarian fashion) and
the Son rather than a creed.74
The Synod of 585 (Catholicos Išo‛yahb I, sedit 582–595) claimed that the creed
had been preached by the Lord, transmitted by the apostles, and laid down by the
councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. It then quoted a text75 which (after an ex-
planation of the Trinity) offers a running commentary on the creed, from which
the following creed can be reconstructed (in Greek retroversion; translation by
Brock from the Syriac text):

[Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, [We believe in one God, the Father Al-
παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰη- mighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
σοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ the Son of God, and in one Holy Spirit
εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς who proceeds from the Father.]
ἐκπορευόμενον.]76
< . . . > ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, < . . . > one God, the Father Almighty,
πάντων ὀρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, < . . . ?>,
< . . . ?>, μονογενῆ καὶ τὸν πρωτότοκον the only-begotten and the first-born of
πάσης κτίσεως, δι᾿ οὗ οἱ αἰῶνες κατηρ- all created things, through whom the
τίσθησαν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο [?], τὸν worlds were established and everything
ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντα πρὸ was created; who was born from his Fa-
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα, ther before all worlds and who was not
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ made, Light from Light, true God from
ἀληθινοῦ, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ true God, homooúsios with the Father;
πάντα ἐγένετο, τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπους through whom everything came into

 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 97 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, p. 355; English translation: Brock
1985(1992), p. 135. Cf. also Baum/Winkler 2003, p. 34; Bruns 2008, pp. 51 f.; Winkler 2013, p. 628; Abra-
mowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 308–11.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 113 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 371–3; English translation
(shortened): Brock 1985(1992), pp. 135 f. Cf. also Baum/Winkler 2003, p. 34; Abramowski/Hainthaler
2022, pp. 311–5.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 133–6; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 394–7; English transla-
tion: Brock 1985(1992), pp. 136–8. Cf. also Abramowski 1996, pp. 95–8; Baum/Winkler 2003, p. 35; Bruns
2005, pp. 53–5; Bruns 2008, pp. 52–4; Winkler 2013, pp. 628 f.; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 320–6.
 This initial quotation may be a summary and may not actually have formed part of the creed.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 427

καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κα- being; who for the sake of us human
τελθόντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σαρκω- beings and for the sake of our salvation
θέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας came down from heaven; and was em-
τῆς παρθένου καὶ ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον bodied of the Holy Spirit and of Mary
[or: ἐνανθρωπήσαντα] καὶ σταυρωθέντα the virgin and became human; and he
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ πα- was crucified for us in the days of Pon-
θόντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ tius Pilate, and he suffered and died
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς and was buried and rose after three
γραφὰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν days as the holy Scriptures say; and he
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν/ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ascended to heaven and sat at the right
πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ hand of his Father; and he will come in
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασι- glory to judge the living and the dead;
λείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος· whose kingdom has no end;
καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, ζωο- and in one Holy Spirit, Lord, life-giving,
ποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, who proceeds from the Father and is
τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμ[?]προσκυνού- worshipped with the Father and the Son,
μενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν who spoke in the prophets and apostles;
καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων·
καὶ εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποσ- and in one holy, catholic and apostolic
τολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν· Church;
καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἀμαρτιῶν· and in one baptism for the forgiveness
of sins;
καὶ εἰς ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν· and in the resurrection of the dead;
καὶ εἰς καινότητα ζωῆς·77 and in the new life;
καὶ εἰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα.78 and in the world to come.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν [or: ἔστι79] ποτε, Those who say, ‘There is a time when he
ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ was not’, and, ‘Before he was begotten he
ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ was not’, and that he came into being out
ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας of nothing, or who say that he is from (an-
εἶναι τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ other) qnoma or another essence, or who
θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ consider the Son of God to be subject to
καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. change and alteration: (all) these the cath-
olic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

 Cf. Rom 6:4.

 Here I follow Brock. Chabot: ‘et en la vie nouvelle dans le siècle futur’ which would presup-
pose in Greek: εἰς καινότητα ζωῆς ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι or ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ (cf. Mk 10:30
par. Lk 18:39). However, there is no parallel for this in the Greek credal tradition.
 Cf. above p. 421 n. 52.
428 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

The underlying creed is an odd mixture of N, NAnt3, and C2: the anathemas are
those of N, the clauses καὶ τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως and καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα
are typical of the Antiochene creeds whereas the Virgin is added to σαρκωθέντα ἐκ
πνεύματος ἁγίου as she is in C2. Other additions from C2 include ἐν δόξῃ80 and οὗ
τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. There are other particularities: the clause δι᾿ οὗ –
ἐγένετο follows straight after τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως; δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγέ-
νετο is later repeated; καὶ ἀποθανόντα was again added as in Mārūtā’s creed. The
pneumatological section follows C2, on the whole, but omits ὁμολογοῦμεν and
προσδοκῶμεν. Finally, the phrase εἰς καινότητα ζωῆς which clearly alludes to Rom
6:4 was added in the psalters of the Miaphysite version.81
Luise Abramowski has suggested that NAnt3 served as this creed’s basis, sup-
plemented by clauses from C2 (and the Nicene anathemas). She thought that this
was the work of the catholicos.82 By contrast, Peter Bruns saw the Syriac transla-
tion of C2 as the basis which Išo‛yahb I ‘extended by some traditional Syriac-
Antiochene phrases’.83
The Synodicon Orientale also contains an exposition of the creed composed, it
claims, by the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. This exposition, a brief trea-
tise on the Trinity and on Christology which does not quote the creed at all, is as-
cribed to Išo‛yahb I.84 Brock thought that this text, that displays certain similarities
to the letter of Mar Aba and the creed of 585,85 ‘evidently belongs to the occasion of
Isho‘yahb’s diplomatic mission to the emperor Maurice’.86 However, the chronicler
‘Amr (s. XIV) quotes another creed in his history of the patriarchs of the Church of
the East which is explicitly attributed to this mission that seems to have taken
place in 587.87
In 596, a synod was held during the reign of the Catholicos Sabrīšō῾ (sedit 596–
604), which adopted an interpretation of the Nicene faith that was explicitly based

 For ἐν δόξῃ instead of μετὰ δόξης in the received text of C2 cf. Dossetti 1967, p. 248 app. ad loc.
 Cf. above p. 418 n. 28.
 Cf. Abramowski 1996, p. 98; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 321.
 Bruns 2005, p. 55.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 193–5; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 452–5; German transla-
tion: Braun 1900(1975), pp. 273–77; English translation: Brock 1985(1992), pp. 138 f.
 Cf. Brock 1985(1992), p. 138 n. 68.
 Brock 1985(1992), p. 127. Cf. also Baum/Winkler 2003, p. 36.
 Edition: Gismondi 1897, vol. II/1, pp. 45–7; Latin translation: Gismondi 1897, vol. II/2, pp. 26 f.;
French translation: Sako 1986, pp. 166–8 (appendix III). Cf. also the analysis in Abramowski/
Hainthaler 2022, pp. 333–38.
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 429

on the explanation of Theodore of Mopsuestia.88 If this refers to Theodore’s Cate-

chetical Homilies (as suggested by Sebastian Brock89), then the underlying creed
was probably NAnt (in whatever version). This would fit the observation that the
Council of Constantinople is nowhere mentioned. The synod’s version contains a
series of anathemas, followed by a christological section.
By contrast, the Synod of 605 under the Catholicos Gregory (sedit 605–609) does
mention both Nicaea and Constantinople and then offers a brief treatise on the Trin-
ity.90 It also seems that Babai the Great (d. 628) refers to C2 in his Liber de unione.91
In addition, the assembly of bishops held in 612 produced a lengthy document
on the Father and the Son which nowhere betrays its credal basis.92
Finally, the creed presented by Išo‛yahb II (sedit 628–646) to Emperor Hera-
clius in 630 also seems to be based on C2.93 By contrast, the creed quoted by the
same catholicos in his Christological Letter presupposes NAnt.94
Ultimately, NAnt3 carried the day in the Church of the East: it was included in
the baptismal liturgy of the Catholicos Išo‛yahb III (sedit 649–659).95 It is likewise

 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 197 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 457–9; German transla-
tion: Braun 1900(1975), pp. 283–5; English translation: Brock 1985(1992), pp. 139 f. Cf. also Baum/
Winkler 2003, pp. 36 f.; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 340–2.
 Cf. Brock 1985(1992), p. 139 n. 74.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 209 f.; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 473 f.; German transla-
tion: Braun 1900(1975), pp. 300 f.; English translation: Brock 1985(1992), p. 140. Cf. also Bruns 2008,
pp. 55 f.; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 347–50.
 Babai, Liber de unione 2,8 (edition: Vaschalde 1915, vol. I, p. 58; Latin translation: Vaschalde
1915, vol. II, p. 47). Cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 448 f. The creed that is partly quoted
here cannot be NAnt where the phrase incarnatus est et inhumanatus per Spiritum sanctum et ex
Maria virgine is not found (C2: καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου καὶ
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα). Pace Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 448. In 6,21 Babai claims that the creed
used assumpsit to describe God’s becoming human. This is not found in any of the major creeds.
Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 509 think that it refers to Pseudo-Athanasius, Expositio fidei 1
(FaFo § 149). Cf. also Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, p. 540 and n. 878.
 Edition: Chabot 1902, pp. 564–7; French translation: Chabot 1902, pp. 582–4; German transla-
tion: Braun 1900(1975), pp. 309–14; English translation: Brock 1985(1992), pp. 140–2. Another edition:
Abramowski/Goodman 1971, vol. I, pp. 150–7; English translation: Abramowski/Goodman 1971, vol.
II, pp. 88–93. On the historical background cf. Brock 1985(1992), pp. 127 f.; Baum/Winkler 2003, p. 39;
Bruns 2005, p. 55; Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 383–411.
 Edition: Gismondi 1897, vol. II/1, pp. 53 f.; Latin translation: Gismondi 1897, vol. II/2, p. 31 (in-
carnatus et homo factus est ex Spiritu Sancto et ex Maria Virgine sanctissima); French transla-
tion: Sako 1986, pp. 169 f. (Appendix IV). Cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 577 f.
 Edition of the letter in Sako 1983, pp. 165–92, esp. 192–206; French translation: Sako 1983,
pp. 141–64, esp. 160–2. Cf. Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 590–2.
 German translation: Diettrich 1903, pp. 31–2. There seems to be no satisfactory edition of this
liturgy (whose authenticity would need further investigation). Cf. also Brock 1977 (I owe this ref-
430 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

found in medieval and modern Syriac manuscripts of the psalter;96 it is also said
in modern versions of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari and of baptism97 and in the
Holy Qurbana, the Eastern Syriac eucharistic liturgy.98 In addition, it forms part
of the daily office as contained in the Qdām w-Bāthar (Book of before and after)
on certain given dates.99 There is even a Sogdian version of this creed at the end
of a psalter found at the Turfan oasis (East Turkestan; Xinjiang).100 All along, the
Church of the East remained aware of the fact that versions of NAnt differed from
each other: in the legal collection ascribed to Gabriel of Baṣra (compiled between
884 and 891) it is discussed whether the position of the creed is spoken before or
after the anaphora. The author affirms that it was decided at both Nicaea and
Constantinople that the creed was to be recited after the ‘antiphon of secrets’. At
the same time he affirms that variations of the creed do not alter its meaning.101
In what follows I offer an overview of some further information concerning
other creeds in Syriac:
– The creed forms part of the pre-anaphoral rites, concluding the entrance of the
bishop and clergy in a Syriac codex from the Library of Ignatius Ephrem II
Raḥmani (1848–1929, patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church 1898–1929).102 This
codex is a modern copy of a manuscript written in ʾEsṭrangēlā which dates
from the eighth or ninth century; the liturgy itself is considered to belong to
the sixth century.103 Unfortunately, it cannot be located within a clear denomi-

erence to Jibin Thomas Abraham); Baum/Winkler 2003, pp. 43 f.; Spinks 2006(2016), pp. 73–5;
Abramowski/Hainthaler 2022, pp. 597–619, esp. 604 f., citing further literature.
 Cf. Barnes 1906, pp. 442–5 (in a late manuscript filioque is included; in another supplied in the
margin; cf. Barnes 1906, p. 448). This is Caspari’s text (without filioque) which is found in FaFo
§ 208. Cf. also Bruns 2005, pp. 45–8. – A list of five manuscripts which contain NAnt (with minor
variants) in an appendix to the psalter is given by Baumstark and Bruns (cf. Baumstark 1922, p. 112
n. 4; Bruns 2005, p. 46 n. 17). The oldest seems to date from the thirteenth century.
 Cf. The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles 1893(2000), pp. 15 (anaphora = Brightman 1896(1965),
pp. 270 f. (different translation)), 72 (recitation by the congregation at baptism).
 Cf. Yousif 2000, p. 27; Bruns 2005, p. 62.
 Cf. MacLean 1894(1969), pp. 22 f.; cf. also pp. 84, 109, 253. On the Qdām w-Bāthar cf. Coakley
2011.
 Edition and translation: Martin Schwartz and Nicholas Sims-Williams in Sims-Williams/
Schwartz/Pittard 2014, pp. 30–3. Cf. also Gillman/Klimkeit 1999, pp. 252 f.
 Cf. Kaufhold 1976, p. 232 (information kindly supplied by Hubert Kaufhold).
 The manuscript is cod. Charfet, Bibliothèque patriarchale syro-catholique, Fonds Raḥmani
87; cf. Binggeli et al. 2021, p. 265 (information kindly supplied by Hubert Kaufhold). Latin transla-
tion of the relevant text in Raḥmani 1908, p. 22. French translation and commentary in Khouri-
Sarkis 1957, p. 162. English translation in Taft 1978, pp. 40 f.
 Cf. Taft 1978, pp. 40–2, also giving an English translation of the liturgy; furthermore Taft
2006, pp. 40 f., 64–7 (non uidi).
 9.1 Syriac Christianity 431

national tradition.104 Here the entrance of the clergy is accompanied by the dea-
cons shouting: ‘All those who have not received the seal, depart!’ This is, then,
the point in the liturgy when the catechumens must leave the church. The
doors are closed, the bishop enters and approaches the altar. The eucharistic
elements are placed upon the altar, the bishop offers incense, and all say the
creed (which is not quoted).105 This corresponds to the placement of the creed
(which is not N) in the Liturgical Homily attributed to Narsai (perhaps s. VI).106
– A creed displaying the key features of Antiochene theology was translated
from a Greek original (written in c. 433) and included in a Dyophysite collec-
tion of christological texts.107
– Explanations of the creed appear to have been written by Cyriacus of Nisibis
and Henana of Adiabene (d. 610).108
– A Syriac translation of the creed against Paul of Samosata preserved in the
acts of the Council of Ephesus (431; FaFo § 127) is found in cod. London, Brit-
ish Library, Add. 14533 (syr. 859; s. VIII/IX), p. 42.109
– John of Maron (d. 707), first patriarch of the Maronite Church, composed a
treatise which contained long credal passages, testimonies from Scripture,
and a florilegium from the Fathers.110
– A lengthy Apology Concerning the Faith is contained in the upper writing of
the palimpsest codex in the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai (ff.
163v–165v) which contains (in the lower writing) the Gospels in Old Syriac
(so-called Syrus Sinaiticus (Sin. Syr. 30), s. IV/V).111 The upper text was written
in 778.112 It was edited and translated by Agnes Smith Lewis.113 The text be-
gins with a creed (translation slightly modernized):

I believe in one holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, a glorious
essence, and an exalted godhead. The Son, who is not younger than his Father; and the Fa-

 Cf. Taft 1978, p. 41 n. 99 who thinks that the ordo of the liturgy is closer to that of the Greek
Liturgy of St James ‘than to that of the actual Jacobite or Nestorian liturgies,.’ Cf., however, Ge-
mayel 1965, p. 152.
 Cf. Taft 1978, pp. 40 f.
 Cf. above p. 424.
 Edition: Abramowski/Goodman 1971, vol. I, pp. 146 f.; English translation: Abramowski/Good-
man 1971, vol. II, p. 88. Cf. also Abramowski/Goodman 1971, vol. II, pp. XXXVIII–XLII.
 Cf. Baumstark 1922, pp. 127, 196.
 Edition in Flemming/Lietzmann 1904, pp. 42 f.
 Cf. John of Maron, Expositio fidei, ed. Breydy 1988. On John’s life cf. Breydy 1992.
 Cf. Metzger 1977(2001), pp. 37 f. and URL <http://sinaipalimpsests.org/> (17/11/2023).
 Cf. Vööbus 1951, p. 108.
 Edition: Smith Lewis in Bensly/Harris/Burkitt 1894, pp. VIII–XII; English translation: Bensly/
Harris/Burkitt 1894, pp. XII–XIV. Cf. also Connolly 1906, pp. 222 f.
432 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

ther, who is not older than his offspring; and the Holy Spirit, proceeding, of the same sub-
stance as the Father and the Son.
We confess one Trinity with distinction of persons, but one God with equality of na-
ture. For there is one power, and one authority, one worship, one lordship, one government,
one godhead, in which there is neither greater nor lesser, nor commanding, nor com-
manded, nor weaker, nor more powerful.114

This initial creed is followed by a long christological summary, a series of anathe-

mas, and a brief conclusion. The anathemas confirm the faith of the first four Ecu-
menical Councils which reveals the Chalcedonian disposition of the text’s author.
– A special case is the creed submitted by a monk Nestorius who had been accused
of Messalianism to a synod held under Patriarch Timothy I (sedit 780–823). It
contains a fairly brief credal part, followed by a long series of anathemas.115

9.2 Armenia

The credal development of Armenia has been comprehensively studied by Gabriele

Winkler.116 Again, in what follows I concentrate on the reception of N. (C2 is not
attested.) In Winkler’s view the creeds of Antioch 341 strongly influenced the lan-
guage of the prayers in the Armenian version of the Liturgy of St Basil. A declara-
tory creed (probably N) was introduced into the liturgy at a later stage.117 Likewise,
a western Syriac influence (creeds of Antioch 325 and Antioch 341 (Ant2 and Ant4)118)
is discernible in the Teaching of Saint Gregory (a kind of catechism),119 in a creed
ascribed to Gregory the Illuminator,120 in the histories of Łazar P‛arpec‛i (s. V ex.)
and of Ełišē (s. VI),121 in the Buzandaran Patmut‛iwnk‛ (‘Epic Histories’, c. 470),122 in

 Smith Lewis in Bensly/Harris/Burkitt 1894, p. XII. On this text cf. also Winkler 2000, pp. 317;
Winkler 2004, p. 147.
 Edition and German translation: Braun 1902, pp. 302–11 and Heimgartner 2012, vol. I (edition),
pp. 107–13 and vol. II, pp. 89–95 (German translation and commentary). A confession of faith as-
cribed to Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) is contained in cod. London, British Library, Or. 2307 (s. XVII). Cf.
Margoliouth 1899, p. 7 and Baumstark 1922, p. 254.
 Cf. Winkler 1997; Winkler 2000. On the earlier history of scholarship cf. Catergian 1893.
 Cf. Winkler 2015, pp. 241–7, 254.
 Cf. Winkler 2004, pp. 154 f.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 11–32, Winkler 2004, pp. 137.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 33–6.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 37–64.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 65–89; Winkler 2004, pp. 118, 141–54.
 9.2 Armenia 433

the creed at the end of the History of Pseudo-Agathangelos,123 and in a creed and a
letter by Eznik of Kolb (d. c. 455).124

9.2.1 N and cognate creeds

The earliest translation of N forms part of the textual tradition of the Armenian
version of the Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum.125 In this context, an Ar-
menian Fides quae in Nicaea, preserved among the works of Evagrius Ponticus,
consists of the creed proper and an explanatory section. This appears to be the
oldest version of N in Armenian.126 A Greek retroversion (which may as such
never have existed, but which facilitates comparison) is given below (ignoring the
philological particularities of the Armenian translation):

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, παντοκρά- We believe in one God, the Almighty,
τορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν Maker of heaven and earth, of visible
τε καὶ ἀοράτων κτισμάτων· and invisible creatures;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ God, only-begotten, that is, from the
τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα power of the Father; through whom all
ἐγένετο, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, things came into being, God who is from
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον God, Light that is from Light, begotten,
τῷ πατρί, τὸν δι᾿ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κα- not made, of equal power with the Fa-
τελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, παθόντα, ther; who for the sake of humankind de-
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα scended and put on a body,127 suffered,
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον on the third day rose again, and as-
κρῖναι νεκρούς καὶ ζῶντας· cended into the heavens, and will come
again to judge the dead and the living;

 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 90–100.

 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 120–4; Winkler 2004, pp. 136 f. For the letter cf. also Frivold 1981,
pp. 169–72.
 For background cf. FaFo § 176; Winkler 2000, pp. 104–7; Winkler 2013, pp. 629–33; Avagyan 2014,
pp. 84 f.; Blumell 2017. A list of the translations is found in Kohlbacher, ‘Rabbula’, 2004, p. 250 n. 76.
 Edition and German translation in Winkler 2000, pp. 128b–133b, 575b–80b; extensive com-
mentary in Winkler 2000, pp. 581–91. Cf. also Dossetti 1967, pp. 55 f.; Winkler 2004, pp. 115–18,
138–40. This text is not identical with the Faith of Mar Evagrius (Professio fidei, CPG 2478) pre-
served in Syriac and edited by Muyldermans 1952, pp. 139 f. (text); pp. 167–9 (French translation);
cf. also Muyldermans 1952, p. 93.
 Winkler: ‘und einen Leib anzog’. On the translation cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 390–8; 587–9.
434 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸ ζωοποιόν. and in the Spirit, the holy, the life-
giver.128
Τοὺς129 δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ We anathematize those who say, ‘There
ἦν, καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι was when he was not’, and, ‘He was not
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑπ- before [his] birth’, and that he came to be
οστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας ἢ εἶναι τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλ- from nothing, and from another power
λοιωτόν, τούτους ἀναθεματίζομεν. or substance, or that he is through what
is perishable, or that he is through what
is decaying.130

This creed is basically N with some variants: in the first section the title of Father
is missing, whereas οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς and, perhaps, κτισμάτων was added. In
the second section the phrases γεννηθέντα ἐκ πατρός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
ἀλθινοῦ, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἡμᾶς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρ-
ίαν, and ἐνανθρωπήσαντα are omitted.131 Δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο is mentioned
earlier than in N. Πάλιν before ἐρχόμενον may have been added. The final phrase
reads in the order νεκρούς καὶ ζῶντας. In the third article τὸ ζωοποιόν is added.
In the anathemas neither ἢ κτιστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, nor the Church are men-
tioned. Perhaps, φάσκοντας was also omitted and ἢ and εἶναι reversed. In addi-
tion, the translation of οὐσία and ὁμοούσιος as ‘power’ is striking.132
A similar version of the creed and explanation is contained in a synodal letter
preserved under the name of Patriarch Sahak the Great (enthroned 387; deposed 428;
d. 438/439) in which the Armenian bishops assembled at a Synod in Aštišat in 435 ac-
knowledged receipt of the tome of Proclus of Constantinople.133 They declared it to be
N, while it is, in fact, an abbreviated version of N which also displays some additions
such as οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς and, perhaps, κτισμάτων. In the second article γεννηθέντα ἐκ
τοῦ πατρός, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, θεὸν ἀλη-

 On the translation cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 583 f.

 The reconstruction of the anathemas is uncertain.
 Winkler: ‘oder: “durch das Vergängliche sei er”, oder: “durch Verwesendes sei er”’. This is,
of course, not a precise rendering of the presumed Greek text.
 On the omission of ἐνανθρωπήσαντα which is omitted in the Didascalia as well cf. Winkler
2004, pp. 114 f.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 134, 585–7.
 Edition: Winkler 2000, p. 128a, 575a–80a. The text of the creed in Greek retroversion and
English translation is found in FaFo § 210c. Extensive commentary in Winkler 2000, pp. 581–91.
The authorship of Sahak is controversial. On the problem of dates cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 109–11.
On the historical background cf. Dossetti 1967, pp. 56 f.; Winkler 2000, pp. 114–7; Kohlbacher,
‘Rabbula’, 2004, pp. 251 f.; Stopka 2016, pp. 59 f.
 9.2 Armenia 435

θινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, and ἐνανθρωπήσαντα are
omitted. After ἐξ οὐσίας the creed reads οὐσία γεννηθεῖσα, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. In
the anathemas ἢ κτιστόν and τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, εἶναι, and the Church are missing.
N is found again in the creed which Catholicos Babgēn I (d. 515/516) inserted
into a letter the Armenian Synod of Duin (506) sent to Miaphysite bishops in Persia
and which was ‘the official creed of the Armenians from the first half of the fifth
until the beginning of the sixth century’.134 In a Greek retroversion it reads like this:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορ- mighty, Maker of all things both visible
άτων ποιητήν· and invisible;
καὶ ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, εἰς τὸν and one Lord Jesus Christ, in the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, God, begotten from the Father, only-
μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πα- begotten, that is, from the substance of
τρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν the Father; God from God, Light from
ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα Light, true God from true God, begotten,
οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ not made, consubstantial with the Fa-
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐν ther; through whom all things came into
τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ being in the heavens and on earth; who
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα, because of us humans and because of
σαρκωθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μα- our salvation descended, became flesh135
ρίας, παθόντα ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν from the holy virgin Mary, suffered for
ἡμων, ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ our sins, died, and on the third day rose
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρα- again, ascended into the heavens; sat
νούς, καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, down at the right hand of the Father;
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· comes to judge the living and dead;
καὶ πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the
τὸ ἄκτιστον, τὸ τέλειον. uncreated one, the perfect one.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, The catholic and apostolic Church
καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καί· Ἐξ anathematizes those who say, ‘There
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστά- was when he was not’, and, ‘He was not
σεως ἢ οὐσίας εἶναι ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιω- before he was born’, and, ‘He came to
τὸν [? or: ἐφήμερον?136] τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ be from nothing’, or that he is allegedly

 Winkler 2000, p. 622. Text and German translation Winkler 2000, pp. 176–8. English transla-
tion: Frivold 1981, p. 176 (incomplete); French translation Garsoïan 1999, pp. 442 f. For back-
ground cf. Winkler 2013, pp. 632 f.; Winkler 2000, pp. 167–72; Stopka 2016, pp. 67–9.
 Winkler: ‘sich verleiblichte’.
 Winkler: ‘vergänglich’.
436 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ from another essence or substance,

καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. [who say] that the Son of God is alterable
or mutable [or: perishable].

Again, there are some variations. In the second section ἐνανθρωπήσαντα is missing,
whereas ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μαρίας, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμων, ἀποθανόντα, and
καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός are added. In the third section τὸ ἄκτιστον, τὸ τέλ-
ειον is added. In the anathemas ἢ κτιστόν and, perhaps, φάσκοντας is missing.
Further fragments of N are found in a second letter which Babgēn sent to the
Miaphysite Syrians of Persia between 505 and 515/516.137 According to Winkler all
these versions were taken from (different recensions of) the Didascalia CCCXVIII
patrum Nicaenorum.
Yet another version of N forms part of an Armenian translation of the Third
Letter to Nestorius by Cyril of Alexandria contained in the Girk‛ T‛łt‛oc‛ (Book of
Letters).138 This translation is the most accurate although it also displays some pe-
culiarities with regard to the text of N.139 Versions of N in Cyril’s letter (and else-
where) in the Armenian acts of the Council of Ephesus are as yet unedited.140
The Georgian Catholicos Kiwrion had written to the Catholicos Abraham
(sedit 607–611/615);141 in response, the latter issued an encyclical in 608/609 in
which he broke off relations with the Iberians (Georgians). Here he quoted a
creed which he claimed was that of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.142
An extended version of N (Armeniacum) which was called the ‘Creed of the Ni-
cene Council’ and which is still used at baptism and during the celebration of the
eucharist today, is first attested in the first half of the seventh century. It is, in fact,
a translation of an ‘Exposition of the Creed’ ascribed to Athanasius (FaFo § 185)

 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 170 f.

 Text: Winkler 2000, pp. 193 f. There seems to be no modern translation. Cf. also Rucker 1930,
pp. 29 f.; Dossetti 1967, p. 46.
 They are listed in Winkler 2000, p. 192.
 Cf. Rucker 1930, pp. 29 f.
 Cf. below p. 462.
 Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear where it ends. French translation in Garsoïan 1999, p. 579:
‘Je crois en un seul Dieu, Père tout-puissant, créateur du ciel et de la terre, des choses visibles
et invisibles.
Et en un Seigneur, Jésus-Christ, au Fils de Dieu engendré de Dieu le Père, Monogène, mais ni
créé ni confirmé, consubstantiel au Père et non pas du néant, créateur de toutes les choses visi-
bles et invisibles.
Et au Saint-Esprit, créateur et vivificateur et régénérateur, non né mais procédant.
Dieu, est dit le Père, Dieu, le Fils, Dieu, le Saint-Esprit, non pas trois dieux, mais une seule
Trinité glorifiée par sa divinité, volonté et puissance [. . .]’.
 9.2 Armenia 437

with some minor changes.143 Winkler published an edition, German translation,

and detailed study of this creed.144 In what follows I give Brightman’s translation of
the Armenian text,145 modernized and revised according to Winkler’s translation.146
Additions to the Greek critical text (FaFo § 185) are indicated in italics. Words omit-
ted from the Greek are enclosed in {}:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, in the Maker of heaven and earth, of {all} things
visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, in the Son of God, born from God the Father as only-
begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God
from true God, an offspring and not a creature, the same substance from the nature of the
Father, through whom all things were made in the heavens and on earth, both visible and
invisible; who for us humans and for our salvation came down from the heavens and was
incarnate, became human,147 {that is,} was born perfectly from the holy {ever-}virgin Mary
through the Holy Spirit, by whom he took body, soul, and mind and everything that is in hu-
mans, {yet without sin}, in truth and not in semblance; after he had suffered, {that is,} cruci-
fied, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens in the same body, he
sat down {gloriously} at the right hand of the Father; he will come in the same body and in
the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end.
We also believe in the Holy Spirit {who is not alien to the Father and the Son, but consub-
stantial with the Father and the Son,} in the uncreated one and in the perfect one, {the Para-
clete,} who spoke in the Law and in the Prophets and in the Gospels, who came down upon
the Jordan, preached in the apostles [v.l.: preached the Messenger], and dwelt in the saints.
We also believe in one [and] only [one] catholic and apostolic Church, in one baptism,
in repentance, in propitiation and remission of sins [Greek: in one baptism of repentance
and of the remission of sins,] in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgements
of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of {the} heaven{s} and in the life ever-lasting.
But those who say there was when the Son was not, or that there was when there was no
Holy Spirit, or that they [Greek: he] came into being out of nothing, or who say that the Son of
God or the Holy Spirit be of a different {hypóstasis or} substance and that they be changeable

 Cf. Kohlbacher, ‘Rabbula’, 2004, p. 252. Winkler 2000, p. 225 sees in FaFo § 185 only one Vor-
lage among others.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 223–34. Cf. already Winkler 1979. An even further elaborated version of
the Armeniacum, interspersed with anti-heretical comments based on Epiphanius, is found in
cod. Vienna, Library of the Mekhitarists, 324 (s. XIV), f. 159r–v. Text and translation in Akinian/
Casey 1931, pp. 147–51. The age of the text is unknown, but ‘none of the heretics mentioned are
later than the fifth century’ (Akinian/Casey 1931, p. 147). It is largely identical with a creed found
in the Knik‛ Hawatoy (‘Seal of Faith’; for which see below in the text); cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 235–7.
 Cf. Brightman 1896(1965), pp. 426 f.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 230 f. A Greek retroversion taken from Ter-Mikelian 1892, pp. 22–4 is
found in Hahn/Hahn 1897, pp. 151–4 (§ 137). However, as can be seen from the footnotes in Hahn/
Hahn, there are considerable differences in the various attempts at retranslating this creed into
Greek. Therefore, in what follows I give the English version.
 Winkler: ‘sich “verleiblichte”, “inhominisierte”’.
438 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

or alterable, such does the catholic and apostolic Church anathematize [Greek: these we anathe-
matize because these the catholic and apostolic Church, our mother, anathematizes].
{And we anathematize all those who do not confess the resurrection of the flesh, and
all the heresies, that is, those who are not of this faith of the holy and only catholic Church.}

The most important difference to FaFo § 185 is the omission of the consubstantiality
of the Holy Spirit and the final anathema. Michael Kohlbacher has suggested that
the Greek version of this creed was written by Epiphanius of Salamis and was used
by the congregation of Paulinus in Antioch.148
From the second half of the sixth century onwards we have creeds which were
issued by individual catholicoi. In all instances, N was extended, depending on the
doctrinal situation at the time.149

9.2.2 Liturgical use of the creeds

Originally, credal questions and brief declaratory creeds were used at baptism
which seem to be unrelated to N.150 The use of ‘the creed of Nicaea’ (N?) at baptism
is only attested in a rubric in a baptismal liturgy contained in cod. Venice, San Laz-
zaro, 320 (olim 457; s. IX–X).151 The baptismal questions themselves are much simpler,
merely expressing belief in the Trinity.152 They were later extended and adapted to
the declaratory creed.153
It appears that by the end of the seventh century the creed had come to be re-
cited in the anaphora after the Gospel. This creed may well be the Armeniacum.154
(The entire text of N is not attested in any Armenian liturgy.155)

 Cf. Kohlbacher, ‘Rabbula’, 2004, pp. 252–5. Kohlbacher here clearly (and in my view cor-
rectly) deviates from Winkler who suggested that the Armeniacum is a ‘fusion of sections from
the so-called Hierosolymitanum [= J], the Nicene Creed, the Hermeneia [= Pseudo-Athanasius],
and the Creed of Babgēn’ (Winkler 2015, p. 251; cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 225–9).
 Cf. Yovhannēs II Gabełean (sedit 557–574): Winkler 2000, pp. 251–7 (text, German translation,
and commentary); Terian 2020, pp. 35–7 (text and English translation); Frivold 1981, pp. 179 f.
(partial English translation). – Abraham (sedit 607–610/611): Winkler 2000, pp. 259–61 (text, Ger-
man translation, and commentary). – Komitas (sedit 610/611–628): Winkler 2000, pp. 261–7 (text,
German translation, and commentary). Cf. also the credal statement by the monk theologian
Yovhannēs Mayragomec‛i (d. c. 652; Winkler 2000, pp. 267–70).
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 149–57.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, p. 150. Cf. also Winkler 2015, p. 251.
 Edition and German translation: Winkler 1982, pp. 196–9; Winkler 2000, pp. 150 f.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 152–4.
 Cf. Winkler 2001, pp. 412–14.
 Cf. Winkler 2015, p. 251.
 9.2 Armenia 439

Likewise, the lengthy creed which opens the night office in the present Arme-
nian Horologion may have originated at baptism.156 Remarkably, it is the only east-
ern creed to include the ‘communion of saints’. The relevant passage is as follows:
‘In the holy Church we believe in the remission of sins, with the communion of
saints.’157 However, Winkler adds a footnote explaining that instead of ‘the commu-
nion of saints’ one could also translate: ‘through the communion with the sacred
[things]’,158 which would suggest the eucharistic communion. There are some simi-
larities with the pneumatological section in R/T which has led to considerable schol-
arly discussion. Winkler leaves the question open as to whether the Armenian
creed was influenced by Latin practice (which she considers possible).159

9.2.3 Creeds other than N

In a letter which the Syrian church sent to the Armenian one and their Catholicos
Nersēs II (sedit 548–557) before the second Synod of Duin (555), asking them to
consecrate the monk Abdiso(y) as bishop, it referred to the first three ecumenical
councils, adding a creed which consisted only of a christological section.160 Nersēs
consecrated Abdiso(y) as requested and sent another creed in reply which closely
followed that of the Syrians.161 Abdiso(y) himself also produced a lengthy creed in
his second letter to Nersēs.162
The Knik‛ Hawatoy, a florilegium compiled during the reign of the Catholicos
Komitas (sedit 610/611–628), contains an Armenian translation of the creed against
Paul of Samosata, preserved in the acts of the Council of Ephesus (431; FaFo
§ 127).163

 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 203–22, 593–620; Winkler 2004, pp. 155–9.
 Edition: Winkler 2000, p. 205. My translation follows Winkler’s German translation (Winkler
2000, p. 207): ‘Wir glauben in der heiligen Kirche an die Vergebung der Sünden, mit der Gemein-
schaft der Heiligen.’
 Winkler 2000, p. 207 n. 9 (cf. pp. 209, 571): ‘durch die Gemeinschaft mit den heiligen
[Dingen]’.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, p. 571.
 Edition and German translation: Winkler 2000, pp. 214 f.; French translation: Garsoïan 1999,
pp. 458. Background: Garsoïan 1999, pp. 207–15; Winkler 2000, pp. 213 f.
 Edition and German translation: Winkler 2000, pp. 216–18; English translation: Frivold 1981,
pp. 177 f.; French translation: Garsoïan 1999, pp. 461 f.
 Edition and German translation: Winkler 2000, pp. 219–22; French translation: Garsoïan
1999, pp. 467–9.
 Cf. Lebon 1929, p. 31.
440 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

A creed which is attributed to Athanasius is found in cod. Vienna, Library of the

Mekhitarists, 324 (s. XIV), f. 159v which its editors date to the sixth century.164 Here I
give their translation (slightly altered):

Creed of St. Athanasius:

[I] Eternal Father, omnipotent and everlasting, maker of heaven and earth and the
creatures which are upon it;
and the Son, begotten of the Father and coeternal [with him], having come into being
timelessly and immaterially from the same substance and not from elsewhere, and all
things were made by him;
and the Holy Spirit, appearing from their essence as light from light, who illumines all
creatures by the light of knowledge and, like a spring, distributes gifts by grace, and he did
not come into being from elsewhere but came from the Father and appears from the Son,
one Godhead appearing in three <persons> and preserving unchanged its individuality,
a perfect Trinity and one glorious Godhead.
[II] And concerning the incarnation of God we thus confess that he who was indescrib-
ably and immaterially begotten of the Father, the same was incarnate of the Holy Virgin
and mixed the unmixable in her womb indescribably and incomprehensibly.
God made him by combinations, and one Son is confessed, worshipped, and glorified
with one worship; who passed through all human sufferings without blemish, voluntarily
and not by necessity, so that he will renew for us the way to fulfil all righteousness.
And we do not divide the Son according to an economy, because Jesus Christ, yesterday
and today the same and forever, is praised with the Father and the Holy Spirit by things in
heaven and things on earth with a Trisagion, being summed up in the one Lordship and
Godhead of the all-holy Trinity.
And now we thus confess; and he who does not so confess we anathematize as the holy
Fathers anathematized Arius and all the heretics with him.

Winkler divides this text in [I] a creed and [II] an ‘Ekthesis’. She thinks the creed
was not composed before the sixth century, whereas the Ekthesis has to be dated
to ‘the fifth and sixth centuries’.165
The Expositio fidei (FaFo § 149) and the Epistula ad Liberium (FaFo § 150), as-
cribed to Athanasius, were also translated into Armenian. In each case the earli-
est manuscript dates from the twelfth century.166
An unpublished treatise on baptism preserved in two manuscripts from, per-
haps, the fourteenth and from the nineteenth centuries respectively, contains a
brief baptismal creed:

 Edition: Akinian/Casey 1931, pp. 145 f.; English translation: Akinian/Casey 1931, pp. 146 f.; Ger-
man translation: Winkler 2000, pp. 189–91. The same text with some variants is found in the so-
called Armenian ‘Socrates Minor’. Cf. Akinian/Casey 1931, pp. 143–4; Avagyan 2014, p. 139.
 Winkler 2000, pp. 188 f.
 Cf. CPG 2804, 2805, and Avagyan 2014, pp. 86 f. For later Armenian creeds cf. Terian 2011.
 9.3 Coptic Egypt 441

I believe in the Father Almighty and his only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, and the res-
urrection of the flesh and the holy catholic Church.167

9.3 Coptic Egypt

The Greek Corpus canonum168 appears to have been translated into Coptic in the
fifth or early sixth century. This version has not survived in its entirety but has
been reconstructed in a process spanning more than 150 years. N seems to have
been included twice in this collection, namely at the beginning (mutilated) and as
part of the Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (cf. FaFo § 176). Dossetti recon-
structed the Greek text of the first of these versions of N.169 Apart from some stylis-
tic variants the text differs from N, both in its original version and in the Greek
version of the Didascalia,170 in that it omits κατελθόντα καί and παθόντα, adding
ἀποθανόντα instead. In the anathemas ὁ υἱός is added after the first οὐκ ἦν. Finally,
it reads κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτόν, omitting εἶναι and ἢ ἀλλοιωτόν. The version of N in-
cluded in the Didascalia171 is different: here πάντων is missing in the first section
and ἐνανθρωπήσαντα in the second section (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα is also missing in the
version of N in the Greek Didascalia) whereas ἀποθανόντα after παθόντα is added.
In the anathemas ἢ κτιστὸν is missing (as it is in the Greek Didascalia).
The Coptic Corpus canonum also contained C2. It is preserved only in muti-
lated form (the beginning is missing) in cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, coptus
129/14 (originally part of a larger papyrus manuscript which was written in the
Monastery Mar Severus in Rifeh/Asyut in 1003). A Greek retroversion of what re-
mains was, again, published by Dossetti.172 Major differences to C2 include the ad-
dition of ἀποθανόντα and of αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις after ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, and the
change of μετὰ δόξης to ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. It omits ἁγίαν as attribute of the Church
and adds αἰώνιον after ζωήν.173

 Avagyan 2014, pp. 134–6. I translate from her German translation on p. 136.
 Cf. above pp. 386 f. For what follows cf. also Dossetti 1967, pp. 53 f. and n. 51, 123–9.
 Cf. Dossetti 1967, pp. 128 f.
 Cf. Riedinger/Thurn 1985, p. 84, ll. 1–15.
 Edition: Rossi 1885, pp. 147 f.; Italian translation: Rossi 1885, p. 178; German translation: Haase
1920, pp. 28 f.
 Cf. Dossetti 1967, pp. 195 f.; cf. also p. 126.
 Cf. also the later evidence from manuscripts in Quecke 1970, pp. 476 f. Αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις is
missing again from the wooden tablet discussed below.
442 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

N was also included in a collection of documents of the Council of Ephesus

inserted into a kind of novel about the Egyptian monk Victor of unknown date
which was translated from Greek.174 Its text in Greek must have run like this:175

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων mighty, Maker of things both visible
ποιητήν·176 and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πα- God, begotten from the Father, only-
τρός, μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας begotten, that is, from the substance of
τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ the Father; God from God, Light from
φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, Light, true God from true God, begotten,
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοού- not made, but consubstantial with the
σιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο Father; through whom all things came
εἴτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾿ into being, be it in heaven or on earth;
ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους σαρκωθέντα, who because of us humans became
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, ἀποθανόντα καὶ flesh, became human, died, and on the
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα third day rose again, ascended into the
εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν heaven and sat down at the right hand
δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, πάλιν ἐρχόμενον κρῖ- of the Father; will come again to judge
ναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· the living and dead;
καὶ πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the
τὸν παράκλητον. Paraclete.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, The catholic Church anathematizes those
καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ who say, ‘There was when he was not’,
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστά- and, ‘He was not before he was begotten’,
σεως ἢ οὐσίας ἢ εἶναι τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλ- and that he came to be from nothing or
λοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους from another hypóstasis or substance,
ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. or that the Son of God is alterable or
mutable.

There are some differences compared to N: apart from stylistic minutiae it is worth
noting that in the first section πάντων and in the second section καὶ διὰ ἡμετέραν

 There is no full critical edition of the Coptic text. A German translation on the basis of a
collation of the Coptic manuscripts is found in Kraatz 1904, pp. 85 f. On the historical background
cf. Schwartz 1928.
 Cf. also Dossetti 1967, p. 48.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 300–3.
 9.3 Coptic Egypt 443

σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καί are missing. Instead of παθόντα we read ἀποθανόντα.

Καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός and (perhaps) πάλιν was added as was the
reference to the Paraclete in the third section. In the anathemas φάσκοντας and ἢ
κτιστόν are missing.
At some point, C2 was inserted into the monastic daily office. The earliest
manuscript attesting to this practice is cod. New York, Pierpoint Morgan Library,
M 574 (Faiyum, s. IX ex.).177 Here the creed is entitled ‘Faith of Nicaea’, although
the text is almost ‘pure’ C2.178
From Egypt and Nubia we also possess non-literary evidence for the use of N
and C2. A monk named Theophilus painted N onto the whitewashed walls of an
anchorite’s grotto in Faras, Nubia (now destroyed), in the first half of the eighth
century. The formula was probably taken from the Didascalia179 and occupied ‘a
conspicuous place as the first text on the west end of the north wall’. It marked
the monk’s cell ‘as a space dedicated to orthodoxy’.180
Ostraca (which were a cheap writing material) were probably used by catechu-
mens, or in other types of religious educations settings, to memorize the creed.181 Per-
haps the earliest example, containing probably C2, is found on British Museum, O.
Sarga 14 (TM 108458; s. IV–VI) from Wadi Sarga in Upper Egypt.182 It reads as follows:

We believe in [God, the Al]mighty, He that created the things we see and those we see [not.]
And in one Lord, Jesus, the Christ, the only Son [ ?] he [?] whom the Father begat before
[all ages.] Light of [light] [. . .].183

Fragmentary versions of N are attested on O.Berol.Inv.P. 20892 (TM 140550; Thebes?,

s. VI–VII)184 and, perhaps, on O.Crum ST 15 (TM 111154; Thebes?, s. VI–VIII).185

 Edition and German translation: Quecke 1970, pp. 436–9.

 In the first section the text omits πάντων and in the second section adds ἀποθανόντα and ἐκ
τῶν νεκρῶν as well as (after πατρός) αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις. Μετὰ δόξης was changed to ἐν δόξῃ
αὐτοῦ. In the section on baptism the text adds ἡμῶν after ἁμαρτιῶν. This partly corresponds to
the aforementioned Coptic version of the Corpus canonum. Versions of the creed in later manu-
scripts are edited in Quecke 1970, pp. 468–73 and 506–8.
 Edition: Griffith 1927, pp. 84–6. Cf. also Sanzo 2014, pp. 77 f. (no. 1); Van der Vliet 2017,
pp. 160 f.
 Van der Vliet 2017, p. 161.
 Cf. below pp. 538 f.
 Edition: Crum/Bell 1922, p. 45. Cf. also Quecke 1970, p. 321; URL <https://www.britishmuseum.
org/collection/object/Y_EA55764_1> (18/11/2023).
 Crum/Bell 1922, p. 46.
 Edition: Delattre 2011, p. 114. Translation: Delattre 2011, pp. 114 f. Cf. also Mihálykó 2019,
p. 143 n. 235.
 Edition: Crum 1921, p. 5 (no. 15). Cf. also Quecke 1970, p. 321; Mihálykó 2019, p. 143 n. 235.
444 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

C2 is almost fully attested on the verso of a papyrus of unknown provenance

which is preserved in two fragments (P.Stras. Inv. Kopt. 221+224 (s. IX/1)).186 The
text of the recto is written in Arabic (an official protocol which served as a mark
of authenticity). The papyrus was reused to write the creed (rather carelessly) on
its blank verso. Its purpose is unknown. In Greek it may have looked like this:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς mighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of
ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων· things visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ πα- God, the only Son of the Father, begot-
τρός, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ ten from the Father before all ages,
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς καὶ Light from Light and true God from
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννη- true God, begotten and not made, con-
θέντα καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ substantial with the Father; through
πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τὸν whom all things came into being; who
δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμε- because of us humans and because of
τέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εἰς τὴν γῆν our salvation descended to earth and
καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ τῇ became flesh in the Holy Spirit and the
παρθένῳ Μαρίᾳ καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, virgin Mary and became human; was
σταυρωθέντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πι- crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
λάτου, παθόντα, ἀποθανόντα, ταφέντα suffered, died, was buried, and on the
καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ third day rose again from the dead ac-
ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ἀνελθόντα εἰς cording to the Scriptures; ascended into
τὸν οὐρανὸν, καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ the heaven; sat down at the right hand
πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις187 < . . . > of his Father in the heavens; < . . . >
<Ὁμολογοῦμεν> ἓν <βάπτισμα> εἰς <We confess>188 one <baptism> for the
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν· remission of our sins;
καὶ προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ and we look forward to the resurrection
ζωὴν μέλλουσαν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν of the dead and the future life forever
αἰώνων.189 Ἀμήν. and ever. Amen.

 Edition and French translation: Delattre/Vanthieghem 2013, pp. 245 f.

 On the reconstruction cf. above pp. 441, 443 n. 178.
 Delattre/Vanthieghem supply ‘Nous croyons en’.
 Cf., however, also the bilingual text in Quecke 1970, pp. 510 f. where the Greek reads καὶ
ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος whereas the Coptic text reads in translation: ‘and the life that re-
mains/lasts into the eternities of eternities’.
 9.3 Coptic Egypt 445

In the first section πάντων is missing.190 In the second section υἱὸν τοῦ πατρός
and αὐτοῦ after τῷ πατρί are added. Instead of ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν we read εἰς τὴν
γῆν, and instead of ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου we read ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ τῇ παρθένῳ Μαρίᾳ. Ἀποθανόντα and ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν are also
added as is αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις after πατρός. In the section on baptism the text
adds ἡμῶν. At the end the text reads εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων instead of τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
A possible attestation of C2 on a papyrus is found on P.Mon.Epiph. 43 (Mem-
noneia-Djerne (Thebes west), Sheikh Abd el-Gurna, Monastery of Epiphanios,
s. VII; TM 112546).191 However, due to the fragmentary state of the papyrus it is
unclear whether the text is actually the Creed of Constantinople.192
Finally a wooden tablet from Egypt of unknown date (London, British Mu-
seum, EA 54037; TM 131618) also contains C2.193
The Synodus Alexandrinus194 was also translated from Greek into Coptic (first
into Sahidic, then into Bohairic). Its version of the Traditio Apostolica contains
baptismal interrogations that run like this:

And (δέ) likewise (ὁμοίως) let the deacon (διάκονος) go with him down into the water and
let (the deacon) speak to him, enjoining him to say,
‘I believe (πιστεύειν) in the only true God, the Father Almighty (παντοκράτωρ), and his
only-begotten (μονογενής) Son Jesus Christ (Χριστός), our Lord and Saviour (σωτήρ), with
his Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα), the one who gives life to everything: three (τρίας) in one substance
(ὁμοούσιος), one divinity, one Lordship, one kingdom, one faith (πίστις), one baptism (βάπ-
τισμα); in the holy catholic (καθολική), apostolic (ἀποστολική) Church (ἐκκλησία), which
lives forever. Amen (Ἀμήν).’
And (δέ) the one who receives [baptism] let him say this to (κατά) all: ‘I believe (πισ-
τεύειν) thus.’
The one who confers (baptism) will put his hand on the head of the one who receives
[it] and immerse him three times, confessing (ὁμολογεῖν) these things each time (κατά – ).
Afterward, let him say,
‘[Do] you believe (πιστεύειν) in our Lord Jesus Christ (Χριστός), the only Son of God the
Father, that he became human wondrously for us in an incomprehensible unity, in his Holy
Spirit (πνεῦμα) from the holy virgin Mary, without human seed (σπέρμα); he was crucified
(σταυροῦν) for us under Pontius Pilate; he died willingly for our salvation; he rose on the

 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 301 f.

 Edition: Crum/Evelyn-White 1926, p. 8. Translation: Crum/Evelyn-White 1926, p. 160.
 Cf. also Quecke 1970, pp. 320 f.; Mihálykó 2019, pp. 118 and n. 108, 143 n. 235.
 Edition and translation: Quecke 1970, pp. 514 f. The text omits πάντων in the first section
and adds ἀποθανόντα and ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν in the second section. Mετὰ δόξης is changed to ἐν
δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. In the section on baptism the text adds ἡμῶν. At the end the text reads εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ-
νας τῶν αἰώνων.
 Cf. FaFo § 89d–f.
446 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

third day; he released those who were bound; he ascended to heaven; he sat in the heights
at the right hand of his good (ἀγαθός) Father; and he comes to judge (κρίνειν) the living and
the dead by (κατά) his appearance with his kingdom;
and [do] you believe (πιστεύειν) in the good (ἀγαθός) and life-giving Holy Spirit, who
purifies the universe in the holy Church (ἐκκλησία)?’
[Lacuna in the Sahidic manuscript; the Bohairic text continues:]
Again (πάλιν) let him say, ‘I believe.’195

Finally, Coptic psalters containing N (or C2) are described by Mearns.196

9.4 Ethiopia

N was known in Ethiopia from the early sixth century onwards,197 however, not in
its original form but in an extended version taken from the Ancoratus of Epipha-
nius of Salamis (FaFo § 175) which was translated from Greek and included in the
Qērellos, a collection of patristic writings attributed to Cyril of Alexandria.198 The
Qērellos also contains homilies on the faith by Epiphanius,199 Proclus of Constanti-
nople,200 and Severian of Gabala.201 It was not until the fifteenth century that the
entire Ancoratus was translated into Ethiopic from an Arabic Vorlage. This in-
cluded N in its original version.202 Likewise, the Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicae-
norum (FaFo § 176), which in its original Greek version also contains N, was
translated into Ethiopic several times.203 However, the version included in the Sino-
dos does not contain N.204

 Edition: Till/Leipoldt 1954, pp. 18–20. Translation based on Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002,
pp. 114–18 (= FaFo § 89d).
 Cf. Mearns 1914, pp. 29 f., 33.
 On the baptismal questions in Ethiopic versions of the Traditio Apostolica cf. FaFo § 89c and
f and above p. 150.
 Edition of the extended version and German translation: Weischer 1977, pp. 26–31; Weischer
1979, pp. 52–7. Cf. Weischer 1977, p. 24; Weischer 1978, p. 411.
 This is a version of Epiphanius, De fide 14–18 which forms part of the Anacephalaeosis (cf.
CPG 3765).
 Cf. Proclus, Homilia 23 De dogmate incarnationis (CPG 5822).
 Cf. Severian, De fide (CPG 4206).
 Edition and German translation: Weischer 1979, pp. 96–101. By contrast, in the Greek text of
Ancoratus 118,9–12 as we have it at some point C2 was interpolated instead of N, yet is followed
by the anathemas of N in 118,13. Cf. Weischer 1978; Weischer 1979, pp. 49, 90–3; Kösters 2003,
p. 322 n. 940 and FaFo § 175.
 For details cf. Bausi 2004, pp. 225 f.
 Cf. Bausi 2004, p. 239 n. 1.
 9.4 Ethiopia 447

But a liturgical use of N (or C2) is not attested until fairly late. The creed used at
baptism was not N. Instead, a variety of different formulae have been preserved.
The earliest versions occur in the so-called Aksumite Collection (s. IV–VII). It con-
tains a baptismal ritual where the following creed is cited (after the renunciation):

Faith in the Trinity:

And I believe in you, Father of Jesus Christ, and in your only Son Jesus Christ, our
Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the holy, one, catho-
lic, apostolic Church.205

This creed closely resembles that of the so-called Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus (FaFo
§ 146) which may date to the second half of the fourth century. A slightly different
version is found in the Ethiopic Synodus Alexandrinus (FaFo § 89f2).206
A creed closely resembling R (because it derives from the Traditio Apostol-
207
ica ) which was used at baptism is found in the Ethiopic version of the Testa-
mentum Domini (FaFo § 615b).
A longer baptismal creed occurs in the Ethiopic version of the Traditio apos-
tolica in the Aksumite Collection (FaFo § 89c) which is, in fact, a version of the
Roman creed.208
A related formula, again from a baptismal ritual was printed in translation
by Rodwell ‘from the Aethiopic MS. (probably of the fourteenth century) in the
library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, marked MS. F’:209

And again he shall be turned towards the east, and [the priest] shall bid him say, ‘I believe
in you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whom every soul fears, implores, and supplicates.
Grant me, O Lord, to do your will, without blame.’
Then after this, he shall turn towards the priest who is to baptize him, and they shall
stand in the water naked. A deacon also shall go down with the person who is to be baptized
into the water and shall say to him who is still turned (eastward), with his hand upon his
head, ‘Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?’ and he who is to be baptized shall affirm
it, and the priest shall dip him once.
And he shall say again, ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, of the same
godhead with the Father, who was before the world with his Father, who was born of the
virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, who died, and rose
again on the third day alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and will come to
judge the living and the dead?’ And he shall say, ‘I believe in Him.’ [And he shall dip him
a second time.]

 Edition: Bausi 2020, p. 66. German translation: Bausi 2020, p. 67.
 Cf. Bausi 2020, app. ad loc.
 Cf. above pp. 129 f.
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Ursprung’ and above pp. 149–54.
 Rodwell 1867, p. 69.
448 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

And the priest shall say to him again, the third time, ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit
and in the holy Christian Church?’ and he shall say, ‘I believe.’ And so he shall dip him the
third time.210

Other versions are contained in a baptismal ritual in cod. Rome, Biblioteca Apos-
tolica Vaticana, et. 4 (s. XIV?)211 and, again, in the Synodus Alexandrinus (FaFo
§ 89f1; translation from Arabic).
A creed from a Confessio fidei Claudii Regis Aethiopiae (i.e. King Galawdewos,
sedit 1540–1559) was edited in 1661 by Johann Michael Wansleben (1635–1679) with
a Latin translation by Hiob Ludolf (1642–1704). It is an extended version of C2.212

 Rodwell 1867, p. 70 (translation modernized).

 Ethiopic text and Latin translation in Grébaut 1927/1928. The creed runs like this (Grébaut
1927/1928, pp. 162 f.): ‘Credimus in unum Deum, Dominum, Patrem omnipotentem, et in unicum
Filium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, et in Spiritum Sanctum vivificantem, et in resur-
rectionem carnis, et in unicam sanctam, quae super omnes est, Ecclesiam apostolicam, et credi-
mus in unum baptismum, in remissionem peccatorum in saecula saeculorum. Amen.’ / ‘We
believe in one God, the Lord, the Father Almighty, and in his one Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, and
in the life-giving Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in one holy, apostolic
Church which is above everybody, and we believe in one baptism, in the remission of sins for-
ever and ever. Amen.’
 Cf. Wansleben/Ludolf 1661 (no pagination; emphasis original):
‘Nos credimus in unum Deum,
et in Filium ejus unicum Jesum Christum, qui est Verbum ejus, et Potentia ejus; Consilium
ejus et Sapientia ejus [.] Qui fuit cum eo antequam crearetur mundus. In ultimis verò diebus
venit ad nos, non tamen ut decederet throno divinitatis suae; et Homo factus est ex Spiritu
sancto, et ex Mariâ sanctâ Virgine; Et baptizatus fuit in Jordane trigesimô annô; Et factus est
Homo perfectus, et suspensus est in ligno crucis in diebus Pontii Pilati; passus, mortuus, et sepul-
tus est, et resurrexit tertiâ die. Et deinde quadragesimâ die ascendit cum gloriâ in caelos, Et sedet
ad dextram patris sui. Et iterum veniet cum gloria judicaturus vivos et mortuos, et non erit finis
regno ejus.
Et credimus in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum vivificantem, qui processit à Patre.
Et credimus in unum Baptismum ad remissionem peccatorum.
Et speramus resurrectionem mortuorum ad vitam venturam in aeternum. Amen.’
‘We believe in one God,
and in his only Son Jesus Christ, who is his Word and his Power, his Counsel and his Wisdom;
who was with him before the world was created; who in the last days came to us, yet not as if he
would leave the throne of his divinity; and became human from the Holy Spirit and from Mary,
the holy Virgin; and was baptized in the Jordan in his thirtieth year; and became a perfect
human and was hung up on the wood of the cross in the days of Pontius Pilate; who suffered,
died, was buried, and rose again on the third day; and thereafter on the fortieth day ascended
into the heavens with glory and sits at the right hand of his Father; and will come again with
glory to judge the living and the dead; and his kingdom will have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord who proceeded from the Father.
And we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.
 9.4 Ethiopia 449

Variants of C2 used in the anaphora are also attested. A curious version was
published by Johann Georg Nissel in 1654:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who sees and is
not seen;
and we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father, who was together
with him in substance before the world was established, Light from Light, God from true
God; who was begotten and not made, equal with the Father in divinity; through whom all
things came into being; without whom nothing exists which came into being [Jn 1:3], neither
in heaven nor on earth; who because of us humans and because of our salvation descended
from the heavens; became human of the Holy Spirit and became human from the holy vir-
gin Mary; and was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was bur-
ied; and on the third day rose again as is written in the Holy Scripture; ascended through
glory into the heaven and sits at the right hand of his Father; thence he will come in glory
to judge the living and dead; of whose kingdom there will be no end;
and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father and the
Son; let us worship and glorify him with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the
prophets;
and we believe in one holy house of the Christians which is built upon the universal
and apostolic congregation;
and we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins;
and we expect resurrection of the dead and the life which is to come forever and
ever.213

And we expect the resurrection of the dead for the future life in eternity. Amen.’
Cf. also Winkler 2000, pp. 282 f.
 Nissel 1654, pp. 30–1 (ex Liturgiis Aethiopum depromptum; emphasis original):
‘Credimus in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem Caeli et terrae, qui videt et non
videtur.
Et credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Patris unicum, qui una cum ipso substan-
tia antequam conderetur mundus, lumen de lumine, Deum de Deo vero. Qui genitus est, et non fac-
tus, qui aequalis cum Patre in divinitate, per quem omnia facta sunt, sine ipso autem non est quod
factum est, neque in coelo, neque in terra. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem de-
scendit de caelis, et homo factus est de Spiritu Sancto, et ex Maria sancta virgine factus est homo, et
crucifixus est propter nos in diebus Pontii Pilati, passus mortuus, et sepultus est, et resurrexit a mor-
tuis tertio dei, sicut scriptum est in Scriptura Sacra. Ascendit per gloriam in coelum, et sedit ad dex-
tram Patris sui, inde veniet in gloria judicaturus vivos et mortuos, et non erit finis regni ejus.
Et credimus in Spiritum Sanctum, vivificatorem, qui procedit a Patre et Filio, adoremus et
glorificemus eum cum Patre et Filio, qui locutus est per Prophetas.
Et credimus in unam sanctam domum Christianorum, quae super universa congregatione
Apostolica aedificata est.
Et credimus in unum Baptisma, ad remissionem peccatorum, et expectamus resurrectionem
mortuorum, et vitam quae ventura est in secula seculorum.’
The same version (with some minor variants such as the omission of filioque) is found in Rod-
well 1864, pp. 15 f. (‘The ordinary canon of the Abyssinian Church’).
450 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

C2 is also printed at the head of the Anaphora of the Three Hundred and Eighteen
Orthodox which is still today celebrated in the Ethiopian Church on special feast
days.214 Ethiopic liturgies contain a variety of other credal texts that cannot be
discussed here.215

9.5 N and C2 in Arabic

By and large, credal traditions continued without major changes in the aforemen-
tioned churches after the Arab conquest. Nonetheless, the reception of N and C2
in Arabic requires further investigation.216 From the ninth century onwards the
Bible, patristic literature, but also collections of canon law were translated into
Arabic, because over time Greek, Syriac, and Coptic came to be no longer spoken
in the regions under Arab rule. In the process, N and the extended version which
Epiphanius produced, both of which are included in his Ancoratus (FaFo § 175),
were translated from Greek into Arabic between the eighth and tenth centu-
ries.217 In the fourteenth century the Didascalia CCCXVIII Patrum which contained
N was also translated from Coptic into Arabic by Abu’l-Barakāt (d. 1325). From the
eleventh century onwards the creed and canons of Nicaea were included in ca-
nonical collections in Arabic, some of which are translations from Greek. It would
exceed the scope of this book to study these developments in detail.218 Suffice it to
say that as a result N and C2 were amalgamated with each other, although always
seen as the creed of the 318 fathers of Nicaea.219
N is quoted in the Universal History of Agapius (Maḥbūb, d. c. 945), the Mel-
kite Bishop of Manbiǧ (Mabbūg, Hierapolis) in Northern Syria,220 as part of an ac-
count of the events at Nicaea.221 In what follows I give a reconstructed Greek

 Cf. Daoud/Hazen 1959, pp. 153 f.

 Cf. also Winkler 2000, pp. 282–7.
 On the baptismal questions in the Arabic Traditio Apostolica cf. FaFo § 89e. The credal ques-
tions in the Canons of Hippolytus (only preserved in Arabic) exhibit a close resemblance to R,
because they probably derive from the Traditio Apostolica; cf. FaFo § 606 and Stewart-(Sykes)
2021, pp. 51–3. For the baptismal declaratory creed in the Arabic Testamentum Domini cf. above
p. 148 n. 13.
 Cf. Guidi 1932, p. 69; Graf 1944–1953, vol. I, p. 356; Weischer 1977, p. 24; Weischer 1978, p. 411.
 Cf. in general Graf 1944–1953, vol. I, pp. 556–621. On the creed cf. Dossetti 1967, p. 54 and
n. 53, 197–200.
 Cf. the creed given in Dossetti 1967, pp. 199 f.
 Cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol. II, pp. 39–41; Breydy 1989; Hoyland 1997(2001), pp. 440–2; Stutz 2017,
pp. 77–113; Hoyland 2021.
 Edition and French translation: Vasiliev 1911, pp. 548 f. Cf. also Dossetti 1967, pp. 210 f.
 9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 451

version, though omitting the Greek text of the anathemas, because it would be too
hypothetical.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, mighty, Maker of heaven and earth, [of
[πάντων] ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων· all things] visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, μονογενῆ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ God, only-begotten, begotten from the
τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, Father before all ages, Light from Light,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ true God from true God, begotten, not
ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, made, consubstantial with the Father;
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγέ- through whom all things were made;
νετο, τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ who because of us humans and because
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα of our salvation descended from heaven,
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύμα- became flesh from the Holy Spirit and
τος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, the virgin Mary, became human; was
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, σταυρωθέντα ὑπὲρ crucified for us at the time of Pontius Pi-
ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, παθόντα, late, suffered, died, was buried; and on
ἀποθανόντα, ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ the third day rose again as it is written;
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γράφας, ἀνελθόντα ascended into the heaven; sits at the
εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ right hand of the Father; will come again
τοῦ πατρός, πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης with glory to judge the living and dead;
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασι- and his kingdom will have no end;
λείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-
τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς giver, who proceeds from the Father.
ἐκπορευόμενον.
<?> As regards those who say, ‘He was and
he is dead’; ‘he did not exist before he
was begotten’; ‘he was made from noth-
ing or from another substance or es-
sence or from another ousía’; ‘he is
alterable or mutable’; or he who de-
scribes the Son of God by one of these
qualities, this [person] is anathema-
tized, excommunicated, and cursed.
452 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

At first glance it is obvious that this is not pure N, but a mixture of N and C2. The
anathemas are not those of N either but have been altered (and, perhaps, partly
corrupted).
When dealing with the Council of Constantinople Agapius does not quote C2
but says that the council fathers completed and confirmed the creed (i.e. that of
Nicaea) and added ‘that the Son is from the substance of the Father and that the
Holy Spirit is God and Lord, life-giver, proceeding from the substance of the Fa-
ther and the Son’.222 The final phrase, in particular, deviates from C2 in that it in-
cludes the terms ousía and filioque.223
Further versions of N are contained in the two books of the History of the
Councils by the Coptic bishop Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‛ (bishop of al-Ašmūnain
sometime between 953 and 975, d. after 1000) who is said to be the first Coptic
theologian to have written in Arabic.224 The second book was completed in 955
and later also translated into Ethiopic.225 In the first volume Severus quotes C2
(which in his view derives from the creed of the apostles) when dealing with Ni-
caea.226 However, it stops after the christological section. Severus claims that the
fathers prescribed it to be recited during every mass and as part of all prayers,
and to be taught to everybody. Lay people were expected to memorize it and to
recite it as part of their prayers, be it day or night. Subsequently, the 150 fathers at
Constantinople had added a pneumatological section (which is precisely that of C2)
to the creed of the 318.227
In the second book of his work which was written at a later stage Severus
returned to the history of the early councils. Here he gave the following version
of the Nicene Creed:228

 Vasiliev 1912, p. 401.

 Cf. also below ch. 16.
 Regarding what follows cf. also Dossetti 1967, pp. 200–10; Bruns 2005, pp. 55–8. Cf. already
Renaudot 1847, p. 198; Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I, pp. 114 f. On Severus cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol.
II, pp. 300–17, esp. 306–8.
 Cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol. II, p. 309.
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 1,3. Edition and French translation: Chébli 1909, pp. 162 f.
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 1,3. Edition and French translation: Chébli 1909, p. 164.
 Severus, Historia Conciliorum 2,5. Edition and French translation: Leroy/Grébaut 1911,
pp. 494 f. The book was epitomized by Abu’l-Barakāt (d. 1325) in his Lamp of Darkness 2 where the
creed is quoted again; cf. the edition and French translation in Villecourt/Tisserant/Wiet 1928(1974),
pp. 712–28. Cf. also Dossetti 1967, pp. 209 f.
 9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 453

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀ- mighty, by whom all things have ex-
οράτων ποιητήν [?]. isted, the things visible and invisible.
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ, only Son of God, born from the Father
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ πάντων before all ages, that is, from the sub-
τῶν αἰώνων, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας stance of the Father, Light from Light,
τοῦ πατρός, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀλη- true God from true God, begotten, not
θινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ created, consubstantial with the Father;
ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ through whom all things have existed;
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο [?], τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς who because of us humans and because
ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρ- of our salvation descended from heaven;
ίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σαρκω- became flesh by the power of the Holy
θέντα τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary
ἐν τῇ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου γαστρὶ [cf. Is and became human; was crucified for us
7:14; Lk 1:31]229 καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, was
σταυρωθέντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πι- buried; on the third day rose again; as-
λάτου, παθόντα, ἀποθανόντα, ταφέντα, cended into the heaven and sits at the
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα right hand of God; he will come again in
εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν his glory to judge the living and dead
δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, πάλιν ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ and his kingdom will have no end.
αὐτοῦ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς
βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. We believe in the Holy Spirit.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, The catholic Church excommunicates
καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ those who say, ‘There was a time when
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστά- he was not’, and, ‘He was not before he
σεως ἢ οὐσίας εἶναι, ὡσεὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ was begotten’, that he came to be from
θεοῦ ἐκτισθῇ, ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτόν nothing, or he is from another person
[?], τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ or from another substance, as if the Son
ἐκκλησία. had been created, that he has changed
and undergone alterations.

 Cf. also Justinian, Epistula contra tria capitula 21 (Schwartz 1973, p. 96, ll. 5 f.): [. . .] ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν
ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἐν τῇ μητρώιᾳ γαστρὶ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει διαπλασθείς [. . .]. / ‘[. . .]
but in the last days he was fashioned in his mother’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit [. . .].’
454 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

This creed is a mixture of N and C2 with some peculiarities especially with regard
to the incarnation.230 In addition, Severus claims that the 318 fathers had added
another set of anathemas condemning all forms of tritheism and adoptionism
(Paul of Samosata being explicitly mentioned).231
Later in his second book, Severus mentions the Council of Constantinople
and compares the creed of the ‘orthodox’ (i.e. ‘the Copts, the Greeks, and their
followers’232) to that of the Nestorians (2,9 – he has in mind foremost the bishop
of Damascus, Elias ‛Alī ibn ‛Ubaid233). In what follows, I extract the credal frag-
ments from his wider discussion.234

C2 (according to Severus) Nestorian creed (according to Severus)235

Πιστεύω236 εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα,238 παν-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς τοκράτορα, πάντων ὀρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορ-
ὁρατῶν τε237 καὶ ἀοράτων. άτων ποιητήν·
Πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν
Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ, τὸν πρωτότο-
κον τῆς239 κτίσεως,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάν- τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ240
των τῶν αἰώνων, τῶν αἰώνων καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα

 I have tried to render the phrase ‘became flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb
of the virgin Mary’ in the Greek version of the creed above. It is also attested in the creed of the
Quartodecimans discussed at the Council of Ephesus 431 (FaFo § 204b[8]).
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 2,5 (Leroy/Grébaut 1911, p. 496): ‘Nous condamnons quicon-
que dit qu’il y a trois dieux et renie le Fils de Dieu; quiconque dit qu’il n’existait pas avant d’etre
enfanté par la Vierge Marie. Nous excommunions encore ceux qui pretendent, avec Paul de Sa-
mosate, que le Fils de Dieu n’existait pas avant que la Vierge Marie l’eût mis au monde, tandis
qu’elle ne lui a donne que la génération corporelle; nous condamnons ceux qui disent que le Fils
de Dieu est différent du Verbe de Dieu. Pour ces raisons nous anathématisons toutes les hérésies
dont nous avons parlé en même temps que la folie d’Arius rempli d’impiété.’
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 2,9 (Leroy/Grébaut 1911, p. 522).
 On Elias cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol. II, pp. 132–5.; Bruns 2005, p. 56 n. 62.
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 2,9 (Leroy/Grébaut 1911, pp. 519–23). For the reconstructed
Arabic text cf. Bruns 2005, p. 57.
 Cf. also the Latin reconstruction in Dossetti 1967, p. 203 n. 13.
 In what follows Severus changes from the singular to the plural.
 Πάντων is missing.
 Πατέρα is missing in NAnt3, but present in NAnt1 and NAnt2.
 Severus seems to omit πάσης.
 NAnt reads: πρὸ πάντων.
 9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 455

φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, υἱὸν
ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ,241 δι᾿
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα οὗ οἱ πάντες αἰῶνες καὶ τὰ πάντα
ἐγένετο, κατηρτίσθησαν,242
καὶ τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ
καὶ τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τοῦ
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύ- οὐρανοῦ, σαρκωθέντα δυνάμει244 πνεύ-
ματος ἁγίου ἐν τῇ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου ματος ἁγίου ἐν τῇ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου
γαστρὶ [cf. Is 7:14; Lk 1:31]243 καὶ γαστρὶ245 καὶ ἂνθρωπον γενόμενον,
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα συλληφθέντα καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ τῆς
παρθένου,246
σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου παθόντα καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου, παθόντα, [ἀποθανόντα247] καὶ Πιλάτου καὶ ταφέντα
ταφέντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν248 τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν250 τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ἀνελθόντα εἰς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ἀνελθόντα εἰς
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ249 τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ251
καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ κρῖ- καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ254 κρῖναι
252 253

ναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασι- ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς,255 οὗ τῆς βασιλείας
λείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος· οὐκ ἔσται τέλος·256

 NAnt reads: ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί.

 NAnt reads: δι᾿ οὗ οἱ αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
 Cf. above p. 419 n. 37.
 Δυνάμει is missing in NAnt. Cf. also below p. 457 and n. 269.
 Ἐν τῇ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου γαστρὶ is added here.
 Μαρίας is missing.
 According to Severus only ‘the inhabitants of Saïd and the Syrians’ add ἀποθανόντα whereas
this is omitted by ‘the inhabitants of Lower Egypt and the Greeks’. Cf. also Dossetti 1967, p. 204
n. 13 and p. 246 app. ad loc.
 Ἐκ νεκρῶν is added.
 Αὐτοῦ is added.
 Ἐκ νεκρῶν is added.
 Αὐτοῦ is added.
 C2 adds πάλιν.
 C2: μετὰ δόξης.
 NAnt: καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι.
 NAnt3: νεκροὺς καὶ ζῶντας.
 The phrase οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος is missing in NAnt.
456 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

Πιστεύομεν257 εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον,258 τὸ < . . . ?>260

πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ζωο-
ποιόν,259 τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμ[?]-
προσκυνούμενον καὶ συν[?]δοξαζόμε-
νον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν·
καὶ εἰς μίαν,261 καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστο- εἰς μίαν,262 καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν
λικὴν ἐκκλησίαν. ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν ἁμαρτιῶν
καὶ προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἡμῶν ἀνάστα-
καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον263 τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶ- σιν265 καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Ἀμήν.266
νος. Ἀμήν.264

 The pneumatological article is not that of C2 (which Severus later quotes correctly, except
that there he reads τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον; cf. 2,10 (Leroy/Grébaut 1911,
p. 579)).
 C2: εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
 Tὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ζωοποιόν ] C2 reads
τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον.
 Severus: ‘Les Nestoriens ne disent pas cela.’ Bruns thinks that this refers only to τὸ σὺν
πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν in its
Coptic version; cf. Bruns 2005, p. 58.
 Ἁγίαν is missing.
 Ἁγίαν is missing.
 Αἰώνιον is added.
 ‘I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and
invisible.
We also believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the
Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstan-
tial with the Father; through whom all things came into being; who because of us humans and
because of our salvation descended from heaven; and became flesh by the Holy Spirit in the
womb of the virgin Mary and became man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suf-
fered, and was buried; and on the third day rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures;
ascended into the heaven and sits at the right hand of his Father; and will come in his glory to
judge the living and dead; and his kingdom will have no end;
We believe in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, the life-
giving Spirit whom we worship and glorify with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the
prophets;
and in one catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins;
and we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the eternal life that will come. Amen.’
 NAnt: ἀνάστασιν σαρκός.
 ‘I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
 9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 457

He later says that the creed of the Maronites agrees with that of the Nestorians
except that the Maronites omit τὸν πρωτότοκον τῆς κτίσεως. In the next chapter
(which concludes the book) he offers a long explanation and defence of C2 in
which he once more quotes it phrase by phrase:267

Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντο- Ι believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
κράτορα,
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε268 Maker of heaven and earth, of things
καὶ ἀοράτων· visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, begotten Son of God,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάν- begotten from the Father before all ages,
των τῶν αἰώνων,
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ Light from Light, true God from true God,
ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ begotten, not made, consubstantial with
πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, the Father; through whom all things
came into being;
τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ who because of us humans and because
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ of our salvation descended from the
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σαρκωθέντα τῇ τοῦ heavens; became flesh by the power of
ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει269 ἐν τῇ Μα- the Holy Spirit in the womb of the vir-
ρίας τῆς παρθένου γαστρὶ [cf. Is 7:14; Lk gin Mary and became human;
1:31]270 καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,

and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, first-born of the creatures, begot-
ten from the Father before the worlds and not created, true God from true God, a Son from the
substance of the Father; through whose hand all worlds and all things were created; and because
of us humans and because of our salvation he descended from heaven; became flesh by the
power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary and became man; he was conceived and
born by the Virgin; suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried; and on the
third day rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures; ascended into the heaven and
sits at the right hand of his Father; and will come in his glory to judge the living and dead; and
his kingdom will be have end;
and in one catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and the resurrection of our bodies and eter-
nal life. Amen.’
 Cf. Severus, Historia Conciliorum 2,10 (Leroy/Grébaut 1911, pp. 523–90).
 Πάντων is missing. Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 301 f.
 C2: ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Cf. also above p. 455 and n. 244.
 Cf. above p. 419 n. 37. C2: καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου.
458 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

σταυρωθέντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου was crucified for us under Pontius Pi-
Πιλάτου, παθόντα, ταφέντα καὶ ἀνασ- late, suffered, was buried, and on the
τάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, third day rose again according to the
Scriptures;
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κα- ascended into the heaven and sits at
θεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, the right hand of his Father;
πάλιν ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ271 κρῖ- will come again in his glory to judge the
ναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασι- living and dead; of whose kingdom
λείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος· there will be no end;
καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ and in one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the
ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας272 τοῦ πα- life-giver, who proceeds from the sub-
τρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ stance of the Father, who is jointly wor-
καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ shipped and glorified with the Father
συνδοξαζόμενον, and the Son,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ εἰς who spoke through the prophets, and
μίαν, 273 καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν in one catholic and apostolic Church.
ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν We confess one baptism for the remis-
ἁμαρτιῶν sion of sins
καὶ προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ and we look forward to the resurrec-
ζωὴν βεβαίαν [?]274 καὶ αἰώνιον. Ἀμήν. tion of the dead and a firm and eternal
life. Amen.

It is unclear why these versions differ from each other.275

Yet another version of NAnt is attested by the Persian theologian Al-S̲ha̲ hrastānī
(d. 1153) who quotes it in his Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects as the creed
of the Melkites, attributing it to the Council of the 313 (sic) fathers which had assem-
bled near Constantinople.276

 C2: μετὰ δόξης.

 Τῆς οὐσίας added.
 Ἁγίαν is missing.
 Βεβαίαν missing in C2.
 Cf. Dossetti 1967, pp. 209 f. who thinks that the variations in the sources used by Severus
account for these differences.
 For what follows cf. Bruns 2005, pp. 58–61. On Al-S̲h̲ahrastānī cf. Monnot 2012. Edition: Cure-
ton 1842/1846(2002), vol. I, pp. 174 f. German translation (which I have used for my Greek retro-
version): Haarbrücker 1850, p. 264. For other editions and translations cf. Bruns 2005, p. 58 n. 70;
Monnot 2012.
 9.5 N and C2 in Arabic 459

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father, Ruler
τοκράτορα [or: τὸν τῶν ὅλων κύριον ?277], of all things and Creator of all things vis-
πάντων ὀρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· ible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα υἱὸν278 Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Son Jesus Christ [‘Ishu, the
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μόνου,279 τὸν πρωτότοκον Messiah’], the Son of the only God, the
πάσης κτίσεως,280 οὐ ποιηθέντα, θεὸν first-born of all creation, who was not
ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, ὁμοούσιον created, true God from true God, con-
τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ οἱ αἰῶνες καὶ τὰ πάντα substantial with the Father, through
κατηρτίσθησαν·281 τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς282 καὶ διὰ whom the worlds and all things were
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ fashioned; who for us and for our salva-
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος tion descended from heaven, became
ἁγίου,283 γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς flesh from the Holy Spirit, was born
παρθένου,284 σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Πιλάτου from the virgin Mary, was crucified in
καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ the days of Pilate, and was buried; and
ἡμέρᾳ285 καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν on the third day rose again, and as-
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς cended into heaven, and sits at the right
αὐτοῦ286 καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι hand of his Father, and will come again
νεκροὺς καὶ ζῶντας·287 to judge the dead and the living;
καὶ πιστεύομεν εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ and we believe in one Holy Spirit, the
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the
ἐκπορευόμενον288 καὶ εἰς289 ἓν βάπ- Father; and in one baptism for the remis-
τισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἀμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς μίαν, sion of sins; and in one holy, Christian,

 Missing in NAnt. Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 295–300.

 NAnt: κύριον.
 NAnt: μονογενῆ.
 Here τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καί is missing.
 NAnt reads: δι᾿ οὗ οἱ αἰῶνες κατηρτίσθησαν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
 Ἀνθρώπους is missing.
 Here the creed follows NAnt1 and NAnt2. NAnt3 adds: καὶ ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον καὶ συλ-
ληφθέντα καί.
 Here again the creed follows NAnt1 and NAnt2. NAnt3 adds: καὶ παθόντα καί.
 Κατὰ τὰς γράφας is missing.
 Αὐτοῦ is added.
 Here the creed follows NAnt3. NAnt1 and NAnt2 read ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
 Πνεῦμα ζωοποιόν is missing. Baptism and the Church are in reversed order.
 NAnt3: ὁμολογοῦμεν.
460 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

ἁγίαν Χριστιανῶν [?] ἐκκλησίαν κα- catholic community; in the resurrection

θολικήν· εἰς τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἡμῶν of our bodies; and in eternal life.
ἀνάστασιν καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.290

Peter Bruns has analyzed this creed, demonstrating its Nestorian character (al-
though, as can be seen from my footnotes, it is not identical with NAnt).
The Synodus Alexandrinus291 which contained a baptismal rite was translated
into Arabic from Sahidic only in the thirteenth century.292 Its baptismal questions
(FaFo § 89e) are largely identical with its Coptic Vorlage.293
I was unable to obtain an exposition of the creed ascribed to Elijah of Nisibis
(d. c. 1049) and edited by Emmanuel-Karim Delly.294 An anonymous exposition of
N of unknown provenance is found in cod. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
ar. 148 (s. XVI ex.), ff. 38v–40r.295 Some manuscripts feature confessions ascribed
to Hierotheus (the legendary first bishop of Athens) and his pupil Dionysius the
Areopagite.296
Further unedited creeds, some accompanied by explanations, are listed by
Graf.297

9.6 Georgia

The fragments of creeds from ancient Georgia have been collected by Gabriele Win-
kler.298 She cites no full versions of either N or C2. All credal fragments are associ-
ated, directly or indirectly, with accounts of the conversion of the Georgian King
Mirean (Mirian) by the female Apostle Nino in c. 330. They are contained in two

 NAnt: ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

 Cf. above p. 445.
 Cf. Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, pp. 8 f.; Mühlsteiger 2006, pp. 233–5.
 Cf. above pp. 445 f.
 Cf. Samir 1977(1996), pp. 282 f.; Lange-Sonntag 2007, col. 372.
 Cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol. I, p. 485.
 Cf. Riedel 1900, pp. 66, 115, 139, 141–3, 184–7; Graf 1944–1953, vol. I, p. 371. Translation of Hier-
otheus: Riedel 1900, pp. 184–6.
 Cf. Graf 1944–1953, vol. I, p. 593.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 271–81.
 9.6 Georgia 461

legendary accounts of this conversion, the Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay (‘The Conversion

of K‛art‛lis’)299 and the K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba (‘Georgian Chronicles’).300
The fragments in Winkler’s collection display certain unusual characteristics.
In Nino’s prayer in Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay 1,7 (Šatberdi version; frg. 1)301 we find
the sequence crucifixion (no mention of Pilate) – burial – resurrection – ascen-
sion to the Father – return ‘in glory’. This is precisely the same sequence as in J
(yet which occurs in neither N nor C2). In the K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba (frg. 1) Nino utters
the following formula:

By the power of Christ, Son of the God of eternities, who is enthroned with the Father and
the Holy Spirit, and became human for our salvation, was crucified, was buried, and rose
on the third day, ascended to heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will
come again with glory to judge the living and the dead – he will give you your desire.302

This is once more paralleled by J, except that ‘for our salvation’ (διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν) is added to ‘became human’ (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα).
Another credal text in the same work (frg. 4),303 again attributed to St Nino, is
virtually identical with frg. 1 from the Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay except that here the
third day is added to the ascension.
All this evidence, scant as it is, fits with the overall picture of the early history
of Georgian Christianity whose worship and liturgy were strongly influenced by
Palestine traditions.304
By contrast, in Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay 14 (Šatberdi version; frg. 3)305 a prayer
is attributed to King Mirean which may show an influence of NAnt3: crucifixion
under Pontius Pilate – burial – resurrection on the third day (fulfillment of the
prophecies ≙ κατὰ τὰς γράφας) – ascension to heaven – sitting at the right hand
of the Father – return ‘to judge the living and dead’.

 Cf. Tarchnišvili 1955, pp. 406–10; URL <https://www.late-antique-historiography.ugent.be/da

tabase/works/421/>; <https://www.late-antique-historiography.ugent.be/database/works/737/> (20/
11/2023).
 Cf. Rapp Jr. 2017.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 272 f.
 Thomson 1996, p. 102; cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 275 f.
 Cf. Thomson 1996, p. 132 f.; Winkler 2000, pp. 278 f.
 Cf. Martin-Hisard 2001(2010), pp. 1249, 1283 f.; Rapp Jr. 2007, p. 141; Grdzelidze 2011, p. 267;
Khoperia 2018.
 Cf. Winkler 2000, pp. 274.
462 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

N and C2 are attested in a letter which the Georgian Catholicos Kiwrion (sedit
595/599–610) sent to his Armenian counterpart Abraham in 608.306 His version of
N runs like this (in Greek retroversion):

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς mighty, Creator of heaven and earth and
ὁρατῶν τε πάντων·307 all things visible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν μονογενῆ ἐκ τοῦ πα- God, the only-begotten from the Father
τρὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων,308 ἐκ θεοῦ ἀλη- before the ages, begotten from the true
θινοῦ γεννηθέντα καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα, God and not created, similar to the Fa-
ὁμοούσιον [or: ὅμοιον?] τῷ πατρί, δι᾿ ther; through whom all things came
οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,309 τὸν διὰ τῶν into being, who for the salvation of hu-
ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ mankind descended from the heavens,
τῶν οὐρανῶν,310 σαρκωθέντα καὶ became flesh and made himself human,
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀπο- suffered and died; on the third day he
θανόντα,311 ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ rose again and ascended into the heaven;
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ and he will come to judge the living
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· and dead;
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. and in the Holy Spirit.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, The catholic and apostolic Church
καί· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ anathematizes those who say, ‘There
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστά- was a time when he was not’, and, ‘Be-
σεως ἢ οὐσίας ἢ φάσκοντας εἶναι312 fore his birth he was not’, and that he
τρεπτὸν313 τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους came to be from nothing or from an-
ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστο- other hypóstasis or essence, or who say
λικὴ ἐκκλησία. that the Son of God is alterable.

 The letter is printed in French translation in Garsoïan 1999, pp. 570–6; creeds on pp. 572 f. Cf.
also Kohlbacher, ‘Rabbula’, 2004, p. 250 and n. 80.
 N: πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν.
 Τὸν μονογενῆ – αἰώνων ] N: γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινόν.
 N adds: τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ.
 Τὸν διὰ – οὐρανῶν ] N: τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ.
 Ἀποθανόντα is missing in N.
 Ἢ κτιστὸν ἤ is omitted.
 Ἢ ἀλλοιωτόν is omitted.
 9.6 Georgia 463

As regards C2 the letter offers the following version:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παν- We believe in one God, the Father Al-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς mighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of
ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων· all things visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν μονογενῆ ἐκ τοῦ πα- God, the only-begotten from the Father
τρὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων,314 θεὸν ἀληθινὸν before the ages, true God from true God,
ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιη- begotten, not made, similar to the Father;
θέντα, ὁμοούσιον [or: ὅμοιον?] τῷ through whom all things came into being;
πατρί, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τὸν δι᾿ who because of us humans descended
ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους315 κατελθόντα ἐκ from the heavens and became flesh from
τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύ- the Holy Spirit and made himself human
ματος ἁγίου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ἐκ from the virgin Mary; he was crucified
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου,316 σταυρωθέντα for us by Pontius Pilate and was buried;
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου317 καὶ on the third day he rose again; he as-
ταφέντα, ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,318 cended into the heaven and sits at the
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κα- right hand of the Father; and he will
θεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ come again to judge the living and dead;
πάλιν ἐρχόμενον319 κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ of whose kingdom there will be no end;
νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται
τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον,320 τὸ ἐκ τοῦ and in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds
πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ from the Father and who is worshipped
καὶ υἱῷ συμ[?]προσκυνούμενον καὶ and glorified with the Father and the
συν[?]δοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Son, who spoke through the prophets;
προφητῶν·
καὶ εἰς μίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστο- and in one catholic and apostolic Church.
λικὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

 C2: τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός.
 Καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν is omitted.
 Καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου] C 2 : καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου καὶ
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
 Καὶ παθόντα is omitted.
 Kατὰ τὰς γραφάς is omitted.
 Μετὰ δόξης is omitted.
 Τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν is omitted.
464 9 The Reception of N and C2 beyond the Latin and Greek Churches

Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα, μίαν μετά- We confess one baptism, one penitence

νοιαν321 εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· for the remission of sins;
καὶ προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν and we look forward to the resurrection
καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.322 Ἀμήν. of the dead and eternal life. Amen.

Both creeds display significant variants from the received texts of the creeds.
What is unique here is the addition of one penance after baptism.
The acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431 (including Cyril’s Third Letter to Nes-
torius) were translated from Armenian into Georgian in modern times. They also
contain versions of N and C2.323
Finally, the Georgian treatise De fide, ascribed to Hippolytus,324 is mostly a
cento from the Armenian History of the Armenians by Pseudo-Agathangelos (s. V/2).
However, it contains credal fragments from another source in 12,1–2 and 13,1–2.
12,1 is a quotation from the anathemas of N whereas 12,2 and 13,1–2 seems to be
influenced by a variety of creeds.325

 Μίαν μετάνοιαν is added.

 C2: ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
 Cf. Rucker 1930, pp. 30–32; 100 f.; Dossetti 1967, pp. 46, 48.
 Text and translation: Garitte 1965.
 Cf. Bonwetsch 1907, pp. 7–8, 25–27; Garitte 1965, p. 120.
10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal
and Imperial Legislation

10.1 The bishops, the synods, and the creeds

Creeds served to summarize the Christian faith and settle dogmatic conflicts, but
they were also a means of controlling the clergy and of keeping them in line. Clerics
who held doctrinal views that differed from the prevailing orthodoxy were forced
to justify themselves by means of creeds – a process which probably begins with
Arius.1 An important function of synodal confessions was to establish this ortho-
doxy in any given case, with N and C2 being by far the most important documents
in this context. Synodal creeds were no longer simple aide-mémoires which helped
to recapitulate the basics of the Christian faith, rather, from the synod of Antioch of
early 325 onwards they were also legal documents which defined that faith. Thus
they became instrumental in establishing doctrinal orthodoxy in that they offered
a legal tool by which deviation could be measured and sanctioned, if necessary.
Such sanctions included anathemas (whose precise consequences remained vague),
but also depositions and, perhaps, excommunication which, in turn, often entailed
the clerics concerned being sent into exile by the emperor.2
I suggest that at least six factors contributed to this process of creating doc-
trinal dependency:

(1) As far as we can see, the first time a creed was recorded in writing was in Alex-
andria in, perhaps, 321 by a group of fifteen clerics, including the bishops of Pentap-
olis, of Libya, and of an unnamed see, a group led by the presbyter Arius.3 The local
bishop Alexander seems to have reacted with the encyclical Ἑνὸς σώματος which

 The authenticity of both the letter of the six bishops to Paul of Samosata (FaFo § 126) and of
the creed against Paul, allegedly issued by a ‘synod of 318 fathers’, which is preserved among the
acts of the Council of Ephesus (431; § 127), is spurious. Cf. also above p. 118.
 Cf. above ch. 6.4.6 and Hillner 2015, p. 198: ‘In both the Donatist and the Trinitarian controver-
sies, the emperor endorsed the decision of a church council as the orthodox position (Arles in 314
and Nicaea in 325, respectively) and imposed a public penalty, exile, on those who did not sub-
scribe to it. From then on, emperors regularly followed up church councils’ depositions of bish-
ops, or other high-ranking clerics deemed heretical, with a public penalty of exile.’ More
generally on bishops being exiled Barry 2019 and the database The Migration of Faith: Clerical
Exile in Late Antiquity 325–600 URL <https://www.clericalexile.org/> (20/11/2023).
 Cf. Arius et al., Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 6; FaFo § 131a).
Cf. also above ch. 6.1.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-010
466 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

was signed by the clergy of Alexandria and of Mareotis.4 Although it was theological
in nature, this letter did not yet contain a creed in any meaningful sense of the
term. As we saw above, the first document to record a credal statement that had
been issued as a result of the deliberations of a synod was another encyclical sent
out by Alexander. According to its (secondary) introduction this encyclical was
signed (Schwartz’ Greek retroversion of the Syriac: ὑπογράψαντες) by around two
hundred bishops.5 Unfortunately, this credal statement has only come down to us in
mutilated form. (The sections on the Father and the Son are lost, only the section on
the Holy Spirit has been preserved.) The first fully preserved synodal creed is, there-
fore, that of the synod of Antioch of early 325 which was, perhaps, sent to Alexander
of Byzantium (Constantinople) in the name of over fifty clerics.6 The composition of
synodal creeds, to formulate (some kind of) compromise and settle doctrinal contro-
versy, was in effect the first step in the creation of doctrinal dependency, because,
ultimately, bishops throughout the empire were expected to accept these formulae.

(2) As we saw above, orthodoxy was defined not only in positive terms. Creeds
were sometimes accompanied by anathemas which could involve the deposition
of clergy or the severance of communion between dioceses.7 Anathemas did not
necessarily take the shape of appendices to creeds as in Nicaea, but, where they
did, they reinforced the normativity of the creeds themselves by threatening un-
specified spiritual punishments (and, by implication, legal measures) against dis-
sidents. However, this emerging process of doctrinal discipline concerned, above
all, the clergy. We are less well informed about the consequences it had for lay
people. There is scant evidence that ‘regular’ worshippers were actually punished
for holding deviant trinitarian tenets;8 they were only held accountable if they

 Cf. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula encyclica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4b); the letter drum-
ming up support for his initiative is preserved as Urkunde 4a (Arii depositio). Other synods
whose tomes are lost seem not to have made pronouncements on theological matters; cf. Alexan-
der, Epistula encyclica (Urkunde 4b) 11 and Synod of Bithynia (c. 320), Epistula synodica (Urkunde
5) and Palestinian Synod (c. 321/322), Epistula synodica (Urkunde 10).
 Cf. Alexander, Tomus ad omnes episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 15); also above p. 217.
 Cf. Council of Antioch (325), Epistula synodica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 18; FaFo § 133); on
which above ch. 6.2.
 Cf. also above ch. 6.4.6.
 Cf., e.g., canon 7 of Ephesus (cf. below in the text) and the Paenitentiale Bigotianum VII 2: ‘He
who dares to follow another doctrine beside the Scriptures, or a heresy (heressim), is a stranger
from the Church; if he repents he shall publicly condemn his opinion and shall convert to the
faith those whom he has deceived and shall fast according to the judgment of a priest’ (tr. Bieler/
Binchy 1963, p. 237). However, this penitential, which may have been written between the late
seventh and the late eighth century, was probably used in a monastic context; cf. Meens 2014,
pp. 61 f. As regards the beginnings of ecclesial measures against heresy in general cf. Maison-
 10.1 The bishops, the synods, and the creeds 467

had illicit dealings with heretics (for example, through marriage), if they con-
verted to heretical congregations that were prohibited, or if they held public as-
semblies or openly practiced rituals that were considered ‘heretical’.9 In these
cases it was the public association with heretics that was liable to punishment,
not one’s private views as such. Extravagant theological claims made by lay peo-
ple were usually ascribed to ignorance and dealt with by instruction through ser-
mons, rather than by harsh disciplinary measures.10 This may have changed with
the Third Council of Toledo 589 whose first anathema condemned everybody who
remained steadfast in their Arian views.11

(3) From the fourth century onwards each individual bishop was required to indi-
cate his agreement to canons, synodal letters, and also creeds, either by signing
them directly or by subscribing the entire synodal acts into which these docu-
ments were inserted. Alexander’s aforementioned credal encyclical, reportedly
subscribed by approximately two hundred bishops, may be the first such exam-
ple. A similar procedure is then also attested for Nicaea and may be assumed for
the creeds of later councils, even where such lists are either not preserved or
their inclusion in the acts cannot be safely determined. The purpose of these sig-
natures was not only to confirm approval and ratification; they also obliged the
signatories ad intra to conform to the disciplinary (canons) and doctrinal (creeds)
standards set out in these documents and ad extra to demonstrate this conformity
and thus to lend additional authority to these synodal texts also among bishops
who had not participated in the synods. The fact that in Nicaea a refusal to sub-
scribe so would result in exile makes clear that the purpose of such subscription
was to enforce orthodoxy among the signatories.12 We possess long lists of the
episcopal signatures from many councils in late antiquity.13

neuve 1960, pp. 29–51. On the normative character of the creeds as defined by the emperor for all
subjects in the Byzantine Empire cf. the next chapter.
 Cf., e.g., Brox 1986, cols. 277–81; Noethlichs 2006, pp. 120–5; Humfress 2007, pp. 243–68; Riedl-
berger 2020, pp. 319 f.
 Cf. Humfress 2007, pp. 229–32.
 Cf. Third Council of Toledo, Gothorum professio fidei, ll. 344–6 (Martínez Díez/Rodríguez
1966–2002, vol. V, pp. 78 f. = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 120.2), p. 279, ll. 15–19).
 Cf. above ch. 6.4.6.
 Cf., e.g., the list of bishops in CPG 8502 (Ancyra 314), 8505 (Neocaesarea 314/320?),
2000 = 8506 (Alexander of Alexandria, Epistula encyclica (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 4b) 21), 8516
and BHG 1431n (Nicaea 325), 8571 (Serdica 343), 8601 (Constantinople 381), 8940 (Ephesus 449),
9023 (Chalcedon), 9445 (Quinisext 691), 9481.3 (Nicaea 787, Actio II), 9482.4 (Nicaea 787, Actio
III), 9483.4 (Nicaea 787, Actio IV). For signatures at western councils cf. Weckwerth 2010, pp. 7
and n. 28, 8, 53, 56 f., 58 f., 69, 95, 107–9, 117 f., 143 f., 188 n. 148; Weckwerth 2013, esp. pp. 38, 40, 43;
468 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

(4) In this respect, the size of a synod was important. The fact that the Council of
Nicaea was called the ‘council of the 318’ and that of Constantinople the ‘council
of the 150’ is not only a matter of biblical symbolism,14 but also of authority. Most
importantly, Chalcedon was said to have been attended by 630 fathers which lent
its Definition of Faith (and by implication also N and C2 contained therein) the
highest degree of authority.15 A maximum number of bishops (possibly from all
over the empire) signified an ecclesial consensus (brought about by the Holy
Spirit), thus calling for a high degree of compliance from lower clergy and those
who had not participated in the event.

(5) After any given synod the creed it had adopted had to be disseminated. The
primary means of doing so were encyclical letters sent out to the oikuméne, letters
which communicated the Tomus (i.e. the body of decisions including the creeds) to
a wider public.16 However, such letters could be forgotten, suppressed, or even
simply lost. (Thus, famously we no longer possess the Tomus of Constantinople
381.) An alternative way of ensuring the enduring normativity of council decisions
was to include them in collections of canons made available to every bishop which
were treated as ecclesiastical law. Although creeds, above all N, were never consid-
ered canons in themselves, they assumed a quasi-legal function by being included
in collections of ecclesial law, often being placed prominently at the beginning.17 I
cannot trace this development in its entirety here as it would involve an investiga-
tion into the textual tradition of the various canonical collections.18 It may suffice
to mention a highly influential collection, usually simply called Corpus canonum,
which originally comprised the canons of the Synods of Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea
(319?), Antioch (341), Gangra (c. 340), and Laodicea (unknown date) and, according
to Eduard Schwartz, was compiled at Antioch between 361 and 378.19 N, the list of
subscriptions, and the Nicene canons were placed at the beginning of this collec-
tion, in the context of the rise of the Neo-Nicenes, perhaps in 379.20 C2 was inserted

Weckwerth 2023, cols. 633 f. On signatures in classical antiquity in general cf. Steinacker 1927,
pp. 112–16; Wolff 1978, vol. II, pp. 164–6.
 Cf. above p. 244 n. 113 and p. 388.
 On the number of participants cf. Wickham 1981, p. 669; Price/Gaddis 2005, vol. I, p. 43.
 Cf. Weckwerth 2010, pp. 22 f., 26–33; Weckwerth 2013, p. 40; Weckwerth 2023, cols. 634 f.
 Cf. Schwartz 1936(1960), pp. 193 f.; Wagschal 2015, pp. 90–2.
 An early example is found in the (fictitious) Canons of Hippolytus (336–340 or later) which
open in canon 1 with a credal formula (FaFo § 138).
 Cf. Schwartz 1936(1960), pp. 194–200. The original collection may have been compiled by Eu-
zoius, Homoian bishop of Antioch 360–376. Cf. the extensive study in Mardirossian 2010 and
above pp. 386 f., 416.
 Cf. Schwartz 1936(1960), pp. 200–2.
 10.1 The bishops, the synods, and the creeds 469

between N and the list of subscriptions sometime before Chalcedon, thus assigning
both N and C2 pride of place.21 This collection was translated into Latin in the
early fifth century (the so-called Collectio Frisingensis prima22) and in 501/502 into
Syriac23 and more or less simultaneously into Coptic.24 There are other western
collections such as the Collectio Quesnelliana (s. V ex/VI in.,25 FaFo § 135d31) that
are also opened by N (in the Quesnelliana N is followed by the list of subscrip-
tions).26 Ath, N, and T (in this order) were added to the influential Collectio Vetus
Gallica in the eighth century in some of the manuscript tradition.27 These are just
a few examples which demonstrate the increasingly juridical status of the creeds,
a process in which N was accorded the highest degree of normativity whereas C2,
Ath, and T trailed behind.

(6) As regards N, the so-called canon 7 of Ephesus 431 (FaFo § 568e) threatened
clerics who dared to alter it with deposition and placed lay people under an
anathema (whose details remained once again unspecified).

This process of ‘juridification’ (German: Verrechtlichung)28 in the establishment of

trinitarian orthodoxy primarily concerned the eastern synodal creeds, above all N
and (later) C2, even at western synods.29 Thus the creeds which were prescribed by
the Third Council of Toledo in 589 were N, C2, and the Chalcedonian Definition of
Faith, but not R/T. R and R/T were initially much less affected by this process (and
were, therefore, also handled with greater freedom). Only rarely do we find an ex-
plicit episcopal or synodal obligation from the fourth to the sixth century directed
towards priests to instruct converts in R/T and the Lord’s Prayer.30 In a sermon as-
cribed to Caesarius of Arles the clergy are told to learn Ath and to instruct their
flock accordingly.31
In the west this gradually changed in the seventh century. The Synod of
Autun of c. 670 appears to have been the first to have stipulated that all clergy

 Cf. Schwartz 1936(1960); Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 116 f. (addition of C2 before
Chalcedon).
 Cf. Kéry 1999, pp. 2 f.
 Cf. Kaufhold 2012, pp. 244 f.
 Cf. above p. 441.
 Cf. Van der Speeten 1985; Kéry 1999, pp. 27–9.
 Cf. Turner 1899–1939, vol. I 1/2, pp. 36–91 (column IV).
 Cf. Mordek 1975, pp. 356–358 and FaFo §§ 135d40, 373.
 On the term cf. Hensel/Klippel 2015.
 Cf. above ch. 8.
 Cf. Nicetas of Remesiana (FaFo § 625a) who adds the sign of the cross.
 Cf. (Pseudo-)Caesarius, Sermo 2 (FaFo § 656a).
470 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

should know ‘the creed which the apostles handed down under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit and the confession of the holy Patriarch Athanasius’, i.e. R/T and
Ath. Failure to do so resulted in ‘condemnation’ by the bishop. This sanction
(whatever it meant in practice) indicated the increasingly juridical character that
R/T, too, took on.32 Shortly before his death Beda Venerabilis (672/673–735) wrote
a letter to Bishop Egberht of York (sedit 732–766) admonishing him ‘to implant
deeply in the memory’ of all his flock knowledge of the ‘Apostles’ Creed’ (which
he does not quote) and of the Lord’s Prayer.33
During the reign of Charlemagne doctrinal control was further tightened by a
concerted effort of both the emperor and his bishops.34 Charlemagne relates the
following story in his Epistula de oratione dominica et symbolo discendis to Bishop
Gerbald of Liège (sedit 787–809):

As we have recently learned, on the day of the appearance of our Lord [i.e. Epiphany] many
people were found among us who wanted to receive infants from the sacred font of bap-
tism; we ordered them to examine them individually and carefully and to find out whether
they knew and kept by heart the Lord’s Prayer and the creed, as we have said above. There
were several who at that time knew neither by heart. We told them to keep away, as they
should not take the liberty of receiving anyone from the sacred font of baptism before they
are able to understand and recite the Prayer and the creed. They blushed strongly because
of this, and wanted to promise that, if they were given permission, they would be able to
remove this disgrace from themselves at the right time. At that moment we understood that
there was no convention for them, and, as you can find in our capitulary [this capitulary is
lost], we made the decision that each of them should abstain from this task until a proper
guarantor might be at hand for these proceedings; that is: either they had to find someone
else straight away who knew [the texts], or, unless infirmity did not prevent [a delay], to
wait from Easter until Pentecost, until he himself had learned what we have said above.35

In the same letter the emperor instructed Gerbald of Liège to convene an assem-
bly of his clergy and to carefully ascertain the size of the problem.
Synods, bishops, and Charlemagne himself prescribed knowledge of T and of
the Lord’s Prayer for all Christians under their rule – something that went be-
yond just having these texts recited at baptism by the infant’s parents or spon-
sors.36 However, as far as we can see, the reason for this tightening of ‘credal

 Synod of Autun (c. 670; FaFo § 581).

 Beda, Epistula ad Egbertum 5–6 (FaFo § 584).
 Cf. also above ch. 5.3.
 Charlemagne, Epistula de oratione dominica et symbolo discendis (FaFo § 731).
 Ecclesial: Capitula Rotomagensia (s. VIII–X; FaFo § 737: T and Lord’s Prayer are obligatory for
everybody); Riculf of Mainz? (787–800?; § 738: T and Lord’s Prayer for everybody); Capitula Parisien-
sia (after 800?; § 744: Ath and T for all (?) clergy); Gerbald of Liège (various pronouncements of
c. 800; FaFo § 745: T and Lord’s Prayer for everybody); Interrogationes examinationis (after 803?;
 10.1 The bishops, the synods, and the creeds 471

control’ in Francia was not primarily to establish a particular type of trinitarian

orthodoxy or the threat of competing heterodoxies in a narrow sense (like Arian-
ism, Homoianism, or adoptionism), but rather religious ignorance and the persis-
tence of pagan beliefs and cultic practices. The fact that even priests had to be
told to memorize these texts points to a high degree of illiteracy among the clergy.
In a letter to Boniface (747/748) Pope Zachary (sedit 741–752) mentioned priests
who did not teach their flock about the creed and baptismal rites, because they
did not know them themselves.37 The Collectio Heroualliana, a capitulary from c.
770–800, deals inter alia with a priest (or several priests?) who performed bap-
tism without knowing either the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, or the Psalms. He was
defrocked and imprisoned in a monastery.38 In a report on an episcopal synod
held near the river Danube in the territory of the Avars in the summer of 796,
written by Paulinus II of Aquileia, it is discussed whether or not baptisms are
valid where neither did the baptizand know the creed nor the priest the baptis-
mal formula. (They were not.)39
In other words, knowledge of T as summarizing the basics of the Christian
faith remained paramount. Yet at the same time, it often seems to have been
deemed insufficient correctly to understand the Trinity which is why Ath assumed

§ 730: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer for priests); Haito of Basel (806–813?; § 747a: T and Lord’s Prayer
for everybody in both Latin and the vernacular; b: Ath for all priests); Waltcaud of Liège (811/812–
814; § 749: Ath, T, and Lord’s Prayer for all clergy); Théodulf of Orléans? (before 813; § 750b: Ath, T,
and Lord’s Prayer for all clergy); Capitula Frisingensia Prima (before 814; § 756: Ath, T, and Lord’s
Prayer for all clergy); Capitula de presbyteris admonendis (Capitula Cordesiana) (875–900?; § 736: T
and Lord’s Prayer for everybody). – Secular: Charlemagne (802–803?; § 727: Ath and T for all can-
ons); id. (803–811; § 731: T and Lord’s Prayer for everybody). – Many other documents only mention
the fides or the symbolum which is to be preached – given the other evidence this must be T. Eccle-
sial: Capitulare Francofurtense (794; § 740: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer for everybody); Synod of
Friuli (796/797; § 741: ditto); Capitula Vesulensia (c. 800?; § 742a: ditto); Théodulf of Orléans (before
813; § 750: ditto); Capitula Moguntiacensia (before 813; § 751: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer for
priests); Synod of Mainz (813; § 754: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer for everybody); Herard of Tours,
Capitulary (858), cap. 16: ditto. – Secular: Charlemagne (802?; § 725: fides catholica and Lord’s Prayer
for everybody); id. (802?; § 726: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer for all priestes); id. (802–813; § 729: sym-
bolum and Lord’s Prayer for everybody); id. (805–813; § 732: ditto); id. (813; § 734: ditto); id.? (813 or
later; § 735: ditto). – A similar development can be observed in England: Second Synod of Clofesho
(747; § 587b: symbolum fidei and Lord’s Prayer for all clergy); English synods of the Papal Legates
George of Ostia and Theophylact of Todi (‘legatine councils’; 786; § 588: symbolum and Lord’s Prayer
for everybody). – Cf. also Mitalaité 2013.
 Cf. Boniface, Epistula 80 (MGH Epp. sel. I, pp. 175, l. 23 – 176, l. 5).
 Cf. Collectio Heroualliana, cap. 13 (Ubl 2007, p. 444).
 Cf. Paulinus, Conuentus episcorporum ad ripas Danubii (MGH Conc. II 1, p. 186, ll. 7–11). Cf.
also Lotter 2003, pp. 185 f. On the ignorance of priests in later times cf. also below pp. 533 f.
472 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

ever greater importance as a supplement, outlining the details of this understand-

ing. A number of decrees (both ecclesial and secular) prescribed knowledge of both
these texts at least for the clergy.40 Finally, in particular as regards T we may also
link its importance to the fact of its legendary, ‘apostolic’ origin and the icono-
graphic tradition which this legend gave rise to, which I will explain below.41 To
hear and see that the apostles themselves had composed the creed lent it an enor-
mous authority which could never be called into doubt.
By way of summary, creeds not only created a doctrinal dependence but, com-
bined with sanctions in the case of proven deviance, led to institutional dependence
on the Church thus playing an integral part in establishing both doctrinal uniformity
and institutional loyalty. Dissent was sanctioned by threatening both unspecified spir-
itual punishment (anathemas) and quite specific secular penalties, imposed by the
Church (through expulsion of clergy and subsequently also excommunication) and
the emperors (through exile) which would, at a later stage, come to affect not only
clergy but also lay people. The quasi-legal character of the creeds made it immensely
difficult to develop alternative models of describing God’s salvific work in Christ.

10.2 The emperors and creeds

Charlemagne already moved into focus in my previous section. He signals a devel-

opment which involved ancient and early medieval rulers, above all the emperors
of the Roman Empire, in enforcing a trinitarian orthodoxy based on the creeds.42
As far as we can see from the evidence available, this process of imperial in-
volvement took place in three stages. In the first phase, which lasted from 325 to
380 and in a sense represents its prehistory, we find imperial statements concern-
ing the creed, which on the whole are of a rather formal nature and addressed to
the higher clergy. As regards doctrinal issues, they only referred to tenets which
synods had already pronounced on and even this primarily for the purpose of
promoting ecclesial peace. In a second phase (380–482), the emperors themselves
appear in a normative role: they attempt to resolve ecclesial conflict by increas-
ingly specifying a certain doctrinal content. However, the emperor’s personal be-
liefs are not yet in any way related to this content. The question remained
unresolved whether the prescribed faith should only apply to clergy or to all in-
habitants of the empire, as did the related problem of whether it was a matter of

 Cf. above p. 470 n. 36 and below p. 573.

 Cf. above ch. 5.4 and below ch. 18.
 This section is based on Kinzig 2016(2022).
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 473

public order or private religious loyalty. This only changed with the Henoticon
(482), which presented itself as a confession of the emperor himself, which was
henceforth mandatory – at least in theory – for the entire population of the em-
pire. This third phase reached its climax in the great confessions of Justinian.
The emperors used a variety of legal resources in order to express their theo-
logical views and to implement the religious policies resulting from these tenets:
imperial laws and law-like documents dealing with matters of faith43 began to
flourish in late antiquity under Theodosius the Great – after a prehistory from
Constantine onwards – and, in the end, took on the form of full-blown, indeed
one might almost say: excessive, confessions with Justinian. In their final form,
these legal texts constituted a peculiar mixture of discourse on law and faith.
In line with the three phases identified, I will describe this development in
more detail in three sections and then turn to enquire into the reasons behind
such imperial activity.

10.2.1 First Phase: Appeal to the creed as a means of Church discipline

Beginning with Constantine, the emperors repeatedly considered the possibility

of fixing the basic doctrines of the Christian faith in writing – reluctantly at first,
but later with increasing interest in terms of the doctrinal content and with a
growing desire to intervene in dogmatic questions not only out of considerations
of religious policy, but also for theological reasons.
As we saw above,44 Constantine himself is said to have introduced the adjec-
tive homooúsios into the discussion at the Council of Nicea in 325. This interven-
tion (if it took place at all) certainly owed less to an interest in trinitarian
questions than to the ruler’s endeavour to find a universally acceptable term for
describing the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Constantine
wished to settle the dogmatic disputes that had arisen in the Church as quickly as
possible in order to safeguard the salus publica (‘public welfare’). In terms of leg-
islation, the emperor intervened only insofar as in several letters he described
and confirmed the consensus reached at Nicaea, imposed punishments on Arius
and his supporters, called for unity on the basis of the true faith that had been

 On the vague nomenclature in Roman law-making cf. Honoré 1998, pp. 37 f., 127–32, 136, 161,
209 f., 249 f., 264 f.; Harries 1999, pp. 20 f., 24 f., 36 f.; Wieacker 2006, pp. 192 f.; Riedlberger 2020,
esp. pp. 26–77.
 Cf. above ch. 6.4.5.
474 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

affirmed,45 and, finally, instructed his provincial governors in documents that

have not been preserved to ensure they implemented the councils’ decisions.46
(To what extent the letters to the governors referred to the creed is unclear.) As
far as we know, however, Constantine did not prescribe N throughout the em-
pire – unlike, for example, the uniform date of Easter, which he solemnly pro-
claimed in a circular letter.47
Constantine did not comment on the content of the disputed theological ques-
tions as such in his pronouncements after the council with the exception of a let-
ter to the Church of Nicomedia, which is difficult to interpret and contains an
idiosyncratic description of the relationship between Father and Son.48 The for-
mulations chosen with regard to the creed aim less at its empire-wide acceptance
than at the preservation of the new-found unity.49 Conversely, the punishments
imposed on dissenters are justified not by heresy on their part, but by ‘error’ or
‘folly’.50 The emperor’s own person moves into focus solely as a legislator, and
not yet as a confessor himself.
The same applies, in broad terms, to the emperors that followed him, up to
Theodosius. They sometimes interfered forcefully in the theological disputes
within the Church, to the point that Constantius II (r. 337–361) attempted to im-
pose the Homoian confession on the Church against much opposition.51 But even
in these doctrinal disputes what mattered was the bishops’ agreement by way of
signing creeds, not the consent of the population as a whole. When Constantius
emphasized in his letter against the Antiochene bishop Eudoxius, a representative
of the Anhomoians, in 358 that the Saviour was the Son of God and ‘similar to the
Father in substance (κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὅμοιος τῷ πατρί)’,52 he did not formulate a new

 Cf., above all, Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 25);
id., Epistula ad omnes ecclesias (Urkunde 26); id., Epistula ad ecclesiam Nicomediensem (Urkunde
27); id., Lex de Arii damnatione (Urkunde 33).
 Cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,27,2; here, Nicaea is not specifically mentioned.
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad omnes ecclesias (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 26).
 Cf. Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Nicomediensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27).
 Cf. esp. Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 25) 6–9.
 Constantine, Epistula ad ecclesiam Nicomediensem (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 27), esp. 8–17;
id., Epistula ad Theodotum Laodicenum (Urkunde 28), esp. 1.
 Cf. above ch. 6.5.9.
 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,14,4 (Brennecke et al. 2014, Dokument 56.4; FaFo § 531). In
addition, Diefenbach 2012, p. 86 n. 78.
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 475

confession, but rather recalled the formulae of the previous Synods of Ancyra53
and Sirmium,54 at which precisely this tenet had been established.55

10.2.2 Second phase: The confession as part of imperial legislation

This situation changed with the famous edict Cunctos populos (28 February 380)
of Theodosius I (r. 379–395).56 Constantine may have seen himself as performing
the role of a Christian bishop57 – but at the same time he was and remained ponti-
fex maximus of the old Roman cults. By contrast, Gratian and Theodosius re-
nounced their supervision of traditional religion58 – a development accompanied,
on the one hand, by an increased persecution of pagans (since Theodosius),59 but,
on the other hand, also by increasing intervention in the internal affairs of the
church. This development shows that the understanding of the status of a particu-
lar religious cult within the empire had changed completely. While Constantine
pursued a religious policy of inclusion, propagating the cult of the sun as part of
this endeavour, a cult which many of his subjects could relate to in one way or
another,60 the emperors from Gratian and Theodosius I onwards increasingly
thought exclusively about religion in relation to the state. Apart from Christianity,
all other cults were now declared illegitimate (with the exception of Judaism,
which was more or less tolerated).
With Christianity’s claim to exclusivity, however, the density of norms associ-
ated with it also increased. Up to Gratian and Theodosius, the emperors’ ecclesial

 Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 73,2 (FaFo § 155).

 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,15,3 (FaFo § 156).
 The ecclesiastical opponents of Constantius’ Homoian policy also insisted, according to a say-
ing handed down by Theodoret, that only the decision relating to punishment lay in the emper-
or’s power, whereas distinguishing true from false faith lay in that of the bishops. Cf. Theodoret,
Historia ecclesiastica 2,27,20; in addition, Leppin 1996, p. 196.
 Codex Theodosianus 16,1,2 (= Codex Iustinianus 1,1,1; FaFo § 532a). The literature on this law is
extensive; cf., e.g., Errington, ‘Church’, 1997, esp. pp. 31, 36 f., 39; Errington, ‘Christian Accounts’, 1997,
esp. pp. 411–6; Leppin 2003, pp. 71–3; Hebblewhite 2020, pp. 52–5; Riedlberger 2020, pp. 396–402. In
this context we may leave the question open as to whether Codex Theodosianus 16,2,25 originally also
belonged to this law.
 Cf. Girardet 2010, p. 147–63. Cf. also below above pp. 245, 473 f., and below 482.
 According to the much-discussed evidence by Zosimus (Historia noua 4,36,3–5) Gratian explic-
itly rejected the title. Cf. Rösch 1978, pp. 85–8; Ridley 1982, pp. 195 f. n. 106; Stepper 2002. Cameron
2011, pp. 51–6 is critical.
 Cf. Noethlichs 1971, pp. 166–82; Noethlichs 1986, esp. cols. 1160–3; Leppin 2004; Noethlichs
2006, pp. 122 f.; Leppin 2012, pp. 271 f.
 Cf. Wallraff 2013, pp. 165–79.
476 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

policy had essentially tried to unify the different Christian groupings based on
the lowest common denominator. This was true of Constantine, but also of Con-
stantius II and his failed Homoian policy of uniting the various ecclesial parties.
In Roman religion, detailed notions and definitions of the divine played only a
subordinate role in comparison to a cult practice where rites had to be performed
with the greatest accuracy.61 In this context Jörg Rüpke speaks of a ‘primacy of
action’ as regards ancient religions in general. Such focus on action did not ex-
clude reflection upon what was done nor reflection about the gods for whom or
with whom something was done, but ancient interpretation of these religious ac-
tions remained ‘amorphous, indeed desultory’.62 Within the framework of such a
tradition, initially there was no need to agree on the details of the trinitarian
questions as part of any religious policy.
This policy of the lowest common denominator, however, failed to address the
genuine theological problems behind the trinitarian disputes over an adequate de-
scription of the divinity that would both do justice to the biblical evidence and be
acceptable to the pagan educated elite. This prominence of theological reflection
within the Christian religion therefore sooner or later posed a particular challenge
to the emperors. In the course of the fourth century, they began to realize that in
Christianity orthodoxy was at least as important for the practice of its cult as ortho-
praxy. In other words, not only did ritual or cultic negligence endanger the practice
of the cult and thus the salus publica (‘public welfare’), but at the same time theo-
logical differences undermined the unity of the Church and thus weakened the effi-
ciency of Christianity for official cult purposes.63
In the absence of a formula describing the divine able to command consen-
sus, Theodosius first tried to solve this problem in Cunctos populos by assigning
the power to decide a definition to two bishops, namely Damasus of Rome and
Peter of Alexandria. The choice of the bishop of the urbs was obvious. However,
the choice of Peter instead of the patriarch of the New Rome was certainly pri-
marily due to the ecclesiastical-political situation in Constantinople at the time.
There were disputes between different factions (Homoiousians, Homoians, Neo-
Arians, Novatians, and Apolinarians), and even the Nicene minority had fallen
out with each other.64 Interestingly, Theodosius addressed this law specifically to
the inhabitants of his capital. Sozomen tells us what his reasoning behind this

 On Roman views on this point cf., e.g., Girardet 2010, pp. 150 f.
 Rüpke 2007, p. 87.
 On the concept of salus publica cf. esp. Kinzig 1994, pp. 441–67, 541–66 (citing earlier scholar-
ship); Winkler 1995. On the emperor’s interest in ecclesial unity cf. Kötter 2014, p. 18.
 Details are found, e.g., in McGuckin 2001, pp. 229–369; Daley 2006, pp. 14–19; Kinzig, Glaubens-
bekenntnis, 2021, pp. 86–8.
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 477

may have been: Theodosius wanted to avoid the appearance of coercion in mat-
ters of faith (which, as we know, had led to further ecclesial in-fighting under his
predecessors), so he expressed ‘the doctrine which he held concerning the God-
head’ in very general terms and initially addressed his instructions only to the
population of Constantinople; their pacification would set an example for the em-
pire as a whole.65 It is unclear whether Sozomen’s claim is based on his personal
assessment of the situation or on other sources that have not been preserved.66 It
should be noted, however, that a personal commitment of the emperor to the
Neo-Nicene confession is not yet specifically expressed – in contrast to later laws.
Less than one year on, another law was passed (Nullus haereticis of 10 Janu-
ary 38167) in which Theodosius specified what in his view (or of that of his advis-
ers) a homogeneous empire-wide faith should encompass; in addition, he now
also sanctioned non-compliance with specific punishments. In this law Theodo-
sius first prescribed the Nicaena fides as the imperial creed. He then solemnly re-
jected deviating confessions as heretical (Photinus, Arius, and Eunomius are
named, in wrong chronological order) and paraphrased the doctrine of the Trin-
ity, incorporating terms from N. In this regard, the law was marked by an increas-
ingly personal note. The emperor himself approved of the faith thus defined and
hoped to be inspired by the Holy Spirit himself. However, a confessional formula
of the kind ‘I/We believe’ was not yet used. Finally, deviations from this faith
were now punishable: heretics were to be banned from assembling and threat-
ened with expulsion if public order was disturbed. However, the threat of sanc-
tions remained limited to these measures. It was thus aimed exclusively at the
practice of deviant beliefs in the public sphere. Moreover, this law was not ad-
dressed to all ‘nations’, but only to the pretorian prefect Eutropius, who was in
charge of Illyricum, and its content obviously referred only to (orthodox or het-
erodox) church officials. Nullus haereticis thus even fell short of Cunctos populos,
since there was no explicit mention of all the inhabitants of the empire subscrib-
ing to a uniform creed. Instead, the emperor reduced the scope of his religious
strategy compared to that evident in Cunctos populos. He wanted to enforce Neo-
Nicene orthodoxy throughout the empire via the bishops, not by means of a diktat
to all citizens. Conversely, he limited himself to trying to prevent the spread of
deviant opinions, rather than to prohibit them as such.

 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,4,4–6 (FaFo § 532b). Cf. esp. Errington, ‘Christian Accounts’,
1997, p. 415. By contrast, Riedlberger 2020, pp. 401 f. thinks that Theodosius’ law was promulgated
in the empire as a whole.
 Riedlberger 2020, pp. 398 f. argues that Sozomen had no information other than the law itself.
 Codex Theodosianus 16,5,6 (= Codex Iustinianus 1,1,2; FaFo § 533).
478 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

Theodosius continued to pursue this policy, which was restrained in compari-

son with Cunctos populos, with the law Episcopis tradi of 30 July 381 (addressed to
Asia).68 Following the Second Ecumenical Council (May to July 381) in Constanti-
nople, he felt entitled to further extend the doctrinal norms of the imperial
church, given the newly reached agreement between east and west. In Episcopis
tradi the content of the faith is again described, with a de facto reference to the
Neo-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, but in terms of its form without any explicit
reference to a creed or to the Council of Constantinople and without using the
term homooúsios. This description is followed by an enumeration of orthodox
bishops, beginning with the Patriarchs Nectarius of Constantinople and Timothy
of Alexandria, followed by bishops of the (secular) dioceses of Oriens, Asia, and
Pontus.69 (According to Sozomen, these bishops were chosen on the basis of Theo-
dosius’ personal knowledge of the persons concerned, after he had convinced
himself of their orthodoxy.70) The sanctions were further tightened insofar as any
heretics had to give up their churches not only if the peace was disturbed, but
regardless; any heresy which was manifested in public now also entailed conse-
quences in terms of property law. Nonetheless, once again only or at least primar-
ily ecclesial functionaries are in its purview. The population of the empire as a
whole is not mentioned.

10.2.3 Third phase: The emperor’s personal confession

Things changed once more with Emperor Zeno (r. 474–491) and his famous Henoti-
con of 482 (FaFo § 550). In 454, Marcian (r. 450–457) had already named and para-
phrased N as his own baptismal confession in a letter to unspecified Alexandrian
monks and had even declared anathema those who ‘affirm or assert two sons or
two persons’.71 In addition, in Chalcedon the bishops had been instructed by the
imperial commissioners to define their faith on the basis of N and of C2 (which was
ultimately seen as explaining N).72 Basiliscus (r. 475–476) had massively interfered
with the traditional rights of the synod in matters of faith in 475 with his Encyclical
(FaFo § 548), when he condemned the Chalcedonian Definition on his own authority

 Codex Theodosianus 16,1,3 (FaFo § 534).

 The governors of the other dioceses named in the law will have received the same ordinan-
ces. An alternative interpretation is found in Errington, ‘Christian Accounts’, 1997, pp. 440–2; Er-
rington, ‘Church’, 1997.
 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7,9,7. Cf. esp. Errington, ‘Christian Accounts’, 1997, p. 421.
 Marcian, Epistula ad monachos Alexandrinos (FaFo § 546).
 Cf. above pp. 391 f.
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 479

without a prior council decision.73 But Zeno (r. 474/475, 476–491) was the first
emperor to prescribe a new version of the faith to his fellow Christians and also
personally to profess its content in the text of that document.74 Scholars have
argued that this process must not be overestimated because the Henoticon is not a
law, but a letter.75 Nevertheless, the normative power of this letter should not
be underestimated: de facto Zeno made N (or C2 – his wording is deliberately
vague76) compulsory for all the inhabitants of the empire, yet ostensibly not by
means of a diktat, but, for irenic reasons, by referring back to the creed’s general
liturgical use at baptism.
A full-blown christological formula was part of the definition of faith be-
lievers were expected to follow; this was formulated as the emperor’s personal
confession and was intended to bring about doctrinal agreement between the ad-
herents of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith and its opponents. Ultimately it
did not achieve its intended purpose and was finally revoked in 519 by Emperor
Justin (r. 518–527). Its text was concluded by an anathema against anybody dis-
agreeing with this faith, naming Nestorius and Eutyches in particular. For our
context, the question of how far the text departs from the actual Definition of
Chalcedon is not important. Here, my concern is rather that Zeno assumed the
function of the councils themselves, insofar as he sought to replace the confes-
sional formula of Chalcedon with a new one. This step, which amounted to a theo-
logical disempowerment of the councils, was new and previously unheard of; it
may have contributed to the fact that the new formula was in the end not gener-
ally accepted.
However, the emperor exercised restraint in another respect: he did not at-
tempt to replace the trinitarian confession of N (or C2), instead explicitly stressing
its normativity. He, therefore, did not comment on the content of the doctrine of
the Trinity, but limited himself – as Chalcedon had done – to the disputed christo-
logical questions, although treating them differently from Chalcedon for the sake
of concord with the Miaphysites and without even mentioning this council.77 By
doing so the prohibition earlier church assemblies, especially the Council of Ephe-

 As regards details cf. Dovere 1985(2011); Kolditz 2013, pp. 27–38; Trostyanskiy 2013. Pace Kol-
ditz who says that Basiliscus ‘based his rejection of the Definition of Chalcedon not on his impe-
rial position, but on the consensus of the imperial Church as expressed in earlier synodal
statements’ (p. 32).
 On the background cf. also Ullmann 1977(1978), pp. 36 f.; Ullmann, ‘Grundsatz’, 1978, pp. 46 f.
 Cf. Dovere 1988(2011). On the problem of the juridical genre of the Epistulae and their norma-
tive force cf. Wieacker 2006, pp. 73–5, 192 f.; Riedlberger 2020, pp. 48–61.
 Cf. above p. 400 and n. 105, and below p. 501 and n. 111.
 Aloys Grillmeier recognized ‘a weighting in favour of the Alexandrian monophysite christol-
ogy’ (Grillmeier 1987, p. 255).
480 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

sus of 431 (canon 7), had issued against changing the creed in any form was not
formally violated. Again following the example of Chalcedon Zeno did not start
his christological definition with the solemn πιστεύομεν (‘we believe’), but the
dogmatically less solemn ὁμολογοῦμεν (‘we confess’).
Justinian finally abandoned any such caution.78 Five texts preserved under
his name must be regarded as both laws and confessions:
– CI 1,1,5 (c. 527; FaFo § 552);
– CI 1,1,6 (= Chronicon paschale, Dindorf 1832, pp. 630–3: Epistula ad Constanti-
nopolitanos (Contra Nestorianos); 15 March 533; § 553);
– CI 1,1,7 (Epistula ad Epiphanium Archiepiscopum Constantinopolitanum;
26 March 533; § 554);
– CI 1,1,8 (= Collectio Auellana, Epistula 84: Epistula ad Iohannem II papam;
6 June 533; § 555);
– the Edictum rectae fidei (551; § 556).79
The first four laws were also included in the Codex Iustinianus, as published in
its second version (Codex repetitae praelectionis) in 534, in fact placed at the be-
ginning of the first book devoted to matters of religion. This gave them an author-
ity beyond the specific religious situation which had led to their original creation.
That is, these texts were, on the one hand, geared towards a specific political situ-
ation: they constituted an attempt to establish a union between powerful patri-
archs, in this case the Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonian Severians, the
followers of Severus of Antioch (d. 538), one of the most eloquent advocates of
Miaphysitism.80 On the other hand, their inclusion in the Codex established the
confession to be adopted by all inhabitants of the empire once and for all, accom-
panied by clear penal provisions in the event of dissidence.81
But Justinian also went far beyond his predecessors in terms of theological
substance. At first, he followed Zeno’s line in expressing his personal commitment
to the Christian faith as expressed in N and C2. But later he no longer shrank from
supplementing these sacrosanct creeds and the Definition of Faith of Chalcedon,

 After Zeno’s policy of union had failed and the Silentiary Anastasius was about to ascend the
throne, the patriarch of Constantinople Euphemius expressed doubts about the orthodoxy of the
pretender. They could only be dispelled once Anastasius had produced a confession (ὁμολογία);
cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica 3,32; Theodore the Reader, Historia ecclesiastica,
Epitome 446 (Hansen 1995(2009), pp. 125, l. 25 – 126, l. 15) and frg. 39 (Hansen 1995(2009), p. 126, ll.
2–8; from Victor Tunnunensis); cf. also FaFo § 551. Unfortunately it has not survived and, in any
case, may not have been a legal text stricto sensu.
 Cf. Noethlichs 2001, cols. 733 f., 752–5. In addition, Uthemann 1999(2005).
 Cf. Grillmeier/Hainthaler 1995, pp. 345 f.; Lange 2012, pp. 311–22.
 This is emphasized by Noethlichs 2001, cols. 733 f.
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 481

the latter having in the meantime regained its reputation, with his own theologi-
cal tenets. He, thereby, de facto violated the principle that had been established
by Ephesus in the aforementioned canon 7 and reaffirmed by Chalcedon, accord-
ing to which the creed must neither be extended nor abridged.
I have explained the normative process by which Justinian extended the con-
tent of the creed in a Neo-Chalcedonian direction in detail elsewhere.82 Here it
may suffice to point out that these laws show a close resemblance to synodal de-
crees, including in their condemnation of theologians who, in the emperor’s view,
deviated in one direction or another (Nestorius, Eutyches, Apolinarius).
With Justinian, the apex of the formation of imperial confessions had been
reached. No other emperor made such extensive use of the formulae contained in
the great creeds in order to proclaim his personal faith as a universal norm, al-
though the hybrid form of creed and law remained in use among Justinian’s suc-
cessors. In this context, one could mention the two edicts De fide by Justin II (r.
565–578; FaFo § 558), the Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) of autumn
638, which was authored by Sergius of Constantinople (sedit 610–638) and de-
clared Monotheletism, the doctrine of the one will in the incarnate Christ, to be
authoritative (§ 560), and finally the edict by which Emperor Constantine IV Pogo-
natos (r. 668–685), conversely confirmed Dyotheletism, the two-will doctrine of
the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council; § 561).

10.2.4 Reasons for the emperors’ new confessional focus

In conclusion, it seems difficult to explain the new imperial approach on the

basis of pre-Christian practice. For a process such as the writing down of a ‘faith’,
as we have it in N, and its standardization by the solemn signature of the bishops
present at Nicaea had not existed anywhere before in pagan cults, and thus could
not have fallen within the emperor’s remit as pontifex maximus.83 Rather, in
pagan times, his role was exclusively concerned with questions of cult execution
or cult personnel.84
What we are dealing with here, therefore, is a fundamentally new self-
definition by the emperor of his religious function, the outlines of which – as we
have seen – first emerged with Theodosius I85 and which was then continuously

 Cf. Kinzig 2016(2022), pp. 218–22.

 Cf. Noethlichs 2006, pp. 116 f.
 Details are discussed in a controversial interpretation in Draper 1988; Stepper 2003, esp.
pp. 228–38; Rüpke 2005, pp. 1601–16; Cameron 2007; Hamlyn 2011; Cameron 2016.
 Cf. Noethlichs 2006, p. 122.
482 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

developed, universalized, and personalized up to Justinian. This extended role

was able to tie in with older law insofar as the famous Roman jurist Ulpian (d.
223/224) had already formulated that the area of public law (ius publicum) also
included the sacra and sacerdotes. The fact that the law continued to be under-
stood in this way under the Christian emperors can be seen from the fact that
Ulpian’s definition was included in a prominent place in Justinian’s Digest.86 In
this respect, the emperor always remained responsible for the cult. Nevertheless,
the new self-image did not result from the ancient pontifical definition, but from
the episcopal redefinition of the emperor’s role in religious matters, which had
emerged under Constantine.87 As is well known, Constantine had already called
himself ‘bishop of those outside’.88 In concrete terms this meant that the emper-
ors increasingly saw it as their episcopal duty to ensure the implementation of a
creed for all the inhabitants of the empire, with the emperor himself at its head.
This was a paradoxical process in that an act of confession was thereby imposed,
although the confession as an expression of an inner faith by its very nature
could not be prescribed. The emperors, especially Justinian, tried to mitigate this
paradox by integrating their own act of confession into the corresponding laws,
thus adding sacred overtones. In other words, in the third phase outlined above,
the laws not only aimed to enforce acts of confession, but also presented them-
selves as such acts. The substance of the law and the act of its promulgation thus
de facto coincided: the confession demanded was already carried out by the em-
peror in the process of publication.
One might call this process a confessionalization of the emperor’s office. The
creed became the basis of imperial self-understanding, culminating in the collec-
tion of relevant laws in the Codex Iustinianus which were headed by Cunctos pop-
ulos in a programmatic fashion. In the process, deviant beliefs were gradually
declared intolerable and illegal. Not only were they targeted by the authorities
when they disturbed the peace, but even declared illegal in the private sphere,
when held as personal beliefs. In this respect, they formed an indispensable part

 Cf. Digesta 1,1,1,2: ‘Publicum ius in sacris, in sacerdotibus, in magistratibus constitit.’ / ‘Public
law covers sacred matters and [the duties of] priests and magistrates.’ Cf. also Ullmann 1976(1978),
p. 5; Ullmann 1977(1978), p. 28; Ullmann, ‘Grundsatz’, 1978, pp. 43 f., 64–6.
 On the altered religious role of the emperor cf. Dvornik 1966, vol. II, pp. 635–8, 724–850; Lep-
pin 2013. Bréhier 1948(1975) is in my view too critical. Kötter 2014 offers stimulating reflections as
regards the relationship between ‘empire’ and ‘Church’.
 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,24; cf. also Kinzig 1994, p. 565 and n. 305 and p. 572 n. 8 (citing
earlier literature); Noethlichs 2006, p. 117.
 10.2 The emperors and creeds 483

of what Hartmut Leppin has called the period of totalization (Totalisierung) con-
nected with the Christianization of the Roman Empire.89
The question of whether or not the promulgated confessional texts actually
reflected the emperor’s personal faith is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to
explaining his new political role. (In the case of the Henoticon, formulated as an
imperial confession, we even know that it had been composed not by the emperor
but the patriarch.) The aforementioned law texts are thus an indication of an in-
creased personal involvement, but they must not be misunderstood in an individ-
ualizing or psychologizing manner. Rather, as we have seen, they arose from the
emperors’ episcopal self-definition, which had become ever more important since
the fifth century and which was also widely accepted by the Church. Valentinian I
(r. 364–375) is said to have described himself as a layman and therefore refused
to interfere in ecclesiastical matters.90 But Theodosius II (r. 402–450) was ac-
claimed ἀρχιερεύς (‘chief priest’) by participants of the Council of Constantinople
in 448.91 Marcian was also considered a priest-emperor by the council fathers as-
sembled at Chalcedon92 and he – like Anastasius (r. 491–518) – used the designa-
tion pontifex inclitus (‘august Pontifex’) in his titulature.93 In 449, Leo the Great
observed a sacerdotalis animus (‘a priestly mind’) in Theodosius II,94 and thirty
years later Pope Simplicius likewise praised the animus fidelissimus sacerdotis et
principis (‘the most faithful mind of a priest and emperor’) of Emperor Zeno.95 In
particular, the task of protecting the faith and acting as defensor fidei (‘Defender

 Cf. Leppin 2012, pp. 265–76.

 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 6,7,2; Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 8,8a. On the dis-
cussion concerning the reliability of this evidence cf., e.g., Leppin 1996, pp. 195 f., 203; Dovere
1999, pp. 195 f.; Hunt 2007, pp. 80 f. Valentinian is also said to have refused to nominate a bishop
for Milan because he felt it fell outside his jurisdiction; cf. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 4,7,1
and Leppin 1996, p. 197. Furthermore, cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 6,21,7.
 Cf. ACO II 1 1, p. 138, l. 28. On the quasi-priestly image of the emperor in Socrates cf. Leppin
1996, pp. 194 f.
 Cf. ACO II 1 2, p. 157, l. 29.
 Cf. ACO II 3, p. 346, l. 38 (Rösch 1978, p. 165, no. 34); Collectio Auellana, Epistula 113 (Anastasius I,
Epistula ad senatum urbis Romae; CSEL 35/2, p. 506, l. 20; Rösch 1978, p. 167, no. 42). In addition,
Lippold 1972, p. 163; Rösch 1978, pp. 30 f., 86; Ullmann 1977(1978), pp. 25 f.; Ullmann 1981, pp. 84 f.;
Nicol 1988(2003), p. 70; Stepper 2003, p. 224; Meier 2009, pp. 113–15, 317 f. and n. 428; Cameron 2007,
pp. 363–6, 370–7; Cameron 2011, pp. 53–5. As regards pontifex inclitus as an episcopal title cf. Jer-
ome, Apologia aduersus libros Rufini 2,2; Fulgentius of Ruspe, De ueritate praedestinationis et gra-
tiae dei 2,31; Gregory of Tours, Historiae 2,34.
 Cf. Leo, Epistula 24 (449; ACO II 4, p. 3, l. 15). In addition, Ullmann 1977(1978), pp. 24 f.
 Cf. Simplicius, Epistula 15 (479) = Collectio Auellana, Epistula 66, 1 (CSEL 35/1, p. 147, ll. 7 f.).
484 10 Creeds as Means of Control in Synodal and Imperial Legislation

of the faith’) was now widely attributed to the emperor.96 Under Justinian, this
process culminated in the fact that the emperor, by now endowed with quasi-
papal authority, charged the bishops with enforcing the Neo-Chalcedonian confes-
sion by way of catechesis and preaching.97 In the west, the Visigoth king Reccared
(r. 586–601) seems to have followed Justinian’s example when he converted to Ca-
tholicism at the Third Council of Toledo (589): he made a trinitarian confession,
based on the eastern creeds, and then prescribed this to his subjects.98
The empire-wide implementation of creeds, backed by the Church, remained
a powerful tool for the emperors to suppress dissent not only theologically, but
also politically, as political dissent was often expressed in a theological guise. But
it was also a precarious one: Constantius II failed in implementing a Homoian
creed; Chalcedon met with considerable opposition and, ultimately, led to serious
rifts in the Church of the empire. Finally, Justinian was unable to contain the
christological debates – his own ‘credal laws’ remained no more than an episode.
N and (later) C2 were not widely accepted because of the say-so of an emperor,
but because their theology had stood the test of time.

 Cf. Leo the Great, Epistula 24 (449; ACO II 4, p. 3, l. 16); Valentinian III to Theodosius II
(450): ACO II 3, p. 14, ll. 5 f.; Leo the Great, Epistula 169 (460) = Collectio Auellana, Epistula 51, 1
(CSEL 35/1, p. 117, ll. 5 f.); Simplicius, Epistula 15 (479) = Collectio Auellana, Epistula 66, 1 (p. 147,
l. 5). In addition, Ullmann 1977(1978), pp. 30 f.
 On sacralization under Justinian cf. also Dvornik 1966, vol. II, pp. 815–39; Uthemann 1999(2005);
Meier 2004, pp. 608–41; Leppin 2011, pp. 286–8. On the later period cf. Treitinger 1938(1956), esp.
pp. 124–57 and the critique of Bréhier 1948(1975).
 Cf. Third Council of Toledo (589), Regis professio fidei (FaFo § 490) = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Doku-
ment 120.2), pp. 259, l. 21 – 261, l. 15 and below pp. 551–3.
11 Creeds and the Liturgy

11.1 The creed at baptism

11.1.1 The development of the Traditio and Redditio symboli

The Church had grown in number since the toleration and promotion of Chris-
tianity under Constantine.1 A credible estimate suggests that close to one thou-
sand catechumens were seeking baptism each year in the Antioch of the late
fourth century.2 This increased influx of converts needed to be organized, chan-
nelled, and controlled by procedures and rituals of admission. People interested
in Christianity had to be taught the basics of the faith during their catechumen-
ate. In addition, infant baptism became more widespread.3 This created a certain
pressure for efficiency and uniformity in dealing with converts. But it cannot
have been the only factor that prompted the introduction of fixed declaratory
creeds in catechesis more generally.
Other developments pushed in the same direction. By the end of the fourth
century it had become clear that a specific version of Christianity as it had been
laid down by the great patriarchates (which were in the process of consolidating
their power and jurisdiction) was the normative version which was to be fol-
lowed from now on by all (Christian) inhabitants of the empire. The edict Cunctos
populos of Theodosius I defined this version in broad outline. Other laws to the
same effect were introduced in due course.4 In other words, creeds were no lon-
ger only a means of teaching converts the basics of their new faith (and thus a
distinguishing feature of Christians over against pagans), but they were now also
used to separate ‘orthodox’ Christians from dissenters. This problem was more
acutely felt in the east than in the west, although in some western regions addi-
tions were made to R which served the same purpose.5

 This chapter is partly based on Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), pp. 229–40. On the
growth of Christianity cf., e.g., MacMullen 1984; Thrams 1992; Stark 1996(1997); Salamito 1996
(2010), pp. 770–9; Brown 2013, pp. 62–5. For the problems of methodology cf. especially Hopkins
1998(2018); Leppin 2012. In addition, Gemeinhardt 2022, pp. 184–6.
 Cf. Auguste Piédnagel in SC 366, p. 43. Palladius mentions ‘about three thousand’ newly bap-
tized Christians in Constantinople in 404 in his Dialogus de uita Ioannis Chrysostomi 9, l. 221 f. (SC
341, p. 200). The number may be exaggerated (cf. Acts 2:41).
 For the development of the catechumenate in the fourth and fifth centuries cf. Metzger/Drews/
Brakmann 2004, esp. cols. 518–44; Pignot 2020.
 Cf. above ch. 10.2.
 Cf. above ch. 5.2.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-011
486 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

Nonetheless, fixed creeds at baptism were only introduced gradually over the
course of the fourth century. They were unknown in many western regions with
the exception of Rome where the creed had turned into a stable formula by the
early fourth century.6 It is not surprising, therefore, that rituals involving the
creed first developed in the capital. As we saw above, the baptismal questions
that had been in use since the late second century were at some point trans-
formed into a declaratory formula which may have been more or less fixed. Vigi-
lius of Thapsus claimed in the late fifth century that, ‘The creed has been handed
over to the believers in Rome [. . .] even before the Council of Nicaea assembled,
from the times of the apostles until now [. . .].’7 But this was fiction. It was not
until Christianity came to be tolerated and gradually promoted in the fourth cen-
tury that the step of joining the new religion was turned into a lengthy and de-
tailed initiation rite into the Christian mysteries which extended over several
weeks. During this process, as part of their catechumenate the bishop ‘handed’
the creed ‘over’ to the candidates in a solemn act, explaining its clauses in the
process (Traditio symboli). The candidates for baptism (often called competentes)
were given the task of memorizing it. At a later stage they ‘handed it back’, i.e.
they recited it in the presence of the bishop or were interrogated about it (Red-
ditio symboli – no comparative fixed terms for both these rites exist in Greek). This
‘handing back’ could happen at some point before the baptism (for example on one
of the preceding Sundays) or as part of the baptismal service itself.
The first example of such a Redditio in the west is found in Augustine’s Con-
fessions (c. 397). Here the bishop of Hippo describes how Marius Victorinus re-
cited the creed in Rome in 356 or 357.8 Augustine did not witness the event with
his own eyes, but had been told about it by his friend Simplicianus who was him-
self involved in the conversion of the famous rhetorician and philosopher. We
learn from Augustine’s second-hand report9 that Victorinus had memorized a
fixed credal formula which he then recited from a kind of dais in front of the
assembled congregation. Augustine also tells us that this was by no means always
the case. Candidates who were shy could perform the Redditio in front of the
priest alone. The way this famous Roman orator and philosopher made his public
confession attracted admiration from his audience.
Rufinus provides further details about Roman practice in his Expositio sym-
boli (c. 404). He mentions the creed’s brevity and adds that it was customary in

 Cf. above ch. 5.1.

 Vigilius of Thapsus, Contra Eutychetem 4,1 (FaFo § 318a2).
 The exact date is controversial. Cf., e.g., Cooper 2005, pp. 20–2. For what follows cf. also Saxer
1988, pp. 568 f.
 Cf. Augustine, Confessiones 8,5 (FaFo § 636a).
 11.1 The creed at baptism 487

the capital to recite it in public so that the congregation could assure itself of its
unadulterated rendition.10 In return, this may imply that around 400 the Redditio
symboli was practised in the presence of just the bishop or a presbyter in Aqui-
leia, Rufinus’ home town. Moreover, at the time of Marius Victorinus, the Redditio
was something that each believer had to perform individually. It is not entirely
clear from the information Rufinus provides whether this was still the case at the
turn of the century or whether baptismal candidates recited the confession
jointly.
In any case, these two testimonies attest that a fixed confession formed the
catechetical basis for preparing to be baptized in Rome around the middle of the
fourth century. Moreover, this creed seems to have been declaratory. This is also
corroborated in the 370s by Nicetas of Remesiana:

Therefore the person who is setting himself free from these evil deeds, casting these chains
behind his back, as if in the face of the enemy, proclaims now with a sincere voice, ‘I believe
in God, the Father Almighty’, and the rest.11

Nicetas thus confirms the sequence renunciation – Redditio for his church in
Dacia Mediterranea.
The evidence so far covers – strictly speaking – only the practice of the Red-
ditio symboli. The first example of the corresponding rite of Traditio in the west
is, as far as we know, attested for Milan in a letter of Ambrose written in 385.
Here the bishop reports on disputes with the Homoian imperial court over who
owned the churches in Milan. He mentions rather casually that he handed over
the creed to the candidates for baptism (competentes) in the baptistery on an un-
specified Sunday after the readings, the sermon, and the dismissal of the catechu-
mens.12 The practice may therefore have been in use for some time. Later in the
same letter he writes that this was followed by the celebration of mass.13 This
means that in Milan the Traditio symboli was inserted between the Liturgy of the
Word and the celebration of the eucharist, and that for that purpose participants
moved from the church to the baptistery (and presumably back to the church for

 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 3 (FaFo § 638). Similarly, Leo the Great, Tractatus 24, 6 (FaFo
§ 643a).
 Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 2, frg. 4 (FaFo § 625).
 Cf. Ambrose, Epistula 76(20), 4 (FaFo § 632a). Cf. also Schmitz 1975, pp. 69–75.
 Cf. Ambrose, Epistula 76(20), 4 (not in FaFo).
488 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

mass).14 The act of Traditio was accompanied by a sermon by the bishop, a ver-
sion of which has survived.15
In the late fourth and in the fifth century, the practice of Traditio and Reddi-
tio symboli spread throughout large parts of the Latin Church. Interposed be-
tween, or linked to them, were – at least in Rome – the so-called scrutinies
(scrutinia / ‘examinations’): John the Deacon mentions in his letter to Senarius
sometime in the first half of the sixth century that the creed was handed over to
the competentes or electi after the exsufflatio16 and renunciation. At some unspeci-
fied point in the proceedings they were also examined about their faith. This, in
turn, was followed by them being anointed with the oil of sanctification.17 The
scrutinies (which in other churches were also linked to exorcism) seem to have
lost their function of verifying the knowledge of the candidates at a certain point
in time, perhaps as a result of the spread of infant baptism.18 In addition, there
were local variations in how these rites were performed, which do not need to be
discussed here in detail. However, there was widespread agreement that the
creed, once memorized, was not to be recited aloud or written down outside of
worship, so that it would not be overheard by the uninitiated or indeed fall into
their hands. Rather, the faithful were to keep it within their hearts. If a negligent
priest had forgotten the Redditio, according to Pope Gregory II (sedit 715–731) this
did not make baptism invalid.19
As regards North Africa, we can get a fairly good picture of the liturgical set-
ting there from the writings of Augustine.20 In Hippo Regius the Traditio took
place on the fourth Sunday of Lent or on the previous Saturday. (The dates and
precise sequence of events are controversial.) Here the creed was handed over to
the candidates (competentes) after the bishop had explained the formula. The Red-

 For the complex archaeological evidence regarding the baptisteries at Milan cf. Schmitz 1975,
pp. 6–14; Ristow 1998, pp. 183 f. (no. 376) and tables 13 f.; pp. 317 f. (nos. 993–5).
 Cf. Ambrose, Explanatio symboli and Schmitz 1975, pp. 70–5.
 Here the priest blows air into the face of candidate in order to expel the devil and to make
room for Christ.
 Cf. John the Deacon, Epistula ad Senarium 4 (FaFo § 655).
 Cf. briefly Kretschmar in Kretschmar/Hauschildt 1989, p. 4; Edward J. Yarnold in Gerlitz et al.
2001, p. 681. As regards the problem of the scrutinies in general (whose precise function and
place in the western liturgy remains unclear), cf. Dondeyne 1932; Kretschmar 1970, pp. 253 f.; Ru-
bellin 1982, pp. 40–2; Saxer 1988, pp. 592 f., 603 f.; Cramer 1993(1994), pp. 142 f.; Keefe 2002, vol. I,
pp. 44 f; Pasquato/Brakmann 2004, cols. 475, 481; Metzger/Drews/Brakmann 2004, cols. 537, 543 f.;
565–7. In general cf. also Stenzel 1958, pp. 199–240.
 Boniface, Epistula 26 (FaFo § 666; written in 726).
 The following section is based on Kinzig, ‘Symbolum’, AugL, 2021. Cf. now also Pignot 2020,
pp. 210–28.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 489

ditio took place on the following Saturday or Sunday21 and seems to have fol-
lowed upon the renunciation.22 On this occasion the creed was either explained
again,23 or the Redditio was followed straight away by an explanation of the
Lord’s Prayer.24 The Redditio may have taken the form of interrogations whose
details are, unfortunately, unknown. (However, it is also possible that these inter-
rogations were separate from the Redditio of the declaratory creed and held dur-
ing the baptismal service itself.25) Those who were unable to recite the creed
were given another opportunity during the Easter vigil. In this context, Augustine
tries to reassure his listeners that no one ought to be afraid of mispronouncing
the formula.26 At the baptism of an infant its parents (or sponsor) had to answer
the questions.27 They were told to teach their children the creed and the Lord’s
Prayer once they were old enough.28 If, at the time of baptism, the candidates were
seven years of age or older they had to recite the creed and to answer the questions
themselves.29 Again, their parents were entrusted with the necessary instruction in
the lead-up to the rite.30 Dying catechumens who were no longer able to speak
were baptized without interrogations.31

 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 213 (= Morin Guelf. 1), 1. 11 (FaFo § 636d).

 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 215, 1; cf. also id., Sermo 216, 2. 6 and (for Carthage) Quodvultdeus,
Sermo 2, 2,1 (FaFo § 317b); id., Sermo 3, 1,21; and Pignot 2020, pp. 252–9. There is no evidence that
there were two renunciations in Hippo as scholars have claimed (cf., e.g., Kretschmar 1970, p. 242
and n. 330). This may have been different for infant baptism where the child’s sponsor seems to
have renounced the devil and recited the creed a second time immediately prior to baptism. Cf.
Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1,63: ‘The person who held the infant would cer-
tainly have had to answer me for him, for he could not answer for himself. How would it be
possible then for him to declare that he renounced the devil, if there was no devil in him? that
he was converted to God, if he had never been averted from him? that he believed, besides other
things, in the forgiveness of sins, if no sins were attributable to him?’ (tr. NPNF; altered).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 215 (cf. FaFo § 636f).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 59, 1; 58, 1 (cf. FaFo § 636b1, c).
 Cf. Augustine, De fide et operibus 1,14 (FaFo § 599c); id., De baptismo 1,21 (§ 599a1); 4,31
(§ 599a2); id., Contra litteras Petiliani 3,9 (§ 599b); id., Epistula 98, 7 (§ 618); id., De natura et ori-
gine animae 1,12 (§ 599d1); 3,12 (§ 599d2); id., Epistula 5✶, 2,2–3. Cf. also below as regards the prac-
tice in Carthage described by Ferrandus.
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 58, 1. 13 (FaFo § 636b); cf. also id., Sermo 213 (= Morin Guelf. 1), 11
(§ 636d).
 Cf. Augustine, Epistula 98, 7 (FaFo § 618) and above n. 22.
 Cf. Augustine, fragment of a sermon in Decretum Gratiani 3,4,105 (FaFo § 636h).
 Cf. Augustine, De natura et origine animae 3,12 (FaFo § 599d2).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 213 (= Morin Guelf. 1), 11 (FaFo § 636d).
 Cf. Augustine, De adulterinis coniugiis 1,33 (FaFo § 599e).
490 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

Here it might be worth looking at a story which serves to further illustrate

how a Christian mind conceived of the Redditio in late antiquity.32 Ferrandus of
Carthage wrote to his mentor Bishop Fulgentius of Ruspe (sedit 507/508–527/533)
sometime before 527–533, so a century after Augustine, asking him for advice in
relation to a particular case. An adolescent Ethiopian slave whom his Christian
owners wished to have baptized had gone through the exorcisms, pronounced the
renunciation, and then been given the creed. At a later stage (the text is unclear at
what stage in the process this happened) he recited the creed in front of the entire
congregation and was taught the Lord’s Prayer. However, he fell seriously ill be-
fore his actual baptism and, on the point of death, became unconscious. Therefore,
here was a rush to have him baptized there and then. Deacon Ferrandus himself
answered the credal questions for him just as he did in the case of an infant bap-
tism. The slave died soon after without having regained consciousness. Ferrandus
was greatly worried that the slave’s eternal happiness could have been impaired
by the fact that he had not answered the questions himself and that God had,
therefore, judged him unworthy of baptism.33
For the modern reader the story is interesting for a number of reasons. First
of all, Ferrandus mentions that the slave was black, gives an explanation for his
skin colour common at the time (it has been blackened by the sun), and then
points out that he had not yet been ‘whitened by the glittering grace of Christ’
(micante Christi gratia dealbatus).34 Ferrandus is interested in emphasizing the
effect of baptism which consists in washing away human sin and thus restores
humanity to its original whiteness.
Second, the slave’s own wishes appear to be irrelevant. We do not know
whether or not he actually wanted to be baptized. What matters here are the as-
pirations of his Christian owners. Ultimately, his faith is ascertained not by scruti-
nizing his conscience, but by his knowledge of the creed and the Lord’s Prayer
and his ability to answer the baptismal questions.
Third, once he is enrolled as a catechumen, although a slave, he is treated
like any other catechumen and has to follow exactly the same procedures.
Fourth, at that time there was no Sýntaxis (formula of engagement to Christ)
in Carthage. Instead the Traditio symboli followed upon the renunciation (which
took place some days or weeks before baptism). Ferrandus was aware that this

 The correspondence is also discussed in Pignot 2020, pp. 290–307.

 Cf. Ferrandus, Epistula 11, 2–3 (FaFo § 659a).
 Ferrandus, Epistula 11, 2 (FaFo § 659a). In other contemporary texts the devil takes on the
form of an Ethiopian or a black boy – this is not the case here. Cf., e.g., Athanasius, Vita Antonii
6,1 and Gerard J.M. Bartelink in SC 400, p. 147 n. 2; Vivian/Athanassakis 2003, p. 71 n. 49, both
citing further literature.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 491

might be unusual, because he adds that ‘custom here required this (sicut hic con-
suetudo poscebat)’.35
Fifth, at infant baptism in sixth-century Carthage the baptismal questions
were not answered by the parents or the godparents, but by the deacon.
Finally, the precise execution of the rite required candidates who were ‘capa-
ble of reason’ (rationis capax) to answer for themselves. If they were prevented
by illness from doing this their eternal happiness was endangered. Again, the can-
didate’s actual faith which had, in principle, already been proven in the Redditio
symboli only played a secondary role. Rather, in Ferrandus’ mind the slave’s sal-
vation was safeguarded by his correct reply to the baptismal questions.
Fulgentius reacted to Ferrandus’ queries with a lengthy treaty. Interestingly,
his view on the importance of faith differed from that of Ferrandus. Fulgentius
distinguishes between the candidate’s own ‘work’ (opus) which consists in the
confession and the ‘reward’ (merx) it earns, i.e. baptism. He goes on to point out
that the credal questions at baptism only serve to confirm what the candidate
had, in this case, already demonstrated himself by the Redditio symboli. There-
fore, his eternal happiness was not impaired by the fact that he had fallen uncon-
scious before being able to answer these questions. Loss of consciousness did not
entail loss of faith. Fulgentius concludes, ‘What the illuminated will began in him
through belief and confession, fraternal charity completed on his behalf.’36 This
illustrates in a nutshell how two different understandings of faith and baptism
clashed with each other: Ferrandus was a representative of a ritualistic interpre-
tation of faith which placed the main emphasis upon the rite’s correct execution.
This involved reciting the creed at the Traditio and then answering the baptismal
questions. If the second element was missing, this might be a sign that God judged
the baptizand unworthy of a second birth. By contrast, Fulgentius represented
the Augustinian view of the faith and the sacraments where, ultimately, what
mattered was whether the candidates had demonstrated that they actually be-
lieved – this was the decisive salvific event. The baptism itself was only the out-
ward sign and confirmation of this inner faith.
There is some further information concerning the Traditio/Redditio, this time
from Spain. The Spanish bishop Martin of Braga reports in his treatise De correc-
tione rusticorum (574) that either the baptizands or their parents and sponsors
first renounced the devil and then answered the credal questions (which was R/T)
with ‘yes’.37 Isidore of Seville (d. 636) tells us that the Traditio took place on Palm

 Ferrandus, Epistula 11, 2 (FaFo § 659a).

 Fulgentius, Epistula 12, 6,14–16 (FaFo § 659b). The quotation is found in 16: ‘[. . .] et quod in
illo uoluntas illuminata credendo et confitendo coepit, hoc pro illo caritas fraterna perfecit.’
 Cf. Martin, De correctione rusticorum 15 (FaFo § 608).
492 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

Sunday after a preceding period of instruction.38 The Redditio also followed upon
the renunciation without any words of Sýntaxis.39 (A similar procedure seems to
have been followed in (parts of) England40 and Ireland.41) Ildefonsus of Toledo
(sedit 657–667) gives us the following sequence of liturgical actions: on the ‘day of
anointing’ (in die unctionis): exorcism – anointment – acceptance as candidate for
baptism (competens) – Traditio; on Maundy Thursday: Redditio.42
As regards Gaul, in Arles the creed was handed over at the time of Bishop
Caesarius (sedit 503–542) as part of a homily which commenced with the bishop
reciting the creed thrice.43 The Traditio symboli took place on Palm Sunday,44
probably in the church dedicated to St Stephen, where the Cathedral of St Tro-
phime stands today.45 Unfortunately, Caesarius says little about the rites for Lent
and the catechumenate associated with it. The Expositio breuis antiquae liturgiae
Gallicanae, an explanation of the Gallic liturgy, provides more information. This
work was ascribed to Germanus of Paris (sedit 555–576), but probably stems from
the early seventh century.46 Unfortunately, the text is mutilated, but it does give
us a glimpse of what happened at the Traditio. Apparently the creed was written
on a sheet and then laid out on a bed of feathers or on a white towel on top of the
rails separating the nave from the choir. The vials containing chrism and oil were
placed next to it, as was a Gospel codex covered with a red cloth. The author ap-
pends an allegorical (and rather forced) explanation of these rites. It should be
noted, however, that here the gospel and the creed were placed side by side and
thus took on the same ritual significance. The creed was no longer ‘just’ a text to
be memorized and a summary of the faith to be learned, but a sacred text on a
par with the gospel.47
The introduction of the Redditio and Traditio did not mean that the older bap-
tismal questions were simply abolished.48 Some of the earliest sacramentaries

 Cf. Isidore, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,22(21),2 (FaFo § 39a); id., Etymolo-
giarum siue originum libri XX 6,8,15 (§ 661b). The contents of this instruction are found in id., De
origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,24(23),1–7 (§ 491).
 Cf. Isidore, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,25(24),5 (FaFo § 661a).
 Cf. Second Synod of Clofesho (747), canon 11 (FaFo 587b).
 Cf. the Stowe Missal (FaFo § 680a).
 Cf. Ildefonsus of Toledo, De cognitione baptismi 30–35 (FaFo § 664).
 Cf. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9, 1 (FaFo § 271a1).
 On the date cf. canon 13 of the Synod of Agde (506; FaFo § 573).
 Cf. Klingshirn 1994(1995), pp. 61 f.
 Cf. Pseudo-Germanus of Paris, Expositio breuis antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae, Epistula secunda
de communi officio 6–9 (FaFo § 662).
 Cf. below ch. 15.
 For what follows cf. the source texts in FaFo, chs. 10.1.1, 10.1.3 and 11.3.1.1., 11.3.1.3.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 493

contain both a rite of Redditio, usually on the morning of Holy Saturday, and cre-
dal interrogations used as baptismal formulae during the baptism in the evening
of that same day.49 The extent of these questions may have varied: some could be
very brief as are those in the OGS and cognate sacramentaries;50 others could be
T in interrogatory form.51 Once more, it must be emphasized that the short ques-
tions in the OGS are, in fact, the earlier version, perhaps dating back to the
late second century.52 However, there was great variation.
Finally, the Professio Iudeorum is a special case of Redditio which was pre-
scribed for anyone converting from Judaism to Christianity in the Visigothic King-
dom under King Erwig (r. 680–687). Here C2 was included in a formulary to be
signed by the convert.53 The ritual took the form of a solemn renunciation of Ju-
daism, followed by the creed and a promise never to return ‘to the vomit of Jew-
ish superstition’ (ad uomitum superstitionis Iudaicae; cf. Prov 26:11; 2Pet 2:22).54
This law is followed by another one containing a lengthy oath which included the
following clause:

[. . .] I shall keep with all purity of faith anything that has been verified as having been
included in this declaration (in eadem professione) that I have drawn up concerning the ob-
servation of the holy faith, so that I shall be obliged to live henceforth according to the apos-
tolic tradition or the rule of the sacred creed (iuxta apostolicam traditionem uel sacri
symboli regulam).55

Likewise, the baptismal interrogations (to which the baptizand answered with a
simple ‘yes’) also seem to have persisted for a long time in the east.56 Cyril of Jer-
usalem offers the first evidence of the Traditio’s existence. In his Catecheses ad
illuminandos (351) he admonishes the baptizands (whom he calls φωτιζόμενοι /

 Cf. FaFo, chs. 10.1.3., 11.3.1.3.

 Cf. FaFo, chs. 10.1.1.2.1; 11.3.1.1.2.1.
 Cf. FaFo, chs., 10.1.1.2.2; 11.3.1.1.2.2.
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 449 (FaFo § 675c), 608 (§ 675f). Cf. above ch. 4.5.
 Cf. FaFo 184f24.8.
 Lex Visigothorum 12,3,14. Cf. also Lex Visigothorum 12,3,13 where the symbolum is also
mentioned.
 Lex Visigothorum 12,3,15 (tr. Linder 1997, p. 317; altered). Cf. also Kinzig, ‘Die Verpflichtungser-
klärungen’, 2019(2022) and below p. 587.
 Cf., e.g., canon 19 of the Canons of Hippolytus (Northern Egypt?, 336–340 or later; FaFo § 606;
sequence: Apótaxis – anointing with the oil of exorcism – Sýntaxis – credal questions and immer-
sions); Testamentum Domini 2,18 (Syria, s. IV ex./V in.; cf. § 615; sequence: Apótaxis – anointing
with the oil of exorcism and final exorcism – Sýntaxis – credal questions and immersions).
494 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

‘the illuminated’, distinguishing them from catechumens57) to memorize the

creed and to rehearse it quietly lest it be overheard by the catechumens. Here the
Traditio opened a series of homilies on the content of the creed delivered during
Lent.58 Given what I said above about the spread of the declaratory creed this
may well be an isolated case – we should by no means assume that this custom
was already well established throughout the eastern part of the empire. We do
not know either whether, in Jerusalem, the creed was, at any point, recited by the
baptizands themselves.
The picture becomes clearer when we look at Egeria’s Peregrinatio (written in
381–384).59 She reports that the bishop of Jerusalem teaches the baptizands and
their parents three hours a day for forty days (five weeks60) about Scripture, a pro-
cess which Egeria explicitly calls catechesis. This is followed by the Traditio sym-
boli and another series of sermons on the faith which continues for another two
weeks.61 The Redditio symboli itself is a fairly informal affair: during Holy Week

the bishop comes in the morning into the Great Church at the martyrium, and the chair is
set out for him in the apse behind the altar, to which they come one by one, men with their
fathers and women with their mothers, and recite the creed to the bishop.62

Unfortunately, Egeria fails to tell us which creed was used.

According to the Mystagogical Catecheses (which were probably also deliv-
ered by Cyril) the renunciation (Apótaxis) was not followed (as everywhere else
in the east) by the formula of engagement (Sýntaxis), but by the Redditio.63 The
same as in some western churches this led to an odd doubling of the confession
of faith, because the baptizands were then led into the baptistery64 and asked
whether they believed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, once more

 For the catechumenate in Jerusalem cf. Metzger/Drews/Brakmann 2004, cols. 520–523.

 Cf. Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminandos 5, 12 (FaFo § 624a). Cf. also 18, 21 (§ 624b) and 32.
 Cf. Egeria, Peregrinatio 46,1–5 (FaFo § 630).
 The numbers do not add quite up.
 However, Cyril delivered only eighteen lectures; the Traditio took place at the end of the fifth.
According to Maxwell Johnson, Cyril may have known only a Lent that extended over three
weeks. Cf. Johnson 1988 and Spinks 2006(2016), p. 39.
 Egeria, Peregrinatio 46,5 (FaFo § 630).
 Cf. (Pseudo-)Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogia 1, 9 (FaFo § 631a): Πιστεύω εἰς τὸν πατέρα καὶ εἰς
τὸν υἱὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας. / ‘I believe in the Father, in the
Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and in one baptism of repentance.’ – probably abbreviating the full
version of the creed (Day 2007, p. 59 pace, e.g., Kelly 1972, p. 33).
 This must have been the baptistery of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; cf. Wharton 1992 and
Ristow 1998, p. 168 (no. 309) who discuss the scant archaeological and literary evidence.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 495

making the ‘saving confession’ (τὴν σωτήριον ὁμολογίαν) before being immersed
in the water.65
The evidence for Jerusalem notwithstanding, we have relatively little proof of
the Traditio and/or Redditio symboli as established rites from the eastern part of
the empire. Instead, the more ancient practice continued which was to instruct
converts in the basics of the Christian faith employing some kind of regula fidei.
As shown above, the congregation of Caesarea is a useful case in point: Eusebius
felt compelled to lay down this (as yet unfixed) regula in the letter he sent to his
congregation.66
As regards Asia Minor, the earliest evidence for the use of N in catechesis is
found in a letter by Basil of Caesarea (written in 373) – although he refers only to
converts from another, non-Nicene church who are instructed in the contents of
N which is thus used as a test for orthodoxy.67 The same procedure is prescribed
in canon 7 of the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana (probably convened in
the second half of the fourth century) which was also widely applied in the Latin
church; but in this canon no specific creed is named.68 In the same letter Basil
refuses to speak of the Holy Spirit as begotten, ‘for by the handing over of the
faith we have been taught a single Only-begotten’.69 It is unclear whether the au-
thor refers to the ceremonial act of Traditio or to the ‘tradition of the faith’ in a
wider sense. In another letter from the early autumn of the same year he writes
that N had been in use in Caesarea ‘since the fathers’ without, however, providing
any further context.70 Gregory of Nyssa uses the term παράδοσις πίστεως in his
Refutation of the Confession of Eunomius (383) in saying that ‘we have learned
about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from the truth in the “handing
over” of the faith’.71 But it is again uncertain what exactly he means by that.

 Cf. (Pseudo-)Cyril, Mystagogia 2, 4 (FaFo § 631b).

 Cf. above ch. 6.4.2.
 Cf. Basil, Epistula 125, 1 (FaFo § 174a): ‘Those who previously held to some other confession of
faith and now wish to change over to the congregation of the orthodox and also those who now
desire to be instructed in the teaching of the doctrine of truth [cf. Eph 1:13; Col 1:5] for the first
time, must be taught the creed written by the blessed fathers in the council which was previously
assembled at Nicaea.’
 Cf. FaFo § 562a. The date of this council is uncertain.
 Basil of Caesarea, Epistula 125, 3 (FaFo § 174a): [. . .] οὔτε γεννητόν· ἕνα γὰρ μονογενῆ ἐν τῇ
παραδόσει τῆς πίστεως δεδιδάγμεθα.
 Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Epistula 140, 2 (FaFo § 174b).
 Gregory of Nyssa, Refutatio confessionis Eunomii (= Contra Eunomium II) 108 (Jaeger 1960,
p. 357, ll. 14–16): Πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῆς ἀλη-
θείας ἐμάθομεν.
496 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

By contrast, the aforementioned Council of Laodicea clearly states that ‘those

to be enlightened [i.e. baptized] must learn the creed by heart and recite it to the
bishop or to the presbyters on the fifth day of the week.’72 Evidently a formula
was memorized and recited on a Friday (either on the Friday after the creed had
been ‘handed over’, if baptism was performed more than once a year, or, per-
haps, on Good Friday, if it was performed at Easter73), but again we hear nothing
about the liturgical setting, if any. Those who receive baptism during a serious
illness are exhorted to memorize the creed once they have recovered.74
Our earliest evidence relating to Antioch dates from the late 370s, but it is
rather confusing. Catechumens were taught about the faith in sermons delivered
by a presbyter or the bishop, apparently during the regular Liturgy of the Word
with both initiated and non-initiated Christians present.75 The Catechetical Homi-
lies 1–10 by Theodore of Mopsuestia (even if they clearly were located in Mop-
suestia not Antioch) give us a clear idea what this instruction looked like; they
also contain the text of the creed.76
There is no firm evidence that the Traditio or Redditio symboli followed a for-
malized rite. Theodore tells his listeners that after the Traditio (which is not de-
scribed in any detail) they should learn the creed by heart so that they could then
recite it at the Redditio.77 It has been suggested that this recitation may have
taken place, in some form, after the Sýntaxis and again during baptism itself,78
but we have no positive proof of this.79 On the contrary, according to Theodore
the Redditio seems to have preceded the Sýntaxis rite.80 By contrast, the baptismal

 Council of Laodicea, canon 46 (FaFo § 562b).

 The Latin translations of canon 46 in the Collectio Dionysiana and the Collectio Hispana (FaFo
§ 562b) are more specific: they explicitly place the Redditio on Good Friday.
 Cf. Council of Laodicea, canon 47 (FaFo § 562c).
 Cf. John Chrysostom, Catechesis baptismalis 2/3, 4, ll. 1–6 (SC 366, p. 226) and Knupp 1995,
pp. 98–100; Metzger/Drews/Brakmann 2004, col. 525.
 Cf. also the summary of catecheses of this type in Constitutiones apostolorum 7,39,1–4. For the
text of the creed cf. above pp. 346–9.
 Cf. Theodore, Homilia catechetica 12, 25.
 Cf. Auguste Piédnagel in SC 366, pp. 61–4.
 It is possible that John Chrysostom alludes to some form of Traditio in his Catechesis baptis-
malis 2/3 (CPG 4462), 3 (FaFo § 597). This catechesis may have been delivered in 388; cf. CPG 4462.
 Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homilia catechetica 12, 27 (FaFo § 635b): ‘We approach, therefore,
the majordomo of this house, that is to say, of the Church – and this majordomo is the priest,
who has been found worthy to preside over the Church – and after we have recited our profes-
sion of faith before him, we make with God, through him, our contract and our engagements
concerning the faith’. Cf. also id., Homilia catechetica 13, 13–16; Knupp 1995, pp. 98–116, 130–3;
and Witkamp 2018, pp. 78, 187.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 497

liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions (whose precise origin is unknown81) has the
Redditio immediately following upon the Sýntaxis. It uses a creed which is other-
wise unknown.82 John Chrysostom seems to suggest in one of his homilies on First
Corinthians (392/393) that the creed was recited right before baptism, but wishes
to keep its content secret, because his audience encompasses unbaptized listen-
ers. Nevertheless, the following credal fragments can be extracted from his
words:

[. . .] ἁμαρτιῶν ἄφεσιν.
Πιστεύω εἰς νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν
καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

[. . .] the remission of sins.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead
and in eternal life.83

Unfortunately, this fits neither N, NAnt, nor C1 or C2. However, one must beware of
taking Chrysostom at his word, because he mentions in a sermon on the Gospel of
John, belief ‘in the resurrection of the bodies’ (εἰς ἀνάστασιν σωμάτων) instead of
‘the dead’ as part of a brief creed.84 In addition, Chrysostom gives an explanation
of the creed in one of his baptismal catecheses (delivered in 391), but its wording
cannot be identified.85 Finally, John Cassian also attests to the use of NAnt at bap-
tism for Antioch in his work against Nestorius (written in c. 430).86 Again, from

 Cf. Bradshaw, ‘Apostolic Constitutions’, 2018. Most scholars assume that it was written in Anti-
och between 375 and 380.
 Cf. Constitutiones apostolorum 7,41,3–8 (FaFo § 182c). The creeds in the Constitutiones have
always baffled scholars (cf. the literature quoted in § 182). In his edition of the text Marcel
Metzger considered the baptismal creed in book 7 a ‘cento’ of Ant4, N, C2, and J (cf. Metzger in SC
320, p. 29). However, things are more complicated. For example, the final clause εἰς ζωὴν τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος / ‘and into the life of the coming age’ is otherwise only attested in Arius and
Euzoius, Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem 3 (§ 131c). Markus Vinzent emphasized the
creed’s anti-Marcellan character because of the addition οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος / ‘of
whose kingdom there will be no end’ (Vinzent 1999, p. 244). However, this may well be an indi-
rect inheritance, because the clause is already found in J. Cf. also Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119,8
(§ 175). Later it also forms part of C2. Cf. above p. 370.
 Cf. John Chrysostom, In epistulam I ad Corinthios homilia 40, 1–2 (FaFo § 189c). Cf. also id., In
Iohannem homilia 17, 4 (§ 189d); id., In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 6, 4 (§ 189e).
 John Chrysostom, In Iohannem homilia 17, 4 (FaFo § 189d).
 Cf. John Chrysostom, Catechesis baptismalis 3/1, 19 (FaFo § 189a).
 Cf. John Cassian, De incarnatione domini contra Nestorium 6,6: ‘The creed then, O you heretic,
of which we gave the text above, though it is that of all the churches (for the faith of all is but
one) is yet especially that of the city and church of Antioch, i.e. of that Church in which you were
brought up, instructed, and regenerated. The faith of this creed, therefore, led you to the fountain
498 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

one of John Chrysostom’s homilies it appears that the form of the creed was inter-
rogatory and that the candidates were expected to answer, ‘I believe’.87
In Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus writes in a homily on baptism from
around 380 that he wants to teach his listeners about the faith and adds that he
had kept that faith ‘from the beginning until this greyness of hair’. One expects a
quotation from N or some other creed to follow, but instead Gregory continues
with a ‘new decalogue’ outlining important tenets of Neo-Nicene trinitarian thought
(which are probably meant to be counted on the fingers of both hands).88 There-
fore, it is unlikely that N or any other fixed formula was used in this process at this
point. Likewise, Chrysostom’s homilies which may be dated to the time when he
was patriarch of the eastern capital include no hint as to the role of the creed in
preparing for baptism.89
By the time of Nestorius (sedit 428–431) and Proclus (sedit 434–446) things had
changed. In a recently discovered homily which may be attributed to the former
and which was probably delivered during Lent in 428 or 429 a version of the creed
is explained which can be identified as the shorter creed of the Council of Constanti-
nople (381; C1).90 According to his own words Nestorius’ audience was made up of
baptized and non-baptized Christians. He mentions that a mystagogy would follow
in due course which will be addressed to believers only.91 This sermon on the creed
may have been preceded by another on the Trinity.92 As regards Proclus, he does
not give us the full text of the creed but rather quotes only the beginning of each
section which is basically identical with that of Nestorius (C1).93 However, from the
sequence of the rituals which he explains in his Mystagogy on Baptism94 we may
assume that the creed followed the Apótaxis and Sýntaxis.95

of life, to saving regeneration, to the grace of the eucharist, to the communion of the Lord – and
what more!’ (tr. NPNF; altered).
 Cf. John Chrysostom, Catechesis baptismalis 2/3 (CPG 4462), 3 (FaFo § 597).
 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40, 11. 41. 44–45 (FaFo §§ 628, 179).
 Cf. Day 2005, p. 34.
 Cf. above p. 361.
 Cf. Nestorius, In symbolum fidei 4 (Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, 2020(2022), pp. 21 f.).
 Cf. Nestorius, Aduersus haereticos de diuina trinitate (Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’,
2020(2022), pp. 5–10).
 Cf. Proclus, Homilia 27, 4,16. 19. 20. 21. 23; 9,55. 56: Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν
παντοκράτορα < . . . > Πιστεύω εἰς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ < . . . >. Πισ-
τεύω εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον < . . . >. / ‘I believe in the one and only true God, the Almighty < . . .
> I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God < . . . > I believe in the Holy Spirit.’ In the first
section πατέρα is missing, in the second section ἕνα. Cf. also below p. 525.
 Text in Leroy 1967, pp. 96–9; English translation and commentary in Day 2005.
 Cf. Day 2005, pp. 37 f.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 499

We have already seen that the revision NAnt was the basis for Theodore’s
preaching on the creed. An indication that the authentic version of N was more
widely used at the Traditio in the east is found in a remark by Rufinus in his ex-
position of the creed in c. 404. Here Rufinus explains the differences between the
creed used in Aquileia and that used in the eastern churches in these terms:

The eastern churches almost all hand over (tradunt) [the creed] thus: ‘I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty (credo in uno deo patre omnipotente)’; and again in the next phrase,
where we say, ‘And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord (et in Iesu Christo, unico filio eius
domino nostro)’ they hand it over (tradunt): ‘And in one Lord, our [Lord] Jesus Christ, his
only Son (et in uno domino nostro Iesu Christo unico filio eius)’. Hence they confess ‘one God’
and ‘one Lord,’ in accordance with the authority of the Apostle Paul [cf. 1Cor 8:6].96

Later Rufinus adds that this eastern creed does not include the descent to hell.97
Although Rufinus’ quotations are admittedly very brief, it is reasonable to as-
sume that they refer to N which he clearly knew.98 All his quotations from the
creed are identical with N – except for one interesting exception: he cites domino
nostro (the ablative instead of the accusative is unremarkable) which is not found
in the Greek version, but in early Latin versions of N.99 Moreover, his phrasing
(tradunt) suggests that by the end of the fourth century the Traditio symboli had
come, more widely, to play a role in preparing for baptism.
In an incidental remark Theodore the Reader mentions that the creed was
‘only recited once a year, on the Holy Friday of God’s passion, during the bishop’s
catechesis’ until the time of Timothy I of Constantinople (sedit 511–518).100 Theo-
dore identifies this creed with N, but it may well have been N’s revised version
C1.101 This fits exactly the evidence from the Barberini Euchologion (s. VIII or ear-
lier) which contains an order of baptism and its preparations for the eastern capi-
tal. Here the candidates are asked to recite the creed (which is now definitely C2)
straight after the Sýntaxis.102 So in Constantinople the Traditio took place during
the bishop’s catechesis from the time of Nestorius onwards (or perhaps earlier)
whereas the Redditio followed upon the Sýntaxis.

 Rufinus, Expositio symboli 4. Cf. also 5.

 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 16.
 Rufinus’ version of N is found in Historia ecclesiastica 10,6 (FaFo § 135d12).
 Cf., e.g., FaFo § 135d3–6, 8, 10.2 and Dossetti 1967, p. 227 (apparatus).
 Theodore the Reader, Historia ecclesiastica, epit. 501 (FaFo § 685a).
 Cf. above p. 400.
 Cf. Barberini Euchologion 119,8–12; 143,16–22 (FaFo § 677a and b). Cf. also Spinks 2006(2016),
p. 96.
500 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

N was used at baptism in Cyrrhus in the province Euphratensis from the 430s
onwards. In 431/432 the local bishop Theodoret explicitly states that he instructs
candidates for baptism ‘in the faith set out in Nicaea’, repeating this almost verba-
tim twenty years later.103 We can reconstruct part of his version of N from his
Eranistes (447/448, reissued after 451) which is very similar, but not quite identi-
cal with the original, perhaps showing an influence from the creed of Antioch.104
This is no surprise as Theodoret originated from that city and alludes to the faith
in which he had been baptized in Epistula 151.105
As regards Alexandria evidence is scant for the first half of the fifth century.106
However, Egypt is an area where N enjoyed considerable popularity already in the
350s – after all, the Egyptian bishops (except their Homoian Patriarch George of
Cappadocia (sedit 356–361)) defended its homooúsios at the Synod of Seleucia in
359.107 Cyril of Alexandria (who was born in c. 380) mentioned N as his baptismal
creed in 433, without offering any detail.108
By the middle of the fifth century many bishops attest that they had been
baptized in the faith (N or some version of it). Many participants of the Council of
Chalcedon (451) expressed themselves in this manner.109 N was also the baptismal
creed of the Emperors Marcian (born in c. 392 in Thrace) and Basiliscus (origin

 Theodoret, Quod et post humanitatis assumptionem unicus filius sit dominus noster Iesus
Christus (FaFo § 642b). Cf. also id., Epistula 146(145; § 642a).
 Cf. Theodoret, Eranistes (FaFo § 202c). Theodoret reads καὶ εἰς τόν κύριον ἡμῶν instead of καὶ
εἰς ἕνα κύριον (cf. NAnt2); adds σταυρωθέντα (cf. NAnt); and in the anathemas adds τινὸς before ὑποσ-
τάσεως; omits ἢ κτιστόν; adds ἁγία before καθολική. In addition, in Epistula 151 (FaFo § 202b) he
asserts that ‘our Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten and first-born Son of God’. (Φαμὲν τοίνυν τὸν
κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν υἱὸν εἶναι μονογενῆ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρωτότοκον· [. . .]). This may be an
allusion to NAnt.
 Cf. Theodoret, Epistula 151 (FaFo § 202b): Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν πατρῷον κλῆρον ἄσυλον φυλάττειν
σπουδάζομεν καὶ, ἣν παρελάβομεν, πίστιν, μεθ’ ἧς καὶ ἐβαπτίσθημεν καὶ βαπτίζομεν, ἀνέπαφον
καὶ ἀκήρατον διατηροῦμεν [. . .]. / ‘We however, are zealous to keep our heritage unsullied, and
we preserve unharmed and undefiled the faith which we have received, and in which we have
been ourselves baptized and baptize [others] [. . .].’
 The first witness to the use of N at baptism in Egypt may be Mark the Monk (cf. FaFo § 200).
However, his biographical data are as controversial (did he live in c. 430–500 or before?) as the
creed which he alludes to, since it is not entirely congruent with N.
 Cf. above ch. 6.5.9.
 Cf. Cyril, Epistula 93 (Collectio Atheniensis 126; ACO I 1,7, p. 163, l. 8).
 Cf. FaFo § 645 and further references in Kinzig, Glaubensbekenntnis, 2021, pp. 121–3 and
nn. 523, 529. For later references to N as a baptismal creed cf., e.g., §§ 574a1 (John II of Constanti-
nople, 518); 574b2 (Chalcedonian monks, 518); 574b3 (Synod endemousa of Constantinople 518);
647 (Epiphanius of Perge and other bishops from Pamphylia in their response to the Codex encyc-
lius of Emperor Leo I, written in 457/458; Traditio).
 11.1 The creed at baptism 501

unknown).110 This suggests that N was widely used at baptism in the east in the
first half of the fifth century. Emperor Zeno even claimed in his Henoticon of 482
that ‘the holy symbol of the 318 holy fathers’ which the ‘150 holy fathers’ had con-
firmed was the universal baptismal creed – which, however, leaves open the
question as to whether he was referring to N or C2 or to both.111 By that time, Jer-
usalem, too, seems to have given up its local creed J and to have replaced it with
either N or C2, as Martyrius of Jerusalem expresses himself in c. 480 in terms very
similar to the emperor.112
Taken together this evidence suggests that no local creeds existed in the east
(except for Jerusalem). Instead N or some variant of it came to be used from the
late 370s onwards, first, in Antioch and, almost simultaneously, in Constantinople
and (perhaps) in Alexandria whence it spread to other regions. This is, of course,
no coincidence as it was precisely at this time that the (neo-Nicene) version of the
faith became prevalent in the eastern part of the empire. Yet, in contrast to the
west, there seems to have been a great variety of ways in which the baptizands’
faith was ascertained: by declaration or by answering credal questions either sim-
ply affirming a given set of doctrinal propositions or themselves expressing their
faith in their own words.113
✶
During the Carolingian period it seems that in the areas under Frankish influence
the bishops paid greater attention to the quality of catechesis and candidates’ knowl-
edge of the faith, fuelled by Charlemagne’s zeal for an improved religious educa-
tion,114 but also because mission received an increased significance as his empire
expanded: Alcuin (d. 804) urged missionaries to teach the faith to converts with
‘peaceful and wise words’ (pacificis uerbis et prudentibus) before baptizing them.115
Furthermore, the priest is told to conduct intensive interrogations into their faith
prior to baptizing converted pagans in instructions contained in two manuscripts
from the beginning and the middle of the ninth century respectively.116

 Cf. Marcian, Epistula ad monachos Alexandrinos (FaFo § 546; written in 454); Basiliscus, En-
cyclion (§ 548); id., Antiencyclion (§ 549).
 Zeno, Henoticon 5 (FaFo § 550): [. . .] πίστιν πλὴν τοῦ προειρημένου ἁγίου συμβόλου τῶν τιη´
ἁγίων πατέρων, ὅπερ καὶ ἐβεβαίωσαν οἱ μνημονευθέντες ρν´ ἅγιοι πατέρες, [. . .]. Cf. also above
p. 400 and n. 105.
 Cf. Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Historia ecclesiastica 5,6c–d (FaFo § 217).
 On the oriental churches cf. above ch. 9.
 Cf. above ch. 5.3 and pp. 470 f.
 Alcuin, Epistula 111 (MGH Epp. IV, p. 160, ll. 25 f.).
 Cf. Keefe 2002, vol. II, pp. 534–7 (text 38; FaFo § 779) and Keefe 2002, vol. II, pp. 234–8 (text
8.1; § 759). The manuscripts are cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14410 (cf. Keefe,
502 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

We also read in various commentaries on the baptismal liturgy and on credal

interrogations that scrutinies were carried out with converts, after the Traditio
and immediately following the renunciation, in order to determine the extent to
which the words of the creed were anchored in the hearts of the catechumens.117
However, the liturgy was never quite uniform: in a report about an episcopal
synod near the river Danube (796) the order of renunciation and Redditio is in-
versed.118 Two years later, Alcuin gives the following order of rites: renunciation –
exsufflatio (the priest blows into the candidate’s face in order to make room for
Christ) – exorcism – Traditio – scrutinies etc.119 There are other variations, some-
times with more than one renunciation.120 A number of interrogations about the
faith have come down to us which may have been used during the scrutinies or
separately.121 They were then quickly translated from Latin into the vernacular.122
In the case of infants their parents or godparents answered in their stead.123 The
Traditio sometimes took place on the Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent and
the Redditio on Maundy Thursday or Holy Saturday.124
There were thus efforts under the Carolingians to restore the scrutinies to
their original meaning in pagan mission.125 However, the extent to which these
instructions were implemented or could be implemented at all, given the some-
times high numbers of converts, is beyond our knowledge. In any case, the surviv-
ing sacramentaries no longer offer a liturgical place for such scrutinies.

11.1.2 The creed at the baptism of infants

The widespread implementation of infant baptism inevitably had serious conse-

quences for the rites of Traditio and Redditio symboli, because the baptizands
were as yet unable to recite the creed. Unfortunately, our sources flow rather

Catalogue, 2012, pp. 282 f. (a ‘missionary catechism’)) and cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 40 (cf.
Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, pp. 336 f. (a ‘clerical instruction reader’)).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 63, 75, 760, 779, 782a2, 783a, 784b, 791, 792, 793, 794. Cf. also Phelan 2014, pp. 177,
183 f., 187.
 Cf. Paulinus II of Aquileia, Conuentus episcoporum ad ripas Danubii (FaFo § 774).
 Cf. Alcuin, De sacramento baptismatis (FaFo § 775). Similarly, Theodulf of Orléans, Liber de
ordine baptismi 5 (§ 787a).
 Cf., e.g., Keefe 2002, vol. I, pp. 46–50.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 757–773. Cf. also the questions on faith in § 776.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 766–768, 771.
 Cf. Theodulf of Orléans, Liber de ordine baptismi 8 (FaFo § 787b). Cf. also §§ 788[1], 789, 790.
 Cf. Amalarius of Metz, Liber officialis 1,8,2; 1,12,1 (FaFo § 782b1 and b2).
 Cf. Wiegand 1899, pp. 315, 327; Keefe 2002, vol. I, index s.v. ‘scrutinies’.
 11.1 The creed at baptism 503

sparsely over the centuries. Caesarius of Arles admonishes his listeners that at
the Traditio

those who are older may return it [the creed] on their own, but in the case of infants those
who are to receive them [from the font, i.e. the parents or godparents] should have it returned
either by themselves or by someone else.126

However, our best evidence comes from the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (OGS)
which reflects, at least in parts, a much older liturgical practice as it was cultivated
in the western capital.127 It is reasonable to assume that the practice of Traditio
and Redditio symboli set down in the OGS in the form in which it survives may
actually date from the fifth century, with elements probably being even older.
Here128 the Traditio refers to the baptism of babies or infants.129 To better under-
stand the relevant rubrics of the OGS one must first bear in mind a peculiarity of
the Roman liturgy: John the Deacon wrote in his famous Letter to Senarius in the
first decades of the sixth century that in Rome infants were baptized in the same
way as adults, even if they did not understand the process. In this case the confes-
sion of the parents or others took the place of that by the baptizands themselves.130
In other words, certain liturgical tensions, which will be considered in more detail
below, are explained by the fact that the old rites of Traditio and Redditio which
had been developed for the baptism of adults were not adapted to the new circum-
stances of christening infants; instead, the latter were treated as if they were
adults: they were addressed in the second person, and the parents or godparents
apparently responded in their place, in the first person.
According to the OGS the Traditio took place on the Saturday before Palm
Sunday and began with a preface that was probably written by Leo the Great,
which will also be considered in greater detail in a later chapter.131 In reality, this

 Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 130, 5 (FaFo § 656f).

 Cf. above pp. 121 f. and n. 256.
 For what follows cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 310–315 (FaFo §§ 675a and 255g).
Cf. also Stenzel 1958, pp. 207–19; Kretschmar 1970, pp. 253–7; Angenendt 1987, pp. 289–94; Saxer
1988, pp. 597–624; Keefe 2002, vol. I, pp. 43–6; Johnson 2007, pp. 222–9.
 Distinctions remain blurred. Since the preferred date of baptism was Easter, children
brought to the font could be a year old. Carolingian legal sources mention an age of between
one day and three years at most. Easter notwithstanding, Epiphany and Pentecost were also pop-
ular days for baptism. Finally, in a situation of danger, an emergency baptism could be per-
formed at any time. Cf. Rubellin 1982, pp. 34–42; Cramer 1993(1994), pp. 137–9; Georg Kretschmar
in Gerlitz et al. 2001, pp. 688 f.
 Cf. John the Deacon, Epistula ad Senarium 7. Cf. Didier 1965, pp. 86 f.; Saxer 1988, pp. 589–95;
Johnson 2007, pp. 164–9; Ferguson 2009, pp. 767 f.
 Cf. below pp. 527 f.
504 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

address was unnecessary as the godparents had already been baptized and thus
already ‘owned’ the creed. Obviously, the preface had originated in adult baptism,
which by then was no longer the rule. However, a separate exhortation of the pa-
rents or godparents as such is missing.
The bishop then left it to the clergy assisting him to direct the following rites.
One of the acolytes (altar boys) took a boy from the crowd of children to be baptized
on his left arm and placed his hand on the baptizand’s head. The priest asked the
acolyte, ‘In what language do [the baptizands] confess our Lord Jesus Christ?’ to
which the acolyte replied, ‘In Greek’. The priest then invited the acolyte to recite the
creed. The acolyte responded accordingly, the recitation being performed decant-
ando, that is, presumably by chanting.132 The creed chanted, however, was not R (as
one might have expected in a Roman sacramentary) but C2.133 In the manuscript we
have it is not reproduced in Greek script, but in a Latin transliteration, immediately
followed by a Latin translation.134 This indicates that at least at the time when the
manuscript was copied (c. 750) Greek was no longer understood.
This was followed by a very brief exposition of the creed, which again probably
goes back to Leo the Great and whose reading is expressly entrusted to the priest.
The brevity of this interpretation could be due to the fact that a detailed explanation
was no longer considered necessary, as the godparents had already been baptized.
Like all divine services in antiquity, the rite of the Traditio on Palm Sunday
will probably have been a lively and perhaps noisy ceremony. Thus we know
from John Cassian that at the beginning of the fifth century the people of Mar-
seille applauded at the Traditio or at any rate clearly expressed their approval.135
Snippets like this put into perspective the impression of serious solemnity that
one might gain from reading the sacramentaries alone.
The Redditio followed a week later, i.e. on Holy Saturday, early in the morn-
ing immediately after the renunciation.136 The rubric begins with the puzzling re-
mark: ‘Mane reddunt infantes symbolum.’ / ‘In the morning the infants (infantes)

 Cf. below ch. 19.

 It is the version from the third session of Chalcedon; cf. FaFo § 184e1 in comparison with
§ 184f2.1.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 184f2.2 and 675a. Other sacramentaries also contain a Greek version of C2 in
Latin script. Cf., e.g., Angoulême (§§ 184f14 and 796a), Gellone (§§ 184f6 and 797a); Ordo Romanus
XI (§§ 184f4 and 808a), Saint-Amand (§ 184f16); Pontificale Parisiense (of Poitiers; cod. Paris, Bib-
liothèque Nationale, Arsenal 227, ff. 54v–56r; scan: URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/
btv1b55005681f/f120.item.r=pontifical%20poitiers> (21/11/2023); ed. Martini 1979, pp. 63–6 (no. 128);
cf. also Westwell 2019, pp. 73 f.); Pontificale Romano-Germanicum (§ 184f12.1). Cf. also Reims
(§ 799a) where the creed itself is not quoted.
 Cf. John Cassian, De incarnatione domini contra Nestorium 6,11,1 (FaFo § 641b).
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 418–424 (FaFo § 675b).
 11.1 The creed at baptism 505

recite the creed.’ This presupposes that the baptizands were actually capable of
doing so. By that time, however, they were hardly more than a year old. Here, there-
fore, the aforementioned tension becomes apparent once more: the Redditio symboli
as such presupposed the active participation of the competentes themselves, which,
however, in this case they were not yet capable of. In fact, the ceremony took a dif-
ferent course: first, the bishop invoked Satan and warned him of imminent expul-
sion. This was followed by the rite of effata (by which the nose and ears of the
baptizands were ‘opened’) and the renunciation. Here the competentes or, more pre-
cisely, their parents or godparents were asked whether they would renounce Satan,
his works, and his pomp which they were to answer by saying, ‘I renounce’. Then
the creed was recited by the bishop, with the laying on of hands on the candidates.
Of course, since the baptizands were babies, they were not expected to recite the
creed themselves, yet neither are their parents or godparents explicitly told to do
this in their stead.137 The creed itself is not quoted, but it must also have been C2.
This means, however, that already in the late fifth century the Redditio had become
a purely ceremonial act, at least in Rome, that, perhaps, no longer required the ac-
tive participation of parents or godparents in the recitation of the entire confession.
The ceremony was concluded with a prayer.
The creed appears a third time in the OGS, namely in interrogatory form during
baptism itself. The questions were addressed to the baptizand, but answered by their
parents/godparents or, again, a member of the clergy. These baptismal questions,
which in their wording go back neither to C2 nor to R/T, represent a strange duplica-
tion of the Traditio/Redditio in this sacramentary, which can presumably be explained
by the fact that they are in actual fact older than the rite of Traditio/Redditio.138
The rites of Traditio and Redditio symboli outlined so far are also found, with
modifications, in the Ordo Romanus XI, a Roman order of baptismal service per-
haps dating to the second half of the sixth century, as well as in sacramentaries
dependent on the OGS or its Vorlage. There are, however, characteristic devia-
tions which need not concern us here, except that in the Ordo it is said that it is
the priest (not the bishop) who chants the creed.139
The situation is different in the so-called non-Roman western liturgies140
since, for example, the Stowe Missal mentions no Traditio or Redditio symboli at
all,141 whereas in the Mozarabic liturgy the candidates (or their parents or god-

 Cf. also Lynch 1986, pp. 293 f. with regard to the closely related Ordo Romanus XI.
 Cf. above ch. 4.5.1.
 Cf. Ordo Romanus XI, 86 (FaFo § 808b); on which, e.g., Lynch 1986, pp. 294–7; Spinks 2006
(2016), pp. 114 f. In addition, Romano 2019.
 Cf. Vogel 1986, pp. 273–89.
 Cf. FaFo § 680.
506 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

parents) answer the credal questions with a simple ‘yes’, no longer having to dem-
onstrate that they have memorized the creed.142 By contrast, in England the Sec-
ond Council of Clofesho (747)143 and the so-called Legatine Councils of 786144
impressed upon priests that they had to employ suitable means to ensure the can-
didates, or their godparents, could recite the renunciation and the creed.
As regards the significance of the Redditio for the individual believer, faith
(fides) was generally seen as the trustworthiness displayed towards the divine
overlord, expressed by reciting the sacred and legally binding creed. As I have
explained elsewhere in greater detail, this allegiance to God, which was mediated
through the Church, was first and foremost encapsulated in the dual rite of re-
nunciation and Redditio (or credal questions). In the west the creed served as the
Sýntaxis (engagement with Christ) which was done through a separate formula in
eastern baptismal liturgies. In any case, the Apótaxis and Sýntaxis/Redditio indi-
cated the baptizand’s change of allegiance from Satan to Christ whose legal impli-
cations Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and others have described in
great detail.145 The legal character of this change of allegiance was underlined by
the presence of a guarantor (who was called ἀνάδοχος, fideiussor, sponsor, patri-
nus/matrina, or conpater/conmater).146 Both sponsor and fideiussor were origi-
nally guarantors in the Roman law of obligations: ‘Suretyship guaranteed a debt
in that an accessory debtor undertook to make the same performance which the
principal debtor owed.’147 When infant baptism became the norm the guarantor
also gave their assurance that the infant would believe according to what he or
she had promised at baptism in lieu of the child. From this perspective, the recita-
tion of the creed was seen as a binding contractual obligation over against Christ
which was made possible through the Church.148
One western example of this kind of quasi-legal faith discourse may suffice.
In a homily Gerbald of Liège (sedit 787–809) pointed out in no uncertain terms:

 Cf. FaFo § 684 and also Saxer 1988, p. 553. However, Ildefonsus of Toledo clearly mentions a
full Redditio symboli on Maundy Thursday in front of the priest (De cognitione baptismi 35; FaFo
§ 664). Likewise, the Traditio symboli in the Liber ordinum de ordinibus ecclesiasticis (FaFo § 684c4)
may also point to a Redditio of the confession.
 Cf. canon 11 (FaFo § 587b).
 Cf. canon 2 (FaFo § 588).
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘“I abjure Satan”’, 2024 (sub prelo).
 Cf. Dick 1939; Dujarier 1962; Hornung 2015.
 Kaser 1984, p. 277. Cf. also Kaser 1971/1975, vol. I, pp. 660–7; vol. II, pp. 457–61.
 This increasingly legalistic interpretation of the godparents’ role is no doubt secondary and
partly eclipsed the original reasons for introducing this office, i.e. to assure the bishop of the in-
tegrity of the baptismal candidates and to oversee their progress in the Christian faith during the
catechumenate. Cf. the literature quoted above n. 146 and Kinzig/Wallraff 2002, pp. 343 f.
 11.2 The creed in the mass 507

As each Christian must hold, believe, and profess, and should believe what their guarantor
promised (fideiussor eius promisit) at their baptism [this] is contained in these twelve verses
in which our salvation can be confessed in such a way that one might believe with the heart
and profess with the mouth. For this is what the Apostle says, ‘One believes with the heart
unto justification, and one confesses with the mouth unto salvation’ [Rom 10:10]. So also
each Christian who professes that he believes [in] God should confess with the mouth what
he believes with the heart such that others may hear how he believes and how he is faithful
to God. For when he says that he believes with the heart [in] God, but does not profess with
the mouth, who knows whether he is faithful or an infidel? This is what we speak in public,
and every one of you who possesses a serf (seruum) can take him as an example: if someone
has a serf and he asks [the serf] if he is faithful (fidelis) to him, if [the serf] is silent and does
not respond whether he is faithful to him, his lord will not quite believe him until he has
professed that he is faithful to his lord. And, after the profession of his fidelity (post profes-
sionem fidelitatis), if he does not demonstrate it in deed, his lord will not be pleased that he
has professed his fidelity in words only (unless a [corresponding] deed follows and it is dem-
onstrated in deed to what degree the serf proves to be faithful to his lord).149

Here fides is not just ‘faith’ in the sense of belief in credal content – it is the un-
conditional loyalty (fidelitas) of the believers over against God such as that of cli-
ents over against their patronus or slaves over against their master.150

11.2 The creed in the mass

Although151 one must be cautious with argumenta e silentio, the evidence suggests
that the creed was not introduced into the liturgy of the eucharist in the eastern
part of the empire until the fifth or sixth century. Although it is always notori-
ously difficult to determine the ‘meaning’ of any given liturgical rite, the creed’s
position in the early eastern liturgies is so prominent that at least one of its func-
tions can be determined more clearly.152
Curiously, an Egyptian source may offer the earliest liturgical evidence in
Greek.153 It comes from two pieces of parchment from Upper Egypt which have

 Gerbald, Instructio pastoralis ad gregem suum (Epistula 3) 1 (FaFo § 745d1).

 Cf. Schneider 1969, cols. 807 f.; Busch/Nicols/Zanella 2015, col. 1112; Morgan 2015, pp. 50–5,
60–5.
 This chapter is based on Kinzig, ‘Creed’, 2007.
 Here I will confine myself to the Byzantine and Latin churches. On the evidence for eastern
Christianity cf. above ch. 9.
 For a possible reference to the creed in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De ecclesiastica
hierarchia 3 (Heil/Ritter 2012, p. 80, ll. 20 f.; 87, l. 20 – 88, l. 9) cf. Capelle 1951(1967), p. 60 note 2;
Taft 1978, pp. 49 f. and also Heil 1986, p. 117 and n. 40. The description of the rite in Pseudo-Dionysius
does not, however, really fit in with the recitation of a creed, but more with it being a prayer
508 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

been dated to the fifth or sixth centuries and are today preserved in the library of
Brigham Young University.154 Here Greek N ‘is preceded by the end of a prayer
whose phraseology marks it rather clearly as belonging to a eucharistic liturgy’.155
Alas, the provenance of the parchment and its wider liturgical context are unknown.
Otherwise, our oldest Byzantine source, Maximus the Confessor’s Mystagogy
(628–630), in which the creed appears as an element of the preanaphoral rites of
Constantinople, is not much more recent.156 In it the recitation of the creed is pre-
ceded by the exclusion of the catechumens and closing of the doors.157 Likewise,
in the Byzantine recensions of both the Liturgies of St Basil and of St John Chrys-
ostom – indeed, virtually throughout the entire eastern liturgical tradition – the
creed immediately follows the order to close the doors,158 thereby marking the
beginning of the Divine Liturgy, from which all unbaptized persons were ex-
cluded. This suggests that the recitation of the creed (by the entire congregation)
was meant to ensure that only baptized Christians – i.e. full members of the con-
gregation – took part in the eucharist, thereby preventing the sacred liturgy from
being profaned by the non-initiated. In this context, therefore, the creed fulfilled
the traditional function of the symbolum in mystery cults, i.e. that of a ‘password’
or ‘watchword’ or ‘distinctive mark’ known only to the initiated.159
We have some external evidence as to when and where the creed was in-
serted into the Divine Liturgy.160 Theodore the Reader references it twice in his
Church History (c. 520–530). The first reference based on an unknown source re-
ports that the Miaphysite patriarch of Antioch, Peter Fuller (sedit 471, 475–477
and 485–488), introduced the creed into the celebration of the eucharist (συνάξ-
εις) for the first time.161 If this was indeed the case, he must have done so at some
point after his election as Patriarch of Antioch in 471. Nothing is known about the
circumstances surrounding these liturgical changes which, in view of the many

commemorating God’s saving works. On the Liturgical Homily 35/17, which is attributed to Narsai
(d. 502), cf. above p. 424.
 Brigham Young University Collection of Coptic Fragments, no. 90 (Upper Egypt; s. V/VI), ed.
Macomber 1993. Cf. also Mihálykó 2019, pp. 59, 143 n. 235, 221 and TM 108862.
 Macomber 1993, p. 99.
 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia 18 (FaFo § 690); cf. Taft 1978, 43–5.
 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia 15.
 Cf. FaFo § 694b. For detailed treatment cf. Jungmann 1951, vol. I, pp. 474–80; Jungmann 1962,
vol. I, pp. 606–14; Taft 1978, pp. 405–16. On the stational character of the Byzantine Rite cf., e.g.,
Taft 1992, pp. 28–41.
 Cf. above ch. 3.
 For what follows cf. Jungmann 1951, vol. I, pp. 467–74; Jungmann 1962, vol. I, pp. 598–606;
Kelly 1972, pp. 348–57; Taft 1978, pp. 396–425; Krueger 2014, pp. 123–6; Lumma/Vonach 2015, pp. 74 f.
 Cf. Theodore the Reader, Historia ecclesiastica, epit. 429 (FaFo § 685a).
 11.2 The creed in the mass 509

amendments to the liturgy made by Peter Fuller, are not necessarily a priori im-
plausible. It is, however, not very likely that this was the origin of the subsequent
Byzantine custom.162
It is much more probable that its origin lies in a liturgical amendment that
Theodore the Reader ascribes to the Miaphysite Patriarch Timothy I of Constanti-
nople (sedit 511–518).163 According to Theodore, Timothy decreed that the ‘Symbol
of faith of the 318 Fathers’ (τὸ τῶν τιη´ πατέρων τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον) be recited
during each mass (σύναξις) in order to defame his Chalcedonian predecessor
Macedonius II (sedit 496–511) by creating the impression that Macedonius had
never accepted this creed. Theodore says that previously it had only been recited
once a year, namely during the bishop’s catechism on Good Friday.164 According
to this source, therefore, Timothy inserted the creed into the Divine Liturgy in
order to draw a clear distinction between Miaphysitism and the Chalcedonian be-
liefs of Patriarch Macedonius II. If this is true, the use of the creed in mass had a
dual function: to make sure that all unbaptized persons had left the service (be-
cause they would have been unable to recite the creed) and to emphasize the Mi-
aphysite character of that service. How the use of N or, more likely, C1 would
have served this second purpose is not altogether clear.165
By 518 at any rate, reciting the creed during mass had already become custom-
ary in Constantinople. On 16 July of that year, the population of Constantinople suc-
ceeded in wresting a proclamation of the canons of Chalcedon from Patriarch John
II (sedit 518–520) during mass in the Great Church after the deaths of Patriarch Tim-
othy and Emperor Anastasius I (r. 491–518; who was succeeded by the orthodox
Christian Justin I, r. 518–527). This proclamation took place after the Liturgy of the
Word as part of the eucharist; the canons of the four Ecumenical Councils were
read out ‘after the doors had been closed and the holy doctrine (ἅγιον μάθημα = the
creed) had been said as usual’.166 The point at which the creed (precisely which ver-
sion is unclear) is included in the liturgy in this case therefore corresponds to the
practice in the Liturgies of St Basil and of St John Chrysostom, i.e. after the doors
had been closed.
It seems certain that – whatever the precise date of its insertion – by the
early sixth century the creed formed part of the Great Entrance (a procession dur-
ing which the bishop and other clergy enter into the church) in the Divine Liturgy

 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 61–3.

 Cf. also above p. 400.
 Cf. Theodore the Reader, Historia ecclesiastica, epit. 501 (FaFo § 685b). For the use of the
creed in the Traditio symboli at Constantinople cf. also above pp. 498 f.
 For the use of C1 cf. above p. 400.
 Collectio Sabbaitica 5,27 (FaFo § 686).
510 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

not only in the Greek church, but also in Syriac-speaking congregations, subse-
quently spreading to other churches.167
✶
However, John of Biclaro (d. c. 621) makes a confusing reference,168 claiming in
his Chronicle (written in 601/602) that Emperor Justin II (r. 565–578) decreed that
‘the creed of the assembly of the 150 fathers at Constantinople, which had been
laudably accepted at the Council of Chalcedon (symbolumque sanctorum CL pa-
trum Constantinopolim congregatorum et in synodo Calcidonense laudabiliter re-
ceptum, i.e. C2)’ be ‘sung together by the congregation (a populo concinendum)’ in
all churches prior to the Lord’s Prayer.169 Perhaps John means to say not that Jus-
tin was the first to insert the creed into the Divine Liturgy (which would have
been mistaken), but that he actually introduced the use of C2 (instead of N/C1) in
this context.170 However, he also claims that C2 was recited before the Lord’s
Prayer (i.e. apparently after the canon), which does not correspond to eastern
practice at all and would instead appear to reflect a western practice.
There may be a simple reason: John of Biclaro originated from, and later lived
and worked in the Visigothic Kingdom. There is evidence to suggest that it was the
Visigoth king Reccared I (r. 586–601) who introduced C2 ‘according to the conven-
tion of the eastern churches’ into the Sunday liturgy at the Third Council of Toledo
in 589 ‘so that, before the Lord’s Prayer is said, the creed (symbolum fidei) shall be
proclaimed (praedicetur; alternative reading: decantetur = chanted171) aloud by the
congregation. By this’, he continued, ‘let the true faith bear clear testimony and
also, the people’s hearts having been cleansed by the faith, let them draw near to
partake of the body and blood of Christ’.172 This was phrased from an anti-Arian or,
to be more accurate, from an anti-Homoian point of view, because Reccared had
renounced the Homoian (‘Arian’) faith at the very same council.173 It is striking that
here, too, the creed and the Lord’s Prayer are recited immediately prior to the eu-
charist, and in that order. The creed is to be said ‘according to the version of the

 Cf. above ch. 9.

 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), p. 63: ‘La notice est passablement fantaisiste’.
 John of Biclaro, Chronicon 2 (FaFo § 689).
 Cf. above p. 402.
 Cf. below p. 599.
 Third Council of Toledo, canon 2 (FaFo § 687b). Cf. also above p. 406.
 For details of the differences between Arianism and the Homoian faith of the Visigoths cf.
the relevant essays in Schäferdiek 1996, and Schäferdiek 2001; Schäferdiek, ‘Der gotische Arianis-
mus’, 2004.
 11.2 The creed in the mass 511

eastern churches’ (secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum)174 i.e., in effect, the

Latin version of C2 (and not R/T).175 The purpose of reciting C2 is to avow the uera
fides, i.e. the trinitarian doctrine of the Council of Constantinople in 381. It is used in
conjunction with the Lord’s Prayer to prepare for receiving the eucharist. It must,
therefore, have followed the canon, and thus come at a different point than it did in
the eastern liturgies. The information provided by John of Biclaro is, therefore, di-
rectly linked to the decree of the Third Council of Toledo and does not correspond to
eastern custom, but instead to western or, to be more precise, Visigothic practice.176
The object of moving the creed to a different part of the liturgy is not difficult
to comprehend. Once it was no longer necessary to determine whether or not a
member of the congregation had been baptized, the primary purpose of the creed
shifted to verifying and confirming the faithful’s orthodoxy by its joint recitation.
This was particularly effective in those cases where the creed was positioned at a
crucial and, as it were, especially ‘sacred’ part of the eucharistic celebration,
namely before the Lord’s Prayer, as obviously was the case in Toledo. Neverthe-
less, this change in the Mozarabic liturgy was not generally adopted in the west-
ern development of the mass.
By contrast, in the Celtic rite the creed was placed between the reading of the
Gospel and the offertory – as illustrated by the Stowe Missal (s. VIII ex.).177 By
now, the distinction between the Liturgy of the Word and the eucharist, marked
by the exit of the catechumens, had disappeared so that the creed no longer func-
tioned as a proof of baptism, but, as we will see below, took on a new meaning as
a joint response by the congregation to the gospel. Soon after this development in
the Celtic world, the creed also appeared at this point in the liturgy of the Carolin-
gians. The first testimony to this development is found in the history of the trans-
lations of the relics and of the miracles of St Marcellinus and St Peter by Einhard
(d. 840), scholar and biographer of Charlemagne. He describes events which alleg-
edly occurred in Maastricht, in the monastery of St-Servais the Confessor, on

 The translation given in Kelly 1972, p. 351 ‘according to the use of the Eastern churches’ is
imprecise.
 Incidentally, this Latin version of C2, which then became customary in Spain (cf. FaFo § 184f24),
is not identical with the creed’s authentic Greek text, but displays a number of variants.
 Cf. Taft 1978, pp. 402 f. Cf. also the Eighth Council of Toledo (653), canon 1 (FaFo § 496): ‘[. . .]
as finally we profess and we say with a united voice in the solemn celebrations of the mass: [here
follows C2].’ That the creed had this position is also confirmed by manuscripts of the old Spanish/
Mozarabic liturgy of the mass; cf. Capelle 1951(1967), p. 64 and, for a general treatment, Meyer 1989,
pp. 157–9; Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 52. Not much later Isidore of Seville also provides testimony to the
recitation of the creed in mass. Cf. De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 1,16 (FaFo § 688).
 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 66 f. and, in general, Meyer 1989, pp. 160 f. The text of the creed is
found in FaFo § 184f8. For its context cf. Warner 1906/1915, vol. II, pp. 8 f.
512 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

14 June 828, when a man suffering from some kind of tremor entered the church
during mass on Sunday:

After the Gospel reading was over and the creed of the Christian faith was being chanted
(cumque post recitatam euangelii lectionem Christianae credulitatis symbolum caneretur),
that trembling man suddenly fell to the ground and while the divine service was being
brought to a close he lay there almost completely still more like a dead man than a living
one.178

Here the creed once again follows upon the Gospel reading. This sequence is basi-
cally confirmed by Florus of Lyons (d. c. 860), who enumerates the following litur-
gical elements in his explanation of mass (written in 833/834): reading ‘from the
apostles and the gospels’ – (sometimes) ‘sermon and address of the teachers’ –
‘confession of the creed’ – offertory.179
Another witness to this order is Walahfrid Strabo’s book on the origin and
development of certain ecclesiastical customs (Libellus de exordiis et incrementis
quarundam in obseruationibus ecclesiasticis rerum, written in 840/842). The future
abbot of Reichenau (807–849, abbot from 842) even provided some additional
information:
(1) In the celebration of mass, the creed follows the Gospel, because the Gospel
awakens faith in man’s heart, thus leading to justification, whereas the creed
proclaims the faith, thus leading to salvation (cf. Rom 10:10).
(2) The inclusion of the creed in the liturgy was modelled on Greek custom.
(3) The Greeks chanted C2 instead of N during the liturgy, even though N was the
older of the two creeds. Walahfrid explained this, on the one hand, by the
fact that C2 was more suited to being sung than N and, on the other, by C2’s
greater anti-heretical effect; C2 had, after all, been composed in the city
where the emperors resided (and, therefore, possessed greater authority).
(4) The custom had travelled to Rome from Byzantium.

 Einhard, Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri 4,14 (tr. Dutton 1998(2006),
p. 124; altered).
 Florus of Lyons, De expositione missae 11–12,1 (Duc 1937, pp. 98 f.): ‘First of all, therefore,
when all the faithful have come together in one place and stand in the house of God, after the
divine praise has been chanted, after the apostles and gospels have been read, after also some-
times a sermon and address of the teachers has taken place, also followed by the confession of
the creed (subiuncta quoque symboli confessione) and the offering of the congregation, after the
consecration of the sacraments has begun in which the mind of all participants is prepared to
consider and to covet things divine and celestial, the priest stands at the altar and, at the begin-
ning of the celebration of the divine mysteries, prays in greeting the church and greets in prayer
(ecclesiam salutando orat et orando salutat), saying, “The Lord be with you.”’
 11.2 The creed in the mass 513

(5) In Gaul and Germany the recitation of C2 only entered into widespread use
after the heretic Felix of Urgel (condemned 798, d. 818), the major theologian
of Spanish adoptionism, had been deposed.
(6) Finally, Walahfrid quoted the already cited provision from the documents of
the Third Council of Toledo, albeit altered in such a way ‘that every Sunday [!]
that creed be recited according to the custom (secundum morem orientalium,
not formam; cf. above pp. 406, 510) of the eastern churches’.180
Walahfrid’s statements must be treated with a degree of caution. The custom did
not, for example, travel to Rome where, as we will see below, the creed did not
come to be introduced into the eucharistic liturgy until the early eleventh cen-
tury. There are, however, good reasons to assume that the use of C2 in the liturgy
of mass really did catch on in the Frankish Empire as a reaction to the condemna-
tion of Felix of Urgel, which is in line with the fundamentally anti-heretical func-
tion of this creed. Alcuin may have fallen back on the liturgical practice (and
indeed on the Latin version of C2) contained in the Irish Stowe Missal in his strug-
gle against Spanish adoptionism.181 In any case, there are numerous examples of
the use of C2 in the mass in the Carolingian empire in the ninth century.182

 Walahfrid Strabo, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in obseruationibus ecclesias-

ticis rerum 23 (FaFo § 851): ‘The creed of the catholic faith (symbolum fidei catholicae) is also cor-
rectly recited after the [reading of the] Gospel in the celebration of mass, so that by means of the
holy Gospel “[a person] believes with the heart unto justice”, but by means of the creed “[a per-
son] makes a confession with [their] mouth unto salvation” [Rom 10:10]. As for the creed which
we have adopted into the mass in imitation of the Greeks, it should be noted that they converted
this one rather than others into the sweetness of chant (in cantilenae dulcedinem [. . .] transtu-
lisse) because it is the particular creed of the Council of Constantinople (and perhaps it seemed
more suited to musical rhythms (fortasse aptius uidebatur modulis sonorum) than the Nicene
Creed, which is from an earlier period). [They also chose it] so that the piety of the faithful
should, even in their celebration of the sacraments, counter the poison of heretics with medicine
concocted at the imperial capital. That practice, therefore, is believed to have come to the Ro-
mans from them [i.e. the Greeks]; but among the Gauls and Germans that creed (idem symbolum)
came to be repeated in the liturgy of the mass more widely and frequently after the deposition of
Felix [of Urgel] the heretic, [who was] condemned under the most-glorious Charles, ruler of the
Franks. At the Council of Toledo it was also established that every Sunday that creed (idem sym-
bolum) “be recited according to the custom of the eastern churches so that, before the Lord’s
Prayer is recited, the true faith might bear clear testimony, and, after the people’s hearts have
been cleansed, they might draw near to partake of the body and blood of Christ” [cf. FaFo
§ 687b].’
 Cf. FaFo §§ 184f8 (type II), 702g. For a detailed treatment cf. Capelle 1929(1967); Capelle 1934
(1962); Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 66–75; Kelly 1972, pp. 355 f.; Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 90–107.
 Cf. the references below pp. 566, 568 f., 601 f.
514 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

This corresponds to the situation described in the minutes of an interview

between envoys of Emperor Charlemagne and Pope Leo III (sedit 795–816) in
the year 810.183 This colloquium took place at the behest of the Synod of Aachen
(809), which had remitted the problem of the inclusion of filioque to the pope. The
minutes show that while Leo had in principle approved the creed’s liturgical use
in the Frankish Empire in accordance with the Roman model, it was only read in
Rome (by the bishop), for catechetical purposes, and not – as was the case with
the Franks – sung (by the congregation during mass). Leo III now demanded that
Charlemagne’s palace chapel also conform to the Roman rite in order to lessen
the creed’s normative force and to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of
removing filioque from liturgical use.184
However, Walahfrid’s testimony is more important for another reason: the
creed was now no longer considered to be opening the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but
rather as concluding that of the Word. In terms of the theology of liturgy, the
creed’s position after the Gospel instead of before the preparations of the offerings is
the decisive factor. Here, too, the changed situation of the Church is evident: as I
mentioned above, in the middle ages the entire population was (at least nominally)
Christian, so there was no longer any need to verify whether members of the con-
gregation belonged to the Church or not. This ‘freed’ the creed ‘up’ for other liturgi-
cal functions.
Eventually, the Order of the Mass of the Rhineland, which originated in St.
Gallen, replaced all its predecessors in most parts of the western church at the
turn of the millennium. It became the archetype of that order and, as regards the
ordinary parts of the mass, remained in general use until the reforms of Vatican
II. It was adopted not only in the countries north of the Alps but spread to Italy
and Rome. It thus contributed to a harmonization of the western liturgy of the
mass, promoted both by the Benedictine monks of Cluny and by the Ottonian
emperors.185
Originally, this order of the mass contained no creed at all. In fact, as regards
Rome, the creed was apparently inserted into the mass at the behest of the last
Ottonian emperor, Henry II, who travelled to the city in 1014 for his coronation.
Berno, abbot of Reichenau (d. 1048), witnessed this event, reporting that the Ro-
mans, when asked why it was not customary for them to recite the creed, replied
that their church had never been sullied by the dregs of heresy, but had instead
remained stalwart in the purity of the catholic faith according to Peter’s doctrine.

 For detailed treatment cf. below pp. 566–8.

 Cf. Ratio Romana de symbolo fidei, esp. 6–8, 12, 25–26, 31–32 (FaFo § 848).
 Cf. Meyer 1989, p. 204. The Ordo of the Rhineland was described in Luykx 1946/1947; Luykx
1961; Meyer 1989, pp. 204–8; Odenthal 2007(2011); Lang 2022, pp. 262–8.
 11.2 The creed in the mass 515

This is why, they continued, those who had allowed themselves to become stained
by heresy needed ‘to practise that creed through frequent chanting (illud sym-
bolum saepius cantando frequentare)’. In other words, here, too, the creed was pri-
marily considered to be a test of orthodoxy. Henry then persuaded the pope that
the creed also be chanted in the mass of Rome. However, Berno remained unsure
as to whether the Romans had in fact retained this custom. In this context, Berno
also mentioned that the Germans recited the creed after the Gospel.186
This corresponds with the observation that in the Ordo of the Rhineland, too,
the creed was now placed after the gospel or after the homily (which was inserted
after the gospel) and before the preparation of the offerings. In this order it was
therefore also seen as being closely connected with the gospel, which explains
why the General Prayer of the Church, public confession, and other elements
were inserted into the liturgy only after the creed but before the offertory.187
Even though the exact details of how C2 came to be introduced into the Lit-
urgy of the Eucharist are only partially known, the overall picture is relatively
consistent. The evidence suggests that:
(1) the creed used to instruct the catechumens and prepare them for baptism
(probably C1) ‘immigrated’ into the Divine Liturgy in the early sixth century,
perhaps initially in Constantinople (where it was, in any case, quickly re-
placed by C2);
(2) the recitation of the creed originally preceded the eucharist and constituted
the opening of the Liturgy of the Eucharist;
(3) the creed was originally used to verify that the person attending the eucharist
had been baptized and that their faith was orthodox;
(4) the creed was later considered the (orthodox) response of the congregation to
the gospel and, therefore, concluded the Liturgy of the Word of God.
This meant that the creed’s purpose in the liturgy changed significantly over the
centuries: it no longer served only to verify the Christian beliefs of candidates for
baptism, as had mostly been the case in the first centuries; rather, it was also used
to control access to the eucharist and, increasingly, to demonstrate the orthodoxy
of the faithful. The creed’s significance changed once again when the creed linked
back to the gospel reading that preceded it, viewed as the congregation’s answer to

 Cf. Berno, Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missae officium pertinentibus 2 (FaFo § 854). Cf.
Capelle 1951(1967), p. 78; Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 313–16; Lang 2022, pp. 269–71.
 For details cf. Jungmann 1951, vol. I, pp. 474–94; Jungmann 1962, vol. I, pp. 606–33. Cf. also
Lumma/Vonach 2015, pp. 74 f. For more information on the various uses of the creed in the mid-
dle ages cf. below ch. 17.
516 11 Creeds and the Liturgy

this gospel. With this shift, the creed’s function as a demonstration of orthodoxy
faded. We will look at the liturgical use of the creeds in later periods in chapter 17.

11.3 The creed in the liturgy of hours

In eastern monasticism there is little evidence for the creed being part of the lit-
urgy of hours. It is mentioned in the account of Abbots John and Sophronius visit-
ing Abbot Nilus of Sinai, from the late sixth or early seventh century.188 According
to this report the creed was recited in Palestine on a Saturday night during an all-
night vigil (ἀγρυπνία) between the Gloria in excelsis and the Lord’s Prayer.189 How-
ever, this practice was discontinued in the Byzantine church.190 In the Coptic
church the creed was and is recited at Morning prayer, at the Offering of Incense,
and at the Psalmodia;191 in the Ethiopic rite the creed appears in the cathedral of-
fice at the Solemn Vespers (Wāzēmā) and at matins (Sebehāta nagh), at the night
office of the Sa‘ātāt za-Gebs (‘Horologion of the Copts’), and at the vespers of a Sa‘ā-
tāt found in cod. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, et. 21 (s. XV–XVI).192
As regards Latin Christianity, in the period under discussion here,193 only
sparse information has come down to us: in the first half of the seventh century
Fructuosus of Braga (d. c. 665) prescribes the creed’s recitation (Christianae fidei
symbolum – he does not specify which one) for compline. That means that, if a
monk were to die at night, he would be able to lay before the Lord his ‘pure
(puram)’ faith as he had just confessed it prior to going to sleep. This may point to
the creed’s anti-heretical function.194 The Antiphonary of Bangor (s. VII ex.) con-
tains the credal hymn Spiritus diuinae lucis gloriae, to be sung at Sunday matins,
as well as a version of T which was to be recited at the office of nightfall (ad ini-
tium noctis, i.e. compline) together with the Lord’s Prayer.195 Likewise the Book of

 Cf. Longo 1965/1966; Taft 1986, pp. 198–200, 274 f.

 Cf. Longo 1965/1966, p. 252 (l. 25).
 Cf. Taft 1986, pp. 277–83.
 Cf. Taft 1986, pp. 253 f., 256. Cf. also above p. 443.
 Cf. Taft 1986, pp. 263, 265, 267, 271; further details in Kidane 1998, esp. pp. 308–58. On the
Syriac and Armenian tradition cf. also above pp. 430, 439.
 On the development in the high middle ages cf. also below p. 572 and n. 14.
 Cf. Fructuosus of Braga, Regula complutensis 1 (FaFo § 697). Dr Julia Winnebeck (Bonn) has
kindly drawn my attention to Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani 2,15, describing the death of the
moribund nun Deurechilda. She recites the Lord’s Prayer and the creed with the help of her ab-
bess on her final evening and is then taken up to heaven.
 Cf. Antiphonale Benchorense 12 and 35 (FaFo § 698).
 11.3 The creed in the liturgy of hours 517

Mulling (s. VIII/2) prescribes T together with the Lord’s Prayer as part of the of-
fice.196 Both texts are also found in medieval psalters.197 In c. 820/823 Amalarius of
Metz mentions them as part of the office of prime.198 Benedict of Aniane (d. 821)
ordered his monks to walk around the altar three times every day and, the first
time, to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed.199 Haito of Basel (sedit 803–823)
prescribed that T was to be replaced (or supplemented) by Ath on Sundays.200

 Cf. Book of Mulling (cod. Dublin, Trinity Library, 60 (A. I. 15)), f. 94v; online: URL <https://
digitalcollections.tcd.ie/concern/works/9019s695d?locale=en> (21/11/2023); cf. FaFo § 699.
 Cf. below p. 572 and n. 14.
 Cf. Amalarius of Metz, Liber officialis 4,2,22 (FaFo § 855).
 Cf. Ardo Smaragdus, Vita Benedicti Anianensis 38.
 Cf. Haito of Basel, Capitulary, ch. 4 (FaFo § 747b).
12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year

I have shown elsewhere that the earlier liturgical diversity in the Roman Empire
came to be reduced, from approximately 380, to a standardized sequence of do-
minical feasts (Lord’s feasts, devoted to Christ’s life: Christmas/Epiphany, Easter,
Ascension, and Pentecost), which were considered to be the liturgical core of the
Church year and incorporated into a narrative structure.1 They were accompa-
nied by catecheses or sermons that spelled out the significance of each individual
feast. This development occurred in the context of a broader trend towards the
standardization of the liturgy, which likewise started around the turn from the
fourth to the fifth centuries. The question that arises, then, is whether there is
any connection between the increasingly standardized wording of the creed (and
thus the establishment of orthodoxy by means of credal texts), and the introduc-
tion of a fully-fledged Church calendar.
In fact, there are both catechetical and liturgical indications of just such a
connection. First, the creed, formulated to express a dogmatic consensus, was
used in a liturgical context to instruct the community of Christians assembled
there. This often happened on the dominical feasts as baptism was celebrated on
these most solemn occasions (Easter being the principal, but not the only feast for
such rites2). As we will see in the next chapter, baptism was accompanied by spe-
cial catecheses which expounded upon repentance, baptism, and, of course, the
creed. In this respect it is particularly significant that these rites were carried out,
at least to a certain extent, in the presence of the entire congregation and that the
concomitant catecheses were also addressed to that congregation as a whole.3
This means that each year the tenets of the faith were recapitulated and ex-
pounded anew in the services leading up to baptism.
However, the relation between the creed and liturgy was not only a formal
one; the interpretation of the dominical feasts itself was based on the creed. In
this context it is interesting to take a closer look at the encyclical letter on baptism
which Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem (sedit 314–333), sent to the Armenian bish-
ops. It is preserved only in Armenian fragments (cited by Ananias of Shirak, fl.
s. VII).4 In this letter Macarius commends Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost as oc-
casions for baptism, because the birth of the Lord was celebrated on Epiphany,

 Cf. Kinzig 2011(2017), esp. pp. 332–9. This chapter is based on Kinzig 2011(2017), pp. 339–52. Cf.
now also Edwards 2024.
 Cf. Bradshaw 1993(1995); Rouwhorst 2022, col. 1001. Cf. also above p. 503 n. 129.
 Cf. Kretschmar 1970, pp. 157, 240.
 Cf. on this point Förster 2000, pp. 109–14; Förster 2007, pp. 148–52.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-012
 12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year 519

the Passion of Christ on Easter, and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.5
(Macarius does not yet appear to recognize either Christmas or Ascension as holy
days.) This early document may already point to a close interrelation between the
creed and major Christian feasts.
The Apostolic Constitutions is a vast collection of legal and liturgical documents
which in its present form was compiled in Antioch in c. 380. It refers to the follow-
ing days as days of rest for slaves: Sabbath, Sunday, Holy Week, Easter Octave, As-
cension, Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany (the Baptism of Christ), the feasts of the
apostles, and the feasts of the martyrs. The rationales given for identifying these as
the dominical feasts are clearly informed by the propositions of the creed:

Let slaves rest [from their work] all the great week, and that which follows it – for the one
is that of the Passion, and the other that of the Resurrection; and there is need they should
be instructed who it is that died and rose again, or who it is permitted him [to suffer], and
raised him again. Let them rest on the Ascension, because it was the conclusion of the dis-
pensation by Christ. Let them rest at Pentecost, because of the coming of the Holy Spirit
which was granted to those that believed in Christ. Let them rest on the festival of his birth,
because on it the unexpected favour was granted to humankind, that Jesus Christ, the Word
of God, should be born from the virgin Mary, for the salvation of the world.6

This interdependence between the creed and the Church calendar becomes ever
more marked when we look at the festal sermons delivered after 381, so in close
chronological proximity to the Council of Constantinople, and its western counter-
part, the Synod of Aquileia (381). It is significant in this respect that the festal hom-
ily actually only developed in its entire baroque splendour at this juncture; the
new liturgical structure demanded a corresponding development of the homily’s
rhetoric.7 John Chrysostom is an especially interesting case in point. We encounter
two lists of Christian holidays in his work, which differ from one another. They ap-
pear in two sermons that probably date to the year 386. The first list occurs in
Chrysostom’s first Homily on Pentecost in which he looks to clarify why it is incum-

 Cf. Terian 2008, p. 83: ‘Hence the ordinance of baptism of the holy font and the earnest obser-
vance of the three feasts during which those who are dedicated to God desire most eagerly to
bring unto baptism those in darkness and to carry out the great form of the salutary mystery,
which is carried out on these holy and prominent days. And this (form of mystery) they hasten to
carry out with great eagerness in the holy places of Christ; which all Christians, those who fear
Christ, must also carry out in the baptismal service on these (days): on the holy Epiphany of the
Nativity of the Lord, and <on> the saving Easter of the life-giving passion of Christ, and on Pente-
cost full of grace – when the Divine descent of the life-giving Spirit overflowed among us.’
 Constitutiones apostolorum 8,33,3–6 (tr. NPNF; altered).
 On the wider context cf. Sachot 1994, cols. 160 f.; Kinzig 1997; Stewart-Sykes 2001; Boodts/
Schmidt 2022 (listing further literature).
520 12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year

bent upon the Christians, in contrast to the Jews (cf. Ex 23:17), to celebrate at all
times; he uses the three main Christian feasts to justify this perpetual celebration.
Epiphany is mentioned because ‘God appeared on earth and dwelt among men, be-
cause God, the only-begotten child of God, was with us’. We proclaim the death of
the Lord at Pascha, while we observe Pentecost ‘because the Spirit came to us.’8 In
each case Chrystostom offers christological or pneumatological reasons for his
argument.
Surprisingly, Chrysostom mentions neither Christmas nor the Ascension here. I
concur with the argument often made that the reason lies in the fact that – in the
very year in which Chrysostom wrote – the celebration of Christmas started in
Antioch in the congregation of bishop Flavian where Chrysostom preached9 as the
latter does refer to all five dominical feasts in another festal homily he delivered
that year. Here Christmas even serves as the source and grounds for all the other
holidays:

For a celebration is approaching, a feast which is the most august and awe-inspiring of all
feasts and which one can no doubt call the ‘capital’ of all feasts (μητρόπολιν πασῶν τῶν
ἑορτῶν). Which do I mean? The birth of Christ in the flesh. In it the Theophany, the Holy
Pascha, the Ascension, and Pentecost have their origin and their foundation. For if Christ
had not been born in the flesh, he would not have been baptized, which is Theophany; he
would not have been crucified, which is the Pascha; and he would not have sent the Spirit,
which is Pentecost. Just as different rivers flow from one source, so these feasts have been
born for us.10

Christmas, Theophany/Epiphany (which Chrysostom now interprets as a celebra-

tion of the baptism of Christ), Pascha, Ascension, and Pentecost are named here
and justified in christological or pneumatological terms in a way which approxi-
mates the creed.11
Turning to the west, we come across Filastrius who was the bishop of Brescia
from the late 370s onwards. Sometime before 397 he composed an anti-heretical
treatise (Diuersarum haereseon liber) in which he inveighed against liturgical her-
esies, among other things. According to Filastrius, the celebration of Epiphany on

 John Chrysostom, De sancta pentecoste 1, 1 (PG 50, col. 454).

 Cf. also Kelly 1995, p. 70.
 John Chrysostom, De beato Philogonio 3–4 (PG 48, cols. 752 f.). On the designation of Christmas
as a μητρόπολις cf. also John Chrysostom, De sancta pentecoste 2, 1, where this title is accorded to
Pentecost. In addition, Cabié 1965, pp. 185 f.
 If one may draw conclusions from the mention of the feast of Ascension here, is it possible
that this feast also was first introduced in Antioch in 386? Cf. Kinzig 2009, cols. 914 f. listing the
earliest clear references for this feast’s liturgical celebration.
 12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year 521

6 January is in no way to be superseded by the celebration of Christmas on 25 De-

cember, as many haeretici suggest it should be. In this context he asserts:

As is proper, for the sake of our salvation the following four days of the year have been
established for the great feasts: first, [the day] on which he was born; then, [the day] on
which he appeared, that is, twelve days later; thereafter, [the day] on which he suffered on
Pascha; and finally, [the day] near Pentecost when he ascended into heaven, for this is his
victorious consummation. But whoever ignores [or] overlooks one of these days might then
also doubt the other days. Such a person does not have the entire truth at their disposal. For
different joys from the Lord Christ have thus sprouted for us at the four seasons of
each year, that is, when he was born, then, when he appeared, the third time, when he suf-
fered and rose again and was seen, and the fourth time, when he ascended into heaven,
such that we can celebrate this throughout the year without interruption, rejoicing at all
times. Let us adhere to and preserve these [feasts] completely and without abbreviation.12

Filastrius clearly refers to the christological section of R/T. The liturgical year is
modelled upon the stages of the earthly sojourn of Christ. We should also observe
that, just as in R/T, Filastrius’ comments on the major feasts make no mention of
Jesus’ teachings or miracles.
Finally, one may observe the same rhetorical strategy in a famous passage
from a letter Augustine wrote to Januarius in 400. In this epistle Augustine grap-
ples with the problem of defining which of the customs and ceremonies of the
catholic Church are the most important and whence the justification for their ex-
istence is derived (Epistula 54). He argues that the sacraments of baptism and the
eucharist were already established in the New Testament. Nonetheless, there is a
whole array of customs which are not set forth in the Holy Scripture, but which
still ought to be observed, on the grounds of tradition:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition,
and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are
held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary councils,
whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g., the annual celebration, by special solem-
nities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, and of the arrival of
the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole
Church wherever it has been established.13

Here once again a sequence of four dominical feasts is given, namely, Good Fri-
day, Easter Sunday, Ascension, and Pentecost. Augustine goes on to say that the
feasts in question either possess apostolic origins or go back to the general coun-

 Filastrius, Diuersarum haereseon liber 140,2–4.

 Augustine, Epistula 54, 1 (tr. NPNF; altered).
522 12 The Creed and the Liturgical Year

cils. This is remarkable insofar as – at the First Ecumenical Council – Constantine

merely set Sunday as the day for celebrating the already much older feast of Eas-
ter (Pascha).14 Yet as far as we can ascertain, no provisions were made to cele-
brate officially either Good Friday, Ascension, or Pentecost at that time or in
Constantinople in 381. Whatever Augustine may have meant by those remarks,
they proved to be highly consequential since they were incorporated into the De-
cretum Gratiani in the high middle ages and thus passed into canon law.15
So in this passage we once again witness that explicit connection between the
content of Christian feasts and the creed; the Passion (Good Friday), Resurrection
(Easter Sunday), Ascension, and the arrival of the Spirit on Pentecost recall
the second and third articles of the creed. In Augustine we see what Hansjörg Auf
der Maur called the ‘isolating, historicizing view’ of the Easter events which he
considered typical of the development of the Easter cycle in the fourth and fifth
centuries.16
In conclusion, the Church calendar played a key role in the use of the trinitar-
ian creed being implemented across the Church. The newly unified faith as it was
expressed in the creed was mapped onto the Church calendar so that it might be
experienced by the worshippers in both the liturgy and mass. The Church year,
based as it was on the principal christological feasts (Christmas/Epiphany, Easter,
Ascension, and Pentecost), thus served to commemorate as well as to recapitulate
the contents of that creed and consequently contributed to it becoming an instru-
ment of dogmatic normalization. We will later see how the connection between
the creed and the annual cycle of Christian feasts was spelled out at some length
by medieval theologians in the west.17

 For further discussion of this question cf. Kinzig 2006, pp. 366 f.; Kinzig, ‘Sunday Observance’,
2022, p. 322.
 Cf. Decretum Gratiani 12,1,11.
 Auf der Maur 1983, p. 82; cf. also Rexer 2003, p. 285 n. 26.
 Cf. below pp. 576–80.
13 Preaching the Creed

During their catechumenate the converts were instructed in the basics of the
Christian faith. It would be a worthwhile endeavour to analyze in detail the cate-
chetical and rhetorical techniques which the bishops were using to introduce
these catechumens to their new faith, to examine the content of their sermons,
and to ask what they discussed and what they omitted and why. No such compre-
hensive analysis exists as yet. Within the framework of this book, a few summary
remarks, illustrated by some examples, must suffice. In doing so, I will concen-
trate on sermons in Greek and Latin.1
Interestingly, the number of extant catecheses dealing with the creed differs
considerably between east and west. In the east, although a great many baptismal
homilies have come down to us, those explaining the creed (as opposed to Christian
life or the rites of initiation) are surprisingly few in number. The first preserved
examples are the eighteen Catecheses ad illuminandos of Cyril of Jerusalem, proba-
bly delivered during Lent 351. According to a scribal note in one codex they may
have been taken down in writing by some listeners as they were being delivered.2
They are based on the local creed J,3 but do not strictly follow its sequence. Instead,
the bishop begins with three discourses on the pernicious power of sin, on repen-
tance, and on the purpose and nature of baptism. Catechesis 4 which is entitled ‘On
the Ten Doctrines’ contains a summary exposition of the creed, followed by re-
marks on the soul, the body, dress, the general resurrection (left out before), and
Holy Scripture. Starting from a reading of Hebrews 11 Catechesis 5 contains a gen-
eral discourse on faith whereupon the creed was ‘handed over’. Catecheses 6–18
explain every clause of the creed in detail. A number of attempts have been made
by scholars to explain Cyril’s peculiar syllabus which need not detain us here.4 If a
scribal note at the end of the Procatechesis, which serves as an introduction to the
whole series, is accurate, the discourses were delivered not to all catechumens, but
only to those already baptized and the φωτιζόμενοι, the ‘illuminated’, i.e. those cat-
echumens that had actually been accepted and registered for baptism in that year.
It was explicitly forbidden to circulate copies of the sermons among ordinary cate-
chumens and non-Christians.5

 Expositions of the creed in languages other than Greek and Latin have been mentioned above
in ch. 9.
 Cf. Reischl/Rupp 1848/1860, vol. II, pp. 342 f. app. Cf. Anthony A. Stephenson in FaCh 61, pp. 1 f.
 Cf. above ch. 5.5.
 Cf. the literature quoted in FaFo § 147.
 Cf. Reischl/Rupp 1848/1860, vol. I, p. 26.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-013
524 13 Preaching the Creed

Although there is further evidence attesting to the practice of preaching on

the creed in the Greek church,6 only one further set of discourses has come down
to us:7 the famous Catechetical Homilies 1–10 by Theodore of Mopsuestia which
were delivered in Antioch during Lent at some point before 392 and, like those of
Cyril, seem to have been taken down in writing by one or more members of Theo-
dore’s audience.8 Theodore opens his series with explanations of the nature of
faith and of belief in the one Christian God which he sets in opposition to the
Jews’ refusal to believe in Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God and to the poly-
theism of the pagans (Homilia Catechetica 1). Like Cyril he then goes through the
clauses of the creed (in his case NAnt1) one by one. His second homily deals with
the nature of the relationship between God the Father and his Son. Theodore
then turns to the christological section of the creed which he discusses at some
length in Homilies 3–8. His final two homilies focus on the Holy Spirit, ecclesiol-
ogy, and eschatology. In terms of theology, Theodore expects much more from his
audience than Cyril – certainly a result of the trinitarian debates that had taken
place in the fourth century, but which may also indicate a much higher level of
theological curiosity on the part of his listeners which Theodore felt compelled to
satisfy.9 He explains the basic trinitarian tenets in surprising detail, desirous to
ensure they cannot be misinterpreted in the way of heretics like Arius.
Except for these two series we only possess individual sermons. Gregory of
Nazianzus’ Homily 40 on baptism was preached in Constantinople before the Tra-
ditio symboli sometime between 379 and 381. This very lengthy sermon also in-
cludes a general introduction into the contents of the Christian faith, but Gregory
does not cite the creed since he is delivering his discourse in front of an audience
including those who are not yet entitled to hear it (be it because they have just
entered the catechumenate or because they are non-Christians):

This is all that may be divulged of the sacrament to you and that is not [kept] secret from
the ears of the many. The rest you will learn within [the Church] by the grace of the holy
Trinity; and those matters you should also hide within yourself, being secured with a seal.10

 Cf., e.g., Egeria, Peregrinatio 46,3 (FaFo § 630).

 John Chrysostom does not offer a detailed explanation of the creed in his Baptismal Catecheses,
just an (incomplete) paraphrase and occasional comments on a few clauses. Cf. FaFo §§ 189, 597
and above pp. 497 f.
 Cf. the literature cited in FaFo § 180. In addition, Toom 2021.
 On these expectations cf. Olivar 1991, pp. 776–9.
 Gregory, Homilia 40, 45 (FaFo § 179); cf. also § 628. On the commandment to keep the creed
secret cf. below pp. 536 f.
 13 Preaching the Creed 525

By contrast, Nestorius (bishop of Constantinople 428–431) gives a full (albeit brief)

explanation of the creed in a recently discovered sermon, which was delivered in
429 or 430.11 After an introduction he turns to the creed itself and describes God’s
oneness in contrast to Greek polytheism. He then opens his exposition on the
Trinity by explaining the title of ‘Father’. This is followed by a christological sec-
tion in which the author discusses, above all, the relationship of the uncreated
and created nature in the incarnate Christ, whereas he only briefly touches on
Christ’s Second Coming. Rather, he goes on to discuss in detail the credal state-
ments about the Holy Spirit and the Church, wanting above all to prove the equal-
ity of the Spirit with the Father and the Son and thus that of the three divine
hypostáseis, to ward off any misunderstandings about the Spirit’s origin. Belief in
the one Church is read by the author as further evidence of the oneness of God,
in contrast to the many temples of the pagans, which is thus integrated into the
doctrine of the Trinity that is set out here. In the end, Nestorius turns his audien-
ce’s attention back to the Trinity and the trinitarian status of the Spirit. Unfortu-
nately, we have no information as to precisely when or on what occasion this
homily was delivered.
By contrast, we know that another sermon from the same city was delivered
during the baptismal service after the renunciation, the Redditio, and the recita-
tion of the Lord’s Prayer. Its author Proclus of Constantinople (sedit 434–446) ex-
plains the rites associated with baptism, but devotes the most important part of
his sermon to a brief commentary on the creed (Homilia 27, 4–7). However, he
only cites its first section while paraphrasing the remainder which unfortunately
does not allow us to reconstruct the creed he uses.12 Finally, a lengthy exposition
of N by Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446), one of Nestorius’ opponents at Ephe-
sus 431, has so far received little attention. He quotes N in full in chapter 8 and
continues to explain its individual clauses, defending it against a Nestorian
interpretation.13
✶
Far more explanations of R/T have been preserved in Latin, whereas expositions
of N or C2 are rare: a commentary on N which may have been written in Northern
Italy in the fourth century has been published by Turner.14 Another commentary,

 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten’, 2020(2022), pp. 21–52.

 Cf. also Leroy 1967, pp. 184–7. The creed is probably C1. Cf. above p. 498 and n. 93.
 Cf. Theodotus, Expositio symboli Nicaeni (PG 77, cols. 1313–48).
 Cf. Commentarius in Symbolum Nicaenum (Turner 1899–1939, vol. I 2/1, pp. 330–47, cf. FaFo
§ 135d5).
526 13 Preaching the Creed

written after 400, focuses on N too, while also including the Tomus Damasi.15
However, these are not sermons but learned theological treatises. There are no
commentaries on N or C2 at all from the period between the sixth and the early
ninth century,16 though we do find a few commentaries on Ath.17
As regards T a number of expositions in the form of question and answer sur-
vive, some of which were used to train priests.18 By contrast, the laity was in-
structed by means of homilies (and some longer treatises which, like Rufinus’
Expositio, may have nominally been addressed to a single individual, but aimed
at a wider educated readership). However, in the Latin church we do not encoun-
ter any examples of a series of credal homilies spanning the entire period of
Lent;19 instead the creed is, by and large, explained only once on the occasion of
the Traditio symboli and, sometimes, at the Redditio.20
The earliest example is probably that of Ambrose (Explanatio symboli, 374–397;
cf. Fafo §§ 15, 256, 351), followed by treatises and sermons by Nicetas of Remesi-
ana,21 Rufinus,22 Augustine,23 Peter Chrysologus,24 Quodvultdeus,25 and Caesarius of
Arles.26 In addition, a number of anonymous texts attributed to Church fathers

 Cf. Commentarius alter in Symbolum Nicaenum siue potius in Tomum Damasi papae = Pseudo-
Jerome, Epistula 17, 1 (Turner 1899–1939, vol. I 2/1, pp. 355–63; cf. FaFo § 135d11).
 Cf. Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), p. 244 n. 67.
 Cf. Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, nos. 265, 267–71, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279. Some are, perhaps, post-
Carolingian. Cf. also (Pseudo-)Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 2 (FaFo § 656a).
 Cf., e.g., FaFo §§ 31, 75, 76, 510, 526, 527, 528, 708, 714, 716, 730, 793, 794. They are to be distin-
guished from baptismal interrogations.
 The Second Council of Braga (572) stated in canon 1 that during the twenty days prior to bap-
tism ‘the catechumens should be specifically taught the creed’ (FaFo § 578). No such extended
series of homilies survives.
 A helpful survey of explanationes from Italy and Gaul is now found in Wheaton 2022,
pp. 17–36.
 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli, book V: De symbolo (c. 370–375?;
cf. FaFo §§ 14, 324).
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli (c. 404; cf. FaFo §§ 18, 254b, 638).
 Cf. Augustine, esp. Sermones 212–215, the De fide et symbolo, and the Sermo de symbolo ad
catechumenos (395–430; cf. FaFo §§ 19, 316e–g, k, l; 636d–g).
 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Sermones 56–62 (431–458; cf. FaFo §§ 22, 259a–f).
 Cf. Quodvultdeus, Sermones 1–3 (437–453; cf. FaFo § 317a–c).
 Cf. Caesarius of Arles, esp. Sermones 9, 10 (perhaps inauthentic), 130 (503–542; cf. FaFo §§ 269,
271, 656f).
 13 Preaching the Creed 527

were also often copied, like, e.g., sermons said to be by Augustine or by Eusebius of
Emesa.27 There are many more homilies from the early middle ages.28
In such expositions baptismal candidates were regularly exhorted to memo-
rize the creed and by no means to forget it,29 and they were cautioned against
making any changes to its wording. Thus Rufinus warns not to add even a single
word to the creed, the Roman version of which was unsoiled by heresy and there-
fore authoritative.30 Ambrose, too, maintains that the creed’s wording was irrevo-
cably fixed. In addition, he appeals expressly to the so-called ‘canonization-
formula’ of the Book of Revelation (Rev 22:18–19)31 and also invokes the creed’s
Petrine (that is, Roman) origin.32 Finally, the legend of its apostolic origin, which
had been systematically promulgated throughout the west since the time of Rufi-
nus, served not only to authorize the creed, but also to safeguard its text.33
Augustine often began his expositions with an introduction to the meaning of
the term symbolum, then quoted the full text of the creed, and finally repeated
and commented on it, clause by clause (Sermones 214; 213; De symbolo ad catechu-
menos). On other occasions, after introductory words explaining symbolum, he
succinctly interpreted the entire creed before it was ‘handed over’ to the bapti-
zands (Sermo 212). At the Redditio, the creed was sometimes explained again
(Sermo 215).
However, the sermon that was probably the most influential is a one usually
ascribed to Leo the Great (Tractatus 98; cf. FaFo § 255g). It owes it prominence to
the fact that it was included in the Roman Old Gelasian Sacramentary (FaFo

 Cf. Pseudo-Augustine, Sermones 237–239 (before 600; cf. FaFo § 275); Pseudo-Augustine,
Sermo 242 (s. VI–VII; cf. §§ 32, 276c); Pseudo-Eusebius of Emesa (Collectio Eusebiana), Homiliae 9
and 10 (s. V–VI?; cf. §§ 30, 266).
 Cf., e.g., the editions in Keefe 2002, vol. II; Westra 2002, pp. 409–538; Keefe, Explanationes,
2012; Kinzig, Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 3–159; Kinzig, ‘Glauben lernen’, 2020(2022). A helpful survey
of the relevant Carolingian manuscripts is found in Keefe, Catalogue, 2012.
 Cf. Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 2 (FaFo § 351a). 9 (§ 15a3); Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (§ 18);
Augustine, Sermones 58, 13 (§ 636b2); 212, 2 (§ 19a); 214, 1 (§ 636e); 215, 1 (§ 636f); id., Sermo de
symbolo ad catechumenos 1,1–2 (§ 636g); Nicetas of Remesiana, Competentibus ad baptismum in-
structionis libelli 2, frg. 4 (§ 625); Peter Chrysologus, Sermones 56, 3. 5 (§ 22a1 and 3); 57, 16 (§ 22b);
58, 2 (§ 22c); 59, 1. 18 (§ 22d); 60, 18 (§ 22e2); 61, 2. 15 (§ 22f); 62, 3 (§ 22g). Furthermore, Leo the
Great, Tractatus 98 (§ 255g) and the Missale Gallicanum Vetus, no. 27 (§ 678a1). For the east, cf.,
e.g., the Council of Laodicea, canons 46 and 47 (§ 562b and c) and Cyril, Catechesis ad illuminan-
dos 5, 12 (FaFo § 624a); 18, 21 (§ 624b). Cf. also Berzon 2021.
 Cf. Rufinus, Expositio symboli 3 (FaFo § 638).
 On this formula cf. also above p. 327.
 Cf. Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 7 (FaFo § 15a2). Similarly, Pseudo-Facundus of Hermiane,
Epistula fidei catholicae in defensione trium capitulorum 12 (§ 37).
 Cf. above ch. 5.4.
528 13 Preaching the Creed

§ 675a)34 and consequently also incorporated in later sacramentaries.35 Leo first

exhorted the baptizands to embrace the faith with all their heart, because this is
how justification is received. He then invited them to come and receive the creed
as inspired by the Lord and written by the apostles under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. Finally, they were admonished to learn the confession by heart, but
not to write it down. In the second part Leo emphasized once again that the creed
was inspired by God and that it could be understood and learned by everyone.
Then the content of the confession was briefly recapitulated. At the end came an
admonition to learn the creed ‘without changing its wording’ (nullo mutato ser-
mone). Tractatus 98 is quite brief, and, concerning its place in the above-mentioned
sacramentaries, it is not quite clear whether it is to be regarded as a regular com-
ponent of the liturgy (to which a longer explanation may have been added) or only
as a kind of placeholder or perhaps simply a cue for a longer explanation. Given
that this particular order was intended for the baptism of infants and that their
parents and godparents had already been instructed in the faith, a more detailed
explanation may also have been deemed superfluous.
Later western explanations of the faith are rather schematic. Although a
great number of them have been published in recent years, they have not yet re-
ceived the attention they deserve.36 They invariably begin with an explanation of
the term symbolum, before turning to expound the individual clauses of R/T. By
and large, these later explanations do not contain much ‘high’ theology. However,
as they reflect catechesis, as it were, ‘on the ground’, as it may have happened in
chapels across the countryside in late antiquity and the early middle ages, they
may have been at least as influential as the discourses given by bishops in the
city cathedrals. Again, the surviving representatives of the genre of explanations
of the faith, especially from the early middle ages, are often astonishingly short,
indeed in parts they consist of nothing more than barely comprehensible key
words. This indicates that the preacher extemporized during his explanation.
Therefore it is impossible to draw any conclusions solely from the length of the
surviving texts about the actual duration of these sermons.
In the context of this book, it may suffice to introduce two examples of the west-
ern genre of Explanatio symboli, one from the sixth century, the other from the ninth
century; the first from a famous preacher, the second from an anonymous author.
✶

 Cf. also Ordo Romanus XI (s. VI/2; FaFo § 808a).

 Cf. Sacramentaries of Angoulême (768–781; FaFo § 796a), Gellone (790–800; § 797a, d), and
Reims (c. 800; § 799a). In addition, Jesse of Amiens, Epistula de baptismo (802; § 780a); Pontifical
of Donaueschingen (s. IX ex.; § 683a).
 Cf. above p. 527 n. 28 and Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022); Van Rhijn 2022, pp. 73–7.
 13 Preaching the Creed 529

A sermon by Bishop Caesarius was so influential that it eventually came to be

adopted as a model catechesis in the baptismal liturgy of the Gallican rite, con-
tinuing to be used at least into the ninth century (Sermo 9; cf. FaFo § 271a).37 Cae-
sarius began his catechesis by inculcating the importance of faith in his listeners.
Only those who held fast to faith in this life would attain eternal life. Caesarius
then warned against trying to explore the divine secrets, since our limited intel-
lect is incapable of grasping the heavenly mystery. Subsequently, he solemnly re-
cited the entire creed three times (corresponding to the number of persons of the
Trinity) and reminded his listeners that it should not be written down but learned
by heart.
After this had been completed, Caesarius set out to explain what his audience
had just heard. First, he spoke briefly about the relationship between God the Fa-
ther and God the Son. The Son’s generation seems to have been a matter of discus-
sion in his congregation, for Caesarius emphasizes that one should not speculate
about the way in which the Father had begotten the Son. Rather, such generation
was clearly proven in the Bible and therefore to be believed, not discussed.
The bishop then immediately turned to the christological section, explaining
the name of Jesus Christ and why he was called ‘only-begotten’ (unigenitum). The
words ‘who was conceived of the Holy Spirit’ (qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto)
then gave rise to a short digression on that very Spirit, who is the creator of the
flesh and temple of the Lord. Caesarius succinctly explained why the Spirit had to
be regarded as one person of the Trinity.
The preacher postponed further interpretation until the following day. It ap-
pears that on that second day he no longer preached the sermon himself, but en-
trusted it to one of his priests, who seems to have read out what his bishop had
written down. Caesarius answered the famous question as to why Pontius Pilate
was named in the creed by saying that this clearly established the historicity of
the one Christ as opposed to false saviours. Furthermore, he emphasized the fac-
tuality of the death and resurrection of the Son of God. The resurrection had
taken place not until the third day, thus proving that Christ had in actual fact
died. Explaining Christ’s ‘sitting at the right’, he rejected the idea that it might be
a physical sitting beside God. Instead, sitting at his right signified that there was
no ‘leftness’ (i.e. ‘wrongness’ – sinisteritas, a rare word) in Christ.

 It formed part of the Missale Gallicanum Vetus; cf. Mohlberg/Eizenhöfer/Siffrin 1958, pp. 17,
l. 31 – 21, l. 4 (nos. 62–65). The following remarks are based on Kinzig, ‘Das Apostolische Glaubens-
bekenntnis’, 2018(2022), pp. 290–2.
530 13 Preaching the Creed

The bishop then turned to the pneumatological section, underlining the Spi-
rit’s full divinity. Here, too, he dispensed with more detailed trinitarian consider-
ations and merely stated with great emphasis that all divine persons were of
equal power and dignity. Furthermore, the other clauses of this section were
mentioned, but Caesarius only commented on eternal life. This had its place at
the end of the creed because faith was rewarded by the eternity of this new life.
Thus the order of the creed leads the believer up to the summit where eternal
salvation awaits.
The brevity and incompleteness of Caesarius’ exposition is striking. Numer-
ous clauses are not commented on: he says nothing about the Father’s omnipo-
tence or creative activity. The virgin birth, crucifixion, and burial do not seem, in
his view, to require explanation. The coming of Christ to judgement is mentioned,
but remains unexplained, too. Nor does he have anything to say about the holy
catholic Church, the communion of saints, or the resurrection of the flesh al-
though these clauses were all contained in his creed.
This is different in other credal explanations: the fleshly resurrection of
Christ and of the faithful in particular was the subject of much comment, as was
the question of whether one had to also believe ‘in’ the Church or whether the
mention of the Church was to be understood merely as an explanation of the
wider work of the Holy Spirit, an interpretation found in the majority, but by no
means the entirety, of credal sermons.38
Incidentally, Caesarius does not always seem to have interpreted the creed at
the Traditio symboli. Thus, according to its title, Sermo 130 was also intended to
be read on this occasion. This sermon, however, is about the prophet Elisha who
is depicted as a prototype of Christ. Caesarius then exhorts the faithful to preserve
‘sweetness of love, purity of heart, and chastity of body (dulcedinem caritatis, pu-
ritatem cordis et castitatem corporis)’ and also to teach their own children to do
so.39 Likewise, Sermo 201 served as a model sermon for the Traditio: it instructs
the faithful to lead a chaste life in preparation for the upcoming feast of Easter
and warns against drinking too much alcohol during the festivities. In a brief dis-
course entitled Ad competentes post traditum symbolum (‘To the candidates after
the handing over of the creed’; cf. FaFo § 654) the ten Egyptian plagues are com-
pared to the struggle against demons at the Christian initiation; it was probably
written in North Africa in c. 500 and attributed to Fulgentius of Ruspe. The Tradi-
tio therefore not necessarily had to be accompanied by teaching the creed’s con-
tents. Possibly, the bishop did not consider it necessary to instruct the parents

 Cf. above pp. 174 f.

 Caesarius, Sermo 130, 3. Cf. also id., Sermo 130, 5 (FaFo § 656f).
 13 Preaching the Creed 531

and godparents, who had already been baptized, at infant baptisms, especially
since they, as members of the congregation, frequently witnessed such paraenesis
in any case.
✶
The second western exposition which is presented here by way of illustration is
preserved, more or less complete, in six manuscripts in two slightly different re-
censions.40 Its titles as preserved in that tradition (Apertio symboli // Sermo ante-
quam symbolum traditur) make it clear that the sermon was delivered in the
context of the Traditio symboli.
It begins with an explanation of the term symbolum that differs in the two
recensions. According to the more detailed version of cod. I, symbolum means
‘token’ (indicium) or ‘collection (or pooling) of money’ (conlatio pecuniae): ‘token’,
since it indicates the ‘truth, through which we can attain eternal life’; ‘collection/
pooling of money’, however, as in payment for a ticket for a ship’s passage. The
required sum would be pooled on the ship and jealously guarded by the passen-
gers until arrival, then handed over to the ship’s owner. This explanation is fol-
lowed by a concise allegorical interpretation, which amounts to the apostles
having, as it were, ‘pooled’ the creed in order to preserve the church on its
journey.
The second part of the text is the creed itself, whose clauses one manuscript
assigns to the individual apostles. A concluding sentence extant in four manu-
scripts, however, also indicates a certain confusion with regard to the exact se-
quence of the apostles, for the author confesses that he cannot be certain about
assigning the creed’s clauses to the individual apostles.41
In the third part, the interpretation of the individual clauses begins, each of
which comprises only a few lines. First, the problem of the Godhead’s simulta-
neous unity and Trinity is explained, yet not by recourse to the relevant dogmatic
terms, but by two analogies. The sun consists of three parts: the sun itself, its
light, and its heat – and yet everything forms a single whole. The same is true of
the three parts of the soul: memory (memoria), talent (ingenium), and intellect (in-
tellectus). In the Bible, when a divine person is mentioned, the whole Godhead is
always meant. Furthermore, God is omnipotent because he cannot err, die, or sin.

 The text, a German translation, and a commentary are found in Kinzig, Neue Texte I, 2017,
pp. 18–65; cf. also FaFo §§ 44, 47, 263, 332, 387, 418. The following remarks are based on Kinzig,
‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), pp. 241–6.
 Cf. Apertio symboli 2,13 (codd. M Z Q V): ‘Ordo dicentium, quis primus de apostolis hoc dixit,
difficile inuenitur.’
532 13 Preaching the Creed

Next, the name of Jesus Christ is briefly explained. ‘Jesus’ is a proper name,
whereas Christ means the ‘anointed one’. He is to be regarded as both man and
God. The author expends a little more effort on the explanation of the word uni-
cus. Although Adam, according to Lk 3:38, and John, according to Jn 19:26–28,
were also called the Son of God and of Mary respectively, only Christ was the ‘nat-
ural’ Son, whereas the others were adopted. The designation ‘Lord’ (dominum) re-
fers to the divinity of the Son; the addition nostrum on the other hand to his
humanity.
As regards his birth through the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (the author
obviously does not yet know conception through the Spirit), the idea that Christ
could have had two fathers, namely God the Father and the Spirit, is first rejected.
Instead, the Spirit is relegated to the position of a helper and cooperator in the
birth (per administrationem spiritus sancti et ipso cooperante). Mary’s virginity
was the reason why she was chosen to give birth to the Saviour. Her faith is par-
ticularly emphasized. The flesh of Christ was sinless. Pontius Pilate is mentioned
in order clearly to pinpoint the date of Christ’s passion (i.e. ‘at the time of this
king’ (sic)) and to exclude confusion with the antichrist. The author mentions the
crucifixion, death, and burial only briefly; the descent into the underworld was
obviously not part of the creed interpreted and is not mentioned. According to
Hos 6:3, the resurrection of Jesus serves as a model for the eschatological resur-
rection of the faithful. At the request of the patriarchs and prophets, Christ took
on the ‘humanity of the flesh’ (humanitatem carnis) and thus ascended to heaven.
There he sits in his human flesh at the right hand of the Father, that is, in the
state of eternal life. The Second Coming and the Last Judgement are explained in
relative detail: Christ will preside over the court of the apostles and judge sinful
humanity.
This is followed by explanations about the Holy Spirit. Again, these are kept
very brief. The function of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity is to give life, the
author says, referring to Rom 11:36 and the beginning of Genesis (1:1–2). The Spirit
precedes the Church because the Church is enlightened by the Spirit. It is very
important to the preacher that one should not believe ‘in’ the Church, but instead
confess that it exists as a ‘holy’ Church. The catholic Church is the place where
sins are forgiven, whereas this is impossible in the church of the heretics. The
author expects the resurrection of the flesh, which he understands to be the
bodily resurrection of all people. The conclusion is again unclear – apparently,
the preacher assumes that the deceased already receive rewards and punish-
ments now, but that these only affect their souls. After the resurrection, however,
the soul and body will both receive their due reward. How this idea relates to that
of the Last Judgement, as it was confessed in the christological section, is not ex-
plained further.
 13 Preaching the Creed 533

Taken as a whole this explanation is no more than a collection of cues (and,

what is more, written in a Latin style that is faulty by classical standards). Its un-
evenness may result from the piecing together of different sources. It is also pos-
sible that the brevity of many such credal expositions can be explained by the
fact that they were originally glosses in the margin of the credal text written in
the centre of a page.42 Overall, it is very noticeable that the theological debates of
the fourth and fifth centuries have left hardly any traces in this text. The doctrine
of the Trinity is only hinted at, and the christological statements make no discern-
ible reference, for example, to the Definition of Faith at Chalcedon, let alone to
the decisions of later councils.
Such theological scarcity is not necessarily typical. Other Expositiones contain
longer explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity or more extensive theological re-
flections on individual articles of the creed. However, they are rarely original, but
usually taken from patristic authors. While the quality of instruction certainly varied,
the contents of the faith were consistently understood as fixed and unquestionable.
A lingua catechetica developed as a result of referring back to a narrow
canon of reference texts, which were cited in ever new variations, a language
which was mainly derived from a limited fund of theological formulae – as in the
example cited – and only in exceptional cases showed traits of kerygmatic origi-
nality. The ubiquity of this formulaic lingua catechetica also makes the dating and
localization of the sermons, most of which have survived anonymously or pseu-
donymously, difficult.
✶
All in all, preachers (both western and eastern) by and large attempted to speak
in a plain style that was easy to understand for their audiences, while using all
the rhetorical devices at their disposal (metaphors, analogies, word play, allitera-
tions, anaphoras, epiphoras, etc.).43 Their theological reasoning, however, spans a
wide range of complexity, from the aforementioned brief anonymous address to
the doctrinally very elaborate sermons by Theodore and Nestorius. Later we have
evidence that Ath was also used in catechesis: for example, an anonymous expla-
nation of baptism from Mainz, written before c. 850, cites clauses from Ath.44
However, the theological quality of credal sermons in the west should not be
overestimated. Their theology is often rudimentary and the sloppiness of many

 An example is found in cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 27, pp. 690–2; cf. Westra 2002,
pp. 474–9; Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, no. 75 and FaFo § 280. In addition, cf. already Wiegand 1904,
p. 12 n. 2.
 Cf. also Auksi 1995; Kinzig 1997.
 Cf. FaFo § 791.
534 13 Preaching the Creed

notes (which are hardly intelligible) suggests that their authors did not fully un-
derstand what they were supposed to talk about. After all, not all priests were
able to write sermons,45 and they often also lacked the necessary tools like access
to Bibles or theological literature. This is even true for the Carolingian period
when attempts were made to improve the theological education of priests, at-
tempts which have in recent years been described as a success.46 By contrast, it
may be useful to recall the preface of an anonymous author to his commentary
on Ath (the so-called ‘Oratorian Commentary’47), probably from the beginning of
the ninth century, which was written in a much more sombre mood:

You have charged me to explain in a kind of commentary that little work on the faith which
is recited everywhere in our churches and on which our priests reflect more frequently
than on the other works, by means of sentences from the holy fathers. For you are con-
cerned about the priests of our diocese, who in no way have sufficient books, but rarely and
only with difficulty acquire psalters, lectionaries, and missals, with the help of which they
can celebrate holy mass and the offices. But because, owing to the lack of books, neither the
zeal to read nor to learn is fostered in most, it is your desire that they should be induced at
least to reflect on this interpretation of the faith, so as to know and understand a little more
of God. For the greatest ruin for all is that the priests, who should have been instructing the
people of God, have themselves proved not to know God.48

We do not know whether its author succeeded.

 On the religious knowledge of priests in late antiquity and the early middle ages cf. the scepti-
cal view in Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), pp. 246–59.
 Cf. esp. Mitalaité 2013; Patzold 2020, pp. 305–88; and, more generally, Van Rhijn 2022.
 Edited by Ommanney 1880, pp. 327–55.
 Codex Vaticanus Reg. lat. 231 (c. 820–30), f. 152v, ed. Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, p. VI n. 2: ‘In-
iunxistis mihi illud fidei opusculum, quod passim in ecclesiis recitatur, quodque a presbyteris
nostris usitatius quam caetera opuscula meditatur, sanctorum Patrum sententiis quasi expo-
nendo dilatarem, consulentes parochiae nostrae presbyteris, qui sufficienter habere libros nullo
modo possunt, sed uix et cum labore sibi psalterium, lectionarium uel missalem acquirunt, per
quos diuina sacramenta uel officia agere queant; et quia cum inopia librorum plerisque neque
studium legendi aut discendi suffragatur, idcirco uultis ut saltem hanc fidei expositionem medi-
tari cogantur, ut aliquanto amplius de Deo possint sapere et intelligere. Quia maxima omnium
ista pernicies est, quod sacerdotes, qui plebes Dei docere debuerant, ipsi Deum ignorare inue-
niuntur.’ Cf. also Burn 1896, p. LIV. Furthermore, Keefe, Catalogue, 2012, no. 275, where she sug-
gests Theodulf of Orléans as author (cf. also Burn 1896, pp. LII–LIII).
14 Creeds in Daily Life

Where did a Christian encounter the creed and what did he or she ‘do’ with it?1
Let us look for the answer in Arles in southern Gaul in the first few decades after
the year 500, because here the evidence is particularly rich. Bishop Caesarius as-
cended the episcopal throne in 502 and in fact dominated ecclesiastical life across
Gaul in what were politically uncertain times for four decades until his death in
542. We should not assume that infant baptism was the norm at that time; instead
a mixture of infant baptism and that of adult converts is more likely, as paganism
was by no means extinct in the Gaul of the early sixth century.2 In addition, it
was quite common to postpone baptism because of the significance of this event
in the life of every Christian.
As we saw in the chapter on the creed and baptism the creed’s primary Sitz
im Leben was pre-baptismal catechesis.3 The profession of faith was ‘handed over’
to the candidates in a solemn ceremony at the end of their catechumenate. This
Traditio symboli was accompanied by a credal instruction by the local bishop.
The candidates then had to learn it by heart and solemnly ‘return’ it, i.e. recite it,
during the ceremony of Redditio symboli on one of the following weekends. In
Arles, the Traditio symboli took place on Palm Sunday.4 Either Christian parents
would have brought their children to be baptized, or another adult might have
taken responsibility for the child of a relative as sponsor. In the latter case, the
task of holding the infant over the baptismal font would have fallen to the spon-
sors, who would have been admonished to instruct their charge in the creed and
the Lord’s Prayer.5 If it had been their own child, the bishop would have charged
them in the Traditio symboli with teaching their son or daughter, indeed their
whole familia (which included any servants), these two key texts.6
On the evidence of the sermons of the Bishop of Arles, the creed was a daily
companion in all situations of life. After it had been first ‘handed over’ the new
converts were to carry it home in their minds and recite it several times a day in
order to memorize it fully.7 Nicetas of Remesiana asked his listeners to recite the
confession twice a day, in the morning after getting up and in the evening before

 For what follows cf. also Kinzig 2018(2022), pp. 289–96.

 Cf., e.g., Caesarius, Sermo 84, 6; 225, 6. Survival of Gallo-Roman religion: Klingshirn 1994(1995),
pp. 47–51, 213–15, 218–26.
 Cf. above ch. 11.1. On baptismal practice in Arles cf. Saxer 1988, pp. 512–25.
 On the date cf. Synod of Agde (506), canon 13 (FaFo § 573).
 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 229, 6 (FaFo § 656h).
 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 13, 2 (FaFo § 656d); 130, 5 (§ 656f).
 Cf. the references in FaFo § 656.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-014
536 14 Creeds in Daily Life

going to bed;8 for Ambrose, a morning recitation was sufficient.9 Augustine could
sometimes follow Nicetas’ practice,10 but he could also be more rigorous in his
demands:

So you have received and recited that which you always ought to retain in mind and heart,
which you should recite in your beds, which you should think about in the streets, and
which you should not forget during your meals; in which your hearts should be awake,
even when your bodies are asleep.11

Curiously, when it comes to Arles, we learn next to nothing about the Redditio
symboli, the traditional recitation of the creed. Even the Synod of Agde (506), con-
vened by Caesarius himself, which furnishes us with the obligatory date of the
Traditio in the church year (Palm Sunday), does not mention the Redditio.12 Cae-
sarius notes more or less in passing that those baptized who were old enough
should recite the creed on their own, while with younger children someone else
might have to step in.13
Many church fathers strongly warned against ever writing down the creed,
lest it fell into the hands of the uninitiated and enemies of Christianity, who
might then use it for sinister purposes.14 Ambrose even admonished his listeners
to recite it silently in church, because when they revisited it aloud in the presence
of believers, they might later also revisit it ‘among the catechumens or heretics’.15
It was to be kept confidential because it was a text which explained Christian un-
derstanding of their divinity, and there was a certain fear that non-Christians
(whether Jews or pagans) might use it for polemical purposes,16 such as accusing
Christians of venerating three gods or poking fun at the virgin birth, the crucifix-
ion, and the resurrection.17 But other reasons are also mentioned. Ambrose says
in this regard:

 Cf. Nicetas, Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli 2, frg. 4 (FaFo § 625).

 Cf. Ambrose, De uirginibus 3,20 (FaFo § 15b).
 Cf. Augustine, Sermo 58, 13 (FaFo § 636b2); id., Sermo de symbolo ad catechumenos 1,1 (§ 636g).
 Augustine, Sermo 215, 1 (FaFo § 636f).
 Cf. Synod of Agde (506), canon 13 (FaFo § 573).
 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 130, 5 (FaFo § 656f).
 Cf. above p. 527 n. 29.
 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 9 (FaFo § 15a3).
 Cf., e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis ad illuminandos 6, 29; Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 56 (De
symbolo I), 5 (FaFo § 22a3); 58 (De symbolo III), 2 (§ 22c); 60 (De symbolo V), 18 (§ 22e2); 61 (De
symbolo VI), 15 (§ 22f2).
 Cf. Cook 2002, pp. 337–9 who uses T as a helpful template to organize the pagan objections.
 14 Creeds in Daily Life 537

You are able to memorize it better if it is not written down. For what reason? Listen to me!
For what you write down is safe insofar as you [can] re-read it; as a result you do not under-
take to review it by daily meditation. But what you do not write down, you daily begin to
review out of fear that you might lose it.18

Rufinus says that the reason not to write it down was ‘that it may be certain that
no one has learned [these words] by reading (as is sometimes the custom even
with unbelievers) but has learned them from the tradition of the apostles’.19 Au-
gustine supplies a rather refined exegetical reasoning:

But the fact that it was thus collected and edited in a certain form and is not permitted to be
written down recalls God’s promise when he announced the New Testament through the
prophet, saying, ‘This is the testament that I will establish for them after those days, says
the Lord, through putting my laws in their mind. And I will write them on their hearts’ [Jer
31:33]. In order to signify this, the creed is learned by ear; it is not written on tablets or any
other material, but on the hearts [cf. 2Cor 3:3]. He ‘who has called you to his kingdom and
glory’ [1Thess 2:12] will make sure that, once you are reborn, his grace is also written upon
your hearts through the Holy Spirit so that you may love what you believe, and that the
faith may ‘operate through the love’ [Gal 5:6] in you, and that you may thus please the Lord
God, the dispenser of all good things, yet not [pleasing him] because you fear his punish-
ment like a slave, but because you love his justice like a free-born.20

Peter Chrysologus thought that ‘paper and letter indicate debt obligations (cauta)
rather than grace’:

But where that divine gift, the grace of God, exists, faith suffices to serve as a contract
(pactum).21

However, the creed was not deliberately kept secret. As far as we can see, there
was no Disciplina arcani which obliged believers to keep the rites of a cult from
the uninitiated, as is the case in many mystery cults (of whose rites we are, as a
consequence, poorly informed).22 Creeds were the subject of sermons addressed
to converts before their initiation through baptism and they were written down
for that purpose. Still, in the west the copies of creeds preserved in the early me-
dieval codices are presumably all – apart from liturgical books – from textbooks
to train the clergy or from manuals for priests, but not for or by lay people.23 One

 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 9 (FaFo § 15a3).

 Rufinus, Expositio symboli 2 (FaFo § 18).
 Augustine, Sermo 212, 2 (FaFo § 19a).
 Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 57 (De symbolo II), 16 (FaFo § 22b). Cf. also 62 (De symbolo VII), 3–4
(§ 22g) where this idea is elaborated at some length.
 Cf., e.g., esp. Auffarth 2013, cols. 453 f.; Metzger 2010(2018).
 On these types of codices, which in recent years have received much scholarly attention, cf.
Keefe 2002, vol I, pp. 23–6, 28–35; Patzold 2016; Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), p. 246;
538 14 Creeds in Daily Life

example where the creed may have been written down by a lay person in North
Africa will be considered in the next chapter. I have mentioned previously the
unusual rite described in the Expositio breuis antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae in
which the creed was written down on a sheet of paper which was then laid out
on a bed of feathers in the church.24
By the early middle ages creeds were also used and recited in public, outside
worship. A telling and rather sinister example is found in an anti-Jewish law by
the Visigoth king Egica (r. 687–702) who persisted in attempts to suppress Judaism
by forced conversion. He enacted a law prescribing how to proceed if there was
any doubt whether anyone a Christian did business with had truly converted
from Judaism to Christianity:

[. . .] if any Christian, unaware of their conversion, should wish to buy anything from them,
he shall not be allowed to do this until [the converted Jew] says that he is entirely Christian,
and recite to him before witnesses the Lord’s Prayer or the Apostles’ Creed, and eat the food
of Christians or accept it willingly like all true worshippers of Christ.25

If this law was followed at all, this recitation seems to have taken place in public,
rather than in a church.26

In the east, the rules were even more lax: the Council of Laodicea prescribed that
those who came to be baptized had to memorize the creed, but did not forbid to
write it down.27 Indeed, here creeds were recorded in writing to facilitate reli-
gious education – whether only in a monastic setting or also outside (for example,
as an aide-mémoire for catechumens) is unknown. We possess several copies of N
and C2 on papyrus (at least some of which seem to have formed part of codices),28

Kinzig, ‘Ethik’, 2019(2022), pp. 282 f.; Kinzig, ‘Glauben lernen’, 2020(2022); Patzold 2020, pp. 305–88;
many articles by Carine van Rhijn and her synthesis in van Rhijn 2022, esp. pp. 52–83; Stein 2023. A
seventh-century slate tablet originating from the Province of Salamanca and containing fragments
of C2 in awkward Latin may also belong in the context of theological training; cf. Ruiz Asencio
2004.
 Cf. above p. 492.
 Lex Visigothorum 12,2,18 (tr. Linder 1997, p. 283; slightly altered).
 For wider background cf. Kinzig, ‘Die Verpflichtungserklärungen’, 2019(2022).
 Cf. Council of Laodicea, canons 46 and 47 (FaFo § 562b, c).
 N: P.Oxy. XVII 2067 (ΤΜ 64762; Oxyrhynchos, s. V); C2: P.Colon. inv. 684 (TM 64739; s. V); P.Oxy.
XV 1784 (TM 64771; Oxyrhynchos, s. V); P.Naqlun inv. 20/87 = P.Naqlun 2 18 (TM 65097; s. VI); P.
Cairo JE 65738 (TM 65175; s. VII in.). Other creeds: FaFo § 146 (Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus); § 168 (P.
 14 Creeds in Daily Life 539

ostraca,29 a parchment leaf,30 and wooden tablets31 which may have been used
for that purpose.32 In Byzantine times both N and C2 were even present in inscrip-
tions as can be seen from two mutilated examples from Ephesus.33 Monks also
wrote the creed on the wall in or near their cells or monasteries.34
There may be another reason why in the west, in contrast, the warning
against recording the creed seems to have been largely heeded. Indeed, it is per-
haps no coincidence that no amulets with verses from the creed have survived
from the west. As we will see in the next chapter, instead, the creed was widely
treated as a magic spell that initiates could only access through oral tradition.

Palau Rib inv. 68; TM 61458; IV ex./V in.). In some cases a use as amulet or phylactery may also be
possible.
 C2 (in Greek; for ostraca in Coptic cf. above p. 443): Jerusalem, Israel Museum no. 69 74 312
(TM 65186; s. VI); O.Heid. Inv. 419 (= O.Heid. 437; TM 65232; s. VI–VII); Jerusalem, Israel Museum
no. 87 56 560 (TM 65317; s. VII in.?); P.Gen. IV 154 (TM 128550; Thebes, Deir el-Bahari, s. VIII/1; ed.
Paul Schubert in Gaffino-Mœri et al. 2010, pp. 63 f.).
 Cf. P.Lond. Copt. 155 Fr. 2 (TM 65445; Asyut, s. VII–VIII; the creed is C2 in Greek). Another attes-
tation of C2 on parchment which is as yet unpublished is mentioned in Łajtar 2018, p. 42.
 N: O.Deir el-Bahari 16 (TM 68649; Thebes, Deir el-Bahari, s. VI–VII; ed. Delattre, ‘Symbole’, 2001);
C2: T.Med. Inv. 71.00 A (TM 65065; s. VI). For editions of all texts where no reference is given cf.
FaFo, vol. I, p. 517.
 On the use of ostraca in religious education cf. Ullmann 1996, p. 194; Römer 2003, p. 190; Lou-
govaya 2020, p. 121. For non-literary evidence in Coptic cf. above pp. 443–5.
 I.Eph. V.1675 (Byzantine?): N; I.Eph. IV.1278 (date: 938): C2. For editions and further literature
cf. FaFo, vol. I, pp. 292, 517.
 C2: Graffiti de la Montagne Thébaine, no. 3122 (Valley of the Queens; date unknown, ed. De-
lattre, ‘Graffitis’, 2001, pp. 333–6); Old Dongola (s. XI/XII; ed. Łajtar 2018, p. 46); Łajtar 2018, p. 42,
mentions another example for the attestation of Greek C2 in yet another inscription from Old
Dongola that is so far unpublished. Unknown versions: FaFo § 252 (Old Dongola; s. XII in.); cf. also
Łajtar 2018, pp. 43, 46 (text and translation), who calls it Symbolum Dongolanum. Another version
of this creed on a parchment leaf is as yet unpublished (cf. Łajtar 2018, p. 43).
15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds,
Magic, and Miracles

One of the areas in which the changes in the creed’s Sitz im Leben is most obvious
to see is late antique and early medieval magic.1 The creed always had tended to
assume a function comparable to the baptismal formula itself, through its use in
the context of the baptismal liturgy (especially where it was combined in some
way with the rite of Apótaxis2) and in the act of baptism itself. As a result, it also
easily mutated into a kind of sacrament of the word: it might be understood as
conveying the baptismal grace simply by means of being recited. Such an under-
standing of the creed was strengthened by the fact that, as we saw in previous
chapters, Christians were always told not to write it down and – especially with
regard to N – not to alter it in any way, lest one would risk being anathematized.3
This miraculous character of the creed later took on a life of its own: the creed
virtually morphed into a magical formula with an apotropaic character.
The view that the credal formula possessed such miraculous powers is well
documented in our sources. For Ambrose revisiting the creed helped against ‘stu-
pefactions of the soul and body’, ‘the temptation of the adversary who is never
silent’, and even ‘some trembling of the body, [or] weakness of the stomach’ – an
admonition which was later alluded to by Bede.4 Caesarius of Arles told his flock
to use the creed as substitute for the vulgar love songs that were popular among
the peasant population. Instead of those songs, Christians were supposed to recite
the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, some antiphons, and Psalm 50 or 90 (51 and 91 in the
Hebrew Bible) in order to protect one’s soul from the devil.5 The confession thus
protected against evil of various kinds, especially the machinations of the devil. It
could also provide succour in other life situations: for example, it was a wide-
spread bad omen to sneeze after getting up in the morning.6 Many then went

 I use the term ‘magic’ in a wide sense. On the problems of definition cf. Frenschkowski 2010,
pp. 873–6 and Frenschkowski 2016, ch. 1. Magical rites of late antiquity and the early middle ages
in the west are described in McKenna 1938, esp. pp. 227–54; Flint 1991; Klingshirn 1994(1995),
pp. 209–26; Lavarra 1994, esp. pp. 15–36; Neri 1998, pp. 258–86, esp. 277 f., 284–6; Frenschkowski
2010, cols. 935–41; Marrone 2015, esp. pp. 32–81; Frenschkowski 2016, pp. 243–59.
 Cf. above pp. 132, 415 f., 418, 490, 492 f. and n. 56; 494, 496–9, 506.
 Cf. above pp. 379, 536 f.
 Ambrose, Explanatio symboli 9 (FaFo § 15a3); Bede, Epistula ad Egbertum 5 (§ 584).
 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 6, 3 (FaFo § 656b). On the apotropaic function of Psalm 50(51) cf. Kinzig
2018(2022), p. 293 n. 25.
 Cf. Harmening 1979, pp. 81 f. and Filotas 2005, p. 240, citing further evidence. More generally,
Sartori 1934/1935.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-015
 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles 541

back to bed for fear of the consequences, a practice that Augustine had already
ridiculed.7 Caesarius found this superstition more sacrilegious than amusing and
urged his listeners to cross themselves instead, to recite the creed and the Lord’s
Prayer, and then to set out on their daily business – this would protect them
sufficiently.8
Others also cautioned against attaching any ominous significance to a sneeze,
but recommended reciting the creed and the Lord’s Prayer in any case before set-
ting out, among them Eligius, Bishop of Noyon in northern France, in the middle
of the seventh century, an unknown preacher in the same region less than a cen-
tury later, and finally none other than Hrabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mainz
(847–856) and follower of Emperor Lothair I, in the mid-ninth century.9
That the creed and Lord’s Prayer were not simply regarded as texts to comfort
and strengthen before any arduous journey, but indeed as magical formulae, is
also evidenced by the writings of Martin of Braga in the second half of the sixth
century. In a missionary sermon, Martin chided his listeners for abandoning the
‘sacred incantation’ (incantationem sanctam), namely the creed and the Lord’s
Prayer, and using ‘diabolical incantations and charms’ (diabolicas incantationes et
carmina) instead.10 An example of the practice Martin condemns is preserved for
us on a slate tablet from Asturias from the eighth or ninth century, which contains
an elaborate spell against hailstorms with a peculiar mixture of pagan and Chris-
tian elements.11 The use of such spells was unacceptable to Martin. For whosoever
used formulae invented by sorcerers had abandoned the ‘sacred incantation of the
creed and the Lord’s Prayer (incantationem sanctam symboli et orationis domini-
cae)’ which he had received in faith in Christ, and had trampled on the faith, ‘for
one could not serve God and the devil at the same time’.12 Such formulae could
refer specifically to those pronounced while gathering medicinal herbs in order to
increase their potency, as a Spanish collection of canons from the same period
which was quoted time and again attests.13 In the high middle ages, this practice

 Cf. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana 2,31.

 Cf. Caesarius, Sermo 54, 1 (FaFo § 656e).
 Cf. Vita Eligii 2,16 (FaFo § 668); Pseudo-Augustine, Homilia de sacrilegiis 8 (27; § 669b); and Hra-
banus Maurus, Homilia 43 (PL 110, col. 81B). Similarly, Ælfric, Sermo in laetania maiore (De augur-
iis), ll. 96–9 (Skeat 1881–1900, vol. I, pp. 370 f.) and Foxhall Forbes 2013, p. 82; Calhoun 2020, p. 449
and n. 141.
 Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum 16,6 (FaFo § 660). Cf. also Filotas 2005, p. 257.
 Cf. Abascal/Gimeno 2000, pp. 337–9 (no. 547); Velázquez Soriano 2004, pp. 368–84 (no. 104). On
the context cf. also Fernández Nieto 2010; Velázquez Soriano 2010.
 Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum 16,7.
 Cf. Capitula Martini episcopi Bracarensis, cap. 74 (FaFo § 576b). The prescription was often
repeated by medieval theologians. Cf. the references in Kinzig 2018(2022), p. 295 n. 35. Further-
542 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles

was punishable by a church penance of ten days of fasting on bread and water.14
Similarly, the creed and the Lord’s Prayer were used to fight fever15 and heart dis-
ease (or heartache?),16 in preparing concoctions against against ‘elf disease’ or ‘elf-
ish magic’,17 as well as in blessings of bees.18 Even Ath was used against fever.19
A sermon, probably from northern France in the early ninth century, states
that anyone using pagan spells instead of the creed and the Lord’s Prayer is not a
Christian but pagan.20 In penitentials the use of spells other than the creed or
(Christian) prayers is said to be punishable by 120 days of fasting.21 It should be
noted that the contrast here is not between a magic formula and a sacred creed,
but between a pagan and a Christian spell! In this text, too, the medical effects of
the formulae are paramount.22
Finally, the creed and the Lord’s Prayer were also recited when looking to
capture snakes as can be seen from glosses at the bottom of the page in a codex
from Tegernsee Abbey in Bavaria.23
✶
The creed’s magical function was not limited to the west. We have non-literary evi-
dence from the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire (and beyond) which attests
this use of the creed. A number of papyrus fragments from the fifth and sixth cen-
turies survive from Egypt that combine credal-like formulations with requests for

more, McKenna 1938, pp. 102 f.; Harmening 1979, p. 227; Salisbury 1985, p. 242; Flint 1991,
pp. 240–53, 301–28; Klingshirn 1994(1995), pp. 221 f.; Jolly 1996, pp. 93, 161; Filotas 2005, p. 96; Mar-
rone 2015, p. 51.
 Burchard of Worms 10,20 (= 19,5,6, Friedberg 1868, p. 85 = Wasserschleben 1851, p. 644 (Correc-
tor, cap. 56; with minor variants) = Hansen 1901, p. 42 (§ 65[56]). In addition, Harmening 1979,
pp. 224 f., citing further evidence. – If someone began an ‘assembly’ (congregatio) with an incan-
tatio instead of with the Lord’s Prayer and the creed, he or she even had to fast for forty days; cf.
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti 2,23 (PL 89, col. 419D). In addition, Filotas 2005, p. 284.
 Cf. Leechbook 1,62.
 Cf. Leechbook 3,68; Lacnunga 176. Cf. Storms 1948, pp. 82, 262; Pettit 2001, vol. II, p. 349.
 Cf. Leechbook 3,62; Lacnunga 29; cf. Storms 1948, p. 223; Jolly 1996, pp. 140 f., 160, 164; Pettit
2001, vol. II, pp. 36–42. In addition, Thomas 2020, pp. 204, 208. Cf. also the exorcism in the Leofric
Missal (Jolly 1996, p. 164).
 Cf. Schönbach 1893, pp. 29 f. (no. 2; s. XIV); English tr. in Storms 1948, p. 139.
 Cf. Storms 1948, pp. 295 f. (no. 64; s. XII). In general, Thomas 2020, pp. 177–226.
 Cf. Pseudo-Augustine, Homilia de sacrilegiis 4 (14; FaFo § 669a).
 Cf., e.g., Paenitentiale Floriacense (s. IX) 42.
 This also applies in a similar way to the healing power of the eucharist. On Arles cf. Kling-
shirn 1994(1995), pp. 162 f., 222.
 Cf. cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19417 (Tegernsee, 800–830), ff. 25v–27r and
Franz 1909, pp. 172 f. and n. 6. On the manuscript cf. Kinzig, Neue Texte I, 2017, p. 111 and URL
<https://glossen.germ-ling.uni-bamberg.de/manuscripts/12815> (22/11/2023).
 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles 543

the healing of fevers.24 Possibly they were carried in small vials around the neck. A
tenth-century paper leaf from the vicinity of the monastery of Apa Apollo at Deir
el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt contains C2 followed by some drawings that have been
interpreted as a magical charm (perhaps against snakes?).25 The faulty Greek may
suggest that the scribe no longer understood the content of this text, but treated it
as a spell (which needed not to be comprehensible to do its job).26
But the confession may even have served to influence the fertility of the
earth. Contrary to its designation as a papyrus,27 P.Lond.Lit. 239 (TM 62209), per-
haps from Faiyum (s. VI/VII), is actually a small parchment codex measuring only
6.8 × 4.5 cm and consisting of 9 folia.28 It contains a prayer for the annual flooding
of the Nile, followed by C2 and Psalm 132(133) at the end.29 But how was this com-
bination of pagan and Christian texts, which were written in the same hand,
used? Is it an amulet, as its first editor H.J.M. Milne assumed?30 Or is it, rather, a
portable prayer book, combining an older, pagan prayer with Christian texts that
were recited together on a regular basis?31
Whereas these charms and invocations served to effect a better life in the
here and now, the (mutilated) papyrus P.Ryl. I 6 (TM 65060) from the sixth cen-
tury inscribed with N may have had an eschatological purpose. If the reconstruc-
tion of the missing text by its editor Arthur S. Hunt is correct, the owner intended
to use it, as they put it, to approach ‘the terrible judgment-seat of the Lord Christ
on that dreadful [day when he will come again in] his own glory to judge the liv-
ing and the dead’.32 This may mean that they expected to fare better at the Last
Judgement if they had the text of the creed with them.
✶
Closely related to the use of creeds as charms is their power as recounted in mira-
cle stories.33 The sacred power with which the creed had come to be invested by

 Cf. the examples in FaFo § 653.

 Cf. P.Laur.Inv. III/960 (TM 382538; ed. Pintaudi 2001, pp. 48–53; cf. Horak 2001).
 The same seems to be true for the as yet unpublished papyrus P.Berlin 11631 which also con-
tains C2, perhaps followed by a magic spell. I owe this information to Sebastian Buck who posted
a photograph on his blog www.antike-christentum.de. A publication is currently being prepared
by Fabian Reiter, Bologna.
 Here the information given in FaFo, Bd. I, p. 518 (§ 184) needs to be corrected.
 Cf. Bonneau 1964, pp. 410–3; Bonneau 1987; Contino 2020/2021, vol. I, pp. 97–100, citing further
literature.
 On the use of Psalms as amulets in Egypt cf. Sanzo 2014, pp. 40–7.
 Cf. Milne 1927, pp. 200–4.
 Thus De Bruyn 2010, p. 161, following Bonneau.
 Hunt 1911, p. 12. The supplement is that of the editor.
 On the following story cf. also Kinzig, ‘“I abjure Satan”’, 2024 (sub prelo).
544 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles

the time of Augustine can be illustrated by some ecclesial gossip which the bishop
of Hippo Regius shared with his ageing friend Alypius in a letter (perhaps 428/
42934). The protagonist of this story, which Augustine heard from the otherwise
unknown comes Peregrinus, was the chief physician (archiater) of an unknown
town, Dioscorus.35 While a kind man, Dioscorus seems to have been a fierce critic
of Christianity. Nonetheless, when his daughter fell seriously ill, he prayed to
Christ and vowed to become a Christian, should his daughter be saved. Yet al-
though his prayer was answered, the good doctor reneged on his vow. Subse-
quently, he experienced temporary sight loss which he interpreted as a divine
punishment for breaching his promise. Here is the central section of the story
in Augustine’s own words:

He cried out and confessed and vowed again that he would fulfill what he had vowed if
light be returned to him. It returned; he fulfilled [his vow], and still the hand [of the Lord]
was raised. He had not committed the creed to memory, or perhaps had refused to commit
it, and made the excuse that he was unable. God saw. Immediately after all the ceremonies
of his reception he was undone by a paralysis in many, indeed almost all, his members.
Then, being warned by a dream, he confessed in writing that he had been told that this had
happened because he had not recited the creed. After that confession the use of all his mem-
bers was restored to him, excepting only the tongue; nevertheless he, being still under the
same affliction, disclosed in writing that he had nonetheless learned the creed and still re-
tained it in his memory; and so that frivolity which, as you know, blemished his natural
kindness and made him exceedingly profane when he mocked Christians, was altogether
destroyed in him.

The story is interesting on various levels: first of all, we are not told why Diosco-
rus decided to pray to Christ at all. Was his daughter a Christian? It is not impossi-
ble, but not very likely since she appears to have been unmarried and therefore
probably still was in his potestas. It appears more probable that Dioscorus first
tried several cures which were all unsuccessful and then turned to praying, per-
haps, first to some local deity and, finally, when no help was forthcoming, to
Christ. His prayer basically consisted in a vow. Or, we might say nowadays, Dio-
scorus struck a deal: he promised to become a Christian and, in return, expected

 Cf. Augustine, Epistula 227 (FaFo § 636i). The date is uncertain. In the title and the explicit of
the letter Alypius is called a senex. This may, however, be a honorific title; cf. PCBE, vol. I, s.v.
‘Alypius’, pp. 53 and 64. Cf. also Pignot 2020, p. 226. On this story cf. now also Berzon 2021,
pp. 593–6.
 Cf. PLRE, vol. II, s.v. ‘Dioscurus 3ʹ, p. 367 (cf. also PLRE, vol. I, s.v. ‘Dioscorus 2ʹ, p. 261); PCBE,
vol. I, s.v. ‘DIOSCORVS 1ʹ, p. 279. It is not very likely that Dioscorus was archiater in Hippo, be-
cause in this case Augustine would no doubt have known the story first-hand. On public physi-
cians in antiquity cf. Nutton 1977(1988).
 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles 545

his daughter to be cured. Dioscorus’ behaviour is by no means eccentric: he con-

tinued to move within the parameters of Roman religion which were based on
the principle do ut des: I promise to venerate you, if you do something in return
for me.36 Having made this vow, he was now obliged to honour the promise he
had made.37 When he tried to withdraw, he was struck by illness. Augustine does
not tell us whether Dioscorus first put this down to natural causes. At some point
he clearly realized that any cures he had tried had failed and, therefore, once
more attributed this failure to divine intervention. He must then have realized
that the God responsible could be none else than that of the Christians. In other
words, Dioscorus understood that his fate was no longer determined by the tradi-
tional gods, but that this god had taken over, prompted by his vow and prayer to
Christ.
According to Augustine Dioscorus then fulfilled his vow. Apparently, he was
baptized. If so, then the whole sequence of events must have taken place over an
extended period which included Dioscorus’ catechumenate and baptism. How-
ever, there appears to have been a problem with his Redditio symboli. Augustine
does not seem to know exactly what went wrong when Dioscorus was asked to
recite the creed – the physician may either have excused himself on some ground
or other, or he may have cheated in some way. This shows that by now the creed
had become the central element in someone’s conversion. It was by means of the
Redditio after the Apótaxis that allegiance to the new deity was formally pledged.
By comparison, the baptismal act itself recedes into the background. After his
baptism Dioscorus was struck by paralysis. Unable to speak, but obviously still
able to hold a stylus he wrote down a dream experience: in it, he had been told
that his illness was caused by his failure to perform the Redditio. His health partly
restored, he was still unable to speak. Dioscorus then acted as any other Roman
would have acted: he produced a votive tablet as proof that he had honoured his
obligations. However, this tablet no longer contained the name of some pagan
deity to whom he attributed his (partial) cure,38 but the content of the creed, per-
haps with Christ’s name at the top and his own name at the bottom. Thus he
killed two birds with one stone: according to the parameters of Roman religion
he had fulfilled his vow and had produced the tablet as his testimony; at the same
time he had inscribed this tablet with a new sacred text which attested to his hav-
ing internalized the requirements of his new religion. He had demonstrated that
he had accepted his new divine overlord and had publicly acknowledged that he

 Cf. Hoheisel 1990; Latte 1992, pp. 46 f.; Rüpke 2007, p. 149.
 Cf. Kötting/Kaiser 1976, cols. 1078–1080; Rüpke 2016, pp. 121–4.
 For dedicatory inscriptions in Roman religion cf. Haensch 2013, pp. 180–5.
546 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles

owed his cure to him. Incidentally, this is one of the few western examples of the
creed having been written down by a lay person (which may have been due to
the person’s disability). Unfortunately, we do not hear whether Dioscorus eventu-
ally regained his speech.
As regards Augustine, he interprets the story entirely within the framework
of the Christian religion. The fact that the doctor’s daughter was cured is seen as
an act of Christ’s mercy (Christi misericordiam). Augustine thus indicates that the
ancient system of reciprocity in dealing with a divinity had become shaky. Christ
did not heal the daughter because her father’s vow obliged him to, but because
he felt compassion towards the suffering doctor for whom his daughter was ‘his
only comfort’ (in qua unica acquiescebat).
Another story in which the creed figured prominently relates to the remains of
the first Christian martyr Stephen.39 In a way that is no longer entirely clear, the
small town of Uzalis in the province of Africa Proconsularis (today’s El Alia in
northern Tunisia) came into possession of Stephen’s bones in the summer of 416
after they had recently been discovered in Jerusalem. The following incident was
recorded by an unknown author a few years later:40 A dilapidated house had col-
lapsed in Uzalis and killed a certain Dativus. His body was dug out from the rubble
and moved into a neighbouring building. The inconsolable widow immediately ran
to the shrine of St Stephen, where that saint’s bones had been stored, and tearfully
implored him to return her husband to her, upon which the dead man suddenly
stirred and opened his eyes. When he had regained full consciousness, he reported
that he had met a young man dressed in the bright white robe of a deacon. The
man ordered him: ‘Give me back what you have received.’ (‘Redde quod accepisti.’)
But Dativus did not understand what the man was talking about. The latter re-
peated his demand. When Dativus still did not understand, the man asked him a
third time to return what he had received. Only then did it dawn on Dativus that
the stranger possibly meant the confession of faith, which had been given to him at
the Traditio symboli and which he had ‘returned’ at the Redditio. So Dativus mut-
tered: ‘Are you directing me to return the creed?’ ‘Give it back (redde)!’ was the
gruff reply. So Dativus recited the creed and, when he had finished, continued: ‘If
you wish, I will also recite the Lord’s Prayer.’ When the man agreed, he duly said
the Lord’s Prayer. Thereupon the stranger made the sign of the cross on the head
of Dativus, who was stretched out before him, and said to him: ‘Rise, you are now
healed.’ And so it happened.41 In this thoroughly entertaining legend about the ap-

 On the following two stories cf. also Kinzig 2018(2022), pp. 286–8.
 Apparently after the summer of 424; cf. Saxer 1980, p. 270.
 Cf. De miraculis sancti Stephani 1,6 (FaFo § 637).
 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles 547

parition of the deacon Stephen, a special power is attributed to the creed: Dativus
is cured of mortal injuries by reciting the symbolum (and the Lord’s Prayer).
These miracle stories surrounding the creed start to be told at the turn of the
fourth to the fifth century. They are then projected back into earlier times. Thus
Rufinus, in his continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (c. 401), re-
ports how pagan philosophers and dialecticians were attracted to the Council of
Nicaea in 325. One of them engaged the bishops in daily discussions on matters of
faith. Although the clergy were themselves expert in rhetoric, the philosopher
proved superior to them in his knowledge. Finally, an old confessor appeared
who had suffered for his faith during persecution and who, as Rufinus says, was
‘of a very simple mind (simplicissimae naturae)’ and ‘knew nothing but Christ
Jesus and his crucifixion’. This manifestly non-expert theologian finally succeeded
in converting the philosopher to the Christian faith and persuading him to be
baptized simply by reciting a creed.42 Rufinus says in introducing the anecdote
that the power of simple Christian faith was thus revealed – there can be no
doubt that he means a specific miraculous power that emanated from the Chris-
tian creed. The story proved so popular that later Church historians such as Sozo-
men and Pseudo-Gelasius of Cyzicus (475/476) repeated and further embellished it
in their historical works.43
Finally, the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople contain a
bizarre story that can even be dated precisely: it took place on 26 April 681.44 A
certain Polychronius, a monk-priest, had been charged with heresy. He believed
that there had only been one will and one operation (ἐνέργεια) at work during
Christ’s earthly stay, namely that of God – he was a Monothelete. Believing that,
however, endangered certainty in the full incarnation of God and thus the salva-
tion of humankind. For in order to save humanity, God had to take on the whole
human being in Christ, including body, heart, senses, and mind, the majority of
theologians at that time believed, and that meant that in the earthly Christ there
had to be, in addition to the divine will, a human will together with its corre-
sponding human mode of operation. Because Polychronius had denied this, he
had been imprisoned. When he was brought into the council chamber and inter-
rogated, he refused to recant, instead producing a copy of a letter he had sent to
Emperor Constantine IV (r. 668–685), writing down his faith. The acts of the coun-

 Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica 10,3 (cf. FaFo § 136a).

 Cf. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 1,18 (cf. FaFo § 136b); Pseudo-Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia
ecclesiastica 2,13 (cf. FaFo § 136c).
 Cf. ACO2 II 2 (Rudolf Riedinger), pp. 672, l. 18 – 682, l. 8 (FaFo § 582a). For further details cf.
Kinzig 2021(2022), pp. 119–21.
548 15 From Summary to Sacred Formula: Creeds, Magic, and Miracles

cil only contain an extract from this document which makes it clear that Poly-
chronius had been stimulated to send his missive to the emperor by a vision:

I saw a crowd of men clad in white and in their midst a man whose virtue I cannot describe,
telling me, ‘He [sc. the emperor] is preparing a new faith; hurry and speak to the Emperor
Constantine: Do not make or introduce a new faith!’ After I came from Heraclea to Chrysop-
olis and stood in the midday heat (for it was around the seventh hour of the day), I saw a
terrifying man clad all in white. He stood before me and said, ‘He who does not confess one
will and operation of the God-man is no Christian’; and I said, ‘The most-wise Emperor Con-
stantine has decreed precisely this, one will and operation of the God-man.’ And he said,
‘This is very good and pleasing to God.’

In order to prove the truth of his heretical convictions he proposed to bring a

dead man back to life with the help of his Monothelete creed as contained in the
letter. The council fathers took him at his word. A corpse was fetched and placed
on a silver bier in a public place outside the palace. Polychronius deposited his
written confession on the dead man and muttered unintelligible words for sev-
eral hours. When nothing happened Polychronius had to admit his failure. How-
ever, brought back into the assembly hall he continued to refuse to recant. In the
end, he was solemnly condemned as an impostor and heretic and deposed from
his office.
One wonders why the council fathers took Polychronius so seriously that
they were willing to test his claim. Perhaps, the emperor had been so impressed
by Polychronius’ vision contained in the letter to him that he had asked the coun-
cil to look into the truth of the matter. In any case, it is striking that the only ex-
tracts from his epistle inserted into the acts are the passages narrating the vision.
At the same time, the ineffectual attempted resuscitation may have demonstrated
to the public at large that Monotheletism was erroneous. Whatever the back-
ground to this story, it may suffice to note here that Polychronius ascribed magi-
cal powers to his faith as outlined in his written document, and that the council
fathers considered this to be a possibility (at least to a certain extent).
16 The Controversy over Filioque

After the trinitarian conflict of the fourth century, the controversy over the ques-
tion whether the Holy Spirit proceeded solely from the Father (as the Greeks
claimed) or from the Father and the Son (which the Latin church maintained)
was the most serious quarrel relating to the creed. It contributed substantially to
the Great Schism of 1054 – although other factors also played a role in the mutual
condemnation of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius and Pope Leo IX (or, rather, his
western legate Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida).
In the context of this book I cannot unravel the entire story of, or the complex
historical background to, this historical rift. It has admirably been described by
Peter Gemeinhardt.1 Instead I wish to concentrate on those aspects that relate to
the development of the credal genre.2
The earliest testimony for the origin (though not yet the procession) of the
Spirit from the Father and the Son3 is found in a panegyrical sermon on the saints
by Victricius of Rouen (sedit 380/386–before 409) which was perhaps written in
396/397. The sermon is suddenly interrupted in the middle by a credal passage
which begins as follows:

We confess God the Father; we confess God the Son; we confess God the Holy Spirit. We
confess that ‘the three are one’ [1Jn 5:8]. I said one because [the three exist] from one. As the
Son exists of the Father, so the Father is in the Son [cf. Jn 17:21]; moreover, as the Holy Spirit
is of the Father and the Son (spiritus sanctus [. . .] de patre et filio), so the Father and the
Son are in the Holy Spirit.4

Gemeinhardt does not mention this text, although Burn and De Aldama had al-
ready drawn attention to the et filio contained therein.5 Its significance lies in the
fact that – in view of its date – it cannot depend on Augustine, although, no
doubt, ‘the categories and the terminology of the early medieval Latin doctrine of
the Trinity with which the filioque was justified internally and defended exter-
nally, are largely based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo’.6 Augustine did,

 Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002. In addition, cf. Oberdorfer 2001; Kolbaba 2008; Siecienski 2010; Alexo-
poulos 2023. Further literature is listed in FaFo, vol. IV, p. 295.
 The relevant sources are conveniently listed in ch. 11.3.2.1 of FaFo.
 There seems to be no discernible difference between et filio and filioque. As far as I can see
atque filio is never used. The Fides catholica (Fides Damasi, FaFo § 522b1) did not originally con-
tain the filioque phrase; pace Kelly 1972, p. 360.
 Victricius, De laude sanctorum 4 (FaFo § 462).
 Cf. Burn 1899, p. 116; De Aldama, Símbolo, 1934, pp. 126–9.
 Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 56.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-016
550 16 The Controversy over Filioque

then, serve as a point of reference, but probably mainly from Fulgentius of Ruspe
(462/468–527/533) onwards.7 Unfortunately, Victricius (like so many other theolo-
gians quoting the filioque in credal formulae) does not elaborate on his under-
standing of the procession of the Spirit.
Another puzzle relating to this credal passage is the fact that the next part of
that passage seems to allude to the actual creed, but we do not know which one.8
The key passages are here: uerus deus de deo uero – lumen de lumine / ‘true God
from true God – Light from Light’ and, above all:

Qui pro salute generis humani de sublimi descendens, de Maria uirgine incarnatus et homi-
nem induit, passus est, crucifixus, sepultus. Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cae-
lum, sedet ad dexteram dei patris; inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos.

Coming down from on high for the salvation of the human race, he was incarnate of the
virgin Mary and put on man, suffered, was crucified, was buried. On the third day he rose
again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father; thence
he will come to judge the living and the dead.9

‘True God from true God – Light from Light’ may allude to N, but the phrase hom-
inem induit (= ἄνθρωπον συλληφθέντα?) fits much better with (some version of)
NAnt. Perhaps Victricius did not yet know a fixed creed, but rather continued to
refer to a regula fidei.
Even more puzzling is the fact that the so-called Persicum, i.e. the extended
version of Ν which was adopted by the Dyophysite Church of the East at the
Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, also contained the filioque – a fact which has
so far remained unexplained, because this specific version of N is not attested
anywhere else.10
Later quotations clearly point to Spain as the place where filioque was in-
serted into C2. The principal reason for this addition was no doubt the struggle
against Homoianism which also involved denying the Spirit’s divine substance. It
was thought that adding the phrase filioque would enhance the Spirit’s status,
given the fact that the pneumatological section of C2 did not contain homooúsios.

 Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 67.

 Cf. also Mulders 1956/1957, pp. 284–7; Jacques Mulders/Roland Demeulenaere in CChr.SL 64,
pp. 55–65.
 Victricius, De laude sanctorum 4 (FaFo § 462).
 Cf. above p. 421. Cf. also Grohe 2015, pp. 15–18. However, Hubert Kaufhold has suggested to
me (email 13 October 2023) that it is, strictly speaking, the Paraclete who is from the Father and
the Son in the Persicum. This may refer to Jn 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. Kaufhold asks, ‘Could it not be
that what is meant is: “the Paraclete who is (i.e., is sent) from the Father and the Son”? This
would then have nothing to do with any intra-trinitarian process or the filioque.’
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 551

As regards later authors we can probably disregard Bachiarius (fl. c. 400)

who was accused of Priscillianism and wrote a Libellus de fide to vindicate his
orthodoxy. In this work filioque must be a secondary addition, because it is miss-
ing in one manuscript and because its author repeatedly mentions the Spirit’s
procession from the Father only in the wider context of the quotation of filioque.11
If Bachiarius is omitted, then our first Spanish witness is the Libellus in modum
symboli which was written by Pastor, bishop of Palencia in Galicia (consecrated in
433), possibly for a synod which took place in 447. The creed is an extended version
of a creed which, perhaps, originated from the First Council of Toledo (400; the at-
tribution is controversial) but was, in any case, included in its acts.12 The crucial
passage runs as follows:

We believe in one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Maker of things visible and invisi-
ble, through whom all things were created in heaven and on earth; that he is one God, and
that this is one Trinity of divine substance, but that the Father is not the Son himself, but
holds the Son who is not the Father; that the Son is not the Father, but that the Son of God is
of the Father’s nature; that the Spirit also is the Paraclete, who is neither the Father nor the
Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son (sed a patre filioque procedens). The Father,
then, is unbegotten, the Son begotten; the Paraclete is not begotten, but proceeding from the
Father and the Son (sed a patre filioque procedens).13

It has been claimed that Pastor may have been influenced by a letter of Pope Leo I
to Bishop Turribius of Astorga (dated 21 July 447), directed against Priscillianism,14
but the passage in question is so formulaic that it is difficult to prove such a
hypothesis.15
In any case, the event which was to prove crucial for the further history of
filioque in Spain was the decision by Visigoth king Reccared (r. 586–601), imple-
mented at the Third Council of Toledo in 587, to abandon the Homoian faith of his
father and predecessor Leovigild (r. 568–586) and to convert to catholicism. If the
information Gregory of Tours received is correct, Leovigild had acknowledged

 Cf. Bachiarius, Libellus de fide 5 (FaFo § 487).

 For further details cf. Weckwerth 2004, pp. 59–67.
 Pastor, Libellus in modum symboli (FaFo § 486b).
 Cf. Leo, Epistula 15, 1 (PL 54, cols. 680C–681A): ‘And so in the first chapter it is shown what
unholy views they hold about the divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now
Son, and now Holy Spirit, and as if he who begot were not one, he who was begotten, another,
and he who proceeded from both (qui de utroque processit), yet another; but an undivided unity
must indeed be understood under three names, but not in three persons’ (tr. NPNF; altered).
 Cf. Kelly 1964, p. 90; cf. also Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 55 n. 46. In addition, Künstle argued that
Leo’s letter is a Spanish forgery from the late sixth century (cf. Künstle 1905, pp. 117–26).
552 16 The Controversy over Filioque

the coeternity of Father and Son at a council in Toledo assembled in 580,16 but
denied ‘that the Holy Spirit was essentially God, because his divinity was not men-
tioned in any codices’.17 This is confirmed by John of Biclaro (Bishop of Girona
591–c. 631) who remarks in his Chronicle:

King Leovigild gathered a synod of bishops of the Arian sect into the city of Toledo, and he
amended the old heresy with a novel error: he said that converts from the Roman religion
to our Catholic [i.e. Homoian] faith (ad nostram catholicam fidem) need not be baptized, but
[should] only be cleansed by imposition of the hand and the order of communion, and give
glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit (et gloriam patri per filium in spiritu
sancto dare).18

The final doxology as quoted (which was apparently taken from the acts of the
synod19) clearly indicated the king’s Homoian (or, perhaps, even Arian) views.20
By contrast, at the council of 589 Reccared published a creed in which he con-
fessed that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son and is of one
substance with the Father and the Son (a patre et filio procedere et cum patre et
filio unius esse substantiae).’21 Although the version of C2 quoted at this council
did not yet contain the filioque,22 the condemnations adopted by the assembly
made it crystal-clear how it was to be interpreted:

If anyone will not believe or has not believed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son (a Patre et Filio procedere) and [if anyone] has not said that he is coeternal and co-
essential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.23

 Cf. Collins 2004, p. 57. The council is not mentioned in Weckwerth 2013.
 Gregory of Tours, Historiae 6,18 (MGH.SS rer. Merov. I/1, p. 287, ll. 15 f. = Heil/Scheerer 2022
(Dokument 119.4), p. 236, ll. 8–12): ‘Manifeste cognoui, esse Christum filium dei aequalem patri;
sed spiritum sanctum deum penitus esse non credo, eo quod in nullis legatur codicibus deus
esse.’ Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 54 f.
 John of Biclaro, Chronicon 57 (= Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 119.3), p. 234, ll. 4–12).
 This is indicated by ad nostram catholicam fidem which must form part of a quotation.
 Cf. also Theodore of Mopsuestia, Contra Eunomium, frg. 2 (Vaggione 1980, p. 413); Theodoret,
Historia ecclesiastica 2,24,3 (= Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 5,32,1); and Philostorgius,
Historia ecclesiastica 3,13 (with the commentary in Bleckmann/Stein 2015, vol. II, pp. 229–31).
 Third Council of Toledo (589), Regis professio fidei (FaFo § 490) = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Doku-
ment 120.2), p. 261, ll. 12–14.
 It was later inserted in a sizeable number of codices containing the acts of the council. Cf.
Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol. V, p. 67, app. ad l. 198; Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument
120.2), p. 270, app. ad l. 24.
 Third Council of Toledo, Gothorum professio fidei (Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol. V,
p. 79, ll. 350–2) = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 120.2), p. 280, ll. 1–5 (anathema 3).
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 553

In a later anathema the council even explicitly condemned the aforementioned

doxology of the previous council.24
From 587 onwards filioque formed part of the Visigothic confessional tradi-
tion, was explicitly mentioned in the credal texts produced by Toledo councils,25
and was finally inserted as et filio into C2 at the Eighth Council of Toledo (653).26
The Spanish translations of C2 that contain et filio are mostly of type III (‘mixed
translations’).27 At the same time, we also find a great number of credal texts in-
dependent from C2, written by highly influential Spanish theologians, that contain
the assertion that the Spirit proceeded from both Father and Son.28
When we look at other regions we see that in North Africa filioque was also
defended against the Homoianism of its Vandal rulers. This anti-Homoian back-
ground clearly emerges from a fragment of a treatise against the otherwise un-
known ‘Arian’ Fabius by Fulgentius of Ruspe (sedit 507/508–527/533), written in
c. 523. Fulgentius may refer to C2 in this passage (although he usually quotes the
African version of R/T29):

But after the complete confession of the true divinity and true humanity of the only Son of
God, we confess that we believe in the Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and
the Son, proceeding from the Father and the Son (de patre filioque procedens), remaining by
nature (naturaliter) in the Father and the Son, having the origin of [his] divinity from the

 Cf. Third Council of Toledo, Gothorum professio fidei (Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol.
V, pp. 82 f., ll. 382–6) = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 120.2), p. 282, ll. 7–14 (anathema 16).
 Cf. Fourth Council (633; FaFo § 493[2]); Sixth Council (638; § 495[2]); Eleventh Council (675;
§ 499[5]); Sixteenth Council (693; § 504[2], [7], [8], [14], [30]). Cf. also the creed of the converted
Jews of Toledo submitted to the Sixth Council (637/638, § 494 and Kinzig, ‘Die Verpflichtungser-
klärungen’, 2019(2022), p. 56, ll. 15 f.).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 184f24, 823 (the Latin version from 653 onwards). I am not convinced by the argu-
ment put forward by Shawn C. Smith that Isidore’s Epistula 6 (which contains the filioque, cf. 6, 4
(PL 83, col. 903C)) is genuine (cf. Smith 2014), because it reflects a discussion which belongs to the
ninth century at the earliest. In addition, the letter’s claim that Rome had accepted filioque in its
creed is erroneous. If I am mistaken, the letter must have been written before 636 (Isidore’s
death).
 The different types of translation are explained in FaFo, vol. I, p. 519. It is a mixture of the
version of C2 quoted in Actio II(III) 14 and of the version in Actio V 33. Cf. also FaFo §§ 184f30 (Mis-
sale mixtum, before 1500); 184f31 (Breuiarium secundum regulam beati Isidori; before 1502). This
version has et filio. The version in the Liber misticus (s. X or later; § 184f13) is of type I/ii (version
of Actio II(III) 14 using relative clauses in the christological section) and has et filioque [sic].
 Cf. Isidore of Seville, De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis officiis) 2,24(23),1 (598–615; FaFo
§ 491); Beatus of Liébana, Tractatus de Apocalipsin II, prologus 10,2 (c. 776; § 506b). Furthermore
cf. the so-called Jacobi’s Creed (s. VII?; § 525[3], [17]) and the Formulae Hispanicae in modum sym-
boli (s. VIII ex.; § 510[3]).
 Cf. FaFo § 319b2.
554 16 The Controversy over Filioque

Father and the Son, possessing by nature the reality (naturaliter ueritatem) of one godhead
with the Father and the Son.30

Likewise, Fulgentius’ pupil Ferrandus included the et filio in his letter addressed
to the scholasticus Severus of Constantinople in a credal passage directed inter
alia against ‘Arians’.31
Furthermore by the middle of the eighth century we find examples of credal
texts from Gaul, Germany, Rome, Britain, and even Ireland in which the Spirit’s
procession from the Father and the Son is explicitly mentioned.32 Here the grow-
ing popularity of Ath (which originated in Gaul or Spain and which also contained
the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son; FaFo § 434[23]) may have con-
tributed to the spread of filioque.33 But although in these areas, in contrast to
Spain, filioque was employed in anti-Homoian treatises and in other contexts it
was never quoted as part of C2.
It was not until the mid-seventh century that the addition of filioque became
a matter of serious concern among Nicene theologians from both east and west.34
The first inklings of such debates are found in sources dealing with the Synod of
Gentilly, held in 767 by Charlemagne’s father Pepin the Short (r. 751–768). The cir-
cumstances leading up to the synod (whose acts are lost) are as unclear as is its
agenda.35 We do know that it was attended by both western and Byzantine bish-
ops and that trinitarian questions as well as the problem of the veneration of
icons were discussed. This suggests some connection with the first phase of the

 Fulgentius, Contra Fabianum, frg. 36,13 (FaFo § 319a2). Fulgentius quotes the filioque in many
places.
 Ferrandus, Epistula 5, 2 (FaFo § 321b1). Cf. also id., Epistula 4, 1 where Ferrandus argues
against an ‘Arian’ subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity.
 Gaul: Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 244 (CPL 368) = (Pseudo-)Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 10 (CPL
1008; s. VI; FaFo § 269); Gregory of Tours (591–594; § 469[7]). The provenance of a creed attributed
to Gennadius of Marseille (FaFo § 523) is extremely controversial. The dates suggested range
from the late fifth to the eighth century. Its author is also anxious to underline the Spirit’s co-
equality and coeternity with the Father and the Son (yet without affirming his consubstantial-
ity). – Germany: (Pseudo-)Boniface (s. VIII/1?; § 483a). – Rome: (Pseudo-)Gregory the Great (c. 600;
§ 446); Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum (after 680/681; § 450[1]); lost letter by Pope Theodore
I (cf. above p. 411). – Britain: Synod of Hatfield (679–680; § 474[4]); later testimony: Denebeorht of
Worcester (798–800; § 479[3]). – Ireland: Pseudo-Isidore, Liber de ordine creaturarum (655–680;
§ 472[4]; cf. Smyth 2011, p. 165 n. 10). – Unknown provenance: Florilegium Frisingense (§ 467b[4];
s. VII–VIII).
 This is clearly the case for Denebeorht of Worcester (798–800; § 479[3]); the Fides catholica
(before 800–830; § 707[6]); and the Interrogations on the creed of unknown origin (§ 708[2]).
 Cf., however, the debates mentioned by Maximus the Confessor. Although triggered by a
papal letter they seem mainly to have been confined to Constantinople (cf. above p. 411).
 For details cf. Sode 2001, pp. 168–71; Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 76–81.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 555

Iconoclastic Controversy and the situation after the council of Hiereia (754) which
had adopted a (moderate) iconoclastic position. But, of course, political issues
may also have played a role. Ado of Vienne (d. 874) reports that at this synod

the topic of the Trinity was discussed between the Greeks and the Romans, ([specifically,]
whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as he proceeds from the Father), as well as
[the topic] of the images of the saints ([specifically,] whether they might be sculpted or
painted in churches).36

However, Gemeinhardt points out that Ado wrote his Chronicle at the time of the
Photinian Schism when filioque was indeed controversial, that we have no other
sources making such a claim, and that later Carolingian theologians never refer
to Gentilly when discussing the problem. These observations taken together make
it unlikely that Ado’s information is correct. Instead, in Gentilly filioque was prob-
ably not yet seen as a problem between east and west and the debate about the
Trinity likely formed part of the wider debate about images.37
However, there are clear indications that the doctrine of the double proces-
sion of the Spirit had reached the Frankish Kingdom by the 770s (at the latest).38
To give just one example: Lullus, first archbishop of Mainz (bishop 754–86, arch-
bishop since 780/782), included it in the personal creed he composed in the con-
text of his receiving the pallium:39

I believe in the Holy Spirit, true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, neither
made nor begotten but proceeding; equal in all things with the Father and the Son;
through whom the Father and the Son are recognized to be the only God over all things
and in all things.40

 Ado, Chronicon 6 (FaFo § 829).

 Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 78–81. By contrast, Harald Willjung cautiously maintains the au-
thenticity of Ado’s information. Cf. Willjung in MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 2, pp. 12–15.
 Cf., in addition, the supplement to the Fides Catholica in cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 125
(770–780; FaFo § 522b2); the creed § 705 (c. 800 or earlier); the questions on faith from a Carolin-
gian schoolbook (c. 800; § 776[3]); anonymous explanation of the creed (s. IX in.; § 336). Cf. also
below p. 556 n. 44.
 Cf. Levison 1946(1973), pp. 233–5.
 FaFo § 700[4]: ‘Credo in spiritum sanctum, deum uerum, ex patre procedentem et filio, non
factum nec genitum sed procedentem, aequalem per omnia patri et filio, per quem pater et filius
deus solus super omnia et in omnibus cognoscitur.’
556 16 The Controversy over Filioque

This section is essentially a pastiche of the creed of Pelagius41 and Rufinus’ Latin
translation of the creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus.42 However, the words ‘and the
Son, neither made nor begotten but proceeding’ (et filio, non factum nec genitum
sed procedentem) are found in neither. It would be, therefore, tempting to assume
that Lullus himself had added et filio. However, things are more complicated be-
cause by the ninth century versions of Pelagius’ creed were circulating in Francia
which included et filio. This is proven by an anonymous Carolingian treatise De
baptismo which quotes the same passage in the version given by Lullus, including
et filio.43 In addition, we find a passage in the creed of the Fourth Council of Toledo
of 633 which bears a striking resemblance to the passage quoted above and also
has et filio.44 In other words, the filioque was, as it were, already floating around by
the time Lullus composed his creed. Incidentally, his rephrasing of Gregory/Rufinus
is particularly interesting, as he uses the double procession to underpin an order of
the Trinity in which the Spirit is clearly subordinate to the Father and the Son.
It seems, then, that filioque only became a problem in the aftermath of the
Second Council of Nicaea (787) which sanctioned the veneration of images.45 At
this assembly a letter by the patriarch of Constantinople Tarasius (sedit 784–806)
had been read out in which he professed the Holy Spirit to have proceeded ‘from
the Father through the Son (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς δι᾽ υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον / ex patre

 Cf. Pelagius, Libellus fidei 4 (FaFo § 517): ‘Credimus et in spiritum sanctum, deum uerum ex
patre procedentem, aequalem per omnia patri et filio [. . .]’. ‘We also believe in the Holy Spirit,
true God, proceeding from the Father, equal in all things with the Father and the Son [. . .].’
 Schwartz/Mommsen 1908(1999), p. 956, ll. 6–7: ‘[. . .] per quem deus super omnia et in omni-
bus cognoscitur et filius per omnes.’ ‘[. . .] through whom God is recognized to be over all things
and in all things and the Son to be through everyone [?].’ For the Greek original cf. FaFo § 117[3].
 Cf. the edition by Van Egmond 2012, p. 186, ll. 15 f. On this treatise cf. Van Egmond 2012,
pp. 127–31.
 Cf. Fourth Council of Toledo, canon 1 (FaFo § 493[2]): ‘[. . .] spiritum uero sanctum nec crea-
tum nec genitum sed procedentem ex patre et filio profitemur; [. . .].’ / ‘[. . .] the Holy Spirit, how-
ever, neither created nor begotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son’. Cf. also the
anonymous Carolingian Expositio de credulitate in Keefe, Explanations, 2012, p. 66 (ll. 23 f.; text
11): ‘[. . .] Spiritum Sanctum nec creatum nec genitum, sed procedentem ex Patre et Filio.’ / ‘[. . .]
that the Holy Spirit is neither created nor begotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.’
Similarly, the Carolingian Interrogationes of Etty (§ 526[3]): ‘[. . .] spiritum uero sanctum non gen-
itum, non creatum neque factum, sed de patre et filio procedentem, patri et filio coaeternum et
coaequalem et cooperatorem [. . .].’ / ‘[. . .] the Holy Spirit, however, neither begotten nor created
nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, coeternal, coequal, and cooperating with
Father and Son [. . .].’ There may also be a connection with the Symbolum Quicumque which
reads in § 434[23]: ‘Spiritus sanctus a patre et filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus sed proce-
dens.’ / ‘The Holy Spirit [exists] from the Father and from the Son, being neither made, nor cre-
ated, nor begotten, but proceeding.’
 For what follows cf. also Sode 2001, pp. 171–6; Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 81–107.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 557

per filium procedentem)’.46 In 792 Charlemagne sent Bishop Angilbert of Saint-

Riquier to Pope Hadrian I (sedit 772–795), carrying a capitulary which was critical
of the council. It is known as the Capitulare aduersus synodum and later served as
a Vorlage for the Opus Caroli regis to which I will return below. We are interested
here neither in the political background of Charlemagne’s action nor in his posi-
tion with regard to the veneration of the images.47 What is of import here is that
the capitulary also criticized Tarasius for his description of the origin of the Holy
Spirit. The ‘faith of the Creed of Nicaea’ (= C2) had stated his procession ‘from the
Father and the Son’ (ex patre et filio); Tarasius, therefore, ‘held an erroneous
view’ (non recte sentiat).48 Clearly, the version of C2 then used at court must have
included the filioque. The origin of this version can probably be traced to Theo-
dulf of Orléans (798 bishop of Orléans, 800–821 archbishop) who authored the
Opus Caroli regis (and hence probably also the Capitulary).49 Hadrian replied that
Tarasius had not invented a novel doctrine but followed the teaching of the holy
fathers. He did not discuss the original version of C2, but went on to quote an
array of extracts from the writings of Athanasius, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers,
Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria,
Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and Sophronius intended to prove his point.
However, at least the quotations from Augustine and Gregory the Great proved
exactly the opposite, insisting as they did on the Spirit’s double procession.50
The theses of the Capitulare were included in revised form, and indeed ex-
tended, in the Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (formerly called: Libri Carolini),
a comprehensive memorandum completed in 793 which was critical of the deci-
sions of Nicaea 787. However, by that time Theodulf must have realized that it
was by no means certain that filioque had formed part of the original version of
C2, because the corresponding rubric in the Opus Caroli is phrased much more
cautiously:

Does Tarasius hold the correct view when he professes in his version of the creed (in suae
credulitatis lectione) that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son, as
the truest rule of the holy faith [affirms] (secundum uerissimam sanctae fidei regulam), but
from the Father through the Son (ex patre per filium)?51

 Tarasius, Epistula ad episcopos Antiochiae, Alexandriae et Hierosolymae (FaFo § 245c).

 Cf., e.g., Ann Freeman in MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 4–8.
 Charlemagne, Capitulare aduersus synodum 1 (FaFo § 831a).
 Cf. the detailed analysis by Ann Freeman in MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 12–23.
 Cf. Augustine, De trinitate 15,45; Gregory, Homilia in euangelia 26, 2. Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002,
p. 111.
 Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) 3,3 (FaFo § 832a).
558 16 The Controversy over Filioque

Here the ‘Nicene’ creed is no longer mentioned, but only the much vaguer ‘rule of
faith’. As the text of the chapter reveals, Theodulf saw this ‘rule’ as the norm by
which the creed was to be interpreted (i.e. in the sense of the double procession).
He now accused Tarasius of actually wanting to alter the creed’s text by adding
per filium. Theodulf agreed that the Spirit had indeed been given to believers
through the Son, but to assert a procession from the Father through the Son was
‘quite unusual for a synodical confession’ (synodicae confessioni inusitatum est).52
Theodulf no doubt referred to C2 – this can clearly be seen from his complaint
that in the creed of Nicaea II ‘there are some novel and unusual expressions (noua
uerba quaeque et inusitata) which have not in any way been recorded in the creed
by the holy Council of Nicaea’. These, Theodulf asserts, had been discussed ‘in the
beginning of the third book’ of the Opus53 – hence in the aforementioned passages
dealing with the Holy Spirit. In other words, Theodulf mainly accused Tarasius of
having de facto altered C2 by adding per filium in his own statement of faith, which
in turn may suggest that Theodulf had himself silently corrected his own version of
C2, realizing that originally it did not include filioque.
Oddly, in its final revision the third book of the Opus opened with the creed
of Pelagius (FaFo § 517). This creed is ascribed to the ‘holy fathers’, indicating that
it replaced a number of different creeds that had been recorded there origi-
nally.54 This demonstrates the work’s unfinished character: apparently the Opus
Caroli regis was approved by Charlemagne,55 but never published because it be-
came clear that its basis, the Latin translation of the acts of Nicaea, was faulty.56
In any case, the polemic against Tarasius regarding filioque was only one of many
issues the Franks had with Nicaea II.
However, the fact that by the end of the eighth century filioque was widely
used at Charlemagne’s court is not only evident from the Libellus sacrosyllabus
episcoporum Italiae, which Patriarch Paulinus II of Aquileia (sedit 776–802) wrote
at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 against Spanish adoptionism as championed by
Felix of Urgel (d. 818; FaFo § 701a),57 or from a lengthy creed which probably
stemmed from the pen of Alcuin (FaFo § 702k[1], [2]), but also from Charlemagne’s
own writings. After the Synod of Frankfurt he sent a letter, drafted by Alcuin, to

 Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) 3,3 (FaFo § 832a).
 Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) 4,13 (FaFo § 832h).
 Cf. Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) 3,1 (MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 336–40)
and pp. 44, 336 n. 1, 353 apparatus (Ann Freeman).
 Cf. Ann Freeman in MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 48–50.
 Cf. Ann Freeman in MGH Conc. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 9 f.
 Cf. Knecht 2022, pp. 2, 73–7.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 559

the Spanish bishops who supported adoptionism. Here we find a clear (albeit not
explicit) reference to C2 which includes the filioque:

We also believe in the Holy Spirit, the true God, life-giver to all, who proceeds from the Fa-
ther and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is jointly worshipped and jointly
glorified.58

In what follows the text is also keen to emphasize the et filio, yet always within
passages that deal with belief in the Trinity in general rather than specifically
with the Holy Spirit.
The first explicit quotation of filioque as part of C2 occurs in the acts of the
provincial Synod of Friuli (796–797), presided over by Paulinus. In his opening ad-
dress Paulinus gave a lengthy explanation of the Trinity, the ecumenical councils,
and the creeds. With regard to the Holy Spirit, he realized that N and C2 were by
no means identical: N had very briefly expressed belief in the Spirit, but the 150
holy fathers of Constantinople had not been content with that:

But in order to explain their own understanding [of that phrase] they have made an addi-
tion and confess that they believe ‘in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds
from the Father, who is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son’. For this and
the other things that follow are not contained in the sacred doctrine of the Nicene Creed (in
Nicaeni symboli sacro dogmate non habentur). Yet even later, that is, on account of those
heretics who are hissing that the Holy Spirit only belongs to the Father and proceeds only
from the Father, it was added, ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son’. And yet these
holy fathers are not to be blamed as if they had added anything to or taken anything from
the faith of the 318 fathers, because they gave no interpretation which differed from the
latters’ understanding, but strove to supplement their immaculate understanding in a
sound manner (sed immaculatum eorum intellectum sanis moribus supplere studuerunt).59

Paulinus, then, realizes that the filioque was not contained in the original exten-
sion of the pneumatological article added at Constantinople, but was ‘added’
later. However, he leaves it open who actually made this addition and which her-
etics he has in mind as being targeted by it. Instead he goes on to say that these
supplements had been made on the basis of new exegetical insights. The first re-
lated to Jn 15:26 (qui a patre procedit), the second to Jn 14:9–10: if the Father and
the Son were one, the Spirit must have proceeded from both. Paulinus goes on to
spill some ink on elaborating this argument further using other passages from

 Charlemagne, Epistula ad Elipandum et episcopos Hispaniae (FaFo § 722[3]): ‘Credimus et in

spiritum sanctum, deum uerum, uiuificatorem omnium, a patre et filio procedentem, cum patre
et filio coadorandum et conglorificandum.’
 Synod of Friuli, Gesta synodalia 7 (FaFo § 703a).
560 16 The Controversy over Filioque

John and drawing on his own maxim and that of his ancestors (nostrisque maior-
ibus) that the works of the Trinity are inseparable.60 He concludes with some
enthusiasm:

In what an orthodox manner (catholice) have also the holy fathers, standing firmly on this
foundation of the faith, professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (a patre
sanctum Spiritum procedere)? How gloriously have also those [expressed themselves] who
confess that he proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex patre filioque procedere)?61

Paulinus does not defend filioque against specific objections, but rather seeks to
show that it is actually derived from Scripture in order to underline the unity of
the Trinity against what he sees as adoptionist misinterpretations which were pri-
marily directed against divine equality of the Son with the Father.62 In other
words, in Paulinus’ ecclesial context there was no theological controversy about
the filioque as such, but about the Son.
Why does he then raise the problem at all? Perhaps the reason why Paulinus
felt he had to justify filioque may have been the use of a Greek version of C2 in
the baptismal liturgy which did not contain the phrase.63 If that is correct, Pauli-
nus means to say that filioque was added to the Latin version. In the acts of the
Synod of Friuli the aforementioned Latin version of C2 is then quoted which in-
deed includes the filioque (FaFo § 184f7). It is this translation which later became
the standard Latin version.64 It runs like this:

Credo in unum deum, patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, uisibilium omnium
et inuisibilium;
et in unum dominum Iesum Christum, filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante
omnia saecula, deum de deo, lumen de lumine, deum uerum de deo uero, genitum, non fac-
tum, consubstantialem patri; per quem omnia facta sunt; qui propter nos homines et prop-

 This was indeed often affirmed. Cf. Augustine, Epistula 164, 17; id., In Iohannis euangelium
tractatus 95, 1; id., Sermo 213 auctus (= Guelferbytanus 1) 7 (Morin 1930, p. 446, ll. 29 f.); id., De
adulterinis coniugiis 1,21; id., De praedestinatione sanctorum 8,13; id., Contra sermonem Ariano-
rum 4,4; 11,9; and later authors.
 Synod of Friuli, Gesta synodalia 8 (MGH Conc. II 1, p. 184, ll. 15–17).
 Cf. esp. Synod of Friuli, Gesta synodalia 11 (MGH Conc. II 1, p. 187, ll. 1–4). In addition, cf. the
contemporary Dicta Leonis episcopi that are also directed against adoptionism (FaFo § 706[14]).
Filioque is only mentioned in passing.
 On the use of Greek versions of C2 at baptism cf. above p. 504 and n. 134.
 Cf., e.g., FaFo §§ 184f9 (Catholica Fides, s. VIII ex. – IX in.), 184f10 (Phillipps Sacramentary/Sacra-
mentary of Autun, c. 800; here qui ex patre filioque procedit is missing altogether!), 184f11 (Anasta-
sius Bibliothecarius, c. 767–778: here filioque is missing), 184f12.2 (Pontificale Romano-Germanicum,
950–962), and the codices mentioned in 184f7 (these creeds represent type I/ii and all contain filio-
que). In addition § 184f29 (manuscript from Albi, s. XI or earlier; type III: et filio).
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 561

ter nostram salutem descendit de caelis et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria uirgine
et homo factus est; crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est et
resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas; ascendit in caelum; sedet ad dexteram patris et
iterum uenturus est cum gloria iudicare uiuos et mortuos; cuius regni non erit finis;
et in spiritum sanctum, dominum et uiuificantem, qui ex patre filioque procedit, qui
cum patre et filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas; et unam
sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum
et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum et uitam futuri saeculi.

The filioque notwithstanding, it differs from the Greek version of C2 in that it

reads adoratur instead of coadoratur/συμπροσκυνούμενον and et unam . . . eccle-
siam instead of in unam/εἰς μίαν. Comparing it to the textus receptus of Latin C2
there are four minor variants:65 et before ex patre and before ascendit is missing;
the textus receptus has ex Maria instead of et Maria; futuri saeculi was changed to
uenturi saeculi. This was the version of C2 which is later also found in manu-
scripts with musical notation.66
Alcuin congratulated Paulinus for his felicitous revision in the warmest terms:

You have completed a work which will be most useful and very necessary for a great many
people for the examination of the catholic faith and which I have desired for a long time. For
I have frequently urged the lord king that the creed of the catholic faith should be compiled
on one sheet in the plainest meanings and the most splendid words (ut symbolum catholicae
fidei planissimis sensibus et sermonibus luculentissimis in unam congereretur cartulam) in
order that it might be distributed to all the priests in every parish of the episcopal dioceses
for them to read and to commit to memory such that, although various languages might be
spoken, nonetheless one faith would resound everywhere.67

Paulinus had obviously done what Alcuin had in mind. In particular, the phrase
et homo factus est was not only more elegant than the clumsy et humanatum of
the earlier translation (which, as we will see, was still used in Rome68) – it was
also much better suited to the fight against adoptionism: Christ had not only been
‘humanized’, he had actually become man (in the sense of a human person), as
Paulinus repeats over and over again in his book against the adoptionist Felix of

 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), p. 71.

 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 71 f. and below p. 603 f.
 Alcuin, Epistula 139 (7 Cuscito; FaFo § 703c).
 Cf. below p. 569.
562 16 The Controversy over Filioque

Urgel.69 In addition, Bernard Capelle has pointed out that Paulinus’ translation
was worded even more precisely than the Greek original which had used the
same word γεννηθέντα twice: τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα – γεννηθέντα οὐ
ποιηθέντα. Perhaps prompted by the Athanasian creed,70 Paulinus introduced a
terminological difference between ex patre natum and genitum, non factum in
order to underline the opposition between the Son’s generation and the world’s
creation, an opposition which he also expressed in his polemic against Felix.71
By the beginning of the ninth century two archetypes of the pneumatological
section of C2 existed: the Greek text never contained the filioque whereas in the
west at least two Latin translations were current that included the Spirit’s proces-
sion from the Father and the Son (FaFo § 184, type I and II). In theory, this situa-
tion could have continued without causing any friction, much as since Chalcedon
C2 had been in use in various forms that differed from each other in minor de-
tails. Yet, for reasons unknown, this difference led to a controversy in the Holy
Land, between monks resident in Jerusalem and its surroundings. We hear about
this affair in a letter which six monks from the Frankish congregation of the
Mount of Olives sent to Pope Leo III (sedit 795–816), probably in 807.72 A John,
monk at the famous Monastery of St Sabas, some seven and a half miles east of
Bethlehem, had accused the Frankish monks who lived on the Mount of Olives of
heresy because of their use of filioque. According to the letter, he was even driven
to shout: ‘All the Franks are heretics.’ Some of John’s followers caused a scandal
at the holy manger in Bethlehem at Christmas trying in vain to throw out the
Franks among shouts of heresy. The Frankish monks brought their grievances
against John and his party to the bishop of Jerusalem who set a hearing which
was to be held in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. On that occasion the Franks
affirmed that their faith was that of the Roman church, but that there were differ-
ences between the liturgy of the Greeks and that of the Franks which concerned
the Gloria patri, the Gloria in excelsis, and the Lord’s Prayer. As far as the creed
proper was concerned, theirs was indeed longer than that used in Jerusalem on
account of the filioque. They asked the Jerusalem clergy to not condone John’s

 Cf. Paulinus, Contra Felicem 1,14. 16. 30. 34; 2,1; 3,27. Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), p. 74.
 Cf. FaFo § 434[21]–[23], [31].
 Cf. Paulinus, Contra Felicem 1,17; 2,1. In addition, Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 74 f.
 For what follows cf. Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 8 (MGH Epp. V, pp. 64–6). Ex-
tracts and further literature in FaFo § 844a. In addition, Harald Willjung in MGH Conc. II Suppl.
2, pp. 20–9; Sode 2001, pp. 176–94; Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 141–6. Callahan 1992 has argued that
this letter as well as Pope Leo’s letter to Charlemagne (for which see below in the main text) are
forgeries by Ademar of Chabanne (d. 1034). Pace Callahan cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 142 n. 223. I
follow Gemeinhardt in assuming their authenticity.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 563

machinations, because this would mean that ‘the throne of the blessed Peter’ it-
self would be called heretical. The priests of Jerusalem then wrote down a sum-
mary of their faith, asking the Franks whether they agreed with this statement.
The latter replied that this was indeed the creed of ‘the holy resurrection of the
Lord’, i.e. the Church of Jerusalem, and the ‘holy apostolic See of Rome’ where-
upon the archdeacon of Jerusalem together with the Frankish monks read out
this creed in the church to his congregation. In addition, the Franks condemned
‘every heresy’ and those who had called the Apostolic See of Rome heretical.
Yet although the Franks had gained the upper hand in this controversy it
seems that they had become uncertain about what they ought to believe and
wanted not only to apprise the pope of the situation, but also to be reassured that
filioque was indeed part of the creed. One of the letter’s authors, a monk named
Leo, affirmed that he had heard the phrase qui ex patre filioque procedit both in
Rome and at Charlemagne’s court. In addition, the emperor himself had given
Leo a copy of an Easter Homily by Gregory the Great in which this tenet was ex-
pressed.73 It was also contained in the Rule of St Benedict which he had also re-
ceived from the king,74 in a dialogus which the pope had given Leo75 and, finally,
in the ‘faith of St Athanasius’, i.e. in the Symbolum Quicumque.76 By contrast, John
had not only caused an uproar in the holy city and in the surrounding monaster-
ies by denying the double procession, but had also asked the Franks to surrender
their creed and their books. Worst of all, he was saying that it was prohibited to
read Pope Gregory’s writings.77
Nonetheless, the Frankish monks had noticed that filioque was missing in the
Greek version of the creed so were now imploring the pope to search for the
phrase in both the Greek and the Latin fathers, because the Greeks were taking
offence at this addition (et uident istum sermonem grauem). They also asked the
pope to notify Charlemagne, because they had heard the filioque in his chapel.
The pope forwarded a copy of the monks’ letter to Charlemagne in order to
keep him up to date adding that he had sent the monks an ‘orthodox’ version of
the creed ‘so that all might keep the right and inviolate faith according to this our

 Cf. Gregory, Homilia in Euangelia 26, 2. Cf. above p. 557 and n. 50.
 To my knowledge, no copy of the rule containing a creed survives. However, the quotation
which the letter contains (Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 8 (MGH Epp. V, p. 65, ll.
38 f.): ‘Credo Spiritum sanctum deum verum, ex Patre procedentem et Filio’) is found in the
aforementioned creed of Archbishop Lullus of Mainz (FaFo § 700). Cf. Harald Willjung in MGH
Conc. II Suppl. 2, pp. 23–5.
 No author is given, but it must again be Gregory; cf. Gregory, Dialogus 2,38,4.
 Cf. FaFo § 434[23].
 Cf. Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 8 (MGH Epp. V, p. 66, ll. 5 f.).
564 16 The Controversy over Filioque

holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’.78 Unfortunately, both this version of C2 and
of the covering letter are lost.79 But given Leo’s further actions there can be no
doubt that Leo’s creed did not contain the filioque. This is also confirmed by the
Life of Michael the Synkellos according to which the pope ‘refused to add anything
that had not been jointly expressed by the divine fathers in the divine creed’.80
Therefore, it was not actually necessary to search in the writings of the fathers
for confirmation of the term. However, it is important to note here that by the
beginning of the ninth century the filioque did indeed already form part of the
creed used in the liturgy at Charlemagne’s court and that in this respect a rift had
opened up between the pope and the emperor. We will return to this problem
below.
According to the Life the pope also wrote to Patriarch Thomas of Jerusalem
(sedit 807–821) asking him for help in suppressing the use of filioque by the
Franks. Thomas is said to have held a synod as a result and to have sent an em-
bassy to Rome (via Constantinople) in order to outline the position of the church
of Jerusalem, and to ask the pope in return to resist the use of filioque offering
him support in this struggle. This delegation (which was also charged with other
tasks) never seems to have reached its final destination. It is difficult to say to
what extent the account of the Life conforms to the historical facts.81 If accurate,
the Jerusalem clergy would have changed its view with regard to the heretical
nature of filioque.
Be that as it may, Leo probably did not take the whole affair very seriously
and may, at that point, also have assumed that Charlemagne did not use an adul-
terated version of C2 in his liturgy at court. However, not only was he mistaken in
this assumption, but Charlemagne in fact took the whole matter so seriously that
he placed it high on the agenda of a synod which he held at Aachen in 809. In the
scholarly literature there has been much speculation about the reasons for the
emperor’s nervous reaction. One of them may have been the struggle against
Spanish adoptionism: in this context, the filioque served as an argument to under-
line the one substantia, potentia, and essentia of the Trinity and thus to reject the
idea of the Son’s adoption, as Charlemagne had made clear in his letter to Elipan-
dus and the Spanish bishops in September 794.82 Perhaps the emperor was also

 Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 8 (FaFo § 844b).

 It was not the creed handed down under Leo’s name (FaFo § 702k) which includes filioque. Cf.
also Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 145 f.
 Vita Michaelis Syncelli 6 (FaFo § 846).
 Sode argues that the account is ficticious; cf. Sode 2001, pp. 186–94.
 Cf. Charlemagne, Epistula ad Elipandum et episcopos Hispaniae (FaFo § 722[4]). Cf. also above
pp. 558 f. and Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 123–7.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 565

afraid that the affair could further strain relations with Byzantium which were
tense as a result of Charlemagne’s claiming of the title of ‘Most-Christian Em-
peror’ (Imperator christianissimus).83
The Aachen Synod seems not to have reached a final decision about the filio-
que, but sent Bishops Bernhar of Worms (d. 826) and Jesse of Amiens (sedit c.
799–836), together with Abbot Adalhard of Corbie (abbot 781–814, 821–826), to
Rome to seek approval from the pope for a decree, the so-called Decretum Aquis-
granense de processione spiritus sancti a patre et filio.84 It opened with the follow-
ing statement:

These things regarding the basis of the catholic faith and the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Father and the Son (de ratione catholicae fidei et de processione spiritus sancti a
patre et filio) must be firmly believed by all those who are orthodox and faithful. They must
confess with a pure and sincere heart without any doubt those things which have formerly
been handed down and decreed by the holy fathers and the irreproachable teachers of the
Church who participated in the four eminent and universal councils, that is, those of Nicaea,
Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople.85

The remainder of the text was an extensive collection of testimonies from Scrip-
ture, the fathers, and the councils underpinning this doctrine.

 Cf., e.g., Harald Willjung in MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, p. 27.

 Cf. Annales Regni Francorum, a. 809 (MGH SS rer. Germ. VI, p. 129); letter of Leo III to Riculf of
Mainz, Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 9 (MGH Epp. 5, pp. 67 f.). For the participation of
Jesse, not mentioned by either the Annals or Leo, cf. Harald Willjung in MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, p. 88.
Ado of Vienne does not mention this embassy in his Chronicle. Instead he writes (PL 123,
cols. 132D–133A): ‘The monk John from Jerusalem had raised this question, because the ecclesiasti-
cal rule and faith affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a patre et
filio), not created, not begotten, but coeternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The
term “procession from the Father and the Son” is clearly indicated in the Apocalypse as fol-
lows: “Then the angel (no doubt this is the angel) showed me the river of the water of life, bright as
crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (procedens de sede dei et agni)” [Rev 22:1].’
It seems that in his exegesis of Rev 22:1 Ado is referring to the Libellus de processione spiritus sancti
16 by Theodulf of Orléans who, in turn, quotes Ambrose, De spiritu sancto 3,152–153 as testimony
for the double procession (MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, p. 344, ll. 1–3: ‘Item idem in eodem libro quod
fluuius de sede dei et agni procedens spiritus sanctus sit, ubi intelligitur eius a patre et filio proces-
sio.’ ‘Likewise the same [says] in the same book that the river that is flowing from the throne of
God and of the Lamb is the Holy Spirit which refers to his procession from the Father and the Son.’
However, Ambrose never explicitly mentions the double procession. Theodulf’s treatise had been
written specifically for the Synod of Aachen (cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 152–7). The same quotation
from Ambrose is found in the Testimonia de aequalitate spiritus sancti cum patre et filio by Adalwin
of Regensburg (no. 28; MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, p. 410, ll. 14–23).
 Decretum Aquisgranense (FaFo § 748).
566 16 The Controversy over Filioque

A couple of months after this synod, the decree and the collection of excerpts
were taken by the envoys (missi) to Rome and submitted to the pope for approval
in an audience with him. We still possess an anonymous eyewitness report of the
proceedings that took place ‘in the sacristy of St Peter’ (in secretario beati Petri
apostoli),86 the so-called Ratio Romana de symbolo fidei.87 Unfortunately, it was
written down from memory, and its author, who belonged to the papal party,88
confesses no longer to remember all the details. However, it becomes clear that,
although Leo first fully agreed with the testimonies presented, later some dis-
agreement seems to have arisen which led to a heated discussion. The notes of
the eyewitness are in some ways enigmatic. It seems that the pope agreed with
the missi that the clause filioque was de facto part of the faith, but he refused to
alter the text of the creed (C2) itself accordingly, because this had been forbidden
by the councils (section 8).89 The missi then asked the pope whether those igno-
rant on this point of doctrine (nescientes) were to be instructed in the double pro-
cession and whether, if that did not happen or if they did not understand what
they were taught, their salvation was at risk. The pope answered that the faithful
should indeed be instructed about the filioque and that the salvation of those who
knew of, but refused to accept it was indeed in danger (sections 2–5). In addition,
there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the way the faithful
were taught the words of the creed. Clearly, at Charlemagne’s court C2 was not
simply spoken, but was in some way chanted in mass. (There is other evidence
pointing to this practice which we will discuss below.90) The envoys seem to have
assumed that the pope rejected chanting the creed on principle, but the further
course of the conversation shows that Leo did not mind either way, as long as no
words were added to the creed whether spoken or chanted (sections 6–7).
The debate then turned to the question why the council fathers had not actually
added the ‘four syllables’ (quattuor syllabas) and thus made ‘the most-necessary sa-
crament of the faith’ (pernecessarium fidei sacramentum) easily comprehensible
(section 10). Leo refused to be drawn into a debate whether the creed was in actual
fact incomplete, because he did not wish to question the wisdom of the fathers (sec-
tion 11). The missi hurriedly denied that they wished to correct the fathers but ex-
pressed their desire to be useful to their brethren, as the end of the world (finis

 On the venue cf. Harald Willjung in MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, p. 108.

 For what follows cf. MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, pp. 287–94. Extracts in FaFo § 848. A complete
German translation (with some inaccuracies) by Harald Willjung is found in MGH Conc. 2 Suppl.
2, pp. 295–300.
 Harald Willjung in MGH Conc. 2 Suppl. 2, pp. 108–10.
 Cf. above p. 379.
 Cf. below ch. 19.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 567

mundi) was drawing near. Given the fact that some were chanting the creed includ-
ing filioque anyway and very many people had successfully learned the creed that
way, the Franks had granted general permission for the extended creed to be
chanted and thus to instruct many people about this great mystery (de tanto mys-
terio; section 12). The pope provisionally agreed, but continued to query whether in
this case other doctrinal details concerning the creed should also be added to the
actual text which the missi denied, ‘because not everything was equally important’
(quia non aeque omnia necessaria sunt; sections 13–14). The pope expressed doubts:
many doctrines not contained in the creed were crucially important for true catho-
lics. When asked to give an example he was unable to do so and adjourned the
meeting to the next day in order ‘to leave space for reflection’ (detur considerandi
locus; sections 15–19).
After a night’s sleep the pope cited divine wisdom and truth (which belonged
to both the Father’s and the Son’s common essence while also being predicated of
either individually) as examples for the fact that not all important theological giv-
ens were contained in the creed (section 20). He also intimated that the envoys
should not create such a fuss as regards this question (section 22). The missi re-
plied that they could not let the matter rest, because there was the danger of los-
ing ‘the prize of the pious endeavour’ (pii laboris praemium) and by implication
thus of jeopardizing the salvation of the faithful, if filioque was omitted (section
23). Leo again urged his interlocutors not to press the matter any further lest they
expose themselves to the charge of stubborn presumption, if the hallowed creed
was altered. In his rather meandering statement the pope also seemed to indicate
that, after all, he was not happy about the creed being chanted (section 24). At
this point the Frankish envoys asked with some concern whether the custom of
chanting the creed had not actually come from Rome and had received papal ap-
proval (section 25). The pope confirmed that he had given permission to chant the
creed, but denied that this practice was Roman in origin, where it was read out
instead, and repeated that the creed had to remain unaltered. All doctrines not
contained in the creed were to be supplied ‘in the appropriate places and at the
appropriate times’ (locis temporibusue opportunis; section 26).
The envoys then tried to summarize the provisional results of their audience
so far: the filioque was to be removed from the creed which could then be either
recited or chanted. Leo confirmed this summary and asked, in turn, for confirma-
tion from the emperor (sections 27–28). However, the legates were still uneasy
about chanting the creed and repeated their question whether it was right to do
so. The pope made clear that he had not ordered but rather tolerated this practice
(sections 29–30). But, the envoys continued, ‘if an entire word [i.e. the filioque] be
removed from the central part of the true faith, will then not precisely this word
be condemned by all as if it were contrary to the faith’ (‘[. . .], numquid non, si
568 16 The Controversy over Filioque

sermo plenus recta fide e medio tollatur, idem sermo ab omnibus, ac si contra
fidem sit, condemnabitur’; section 31)?91 In other words, the envoys were anxious
that eliding the filioque from the creed itself might in fact be understood as if im-
plying that it was henceforth to be considered heretical. Leo advised simply to
drop the custom of chanting the creed in the palace chapel which would then be
imitated in the other Frankish churches. As part of this process filioque might
then also be removed without anyone’s faith be harmed (section 32).
My paraphrase hopefully has made clear that what was at stake here was not
primarily a matter of politics, but of liturgical custom which, if altered, might
have repercussions on orthodoxy and the salvation of the individual believers. In
early ninth-century Francia, the custom of chanting the creed including the filio-
que had existed for some time.92 By contrast, in Rome the creed was read out in
baptismal catechesis. (Here the creed was not yet recited in mass.93) Faced with
this situation the pope allowed the chanting of the creed, but refused to enjoin it
as obligatory, while strictly rejecting filioque to be either chanted or recited (al-
though he nonetheless considered it doctrinally correct). In turn, Charlemagne’s
missi feared that omitting the filioque so familiar to the ears of believers in their
homeland (including its ruler) might lead to misunderstandings that might actu-
ally jeopardize their salvation.
The double solution suggested by Leo, i.e. to seize chanting the creed and, at
the same time, no longer to recite the filioque, was not heeded in the Carolingian
Empire. Filioque continued to be used,94 and we will see below that there is ample
evidence to suggest that C2 continued to be chanted.95 Here it may suffice to cite
one example from the Liber aduersus Graecos by Aeneas of Paris (sedit 857–870):

Likewise as regards the catholic faith, which the entire church of Gaul chants (decantat) on Sun-
days during mass, among other things we chant as follows: ‘I also believe in the Holy Spirit, the

 I have slightly changed my translation from FaFo § 848d.

 For the insertion of filioque cf. above p. 554. For the custom of chanting cf. below ch. 19.
 Cf. above p. 514.
 Some further examples from credal texts (not C2) in later Carolingian and post-Carolingian
sources include: Haito of Basel (809?; FaFo § 711[1], [3]); Theodulf of Orléans, Liber de ordine bap-
tismi 7 (812; § 787b – this text, which is a paraphrase of T, is also quoted by Hrabanus Maurus
and Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel; cf. § 787b, introduction); Magnus of Sens (812; § 783[4]); Leidrad
of Lyons (812; § 785[1]); ‘Troyes Anonymous’ (c. 812; § 788[6]); anonymous Carolingian Expositio
de credulitate (813–815; § 713); anonymous credal statement (before 850; § 714); anonymous expla-
nation of the ceremonies of baptism (before 850; § 63[7]); anonymous explanation of baptism
(850–875 or earlier; § 783b[3]); Pseudo-Alcuin, De diuinis officiis 41 (c. 900?; § 70); interrogation on
the creed (before 1000; § 716); Pseudo-Eleutherius, Sermo 1 (§ 529a[5]; s. XII/1). Cf. also above
p. 560 n. 64.
 Cf. below ch. 19.
 16 The Controversy over Filioque 569

Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex patre filioque), who is jointly
worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets.’96

By contrast, Leo resorted to an unusual measure in order to inculcate the creed’s

original text in the mind of his congregation (and in the minds of all passers-by,
whether from Francia or elsewhere): he had three silver shields inscribed with C2
without the filioque. Two – each bearing the text in Greek and Latin – were placed
over the entrance to the tomb of St Peter, the third stood over the entrance to the
tomb of St Paul.97
The Latin text was later cited by Peter Abelard (FaFo § 184f5) as running as
follows:

Credo in unum deum, patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, uisibilium omnium
et inuisibilium;
et in unum dominum Iesum Christum, filium dei unigenitum, qui ex patre natus est
ante omnia saecula, lumen de lumine, deum uerum de deo uero, natum, non factum, con-
substantialem patri; per quem omnia facta sunt; propter nos homines et propter nostram
salutem descendentem de caelo et incarnatum de spiritu sancto et Maria uirgine et human-
atum crucifixumque pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato et passum et sepultum et resurgentem ter-
tia die secundum scripturas et ascendentem in caelis et sedentem ad dexteram patris et
iterum uenturum cum gloria iudicare uiuos et mortuos; cuius regni non erit finis;
et in spiritum sanctum, dominum et uiuificatorem, ex patre procedentem, cum patre et
filio coadorandum et conglorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas;
in unam sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Spero resurrectionem mortuorum et uitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

This is basically a translation of the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople

(FaFo § 184f1) which is also cited (with some minor variations) in the Old Gelasian
Sacramentary (FaFo § 184f2), i.e. type I.98 It differs from that current among the
Carolingians in that participles are used instead of relative clauses. Given this, it
seems difficult to assume that the Franks had followed the Romans in chanting
the creed, as the missi had claimed,99 or if they did, they must have altered it con-
siderably on the basis of the revision of the Latin C2 probably carried out by Pau-
linus of Aquileia: here the participles were replaced by the more elegant relative
clauses which may also have lent themselves better to chanting.100

 Aeneas, Liber aduersus Graecos 93 (FaFo § 852).

 Cf. Liber pontificalis 98,84–85 (FaFo § 856).
 Cf. above p. 411.
 Cf. above p. 567.
 Cf. above pp. 560 f.
570 16 The Controversy over Filioque

Leo’s silver shields with the creeds were still in place at the time of John XI
Beccus (patriarch of Constantinople 1275–1282).101 They had survived although by
that time filioque had long come to be accepted in Rome too.102 Emperor John V
Palaeologus (r. 1341–1391) may have been the known last witness to the existence
of these tablets when he visited Rome in October 1369. By then they had been re-
moved from their original positions and stored away from public view. The ver-
sion of the creed recorded on them served John in his defence of the original text
of C2.103
The earliest liturgical book that includes filioque in its creed is not found
until the mid-tenth century: it is the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum which was
written in Mainz in c. 950–962. It contains a baptismal liturgy which despite its
traditional name (Ordo Romanus L) in fact seems to have been produced in
Mainz.104
I cannot discuss the controversy over the filioque any further in the context
of this book. The affair had started in the Holy Land and had kept the emperor,
his ecclesiastical entourage, and the pope busy. In the end, the emperor ignored
the papal wishes – he may have considered it too risky to abandon the filioque,
because doing so would have caused unnecessary agitation among his subjects
and because he was seriously afraid that it could also have eschatological conse-
quences of unknown proportions. In the end ‘nothing was resolved between
Rome and Aachen, but only a dissent established’.105

 Cf. John XI Beccus, Refutatio libri Photii de processione spiritus 32,89 (FaFo § 862). In addition,
cf. the references FaFo §§ 857–61.
 Cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, pp. 313–16.
 Cf. FaFo § 863a. The story may, however, be apocryphal.
 Cf. FaFo § 184f12 and Vogel 1986, pp. 187, 232 f. In addition, cf. § 184f13 (Liber misticus from
Spain).
 Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 163.
17 The Apostles’ Creed, the Creed
of Constantinople, and the Athanasian Creed
as Standard Creeds in the Middle Ages
and Beyond

The history of the creeds in the Byzantine and Latin churches in the period be-
tween the Carolingians and the Reformation urgently calls for further investiga-
tion.1 The following summary remarks can, therefore, only be preliminary ones.
In order not unduly to inflate the size of this book I will not deal further with the
filioque controversy (on which some excellent recent monographs already exist2),
but will instead focus on the liturgical and practical uses of C2, T, and Ath.

The role of C2 in the Byzantine liturgy has been discussed in previous chapters.3
As regards its use beyond worship much work remains to be done. Expositions of
this creed are rare, one example being a small treatise by Euthymius Zigabenus
(or Zigadenus, fl. c. 1100) whose precise purpose is unknown.4 An as yet unedited
exposition of C2 is contained in cod. Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr.
Z. 502 (coll. 0804; s. XIV in.), ff. 275v–276v.5 T and Ath were not entirely unknown
in the Greek church6 and were also commented upon,7 but their influence in By-
zantium remained, by and large, insignificant (not least because Ath contained
the controversial filioque).
By contrast, in the west C2 (mostly called the ‘Nicene’ creed), T, and Ath were
not only regularly recited in worship, but were also subject to theological discus-

 For the time being cf. Kattenbusch 1900, pp. 867–70; Wiegand 1904; Weidenhiller 1965, esp.
pp. 17 f.; Vokes 1978, pp. 543–4; Foreville 1984; Blanchet/Gabriel 2016.
 Cf. above p. 549 n. 1.
 Cf. above chs. 11.2 and 11.3.
 Cf. Euthymius, Expositio symboli (PG 131, cols. 9–20).
 Cf. Kattenbusch 1900, p. 741 and URL <https://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.
jsp?id=oai%3A193.206.197.121%3A18%3AVE0049%3ACSTOR.240.10230> (23/11/2023).
 Greek versions of both creeds usually sit in the context of the controversies and negotiations
between east and west. Cf. for T: FaFo § 427 (1475–1500) and further examples in Caspari
1866–1875(1964), vol. III, pp. 25–8; Hahn/Hahn 1897, §§ 24β, 26–28, 30; Blanchet 2022, pp. 408–11;
for Ath: FaFo § 434b and Laurent 1936; Grumel 1938; Kelly 1964, pp. 44–8. For translations of Ath
into Coptic and Arabic cf. also Kohlbacher, ‘Das Symbolum Athanasianum’, 2004, p. 108; for a
creed in Ethiopic that is influenced by Ath cf. Guerrier 1915–1917.
 Two brief expositions of T were edited in Blanchet 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-017
572 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

sion and controversy. Sometimes the different creeds were distinguished by their
initial words: Credo in deum (patrem) referred to T, whereas Credo in unum deum
(patrem) usually denoted C2.8 (However, N and C2 were rarely distinguished from
each other, and, as we will see below, there was much confusion with regard to
their origin and history.) The Sitze im Leben of the creeds differed from each
other: T continued to be the creed of baptismal catechesis; it was, as it were, the
creed of the people. C2 was seen as a solemn declaration of faith to be chanted in
mass on Sundays and major festivals where it usually functioned as ‘the conclu-
sion of the reading service, the joyous “yes” of the faithful to the message they
have received’.9 By contrast, Ath was a ‘summary of orthodox theological teach-
ing’,10 seemingly authorized by one of the greatest Fathers of the Church, and was
primarily recited on Sundays at prime. However, there was great variation. In the
psalters we sometimes find just T,11 sometimes both T and Ath,12 and sometimes
only Ath,13 usually placed at the end, often together with C2, the canticles, and the
Lord’s Prayer, which reflects the practice of the daily office.14

 Cf. Haring, ‘Two Redactions’, 1974, p. 40.

 Jungmann 1951, vol. I, p. 471; cf. Jungmann 1962, vol. I, p. 602. Cf. also above ch. 11.2.
 Kelly 1964, p. 42.
 Cf. cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1152 (Psalter of Charles the Bald; 842–869), ff.
167r–v; cf. also FaFo II, p. 352.
 Cf., e.g., the Dagulf Psalter (Aachen, 783–795; cf. FaFo § 299), ff. 156v–157r (T), 157r–158v (Ath)
and the Utrecht Psalter (Abbey of Hautvillers, 816–835 or 850; cf. § 288), ff. 90r–v (T; symbolum
apostolorum), 90v–91r (Ath).
 Cf., e.g., cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 13159 (Paris Psalter; Rhine/Meuse?, 795–800),
ff. 161v–163r.
 Cf. also Mearns 1914, pp. 5, 21–4, 53, 55, 66, 70, 78, 81; Leroquais 1940, p. LV; Hughes 1982(2004),
pp. 76, 234, 236; Christopher P. Evans in CChr.CM 226, p. 101 n. 1; Gneuss/Lapidge 2014, p. 937.
There are also bilingual psalters that contain T, C2, and/or Ath in both Latin and Greek; cf. FaFo
§ 433 and further examples in Mearns 1914, pp. 19 f., 23 f. From his list, I have inspected:
– Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arsenal 8407 (written in Liège by Sedulius Scottus, c. 850), ff.
63v–64r: C2 in Latin and Greek on facing pages; cf. URL <http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/
ark:/12148/cc87359n> (23/11/2023).
– Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Ham. 552 (Milan, S. Ambrogio, s. IX/2), f. 191v: Latin C2 with in-
terlinear Greek in transliteration; cf. URL <https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkan
sicht/?PPN=PPN736607951> (23/11/2023).
– Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 81 (s. XII), f. 163r–v: Ath (Fides catholica) in two
columns in Latin and Greek (incomplete); cf. URL <https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.81>
(23/11/2023).
The practice of chanting Ath as part of the office is described in the sources quoted by Christo-
pher P. Evans in CChr.CM 226, p. 101 n. 3.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 573

By and large, clergy were expected to know T, C2, and Ath in Latin and to
instruct their flocks accordingly.15 However, as in earlier times16 the reality was
very often different: Ratherius of Verona (887–974, bishop of Verona 931–934,
946–948, 961–968; bishop of Liège 953–955/956) found to his dismay that most of
his clergy ‘did not even know that creed which is thought to stem from the apos-
tles’17 and, in a synodical letter addressed to his priests in 966, prescribed knowl-
edge of T, which they could find in the psalters, C2, which was sung in mass, and
Ath. He announced that they would soon be called up to give proof of their knowl-
edge.18 Similar episcopal and synodal admonitions were regularly repeated in
successive centuries.

T was the standard version of the western (Roman) creed in the high middle ages
throughout Europe as attested to by numerous sermons and expositions that
were mostly used in baptismal catechesis or to instruct priests with regard to
such catechesis.19 Such catechetical instructions were later expanded to cover
other parts of the liturgy like the Lord’s Prayer or the Ave Maria, forming the

 Cf., e.g., Hincmar of Reims, First Capitulary (852) 1 (he only mentions an expositio symboli, without
specifying which creed he refers to, and Ath). In the apparatus to the edition in MGH.CE 2, pp. 34 f.
numerous other testimonies are listed which need not be repeated here. Cf. also McKitterick 1977,
p. 63; Longère 1991; Reeves 2010; Mériaux 2016; Van Rhijn 2022, pp. 122–6; and above p. 470 n. 36.
 Cf. above pp. 533 f.
 Ratherius, Epistula 26 (MGH.B 1, p. 145, ll. 5 f.).
 Cf. Ratherius, Epistula 25 (MGH.B 1, p. 125, ll. 5–18), cf. id., Epistula 26 (MGH.B 1, p. 145, ll.
4–21). Cf. also above p. 45 and n. 188.
 Cf. the expositions mentioned in what follows. In addition there are:
– Pseudo-Alcuin, De diuinis officiis 41 (c. 900; cf. FaFo § 342).
– John of Fécamp (d. 1078), Confessio fidei (c. 1050; PL 101, cols. 1027–98 (under the name of
Alcuin); cf. Leclercq/Bonnes 1946, pp. 41–4).
– Peter Abelard (d. 1142), Expositio symboli quod dicitur apostolorum (PL 178, cols. 617–30).
This exposition is also sometimes attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux.
– Hugh of Amiens (Hughe de Boves; archbishop of Rouen 1130–1164), De fide catholica et ora-
tione dominica (1155–1159; PL 192, cols. 1323–46): a treatise addressed to his nephew, Arch-
deacon Egidius (Giles), later (1170–1179) bishop of Évreux. In cod. Geneva, Bibliothèque de
Genève, Ms. lat. 41 (1150–1175) the treatise is divided into two. The first part on the creed
ends at col. 1328B (‘et potest, et habet’). Cf. URL <https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/searchre
sult/list/one/bge/lat0041> (23/11/2023). In addition, Van den Eynde 1953, pp. 80–2.
– Theobaldus Brito, Canon of Tours, Abbreuiati symboli apostolorum expositio (s. XIII; ed. Cas-
pari 1883, pp. 292–300), which is full of literary allusions also to pagan authors like Horace,
Ovid, and Lucan.
– Anonymous pupil of Alan of Lille, Tractatus magistri Alani: quid sit fides, et quid articulus
fidei, et quid coarticulus, et quot sint articuli (ed. Raynaud de Lage 1943–1945): this treatise is
574 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

basis for the catechisms of the late middle ages.20 However, not every priest had
access to such explanations; sometimes glosses written on the margin of the folio
which contained the creed had to do.21 We also possess medieval credal interrog-
ations that are based on T such as the influential Disputatio puerorum which was
attributed to both Alcuin and Bruno of Würzburg (d. 1045).22
By and large, only minor variants occur in the text of T, such as inferna/in-
feros, differences in the use of et, or a missing est or final Amen. Yet sometimes it
was treated with a degree of laxity even by eminent theologians. Thus, for exam-

strongly influenced by Alan and may be a work of one of his students; cf. d’Alverny 1965,
pp. 69 f.
– Raimundus Martini (1220–1285), Explanatio symboli apostolorum ad institutionem fidelium
(ed. March 1908; cf. FaFo § 423), a lengthy exposition containing strong anti-Jewish polemic,
which also shows signs of the struggle with Islam.
– Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), De articulis fidei et ecclesiae sacramentis (ed. Verardo 1954,
pp. 141–51; written in 1261–1270).
– (Pseudo-)Thomas Aquinas, In symbolum apostolorum scilicet ‘Credo in Deum’ expositio (ed.
Spiazzi/Calcaterra 1954, pp. 193–217). This work, which also survives under other titles (Deuo-
tissima expositio super Symbolum apostolorum or Collationes de Credo in Deum), goes back
to a report of homilies which may have been delivered by Aquinas in Naples during Lent
1273. Cf. Torrell 1996, p. 358.
– Anonymous, Tractatus super simbolo, in cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 3640 (s. XIV),
ff. 131r–v; cf. URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9067642j/f2.item> (23/11/2023).
– Richard Rolle (d. 1349), Symboli apostolici clarissima et admodum catholica enarratio, in
Rolle 1535, ff. 31r–41v: here the individual clauses are attributed to the apostles according to
the sequence type IV (above p. 197).
– Catechismus Romanus of 1566 (cf. FaFo § 345).
I have not seen the unedited commentary on T contained in cod. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbiblio-
thek, Clm 16086 (s. XII/XIII); cf. Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I, p. 233 n. 22; Kattenbusch 1900,
p. 764 n. 7. – There are many more such expositions from the late middle ages including by Al-
bert of Diessen (‘Teuto’, s. XIV/2), Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397), Johannes Marienwerder (1343–
1417), Henry of Hesse (d. 1427), Nikolaus of Dinkelsbühl (d. 1433), Johannes Geuss (d. 1440), Nicho-
las of Graz (d. 1441), Narcissus Herz of Berching (d. 1442), Thomas Ebendorfer (d. 1464), and
others that are partly unedited. Cf. Wiegand 1904, pp. 35–48. They increasingly formed part of
catechisms (cf. below p. 589 n. 129). For the use of the creed in anti-heretical polemics cf. the un-
edited example in Wiegand 1904, pp. 24 f. The Credo of Jean de Joinville (d. 1317), which is a
French commentary on T, is found in Friedman 1958 with extensive commentary (cf. also below
p. 596). As regards late medieval works in French for lay people cf., e.g., Hasenohr 1994. Further
works are found in RBMA; cf. URL <https://repbib.uni-trier.de/cgi-bin/rebihome.tcl> (23/11/2023).
 Cf., e.g., the unedited examples by a pupil of William de Leicester (d. 1213) and by John of
Waldby (d. 1372) mentioned in Wiegand 1904, pp. 26–7. In addition, Wiegand 1904, pp. 32–5.
 Cf. above p. 533 and n. 42.
 Cf. FaFo § 527 (new edition by Rabin/Felsen 2017). Cf. also §§ 763–765.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 575

ple, Ivo of Chartres (sedit 1090–1115) fails to mention the phrase descensus ad in-
feros in his Sermo 23.23 The same is true for Martin of Leon (d. 1203) who depends
on Ivo. In addition, he omits the ascension.24 Similarly, Jocelin of Soissons (sedit
1126–1152), opponent of Peter Abelard, omits crucifixus, the third day, and the
final Amen in his Expositio in symbolum, in the initial list of the twelve sententiae
which make up the creed, yet comments on all these clauses in his commentary
proper.25 Simon of Tournai (d. 1201) failed to mention omnipotentis after sedet ad
dexteram dei patrem.26 By contrast, the Catechismus Romanus of 1566 reads credo
sanctam ecclesiam (FaFo § 345) – a significant addition given what has been said
above!27 Honorius Augustodunensis (of Autun? origin uncertain; s. XII/1) included
an extended T followed by a brief catechesis in his Speculum ecclesiae. His chris-
tological section begins: ‘Et credo in suum unigenitum Filium.’28 In some cases
such omissions may, of course, also be due to scribal error.
As we saw before, T developed in Gaul and then came to be widely employed
across the Frankish Empire.29 From there it seems to have migrated to the place
of origin of its ancestor R: Rome. It looks, as if the earlier practice of reciting R/T
instead of C2 at baptism had persisted in Francia and may then have ousted C2 at
baptism in Rome again.30 With the Ottonian emperors Frankish influence may
have extended to Rome. So, perhaps, that version of R most widely used in the
Frankish Empire (i.e. T) came to be adopted there, too, in the tenth or eleventh
century as part of ‘a drastic Gallicanization of the Roman rite’.31

 Cf. PL 162, cols. 604–7. He only says in col. 606B that Christ’s ‘soul triumphed over the under-
world’ (anima illa de inferis triumphauit).
 Cf. Martin of Leon, Sermo 34 (In festiuitate sanctae trinitatis; PL 208, cols. 1269–1350), a very
long homily which can hardly have been delivered on a single occasion; it also comments upon
the clauses of T (cols. 1326B–1329A).
 Cf. Jocelin, Expositio in symbolum (PL 186, cols. 1479–88).
 Simon, Expositio super symbolum (ed. Haring, ‘Two Redactions’, 1974); preserved in two re-
censions. Omnipotentis is only missing in the first recension.
 Cf. above pp. 174 f.
 Honorius Augustodunensis, Speculum ecclesiae (PL 172, cols. 823 f.; cf. Hahn/Hahn 1897, § 107).
On an unedited explanation by the same author cf. Wiegand 1904, pp. 21 f.
 Cf. above chs. 5.2 and 5.3 and the list of witnesses in FaFo § 344. For what follows cf. also Kelly
1972, pp. 426–34.
 Cf. above pp. 408 f. The cod. Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio-Emanuele, 2096 (Sessorianus
52; Nonantola?, s. XI ex.), discussed by Kelly 1972, pp. 428–30, is one of these witnesses.
 Kelly 1972, p. 433.
576 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

In liturgical terms little changed until the eleventh century when renewed reflec-
tion about the order and nature of mass also extended to the creed’s role in wor-
ship.32 This may, in part, have been sparked by the introduction of C2 in the
celebration of mass in Rome at that time.33
The front flyleaf of cod. Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie, 213 (320; s. IX) shows
an eleventh-century list of all feasts during which the creed was chanted in
mass.34 These include Christmas, Epiphany, Presentation of Jesus (ypapanti [ = ὑπα-
παντή] domini), Annunciation, Easter, Pentecost, feasts of Saints Peter and Paul,
Assumption of Mary, Nativity of Mary, All Saints, the Dedication Festival, as well
as every Sunday.
John of Avranches (bishop of Avranches 1060–1067; archbishop of Rouen
1067–1079) says that the priest should begin intoning C2 (a sacerdote inceptum)
every Sunday, during the octaves of Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas, on Epiph-
any, and Ascension, and on all Marian feast days except Annunciation, on the Na-
tivity of John the Baptist, on the feasts of all the apostles, that of the Holy Cross, St
Michael, All Saints, and on the Dedication Festival. C2 is not sung on Holy Satur-
day, on the Saturday before Pentecost, or any other festivals.35
In 1086–1090 Bernold of Constance (d. 1100) wrote a treatise about the liturgy
entitled Micrologus de ecclesiasticis obseruationibus.36 In it he states that ‘accord-
ing to the canons’ (iuxta canones) the Credo in unum (i.e. C2) was to be sung ‘on all
Sundays and all feasts of the Lord, likewise on the feasts of Holy Mary, the apos-
tles, the Holy Cross, All Saints, and the Dedication’, because they are mentioned in
the creed.37 No such canons survive.
Rupert of Deutz (d. 1129) called the creed (which he did not clearly identify) a
fidei tripudium (‘celebration of faith’), to be sung on Sundays and similarly solemn
feast days by the choir after the gospel reading, during which a subdeacon car-
ried the book containing the gospel to be kissed by the faithful.38

 For what follows cf. also Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 78–81.

 Cf. above pp. 514 f.
 Scan: URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84489883/f1.item> (23/11/2023).
 Cf. John of Avranches, De officiis ecclesiasticis (Delamare 1923, p. 17).
 Cf. URL <https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/werk/630>; <https://www.mirabileweb.it/title/mi
crologus-de-ecclesiasticis-observationibus-berno-title/668> (23/11/2023).
 Bernold, Micrologus de ecclesiasticis obseruationibus 46 (PL 151, col. 1011D). Cf. Capelle 1951
(1967), p. 78–81; Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 315; Grohe 2015, p. 38.
 Rupert, De diuinis officiis 2,1. He also mentions Easter and Pentecost as occasions for the Red-
ditio. Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma animae 3,119 also says that the gospel book is to be
kissed during the recitation of the creed. His list of feasts is identical with that of Bernold. Cardi-
nal Bernard of Porto (d. 1176) wrote an Ordo officiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis (c. 1153) which re-
flects Roman practice; the following feasts on which C2 is to be sung are mentioned: every
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 577

Pope Innocent III (sedit 1198–1216) wrote an explanation of the church and of
mass when he was still a cardinal (Mysteriorum euangelicae legis et sacramenti eu-
charistiae libri VI, 1195–97). In traditional fashion Innocent divides T into twelve par-
ticulae. However, he fails to indicate when and where it was recited. T is followed by
C2 which is used in mass and which in the future pope’s view was also made up of
twelve clausulae (2,50).39 Innocent erroneously claims that Pope Damasus had de-
creed that the symbolum (he obviously refers to C2) be chanted in mass, based on a
decision by the Council of Constantinople (2,49).40 Furthermore, he also offers a long
list of feasts at which the catholic faith is to be confessed ‘in solemn celebration’ (sol-
emni tripudio), viz. at those feasts that (in his view) were mentioned in the creed:
every Sunday, Christmas, Epiphany, Maundy Thursday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost,
all Marian feast days, and all feasts of the Cross, the angels, and the apostles, the
Dedication Festival, and All Saints. In addition, it was to be chanted during the oc-
taves of Christmas (except on the Feast of the Holy Innocents), Epiphany, Easter, As-
cension, Pentecost, of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, and of the Assumption of
Mary. Special regulations applied to the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist, of St
Laurentius, and of St Agnes. Innocent had to admit that it was not in all cases obvi-
ous if a given feast was mentioned in the creed and offered detailed justificatory ex-
planations for his choices. He also conceded that, in the view of some, the feasts of
the angels were to be excluded because the angels had no need of faith, possessing,
as they did, a full vision of God. Likewise, he mentions that some chanted the creed
every day between Easter Sunday and Ascension, and also at the Feast of St Mary
Magdalene. Good Friday and Easter Saturday were specifically excluded because the
liturgy was different on these occasions anyhow, although the passion and crucifix-
ion were mentioned in the creed (2,51). If the pope himself celebrated mass, the
creed was to be chanted not by the choir but by the subdeacons at the altar (2,52).
Since T is no longer mentioned, it seems that it was not used as part of mass.
Similar precepts with regard to the feasts at which C2 was to be chanted are also
found in other liturgical handbooks of the period, albeit with some modifications.41

Sunday, all Feasts of the Lord, of Holy Mary, of St Michael, and of all the apostles, also on All
Saints, and the Festival of the Dedication. Cf. Bernard, Ordo officiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis 65
(Fischer 1916, p. 24, ll. 24–8). Throughout his work Bernard gives detailed instructions as to when
T and C2 are to be sung (or omitted).
 In the 1575 edition of Innocent’s works published by Cholinus at Cologne the names of the
apostles were added to both creeds in the margins. Cf. Innocent 1575, pp. 354–5 and Kattenbusch
1900, p. 868.
 Similarly, Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma animae 1,78. This may be a confused reminis-
cence of John of Biclaro, Chronicon 2 (FaFo § 689) for which cf. above p. 510.
 In his largely unpublished Expositio super symbolum apostolicum et Nicenum, Alan of Lille (d.
1203) mentions (d’Alverny 1965, pp. 84 f.) that T is recited quietly (submissa uoce) in church
578 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

Like Bernold and Innocent, Jean Beleth (fl. 1135–1182), who supposedly taught in
Paris, holds that the creed was to be chanted at those feasts directly mentioned in
the creed. His list is shorter than that of the pope as he omits Maundy Thursday, the
feasts of the angels, and the Dedication Festival. Instead he adds the Feasts of the
Trinity, Circumcision, and the Transfiguration of the Lord.42 His list was repeated by
Sicard of Cremona (sedit 1185–1215) although he added the Dedication Festival back
in. In his church the creed was sung by the clergy, after the gospel reading by the
deacon and the sermon by the bishop, with the voices of that clergy taking the place
of that of the lay people.43 Both authors note, however, that there was considerable
discussion whether further feasts should not be added. Jean then goes on to enu-
merate four creeds, i.e. T (which should be said by everyone in daily prayer), Ath
(which Athanasius, erroneously equated by most (!) with Anastasius, wrote against
the Arians44), C2 (which is sung during mass), and N (whose authorship he seems to
ascribe to Hilary of Poitiers45).46 Like Innocent Sicard adds that Damasus instructed
C2 to be sung during mass and mentions that when the words et homo factus est
were spoken knees were bent.47 The recitation of the creed concluded in both Jean
and Sicard with the congregation making the sign of the cross.
The allegorical explanation of the creed’s place in mass given by William Du-
rand the Elder (bishop of Mende 1286–1296) largely depends on older interpreta-
tions.48 At some point he seems to place the creed between the gospel reading
and the sermon (4,26,1); yet he adds a little later: ‘Nonetheless, in general (commu-

whereas C2 ‘which is equivalent (equipollet) to the Apostles’ Creed’ is chanted ‘in a loud and joy-
ous voice (eleuata uoce et celebriter)’ ‘on the feasts of the apostles, of the blessed Virgin, and of
others who were present at the publication of the Apostles’ Creed’ (such as Mary Magdalene,
mentioned before). It is omitted on the feasts of the angels who did not need to have faith be-
cause they possessed knowledge (scientia) instead. This is precisely the position rejected by Inno-
cent (cf. above in the main text). Likewise, Thomas Aquinas says (Summa theologiae III q83 a4c)
that C2 should be chanted on the feasts mentioned in the creed: the feasts of Christ and of the
blessed Virgin, of the apostles and on similar (unspecified) occasions.
 Cf. Jean Beleth, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis 40.
 Cf. Sicard of Cremona, Mitralis de officiis 3,4.
 For the erroneous identification of the author as Pope Anastasius II (sedit 496–498) cf. Haring
1972, p. 208 and n. 1.
 Jean probably refers to Hilary, De synodis 84 (FaFo 135d3); cf. Haring, ‘Two Redactions’, 1974,
p. 40 n. 7.
 Cf. Jean Beleth, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis 40. Likewise, Honorius Augustodunensis distin-
guishes four creeds: T (Credo in deum), N (Credo in deum patrem), C2 (Credo in unum – this is
chanted at mass), and Ath (Quicunque uult). Ath was written by Athanasius ‘at the behest of the
Emperor Theodosius’ and is recited at prime (id., Gemma animae 2,59).
 Similarly, a liturgical manuscript from Florence quoted in Thompson 2005, p. 251.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25–26.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 579

niter tamen) the creed is chanted after the sermon, because the Church professes
that it holds the faith preached.’49 He says that C2 was to be said out aloud during
mass so that it could be memorized by everyone, except for prime and compline
where it should be recited silently.50 The priest should begin chanting while
standing right in front of the altar with outstretched hands first raised up high,
then joining them together once he has begun. The congregation listens and
makes the sign of the cross when the priest has ended his chant.51
Durand then goes on to enumerate the creeds: first, he calls T the ‘minor creed’
(symbolum minus). By order of Pope Damasus, he says, this is silently said on feast
days during each office.52 He goes on to quote T, ascribing each article to an apos-
tle.53 Amen is missing.54 Second, he mentions Ath which was written by Athanasius
when in Trier,55 followed, third, by the ‘major creed’ (symbolum maius), the ‘Nicene’
one, which Pope Damasus instructed to be sung as part of mass, on the basis of the
decrees of the Council of Constantinople, although Pope Marcus I is also said to
have decreed that it be chanted aloud (alta uoce cantari; Marcus must be the pope
who reigned for only a brief period in 336).56 The practice of chanting the creed
had come to Rome from the Greeks. Like Innocent, Durand divides C2 into twelve
clauses (clausulae) and, like Sicard, references the practice of genuflecting at the
phrase et homo factus est.57 He claims that the words secundum scripturas and the
filioque had not been contained in N and C2 (which he does not clearly distinguish
from each other). At the end of the creed (in fine ipsius symboli) the Greeks had
expressly forbidden sub anathemate to alter the creed which is why they consider
the Roman church anathematized. But they err, because they do not acknowledge
the superiority of the Roman church over the councils. Durand points out that se-
cundum scripturas had been added at Constantinople, gives theological reasons for
the addition of filioque, and refers to the Second Council of Lyons 1274.58 The creed is
to be chanted at the feasts of the twelve apostles and at the same feasts that Innocent

 William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,26,1. Cf. also Morard 2008, pp. 110–11; Lang
2022, p. 304.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,1–2.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,3–4.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,5.
 For the sequence (IIb) cf. above p. 196.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,7 (FaFo § 424).
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,8.
 Cf. also Radulph of Rivo (d. 1403), De canonum obseruantia liber, propositio 23 (Mohlberg 1911/
1915, vol. II, p. 141).
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,9–10.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,11–12.
580 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

had mentioned as well as the Feasts of the Trinity and of the Transfiguration of the
Lord.59 Durand gives the same instructions as to how the creed is to be chanted as
Innocent does.60 This is followed by an explanation of the individual clauses of T.61
Johann Burchard (d. 1506) gives an even longer lists of feast days on which C2
is to be recited.62 He strongly influenced the Roman Missal of 1570 by Pope Pius V
(sedit 1566–1572).63

We have some commentaries on Ath,64 whereas western expositions of C2 are

much rarer. A long treatise ascribed to Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) appears to be as
yet unedited.65 A very interesting, but hitherto only partly edited Expositio super
symbolum apostolicum et Nicenum stems from the pen of Alan of Lille (d. 1203).66
Alan compares T and C2 in order to demonstrate their fundamental agreement.
According to him, they are similar in structure as they both contain twelve ‘parts of
the Christian faith’ (partes fidei christiane) or ‘articles’ (articuli), though C2 is more
explicit than T and is also directed against the heretics wherefore Alan chooses it to
serve as the basis for his detailed exposition.
Alan’s mention of the partes or articuli fidei points to a debate which had arisen
in the middle of the twelfth century. The creed’s twelve individual ‘articles’ were
widely discussed by canonists and theologians with regard to both their nature and
hierarchy. In particular, it was asked how the individual articles were to be distrib-
uted among the apostles, whether their content was adequately phrased, whether it
was in fact necessary for an individual’s salvation to believe in every single article,

 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,13.

 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,14.
 Cf. William Durand, Rationale diuinorum officiorum 4,25,15–30.
 Cf. Johann, Ordo Missae, in Legg 1904, p. 148.
 Cf. Missale Romanum 1570, f. b2 and Capelle 1951(1967), p. 80.
 For earlier commentaries cf. above p. 526 and n. 17. Further commentaries (often anonymous)
are listed in Burn 1896, pp. 43–5; Haring 1972 (cf. also the additions in Haring, ‘Poem’, 1974,
pp. 225–9). For Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179), Explanatio symboli Sancti Athanasii (Burn 1896,
p. 44 no. 15; Haring 1972, p. 239 no, 4) cf. the edition by Christopher P. Evans in CChr.CM 226,
pp. 99–133 (tr. Izbicki 2001). Simon of Tournai (d. 1201), Expositio symboli (Burn 1896, p. 44 no. 18;
Haring 1972, pp. 240 f. no. 7) has been edited in Haring 1976. A poem about Ath was probably
written by Alan of Lille (d. 1203; ed. Haring, ‘Poem’, 1974).
 Cf. (Pseudo-)Albertus Magnus, Expositio symboli, in cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 974
(s. XIV), pp. 558–615; cf. Caspari 1866–1875(1964), vol. I, p. 233 n. 22 (he claims that this is an expo-
sition of N); Scherrer 1875, p. 369; Kattenbusch 1900, p. 764 n. 7, 868 n. 119. Further manu-
script: Kühne/Tönnies/Haucap 1993, p. 89: cod. Osnabrück, Gymnasium Carolinum, Hs. 2 (Abbey
of Iburg, s. XII/XIII), ff. 2r–138v. In addition, RBMA, no. 1049 (and suppl.).
 Cf. d’Alverny 1965, pp. 79–85.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 581

and, conversely and even more importantly, why certain dogmas such as the tran-
substantiation were not mentioned at all. This discussion, which has repeatedly at-
tracted the attention of modern scholars,67 was partly caused by the fact that the
creeds used in worship did not cover altogether identical ground. The debate also
deeply influenced the way in which theological subject matter was structured in aca-
demic teaching. As a result, discussion of the creed and its contents also came to be
included in commentaries on the Sentences (beginning with Peter Lombard him-
self68) and the Summas such as that of Alexander of Hales (d. 1245)69 or of Thomas
Aquinas (d. 1274).70 Thus the gap between what ordinary people were expected to
believe and what was debated in academia widened ever further as can be seen
from Lombard’s section entitled ‘On the faith of the simple-minded’ (De fide simpli-
cium).71 He thought that the simple-minded should believe the entire content of the
creed, even if they did not understand it, and he compared them (and the simple-
minded of the times before the coming of Christ) to the donkeys feeding beside the
oxen in Job 1:14 (which represented the patriarchs and, at least by implication,
teachers of theology like Lombard himself).

As regards the use of the creed in the life of the Church outside worship, there were
attempts to popularize it by way of poems. For example, T formed part of a didactic
poem entitled Liber Floretus, erroneously attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux, which
was very popular in the late middle ages because it was used in schools.72 A similar
poem is contained in cod. Wiesbaden, Hessische Landesbibliothek, 35 (s. XV), f. 52r
(FaFo § 426).73 It probably served the same purpose as the Liber Floretus. We also
have other credal poems.74
The creed could also be included in religious plays. A German play which
was performed in Innsbruck on Corpus Christi 1391 (or in the following week)

 Cf. Wiegand 1904, pp. 35–40; Hödl 1962; Becker 1973 citing on pp. 517–19 earlier literature;
Evans 1979; Gössmann 1985; Longère 1991, esp. pp. 319–29; Frank 2017, pp. 112–33. For the early
modern period Joest 1983.
 Cf. Peter, Sententiae 3,25. Cf. also, e.g., Bonaventura, Commentaria in quattuor libros sententia-
rum III, dist. XXV, art. 1, quaest. 1 (cf. FaFo § 422).
 Cf. Alexander, Summa theologica III,3, inq. 2, tract. 2, q. 2.
 Cf. Thomas, Summa theologiae II-II q1, esp. a9 and a10. Thomas discussed this problem repeat-
edly; cf. above p. 574 n. 19, 578 n. 41.
 Peter Lombard, Sententiae 3,25,2.
 Cf. Bernard, Liber Floretus, ll. 29–37 (FaFo § 425).
 A variation of this poem is found in cod. Cologne, Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln, GB 80 96
(s. XV in.), f. 147v. Scan available at URL <https://historischesarchivkoeln.de/> (29/11/2023).
 Cf. FaFo, vol. II, p. 405.
582 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

contained an introduction in which the apostles entered the scene, following

Adam and Eve. Each apostle was preceded by a prophet who briefly announced
what his successor would explain at greater length.75 The communio sanctorum
was, in accordance with the feast’s purpose, given a eucharistic interpretation as
the partaking of Christ’s body ‘without which no one can be saved neither in
heaven nor on earth’.76 A similar creed play, which is lost, was performed at York
every tenth year at Lammastide (Lammas = 1 August).77 We have already encoun-
tered this technique of pairing prophets and apostles when we discussed the leg-
end of T.78 Its representation in medieval art, which we will discuss in the next
chapter, may well have influenced the authors of these plays and, conversely,
may also have served to illustrate what was happening on stage.79
Other evidence suggests that credal questions were used as an introduction
to penance. A fairly brief version of such questions occurs in the manual De diui-

 The play is contained in cod. Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, 960 (written in 1391), ff.
50v–59r. Scan URL <https://diglib.uibk.ac.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:5-815> (23/11/2023). The text is edited
in Mone 1841, pp. 145–64. Cf. Woolf 1972, p. 72; Tydeman 1978, p. 101; Neumann 1982; URL <https://
www.handschriftencensus.de/2318> (23/11/2023). The pairs that can be reconstructed from the
Innsbruck play are as follows (Old Testament verses sometimes tentative):
Jeremiah 3:19 – Peter: Credo in deum, patrem omnipotentem, creatorem caeli et terrae.
David: Ps 2:7– Andrew: Et in Iesum Christum, filium eius unicum, dominum nostrum.
Isaiah 7:14 – James: Qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine.
Daniel: Is 53:7 – John: Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus.
Hosea 13:14 – Thomas: Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
Amos 9:6 – James: Ascendit ad caelos; sedet ad dexteram dei, patris omnipotentis.
Joel 3:8 – Philip: Inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos.
Haggai: Joel 2:28 – Bartholomew: Credo in spiritum sanctum.
Zephaniah 3:20 – Matthew: Sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem.
Malachi: Mic 7:19 – Simon: Remissionem peccatorum.
Zechariah: Ezek 37:12 – Jude: Carnis resurrectionem.
Obadiah 21 – Mathias: Et uitam aeternam.
The sequence of the apostles follows type IIIa (cf. above p. 196). Most prophets also sing a Latin
antiphon before their speech. As regards these pairs cf. FaFo § 428 and above p. 199.
 Mone 1841, p. 156: ‘[. . .] ich gloube ouch in dye meynschaft der heilgen, // alzo wil ich uch daz
bezeygen, // ich meyn den fronlichnam, // den got mit willen an sich nam // von Maria der reynen
mayt, // alz Yzaias hat gesayt [cf. Is 7:14]; // an en mag nymant selig werden // wedir in hymmel
noch uf der erden.’ Cf. also above pp. 180 f.
 Cf. Anderson 1963, p. 38; Woolf 1972, pp. 59–61; Tydeman 1978, pp. 116 f., 207, 241. In addition,
cf. Woolf 1972, pp. 156 f.
 Cf. above ch. 5.4.
 Cf. below pp. 592–5.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 583

nis officiis, ascribed to Alcuin, but probably dating to around 900.80 A longer, but
closely related version survives in the Ordo ad penitentiam agendam et confessio-
nem faciendam as part of an interpolated Rule of Chrodegang (compiled in Eng-
land in c. 900–920), contained in cod. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Ms. 191
(Exeter, 1050–1075), p. 59.81 Here the following interrogation can be found:

Servant of God, do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth? I
believe.
Again: Do you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? I believe.
Again: Do you believe that these three persons whom we named [or: as we said, quomodo
diximus], Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three persons and one God? I believe.
Again: Do you believe that you will receive in this same flesh in which you now exist [accord-
ing to] what you have done and what you will do, either good or ill [cf. 2Cor 5:10]? I believe.
Again: Do you believe that there is a resurrection and life after death? I believe.
Again: Do you wish to forgive all those how have sinned against you all evil deeds in order
that God will forgive you all sins, as the same Lord says in the Gospel: ‘If you forgive others
their sins, your sins are forgiven’ [cf. Mt 6:14]? I wish.82

The Latin is accompanied by a translation into Old English.83 Other handbooks

for priests contain introductions detailing for what purpose such interrogations
were to be conducted.84 Similar questions and liturgical instructions regarding
the creed are also included in orders for the visitation of the sick.85
In addition, the practice of bishops and archbishops publishing personal
creeds, typical of the English church, continued into the mid-tenth century.86
Finally, creeds continued to be used as incantations in medicine and magic.87
As such they did not necessarily have to be translated into the vernacular, since a
magical formula did not have to be comprehensible to be effective.
✶

 Cf. Pseudo-Alcuin, De diuinis officiis 13 (FaFo § 761b). The same interrogation is found with
minor variants in the Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense (s. X; ed. Delen et al. 2002, p. 356 (ll. 37–42))
and in numerous other sources; cf. Meens 1994, pp. 206 f. and Delen et al. 2002, p. 346 n. 24.
 Cf. description and scan: URL <https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/rs890dd0432> (23/11/
2023). As regards this version of the Rule cf. Bertram 2005, pp. 175–83.
 Pseudo-Chrodegang, Regula Longior Canonicorum seu Regula S. Chrodegangi Interpolata 32.
My translation from the manuscript. Cf. also Napier 1916, p. 39, ll. 1–12; PL 89, col. 1072B–D; Ber-
tram 2005, p. 202. An English translation was made in c. 1000 (cf. Bertram 2005, pp. 178 f).
 Cf. (Pseudo-)Chrodegang of Metz, Regula canonicorum 30 (Napier 1916, p. 40, ll. 11–24). Cf. also
Wulfstan’s English Handbook for the Use of a Confessor below p. 586.
 Cf. Schmitz 1898, pp. 57 f., 405, 430, 680; McNeill/Gamer 1938(1990), pp. 281, 315 f., 324; Frantzen
1983, pp. 165–7 and below p. 585.
 Cf. Dinkler-von Schubert 1964, pp. 77–81.
 Cf. FaFo §§ 477–480 and 482; in addition, Wilcox 2014, pp. 330–5.
 Cf. above ch. 15.
584 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

However, in catechesis this was a different matter.88 As C2 was not used for this
purpose, we do not find many vernacular versions of this creed in the western
Church as opposed to the oriental churches where N, C2, and related creeds were
widely translated.89 The first evidence that T was memorized in the vernacular
stems from the first half of the eighth century. Bede writes that he had translated
the creed and Lord’s Prayer into the lingua Anglorum for priests who did not
speak Latin.90 The Second Synod of Clofesho (747) decreed that those priests

who are [as yet] ignorant should learn to interpret and set out in their own tongue (propria
lingua) the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and also the most-sacred words that are solemnly re-
cited during the celebration of the mass and the office of baptism.91

In England as elsewhere the believers were expected to know both texts by heart
and were threatened with excommunication if they did not.92 The Capitulary of
Haito of Basel (sedit c. 806–813) demanded that everyone know the Lord’s Prayer
and T by heart in both Latin and the vernacular (barbarice).93 The bishops of the
Synod of Mainz in 813 were sufficiently realistic to assume that the Lord’s Prayer
and the creed would be learned in the vernacular, even if Latin was preferable.94
Later bishops left the problem which version of the creed (Latin or vernacular)
was to be memorized to the baptizand’s parents or sponsors. As Jocelin of Sois-
sons (sedit 1126–1152) put it:

It does not matter in which language the creed is being taught or learned, as long as [the
baptized children when they have reached an appropriate age] firmly believe it.95

The first examples of the creed in Old High German date from the Carolingian
period. A German translation of T (together with the Lord’s Prayer) which dis-
plays some peculiarities is found in a codex from St. Gallen from the late eighth
century; its context is unclear (FaFo § 300). By contrast the so-called Weissenburg
Catechism (s. IX/1) which contains T and Ath in German primarily served to in-

 For what follows, cf. also Kinzig, ‘Formation des Glaubens’, 2019(2022), pp. 259–61.
 Cf. above ch. 9.
 Cf. Bede, Epistula ad Egbertum 5 (FaFo § 584). In addition, Angenendt 1987, pp. 292 f.; Blair
2005, pp. 109, 161.
 Synod of Clofesho (747), canon 10 (FaFo § 587b).
 Cf. Jolly 1996, p. 69; Raw 1997, pp. 29 f.; Wilcox 2014, pp. 318 f.
 Cf. Haito of Basel, Capitulary, ch. 2 (FaFo § 747a) and Diesenberger 2016, p. 176.
 Cf. Synod of Mainz (813), canon 45 (FaFo § 754). In addition, Geuenich 1983, pp. 120 f.; Diesen-
berger 2016, p. 176.
 Jocelin, Expositio in symbolum 2 (PL 186, col. 1431A–B).
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 585

struct priests, though it may also have been used for catechetical purposes
(§§ 303, 434c; cf. also § 302).96 Likewise, a number of brief Carolingian baptismal
interrogations survive which show that the baptizands were expected to affirm
their faith in the Trinity at baptism (§§ 766–8, 771).97
We can get an idea of what teaching about the creed may have looked like in
German from the explanation by Notker Labeo (d. 1022), a monk and teacher at
St. Gallen, which is appended to the psalter and the canticles. Each of the Latin
clauses of T is accompanied by a translation and some notes explaining, for exam-
ple, the name of Pontius Pilate or filioque.98 It is followed by a German explana-
tion of the Latin text of Ath.99 A further brief exposition is found in another
version of this German psalter in cod. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,
2681 (the so-called ‘Vienna Notker’; Wessobrunn?, c. 1100), ff. 227r–v.100

Bede’s aforementioned remark notwithstanding, the first formulae of T and Ath

in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) date from the tenth century and are, from that point
onwards, fairly frequently attested, often as part of a psalter, subsequent to the
canticles.101 Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955 – c. 1010) translated the Lord’s Prayer, T
(which he called ‘the minor creed’) and C2 (‘the mass creed’) into English.102 In T
he omitted catholicam. In C2 he read ‘God of God’ (Gode of Gode) before ‘light of
light’ (Leoht of Leohte) and passus est, crucifixus est pro nobis (Pilate’s name is
omitted). ‘The life-giving God’ (ðone Lif-fæstendan God) seems to presuppose deum
uiuificantem. Instead of catholicam we read geleaffullan (‘believing’).103 He also

 Cf. also Haubrichs 1995, p. 238; Masser 2013.

 As regards later creeds cf. Hahn/Hahn 1897, §§ 100–21; Stammler 1960(1978), col. 760; Barbian
1964; Steer 2004; Hellgardt 2013. In addition, Geuenich 1983, p. 121. For Ath cf. also Ommanney
1897, pp. 320–2.
 Cf. Sehrt 1955, pp. 1101 f.//Tax 1983, pp. 565 f. Text also in Hahn/Hahn 1897, § 101. In addition,
Tax 1972, pp. XLIII–XLIV.
 Cf. Sehrt 1955, pp. 1107–17//Tax 1983, pp. 568–75. In addition, Tax 1968; Tax 1972, pp. XLIV–XLV.
 Cf. Hahn/Hahn 1897, § 103 and URL <https://www.handschriftencensus.de/9386> (23/11/2023).
As regards the different versions cf. Glauch 2013, pp. 298 f.
 Cf. the list in Wilcox 2014, pp. 314 f. and the texts in Hahn/Hahn 1897, §§ 78–89. In addition,
Förster 1942/1943. For Ath cf. also Ommanney 1897, pp. 304–20; Holthausen 1942/1943; Gretsch
1999, pp. 273–80, 430 f.
 Cf. Thorpe 1846, pp. 596–9. Cf. also Gatch 1977, p. 52.
 Another version of C2 is found in cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 121, f. VIr (second-
ary gloss, s. XIII; ed. Crawford 1928, p. 5). Cf. also Bethurum 1957, pp. 104–6; Pope 1967, pp. 185–8.
586 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

wrote two consecutive homilies on the Lord’s Prayer and the creed.104 In the sec-
ond homily, which was delivered on a Wednesday in Rogationtide, he offered an
introduction to the creed based on C2 and Ath.105 In the words of Malcolm Godden,
‘no other Anglo-Saxon homily provides any sort of parallel for this detailed discus-
sion of trinitarian doctrine [. . .].’106
Wulfstan (bishop of London 996–1002, of Worcester and York 1002–1016/1023)
told his priests that each lay person was to learn the Lord’s Prayer and the
creed.107 For that purpose he again translated both texts into English in his Hom-
ily VIIa which is appended to a homily on the creed (Homily VII) and in which he
introduced each clause by the words ‘we believe’ (we gelyfað) as well as making
some additions.108 Wulfstan may also be the author of the English Handbook for
the Use of a Confessor.109 This is introduced by a brief Latin Ordo confessionis as-
cribed to Jerome which contains instructions for private confession. Here the pen-
itent is told to recite the creed Credo in unum Deum (hence probably C2) before
confession.110 However, the English text that follows offers a different creed:

Ic gelife on Drihten heahfæder, ealra þinga wealdend, and on þone sunu, and on þone hal-
gan gast; and ic gelife to life æfter deaðe; and ic gelife to arisenne on domes dæge. And eal
þis ic gelife þurh Godes mægen and his miltse to weorðone.

I believe in the Lord, the heavenly Father, ruler of all things; and in the Son; and in the Holy
Ghost; and I believe in life after death; and I believe to arise on doomsday; and all this I
believe to take place through God’s power and mercy.111

Wulfstan also gave extensive explanations of the baptismal rite of his time in his
sermons.112

 Cf. Ælfric, Catholic Homilies I,19–20.

 Edition: Clemoes 1997, pp. 335–44. Commentary: Godden 2000, pp. 159–66. Translation: Thorpe
1844, pp. 275–95. Cf. also Raw 1997, pp. 31–5.
 Godden 2000, p. 159.
 Cf. Wulfstan, Canons of Edgar, canons 17 and 22 (Rabin 2015, pp. 90 f.); cf. Frantzen 1983,
p. 175.
 Ed. Bethurum 1957, pp. 157–65 and 166–8 respectively. Cf. also Raw 1997, pp. 30 f.; Lionarons
2010, pp. 82, 85–92.
 Edited by Fowler 1965. As regards the problem of Wulfstan’s authorship cf. Heyworth 2007.
 Cf. Handbook, ll. 17–19 (Fowler 1965, p. 16).
 Text: Handbook, ll. 27–31 (Fowler 1965, p. 17; emphasis original). Translation: Thorpe 1840,
p. 403.
 Cf. Sermones VIIIa–c (Bethurum 1957, pp. 169–184); in addition, Spinks 2006(2016), pp. 132 f.
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 587

A versified Old English rendition of T (where the verses follow the individual
original Latin articles) is found in cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 121
(s. XI), ff. 46r–47r as part of the Benedictine office.113
Sometimes the Old English text was added as an interlinear gloss to the
creed’s Latin text.114 This practice is continued into the late middle ages, as can be
seen from the Middle English Glossed Prose Psalter (s. XIV) which contains an in-
terlinear translation of Ath.115 As regards the position of the creed in medieval
Anglo-Saxon baptismal rites it may suffice here to refer to the learned account by
Bryan D. Spinks.116
✶

The earliest version of T in (Anglo-Norman) French seems to date from the mid-
twelfth century and is contained in the Eadwin (Canterbury) Psalter (cod. Cam-
bridge, Trinity College, R.17.1 (Canterbury, 1155–1160)), where it is written in be-
tween the lines of the Latin version (FaFo § 432, cf. § 419). French translations of
Ath also emerge at about the same time.117

So far little research has been carried out about the role of the creeds in the medie-
val history of Jewish-Christian relations. The trinitarian doctrine as defined in T
and C2 served to define Christian orthodoxy both over against dissent from within
Christianity, but also over against other religions. In that process, the early Chris-
tian creeds no doubt contributed to widening the gulf between Judaism and Chris-
tianity. Christian dissenters (such as the Arians) who saw monotheism endangered
by this doctrine were often accused of ‘Judaizing’ in intra-Christian polemic. In ad-
dition, specially adapted creeds and credal texts played an important role in con-
verting Jews to Christianity, be it voluntarily or by force. A famous example is the
so-called Placitum of 637 which was signed by the Jewish Christians of Toledo and
which contains a lengthy credal passage.118 The Twelfth Council of Toledo (681) de-
creed in canon 9 that Jews had to set out their new Christian faith in writing. How-
ever, there was great variety: no similar passage is found in the Placitum of 654

 Cf. Dobbie 1942, pp. 78–80; Ure 1957, pp. 87, l. 16 – 88, l. 14 and URL <https://digital.bodleian.
ox.ac.uk/objects/44360db1-f67e-47c3-8136-6515a090d968/> (23/11/2023).
 Cf. Wilcox 2014, p. 314. Cf. also FaFo §§ 430, 432.
 Edition: Black/St-Jacques 2012, vol. I, pp. 102–4.
 Cf. Spinks 2006(2016), pp. 127 f.
 Cf. Ommanney 1897, pp. 322–30 and Black/St-Jacques 2012, vol. II, pp. 179 f. For further
Anglo-Norman literature from the thirteenth century cf. Reeves 2010, pp. 65–71.
 Cf. Placitum (637) 2–3 (FaFo § 494; Kinzig, ‘Die Verpflichtungserklärungen’, 2019(2022), pp. 55–7).
588 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond

which was included in the Visigothic Code (Liber Iudiciorum), thus serving as a
model formula across Spain. Often it sufficed that the new converts confessed their
allegiance to Christ.
Furthermore, there are narratives describing conversions of Jews in which
credal texts were being used. One such example is the account of a spontaneous
conversion after Jews had perceived the healing miracles performed by an image
of Christ in Berytus. This conversion was allegedly accompanied by a ‘spontane-
ous’ recitation of a credal text that forms part of a homily preserved under the
name of Athanasius which was very popular in the middle ages.119
The creeds also figured to a certain extent in Jewish–Christian polemic. They
formed, of course, the backdrop to Jewish–Christian debates on the Trinity.120
However, sometimes we also find explicit quotations. Thus the Niẓẓaḥon Vetus,
an anti-Christian polemic compiled in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth cen-
tury first quotes the creed in Latin, Hebrew, and Yiddish (all in Hebrew transliter-
ation) and then goes on to comment:

Now, one may ask that since they say that they believe in God and in Jesus, it follows that
Jesus is not God. Moreover, they say that he sits at the right hand of God; this indicates that
he himself is not God. Otherwise, they should have said, ‘He who sits on a lofty and exalted
throne’ [Isa. 6:1]; only that would indicate that he himself is divine.121

A Hebrew translation of T in Latin script was contained in a (now lost) codex

from Essen (c. 950?).122 In some cases, these translations were used in mission to
the Jews. For example, Fabiano Fioghi, himself a convert who was active in late-
sixteenth century Rome in the House of the Catechumens (an establishment for
instructing converts), translated Christian prayers as well as T into Hebrew for
this purpose.123 Furthermore, a Hebrew version of T in Latin script is found in the
religious play Le mystère de la Résurrection, performed in Angers in May 1456
and perhaps written by Jean du Prier.124
The use of the creeds in Jewish-Christian debates and polemics, in modern
Christian catechisms in Hebrew, and in other Christian literature addressed to
Jews requires further investigation.

 Cf. Pseudo-Athanasius, Sermo de miraculo Beryti 6 (FaFo § 192).

 Cf. Lasker 2007, esp. pp. 45–104.
 Niẓẓaḥon Vetus 231 (Berger 1979, p. 155 (Hebrew), 220 (English)).
 Text and translation in FaFo § 429.
 Cf. Stow 1976, pp. 221, 225.
 Text in Schwab 1902; cf. also URL <https://www.arlima.net/mp/mystere_de_la_resurrection.
html> (23/11/2023).
 17 The Creeds in the Middle Ages and Beyond 589

These are only some highlights of what clearly was a complex process. We may
conclude our account here, because a new era dawned in the late middle ages
which would lead to the development of catechetical tables and textbooks that
were used in instructing lay people in the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten
Commandments, the seven principal sins, and the seven sacraments; the subse-
quent eras of Humanism and the Reformation would then commence critical inves-
tigation into the history of the creeds and their contents. As yet, no one study exists
that fully covers these developments in sufficient detail. A useful collection of sour-
ces compiled by Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss also includes modern
creeds;125 Pelikan provides a helpful survey of the genre’s development over the
centuries, written from the point of view of systematic theology.126 The relevant
sections in the article ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se)’ in the Theologische Realenzyklopä-
die and the history by Fairbairn and Reeves also cover the later developments, but
are primarily interested in ‘confessions’ (in their definition) rather than creeds.127
The creed’s development in Byzantium up to the seventeenth century is described
in the contributions to a volume edited by Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Frédéric Ga-
briel that also contains a number of editions of later credal texts.128 A number of
studies considers the development of catechetical literature.129 An excellent over-
view of research into the history of T has been published by Markus Vinzent.130
Supplementary material is found in the relevant sections of the present book.131
The controversies surrounding T in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries in Switzerland, Germany, and (to a certain extent) England have been de-
scribed by Rudolf Gebhard, Hanna Kasparick, and Julia Winnebeck.132 However,
much work remains to be done.

 Cf. Pelikan/Hotchkiss 2003.

 Cf. Pelikan 2003.
 Cf. Schwarz, ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se) VII.’, 1984; Schwarz, ‘‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se) VIII.’,
1984; Fairbairn/Reeves 2019. Cf. also above p. 2 n. 7.
 Cf. Blanchet/Gabriel 2016.
 Cf., e.g., Göbl 1880; Reu 1904–1935; Jungmann 1959, pp. 1–64; Weidenhiller 1965; and Fraas
et al. 1988. Catholic scholarship is summarized in Burkard 2020, pp. 22 f.
 Cf. Vinzent 2006.
 Cf. above ch. 2.
 Cf. above p. 14 n. 5.
18 The Creeds in Medieval Art

Interestingly T and C2 have fared quite differently when it comes to visual repre-
sentations and musical settings. By and large, one may say that T was the creed
which was painted and C2 the creed which was sung. In what follows I will first
take a look at art, confining myself to the period up to the fourteenth century.1
As far as I can see, Ath was rarely painted in western medieval art although
general representations of the Trinity may, of course, have been influenced by it.2
Similarly, representations of N or C2 (either with regard to their text or their con-
tent) are only rarely found in the Latin Church. By contrast, scenic representations
of the content of C2 became popular in Russian icon painting in the seventeenth cen-
tury though that is outside our purview here.3 The text of C2 also frequently appears
on icons depicting the Council of Nicaea or of St Paraskeva Pyatnitsa (Paraskevi of
Iconium) who holds a scroll inscribed with this creed as a sign of her faith.4

As soon as T no longer had to be kept a secret known only to the baptized, because
(at least nominally) all of the populace in Francia and its successor states had been
converted to Christianity and there no longer was, therefore, any danger of its fall-
ing into the hands of ‘heathens’,5 its text and content were frequently depicted in
western Christian art: in inscriptions, in manuscripts, in paintings, in wooden carv-
ings on choir stalls, and in mural frescoes. The creed thus no longer was just a mat-
ter of catechism and of liturgy, but also became a part of religious imagery.
Medieval inscriptions containing the entire creed (other than the clauses attrib-
uted to the individual apostles in images discussed below) are fairly rare. I have
already described the earliest examples above.6 T was, for example, inscribed on a
lead panel attached to the tomb of Archbishop Adalbert I of Mainz (d. 1137) which is
preserved in the Dom- und Diözesanmuseum in Mainz.7 It begins as follows: ‘I, the
sinner Adalbert, Archbishop and Legate of the Apostolic See, died on 23 June, believ-
ing in God [. . .].’ Subsequently the full creed seems to have been quoted. (The panel

 For secondary literature cf. the list in FaFo, vol. II, p. 408. In addition, cf. Boespflug 1990; Woch-
nik 2010; Backes 2011; Kendrick 2016.
 Cf. the catalogue of relevant representations in Iacobone 1997.
 Cf. van Os 1968, col. 463, offers an example which is kept in the Ikonen-Museum Recklinghausen.
 Cf. Knoben 1976(1994); Grossman 1980, p. 39.
 Cf. above p. 536.
 Cf. above pp. 170, 172, 539.
 Description, transcription, and image: URL <https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0238-
di002mz00k0001306> (Rüdiger Fuchs/Britta Hedtke/Susanne Kern; 29/11/2023).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-018
 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art 591

is, unfortunately, highly damaged.) It may be that T here serves not only to demon-
strate the archbishop’s orthodoxy, but also to protect him from evil’s harm just as in
the cases we discussed above in chapter 15. In a famous early-fourteenth century
mural by Giotto di Bondone (d. 1337) as part of a series of painted sculptures featur-
ing virtues and vices in the Cappella degli Scrovegni (Arena Chapel) in Padua, the
personification of Fides is depicted largely in white and black, holding a staff with a
red cross in one hand and a scroll inscribed with the creed in the other.8

Otherwise, the legend of T’s apostolic origin and the distribution of individual
clauses to each apostle is central to medieval representations of T. Copies of the
Somme le Roi (A Survey for a King, a guide to virtue), which was written by Lau-
rent d’Orléans in the late thirteenth century, contain colourful miniatures of the
fictitious council of the Apostles where they allegedly composed this creed.9
Most frequent, however, are representations of the apostles holding scrolls
showing parts of the creed. Their figures may appear individually or in combina-
tion with other imagery. Unfortunately, the unique frescoes of the apostles in the
church of St George on the Isle of Reichenau (late ninth century), who appear to
have held scrolls with credal text, were largely destroyed and later largely supple-
mented by modern copies by Carl Philipp Schilling (1855–1924) during his work
on the site undertaken between 1889 and 1892.10
Perhaps the earliest preserved examples are found on the splendid shrine of St
Heribertus in Cologne-Deutz, completed in c. 1175.11 Here each apostle sits on a stool,
some holding a scroll with the relevant section of T. In between them we see the
prophets standing, accompanied by banners with quotes from the Old Testament.
Another magnificent example, again from the Rhineland, is found on the lid of
the Portable Altar of Eilbertus (part of the Guelph Treasure) which was made in Co-
logne in the middle of the thirteenth century and is today kept in the Kunstgewerbe-
museum in Berlin.12 The central square of its lid shows Christ in Majesty, surrounded

 Image: URL <https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardinaltugend#/media/Datei%3AFides_-_Capella_

dei_Scrovegni_-_Padua_2016.jpg> (23/11/2023).
 See a list of manuscripts and further literature in Kinzig 2018(2022), p. 304 n. 69.
 Cf. Jakobs 1998, p. 186 n. 53.
 For details cf. Wernicke 1887–1893, 1889, pp. 43–5; Seidler 2016, pp. 14, 80–97 and plates 33–51;
pp. 103–10 and plates 159–77. This is a unique sequence, because the apostles, led by Peter and Paul,
are distributed across the long sides of the shrine: Peter – Andrew – James – John – Bartholomew –
Thomas // Paul – James – Philip – Matthew – Simon – Jude (= Thaddaeus).
 Description and transcription: URL <https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0238-di035g005k0001108>
(Andrea Boockmann; 23/11/2023). Cf. also URL <https://id.smb.museum/object/1830347> (23/11/2023). A
stimulating interpretation of the imagery of this altar is found in Lipton 2011, pp. 53–63.
592 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art

by the symbols of the evangelists. This square is surrounded by twelve other squares,
each depicting an apostle holding a scroll containing the creed.13 On both the left and
the right there are four additional scenes, depicting the Annunciation, Mary with
Elizabeth, the nativity, Jesus’ Presentation at the Temple, his crucifixion, resurrection,
descent to hell (in this order!), and ascension. An inscription along the altar’s upper
edge runs as follows: ‘Doctrina pleni fidei patres duodeni testantur ficta non esse pro-
phetica dicta.’ (‘Filled with the doctrine of faith, the twelve fathers bear witness that
the words of the prophets are not made up.’) On the lower edge another inscription
refers to the prophets, reading, ‘Celitus afflati de Cristo vaticinati hi predixerunt que
post ventura fuerunt.’ (‘Inspired by heaven, they prophesied about Christ; they fore-
told those things which were to come after.’) On the side panels are representations
of sixteen prophets holding scrolls with their principal prophecies. Old and New Tes-
tament, prophets and apostles, prophecy and creed are thus closely linked.
The apostles are also portrayed on the shrine of St Elizabeth (c. 1235–1249) in
the church erected in her memory in Marburg, Germany. Here the clauses of the
creed are written in the pointed arches above their heads. The sequence of the
apostles and the attribution of the credal clauses are unique.14 In Brunswick Cathe-
dral the apostles are depicted on the vault of its crossing where they are inserted
into the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem (1230–1250).15 They are again comple-
mented by prophets with some of their sayings, although there are only eight.

Whereas the relationship between individual prophets and apostles is not clearly
defined on the shrine of St Heribertus, the Altar of Eilbertus, and in Brunswick, in
other places we find portrayals in which individual apostles are paired with a
prophet each, something which we had already encountered in the literary evi-
dence.16 Unfortunately, a very early example of a mural painting of this type in the
Abbey Church of Bad Gandersheim (Lower Saxony) no longer exists. It probably
dated to the early eleventh century.17 These combinations became particularly pop-

 The text is identical with T; the sequence corresponds to type IIIa as represented by Clm
22053 and others (cf. above pp. 196 f.).
 Details in Dinkler-von Schubert 1964, pp. 69–84, 173 and plates 1, 22 f.
 Description and transcription: URL <https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0238-
di035g005k0002308> (Andrea Boockmann; 23/11/2023); image: URL <https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/File:BraunschweigerDom_Vierung_WB2485_DSC00065_PtrQs.jpg> (23/11/2023). The text is
identical with T (abbreviated); the sequence corresponds to type IIa (cf. above p. 196).
 Cf. above p. 199.
 Description and (fragmentary) transcription: URL <https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0238-
di096g017g1000802> (Jörg H. Lampe/Christine Wulf; 23/11/2023). The sequence of the apostles
probably corresponded to type IIIa.
 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art 593

ular from the early fourteenth century onwards. In the Queen Mary Psalter (cod.
London, British Library, Royal MS 2 B VII; c. 1310–1320), ff. 69v–70r18 miniatures of
this kind are executed in beautiful colours with red, blue, gold, and white dominat-
ing.19 A contemporary representation of both prophetic sayings and clauses from T,
accompanied by the names of the prophets and apostles respectively, is found in
cod. British Library, Arundel MS 83 II (from the so-called De Lisle Psalter; c. 1310,
f. 128r20). The words form the shape of a tree with Christ as its head. The prophets
and the apostles are shown, grouped together, in the top left- and right-hand cor-
ners respectively.21
Even more sophisticated is a representation of the prophets and the apostles
in the first part of the same manuscript (the so-called Howard Psalter, written in
c. 1310/1320, f. 12r): it shows the prophets on the far left and apostles on the far
right, arranged in rows, each with a banner carrying prophetic sayings (on the left)
and credal clauses (on the right), and connecting each pair with a scene in the mid-
dle representing the credal content from top to bottom.22
A representation of the creed which closely resembles that in the De Lisle Psal-
ter is found in cod. Yale University Library, Beinecke MS 416, f. 2r which was proba-
bly produced at the Cistercian monastery of Kempen near Düsseldorf in c. 1300.23
However, there are no images depicting the prophets and apostles. Instead a second
hand added C2 (in twelve numbered clauses) beneath the diagram and, further
below, a brief explanation of the creeds. There are other manuscripts with similar

 Description cf. URL <https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_2_b_vii>;

scan of the codex: URL <https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_2_b_vii_f001r>
(22/01/2021).
 The text is identical with T (abbreviated); the sequence corresponds to type IIIa as repre-
sented by Pseudo-Augustine and Reg. lat. 481 (cf. above pp. 196 f.).
 As regards the complex history of this codex which consists of two parts (the Howard Psalter
and the De Lisle Psalter) cf. Sandler 1983, pp. 11–13 and the descriptions: URL <https://www.bl.uk/
manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Arundel_MS_83> (11/05/2013); <https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/il
luminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=6458&CollID=20&NStart=83> (12/05/2023). A reproduction
of the miniature is found in Sandler 1983, plate 7 and online: URL <https://www.bl.uk/manu
scripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f001r> (20/10/2023).
 Cf. URL <http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f128r> (11/05/2023). This
is type IIIa in the version also found in Pseudo-Augustine and Reg. lat. 481 (cf. above pp. 196 f.).
 Cf. URL <http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f012r> (11/05/2023).
This is again type IIIa, but with another distribution of clauses than on f. 128r.
 Cf. the description: URL <https://pre1600ms.beinecke.library.yale.edu/docs/pre1600.ms416.
htm> (23/11/2023). Scan: URL <https://brbl-archive.library.yale.edu/exhibitions/speculum/pages/2r.
jpg> (23/11/2023).
594 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art

diagrams (which also contain other catechetical content). It has been suggested that
they may go back to John of Metz (Johannes Metensis; fl. c. 1270–1280).24
Much less spectacular are ink drawings in cod. Pommersfelden, Schloss Weis-
senstein, 215 (2837; Abbey of Kastl, c. 1322–1356, f. 160r–v)25 where prophets and
apostles are shown not accompanied by any other imagery.
By contrast, in a series of French illuminated manuscripts they consistently
appear at the bottom of a page, combined with architectural representations.26 It
is unclear whether or not they meant to relate in any way to the images at the top
of each page above the text:
– the Book of Hours of Joan of Navarre (cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, NAL
3145; c. 1330–1340), ff. 4r–9v;27
– the Breviary of Belleville (cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10483–10484;
1323–1326), ff. 6r–v (incomplete);28
– the Petites heures de Jean de Berry (cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat.
18014; 1375–1410), ff. 1r–6v.29
Prophets and apostles are also paired in frescoes and stained-glass windows of
the same period found in simple parish churches in various regions.30 These rep-
resentations served both esthetic and didactic purposes.

 Cf. Sandler 1983, p. 23 and n. 52. For a list of similar manuscripts cf. Sandler 1983, pp. 134–9. In
addition, cf. Castelberg 2013, pp. 81 f.
 Description: URL <http://www.handschriftencensus.de/9431> (23/11/2023). This is in many ways a
unique series, because not only the sequence of apostles differs from all that are known so far, but
also because it has been supplemented by Paul and Athanasius: Peter – John – James – Andrew –
Thomas – Bartholomew – Philip – Matthew – James – Simon – Thaddaeus – Mathias – Paul (+ Heb
11:6) – Athanasius (+ Athanasian Creed 42).
The creed reads qui uenturus est (which is clearly influenced by C2).
 Cf. Mâle 1949, pp. 246–53.
 Description: URL <https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc71029k>; scan: URL <https://
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10025448r> (23/11/2023). The sequence of the apostles corresponds to
type Ia (cf. above p. 194).
 Description: URL <https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc785374>; scan: URL <https://
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8451634m> (23/11/2023).
 Description: URL <https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc784809>; scan: URL <https://
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449684q> (23/11/2023). The sequence of apostles corresponds to
type IIIa in the version also found in Pseudo-Augustine and Reg. lat. 481 (cf. above p. 196).
 For frescoes cf. the following examples:
– Church of St Peter and Paul in Dollnstein in Upper Bavaria from 1320–1330 (images: URL
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollnstein#/media/File:Kirche_von_Dollnstein_im_Landkreis_
Eichst%C3%A4tt,_Fresko_im_Chorraum.jpg>; 23/11/2023)
– Church of St Pancras in Hamm-Mark (North Rhine-Westphalia) from c. 1350 (image: URL
<https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/NEJ2MSVN5JPQ6IW5VBYGA2ZCGE
NUSHOZ>; 23/11/2023)
 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art 595

A very unusual panel, which was produced in c. 1380 for the Abbey of Wor-
meln (North Rhine-Westphalia), and is today preserved in the Gemäldegalerie der
Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, shows the Virgin and Child representing the throne
of Solomon with twelve lions standing on the steps to the right and left which
represent the apostles, accompanied by floating scrolls containing the creed.31

It is difficult to identify depictions illustrating the content of the creed without

any explicit reference to the apostles or to the creed’s text, as the biblical scenes
which the creed evokes were, of course, painted over and over again. By way of
example, I have mentioned the Howard Psalter above. Perhaps the earliest scenic
representation of credal content is found in the Utrecht Psalter (cod. Utrecht, Uni-
versiteitsbibliotheek, 32) from the time of Louis the Pious.32 On f. 90r–v T is quoted
in between the Lord’s Prayer and Ath, preceded by a drawing which combines a
number of scenes that include Christ’s birth, the trial before Pontius Pilate, the cru-
cifixion, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension, Pentecost, the general resurrec-
tion of the dead, and the Final Judgement. The text of T is followed by an image
which may represent the fictitious council of the apostles convened to compose this
creed – however, the number of apostles is much greater than a dozen. The fact
that very similar images are found in the Eadwin Psalter from the middle of the
thirteenth century (cod. Cambridge, Trinity College, R.17.1; Canterbury, c. 1155–1160;

– Church of St Martin in Billigheim (Southern Palatinate) from c. 1400 (images: URL <http://
www.ingenheim.evpfalz.de/index.php?id=4976#c11355>; 23/11/2023)
– Church of St Andrew in Oberacker (near Karlsruhe) from c. 1400; cf. Backes 2011, p. 151 and
plate 145 (images: URL <http://kirchenwandmalereien.de/html/o.html#Oberacker>; 23/11/2023).
For later examples cf. Backes 2011. – Further examples from stained glass windows are found, e.g., in
the Church Divi Blasii in Mühlhausen (Thuringia; 1310/30). Cf. URL <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divi-
Blasii-Kirche#/media/Datei:M%C3%BChlhausen_Divi-Blasii_Fenster_228.JPG>; <https://de.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Divi-Blasii-Kirche#/media/Datei:M%C3%BChlhausen_Divi-Blasii_Fenster_229.JPG>; <https://de.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Divi-Blasii-Kirche#/media/Datei:M%C3%BChlhausen_Divi-Blasii_Fenster_231.JPG>
(23/11/2023). Cf. Wernicke 1887–1893, 1889, p. 61.
 Image and description: URL <https://id.smb.museum/object/867143> (23/11/2023). The text of
the creed is incomplete and faulty; the sequence of the apostles corresponds to type IV (cf. above
p. 197). Cf. also van Os 1968, col. 463.
 The secondary literature is found in FaFo § 288. For a scan of the codex cf. URL <https://psal
ter.library.uu.nl/> (23/11/2023).
596 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art

cf. FaFo § 432) on f. 279r–v may suggest that these illuminations (like others in
these manuscripts) go back to a common ancestor.
The codex unicus of the commentary on the creed by Jean de Joinville (d.
1317), cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, NAF 4509 (s. XIII/XIV) contains a series of
illuminations depicting the content of the creed.33 A mystifying series of related
drawings also illustrating Joineville’s Credo is contained in cod. Paris, Bibliothè-
que Nationale, lat. 11907 (late 1280s), ff. 231r–232v.34 These sketches may have
been intended as a model for church paintings, possibly in Acre in the Holy Land.
Here the text of T is written above scenes taken from both the Old and New
Testament.
A later example is a series of nine panels illustrating the second article of C2
by Benedetto di Bindo (d. 1417) which is kept in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo
in Siena.35
In the early twentieth century D.T.B. Wood published an inventory of tapes-
tries dating from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries which contained the
clauses of the creed (or parts thereof) accompanied by appropriate imagery.36 Ac-
cording to written sources such tapestries were already produced in the four-
teenth century, but no early examples seem to have survived.37

In the fifteenth century the use of credal imagery exploded. This cannot be de-
scribed here in any greater detail. It may suffice to highlight the fact that we now
also find pictorial instructions to help memorize the creed. One fine example is
found in an early print of the German treatise Schatzbehalter der wahren Reich-
tümer des Heils (Treasury of the True Riches of Salvation) written by the Franciscan
monk Stephan Fridolin (d. 1498) and published by Anton Koberger in Nuremberg
(1491).38 On f. UIIIv it contains a representation of the twelve apostles on the fingers
of a left hand depicted, each finger numbered and labeled, showing three apostles
on each. (The phalanges of the thumb are covered by Christ and the Virgin.) The

 Description: Friedman 1958; URL <https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc403993>

(23/11/2023); for a scan of the codex cf. URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52511232w> (23/
11/2023).
 Description: URL <https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc73300s/cd0e180>; for a scan
of the codex cf. URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10507275b> (23/11/2023). Discussion of
purpose and date in Folda 2005, pp. 500–502.
 Image: URL <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bindo_Credo.JPG> (23/11/2023).
 Cf. Wood 1913/1914.
 Cf. Wood 1913/1914, p. 248.
 I am grateful to Maria Munkholt Christensen for drawing my attention to this book. Cf. Bartl
2010, esp. pp. 238–40; Bartl/Gepp-Labusiak 2012, plates pp. 148 f.
 18 The Creeds in Medieval Art 597

text of T with the twelve numbered articles is printed next to this hand.39 On the
opposite page we once more encounter Christ and the Virgin as well as another
twelve figures, including the evangelists, John the Baptist, and Joseph who are ‘writ-
ten’ into the right hand. The corresponding text makes it clear that the association
of the apostles/the creed and the remaining figures with the phalanges of the fin-
gers not only served as a mnemonic device, but also had an apotropaic function. It
shows ‘how to arm the hands against the temptation of the evil enemy’.40 The re-
mainder of the text gives inter alia clear instructions how to use one’s left hand at
encounters with a heretic. Once more the creed is used here as a sacred formula
which protects both the mind and the body of the person who has duly memo-
rized it.41

 Cf., e.g., the copy in the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe which can be viewed at URL
<https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbihd/content/pageview/5953392> (23/11/2023).
 Fridolin 1491, f. T IIIIr: ‘[. . .] dass ist, wie man die hend wider die anfechtung des bösen
veindes woppenen soll.’
 Cf. above ch. 15.
19 The Creeds in Medieval Music

When was the creed first sung?1 It is not easy to answer this question, because we
know very little about late antique and early medieval Church music. In addition,
the terminology is ambiguous, because both the Latin verb canere/cantare and
Greek ᾄδειν and ὑμνεῖν cover a wide semantic field, from reciting a poetic text, to
some kind of chanting, or to full-out singing.2 Finally, one has to take into account
considerable regional differences in music making.
However, given that neither C2 nor T were ever regarded as poetic texts as
such and given that we have unambiguous evidence from a later period of the
creeds being sung, the use of canere in relation to C2 or T may indicate that at
least some kind of singing, similar to plainchant, was taking place from a fairly
early stage. As I am no musicologist, I will not delve into the details of this devel-
opment. Instead, it may suffice to present some of the evidence we have that the
creed was sung in what follows.
✶

Let us first look at the Byzantine tradition. Unfortunately, we know very little
about the way the creeds were recited in Greek worship.3 Very often our liturgical
sources say that it was ‘said’ by the people or by both the clergy and the people.
Earlier scholars, therefore, surmised that the creed was never sung in Byzantine
worship.4 But λέγειν in this context may actually refer to some kind of chanting.
In some instances, ψάλλειν is used instead of λέγειν; the archdeacon begins and
the congregation chimes in. In some manuscripts there are indications that the
creed was sung by a choir.5 As we saw in an earlier chapter, John of Biclaro

 Good introductions to vocal music in late antiquity and the early middle ages include Levy
1998; Page 2010(2012); Eberhardt/Franz 2013; Everist/Kelly 2018; Oefele 2022. On the creed in
music cf. Stäblein 1952; Miazga 1976; Huebner 1986; Hiley 1993, pp. 168–71; Probst 1994; Schlager
1995; Crocker/Hiley 2001; Petersen 2012; Russin 2021.
 Cf. Krebs/Schmalz 1905, 254–7; Schlier 1964, pp. 163 f.; Delling 1972, p. 490; Thraede 1994,
cols. 916–17.
 Cf. Taft 1978, pp. 416–18; Kritikou 2011, pp. 167 f.; Russin 2021, pp. 94–6.
 Cf. Baumstark 1921, p. 174; Jungmann 1951, vol. I, p. 468; Jungmann 1962, vol. I, pp. 599 f.
 Cf. Goar 1730, p. 155 from the now lost Codex Isidori Pyromali: Ὁ διάκονος· Πρόσχωμεν καὶ τὸ
σύμβολον ψάλλωμεν. Καὶ τοῦ Ἀρχιδιακόνου ἀρχομένου πάντες τὸ σύμβολον ψάλλουσιν. / ‘The
deacon: Let us pay attention and let us sing the creed. And after the archdeacon has begun all
sing the creed.’ The same in Cochlaeus 1549, p. 125 (from a now lost codex once kept in the mon-
astery of Johannisberg near Mainz) which may go back ‘at least to the tenth century’ (Taft 1978,
p. XXVII; cf. also Taft 1998, pp. 68–71). Similarly, the liturgy from cod. London, British Library,
Add. 34060 (s. XV), 7,4–5 (ed. Taft 1979(1995), p. 298; emphasis original): Λέγει ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος· Ἐν

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-019
 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music 599

claimed in 601/602 that the creed had been sung by the congregation (a populo con-
cinendum) in the Byzantine Empire since the times of Emperor Justin II (r. 565–578),
but this may be a reflection of western practice.6 In 840–842 Walahfrid Strabo
claims that the Greeks had begun to chant C2 as a means of fighting heresy.7
Nonetheless, there seems to be only one relatively early manuscript which
gives us some indication as regards the eastern practice of chanting the creed:
cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham gr. 6, written in Antioch in 1050–1055. It
contains the texts for the six feasts dedicated to the ecumenical councils during
which N and C2 (with certain variants) are sung, accompanied by ecphonetic nota-
tion.8 Other than that, there is no evidence in our eastern liturgical sources for
musical settings of C2 until the fifteenth century.9 It is, therefore, also difficult to
say whether there is any connection between Byzantine chanting of the creed
and that of the western tradition (or traditions).
✶
2
As we saw in a previous chapter, C is the confession of faith which initially
served as the primary creed in the western mass.10 We get the first inklings that
the creed was chanted at the Third Council of Toledo (589) where it was ordained
that C2 ‘be recited (recitetur) according to the convention of the eastern churches
so that, before the Lord’s Prayer is said, the creed shall be proclaimed (praedice-
tur) aloud by the congregation’.11 A variant reads decantetur which may be trans-
lated as ‘shall be chanted’.12 The manuscript tradition thus indicates that at a
certain point liturgical practice had changed and the creed was no longer spoken
aloud, but chanted by the congregation. However, as the earliest codex containing

σοφίᾳ πρόσχωμεν. Καὶ οὕτως ψάλλει τὸ ἱερατεῖον μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ τὸ Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεόν. / ‘The
archdeacon says, “Let us wisely pay attention.” And thus the clergy sing with the laity, “I believe
in one God.”’ (The folia containing the liturgy date from the twelfth century.) In addition, Goar
1730, pp. 60, 140 f. Cf. also Taft 1978, pp. 378 f.; Russin 2021, p. 95.
 Cf. above p. 510.
 Cf. Walahfrid, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in obseruationibus ecclesiasticis
rerum 23 (FaFo § 851), quoted above 513 n. 180.
 Cf. Engberg 1962 and URL <https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_6185>; <https://
www.doaks.org/resources/mmdb/manuscripts/1830> (29/11/2023).
 Cf. FaFo §§ 692 (Liturgy of St Mark); 693a (Liturgy of St James); 694b (Liturgies of St Basil, St
Gregory, and St Chrysostom). In addition, Engberg 1962, p. 300; Kritikou 2011, pp. 168 f.
 Cf. above ch. 11.2. For what follows cf. Wagner 1901, p. 91; Wagner 1911, pp. 102–5; Wagner
1921, pp. 458–61; Jungmann 1951, vol. I, pp. 468 f., 472–4; Jungmann 1962, vol. I, pp. 599 f., 604–6.
 Third Council of Toledo (589), canon 2 (FaFo § 687b = Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Dokument 120.2),
p. 2794, ll. 7–21). Cf. already above pp. 406, 510.
 Cf. Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol. V, p. 110, app. ad l. 743; Heil/Scheerer 2022 (Doku-
ment 120.2), p. 294, app. ad l. 17.
600 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music

this variant dates from the second half of the eighth century,13 it is possible that
this development occurred at a later stage than the council. This suggestion is
strengthened by the fact that the earliest additional evidence which mentions
‘chanting’ of the creed is not found until a century after Toledo.
This evidence is contained in the baptismal liturgy at Rome.14 The Old Gela-
sian Sacramentary (OGS), whose final redaction may date to the seventh century,
records in the context of the Traditio symboli that an acolyte first ‘says the creed
in Greek by chanting’ (decantando) and then does the same in Latin.15 (By con-
trast, during the Redditio the creed is recited only by the bishop.16) This may indi-
cate that the custom of chanting the creed was adopted when R/T was replaced in
the Roman baptismal liturgy by Greek and Latin C2 under the influence of the
Greek popes of the later seventh century.17
A variation is found in the Ordo Romanus XI, a Roman order for the preparation
and celebration of infant baptism which is probably based on the OGS and may
stem from the second half of the sixth century. Its Traditio resembles that of the
OGS.18 However, at the Redditio the priest lays his hand on the heads of the bapti-
zands and chants the creed ‘in a high voice’ (decantando excelsa uoce)19 which indi-
cates that by that time the liturgy had further evolved and the chanting of the creed
by a member of the clergy had become standard in both the Redditio and Traditio.
The creed was also sometimes sung in Greek (transliterated in Latin letters)
as part of a Greek mass (Missa Graeca) which perhaps also originated in Rome in
the later seventh century.20 However, it is difficult to say whether this ‘Helleniza-
tion’ of baptism and of the mass in Rome happened simultaneously and to what
extent they may have influenced each other. In addition, this does not mean that
the creed was chanted (or even said) during the Latin mass at Rome, because

 The codex Φ listed in the apparatus of Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol. V, p. 110 is
cod. Den Haag, Het huis van het boek (Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum), 10.B.4 (s. VIII/2; on
this codex and the collection it represents cf. Martínez Díez/Rodríguez 1966–2002, vol. I,
p. 339; vol. V, p. 21; Kéry 1999, p. 45).
 In the Irish Book of Mulling (s. VIII/2) chanting of the creed may also be attested (cf. FaFo
§ 695); but the evidence is thin.
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus nos. 311, 314 (FaFo § 675a). Cf. also above p. 504.
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus no. 422 (FaFo § 675b).
 Cf. above p. 411.
 Cf. Ordo Romanus XI, nos. 62, 64 (FaFo § 808a).
 Cf. Ordo Romanus XI, no. 86 (FaFo § 808b).
 Cf. FaFo § 184g. For a list of western liturgical manuscripts containing chanted versions of C2
in Greek cf. Atkinson 1982, pp. 120–125, 136. However, the Missa Graeca’s place of origin and the
date are extremely controversial. Cf. the survey of different scholarly opinions in Wanek 2018; in
addition, Atkinson 1989; Atkinson 1993 and above p. 411 and n. 185.
 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music 601

Pope Leo III denied in his conversation with the Frankish envoys that the Franks
had inherited the custom of chanting the creed from Rome.21
The custom of chanting the creed at baptism migrated from Rome to Francia as
we can see when we look at Frankish (eighth-century) sacramentaries that are based
on the OGS. Perhaps the earliest example comes from the so-called Ordo Romanus
XV which was compiled a little before 787, probably by a Burgundian or Austrasian
monk. Here the creed is chanted in Latin by an acolyte at the Traditio and by the
priest at the Redditio.22 In the Sacramentary of Gellone of the late eighth century
both the Greek and Latin versions of C2 are chanted at the Traditio by two acolytes.23
By contrast, at the Redditio the creed is not recited or chanted by the clergy at all,
but replaced by baptismal interrogations.24 The Sacramentary of Reims (c. 800) fol-
lows the same procedure.25 Jesse of Amiens (sedit c. 799–836) only mentions the
Latin creed in his explanation of the order of baptism where it is chanted at the Tra-
ditio, whereas the renunciation is followed by baptismal questions.26 The Pontifical
of Donaueschingen (s. IX ex.) contains further modifications: here the creed is
chanted at the Traditio in both Greek and Latin by the acolytes, but at the Redditio
the creed and the Lord’s Prayer are recited only by the priest, and then followed by
brief baptismal questions.27 The introduction of baptismal questions may well be a
result of the reform of the liturgy and chant that was undertaken during the reign of
Pepin III (sedit 751–768), although its extent remains a matter of controversy.28
In any case, by the end of the eighth century, C2 had also come to be chanted
during mass in the territories under Frankish rule. In a letter to Beatus of Lié-
bana, one of the leaders of Spanish adoptionism, Alcuin reminded his addressee
of there being two natures and one person in Christ, ‘as we are accustomed to
chant in the creed of the catholic peace’ (sicut in symbolo catholicae pacis cantare
solemus). He went on to quote C2.29 A set of interrogations in the Collectio duorum
librorum of unknown provenance edited by Keefe (s. IX in.) confirms that C2 was

 Cf. above p. 567.

 Cf. Ordo Romanus XV (FaFo § 809a, b).
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gellonense, nos. 545, 547 (FaFo § 797a).
 Cf. Sacramentarium Gellonense, no. 671 (FaFo § 797b). Cf. also above pp. 409 f.
 Cf. Sacramentarium Remense (FaFo § 799a, b).
 Cf. Jesse, Epistula de baptismo (FaFo §§ 757, 780a[2]).
 Cf. Pontifical of Donaueschingen, nos. 324, 342 (FaFo § 683a, b).
 Cf. Hen 2001, pp. 42–64; Page 2010(2012), pp. 281–328; Pfisterer 2018, pp. 84 f.; Dyer 2018; Fass-
ler 2018, pp. 180 f.; Haug 2018, pp. 286, 290; Planchart 2018, pp. 638 f.
 Alcuin, Epistula ad Beatum Liebanensem abbatem (FaFo § 702f). As regards the phrase catholi-
cae pacis cf. Levison 1946(1973), p. 320 n. 1. Alcuin repeatedly mentions the creed being chanted
in his writings against Felix of Urgel: Epistula 23 (§ 702c); Aduersus Felicem Urgellitanum episco-
pum 1,9 (§ 702g1); 1,16 (§ 702g2). 17 (PL 101, col. 143A); 3,6 (col. 274C); 4,4 (col. 288D). Cf. also Alcuin,
602 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music

the creed ‘which we now chant during mass’ (quod ad missam canitur).30 In the
later eighth century Angilbert of Saint-Riquier prescribed the singing of all three
creeds by the scola puerorum (which included girls) and, as far as possible, by all
of the laity in his Rogations liturgy.31 This practice was also attested to by the
Frankish envoys during their aforementioned visit to Leo III.32
Walahfrid Strabo also comments on the custom of chanting in his important
testimony concerning the introduction of the creed into mass (840–842). I have
quoted his explanation above.33 He mentions not only that the creed was inserted
into mass ‘in imitation of the Greeks’, but, in addition, claims that the Greeks had
also begun to chant C2. This practice (ille usus) then migrated to Rome in the first
instance; later the creed ‘came to be repeated’ (coepit [. . .] iterari) ‘among the
Gauls and Germans’ (apud Gallos et Germanos) during mass in the struggle against
adoptionism. Above I suggested that the Roman church accepting the practice of
chanting the creed may be connected with the aforementioned appearance of the
Missa Graeca. However, from Walahfrid’s testimony it is not quite clear whether
the same practice was also found among the ‘Gauls and the Germans’ or whether
Walahfrid simply wishes to say that they, too, were using the creed during mass.
Whatever he may have meant it is clear that in Francia the creed had at that point
been chanted for some time, and (as we saw above) there is some evidence to sug-
gest that the Franks did inherit this custom from Rome, at least with regard to bap-
tism. In Frankish churches the creed was chanted during mass as a response to the
Gospel reading.34

De trinitate ad Fredegisum quaestiones XXVIII, quaestio 25 (§ 702l) and Capelle 1934(1962),

pp. 215 f.; Levison 1946(1973), p. 320 n. 2.
 Collectio duorum librorum, De symbolo (Keefe, Explanationes, 2012, p. 48, ll. 14–15 (text 31);
FaFo § 528[2]).
 Cf. Angilbert, Institutio de diuersitate officiorum 9 and Rabe 1995, pp. 130 f.
 Cf. also Amalarius of Metz, Ordinis missae expositio I, 9 (812/813–852/853; FaFo § 850a; cf.
below n. 34); Herard of Tours, Capitulary (written in 858), cap. 16: All should know the Lord’s
Prayer and the creed (simbolo) by heart. The Gloria patri, Sanctus, creed (credulitas – this must
be C2), and Kyrie are ‘to be sung reverently by all (a cunctis reuerentur canatur)’. The same in
Walter of Orléans, Capitulary (869–870), cap. 1. As regards additional evidence from the late
ninth and tenth centuries cf. Ordo Romanus V (s. IX ex.), no. 40 (Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II, p. 218,
l. 2); Ordo Romanus IX (s. IX ex.), no. 21 (Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II, p. 332, l. 19); Ordo Romanus X
(s. X/1), no. 32 (Andrieu 1931–1961, vol. II, p. 357, ll. 13 f.). However, provenance from Francia is
not always certain. Cf. Vogel 1986, pp. 161 f., 164.
 Cf. Walahfrid, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in obseruationibus ecclesiasticis
rerum 23 (FaFo § 851); cf. above p. 513 n. 180.
 Cf. Amalarius of Metz, Ordinis missae expositio I, 9 (812/813–852/853; FaFo § 850a). Strangely,
in Missae expositionis codex I, 8,2 (812–816; § 850b) he only says that, after the Gospel reading,
 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music 603

Whether or not C2 was chanted as part of the Roman (Latin) mass in the
ninth century is unclear. In June 880 Pope John VIII (sedit 872–882) wrote a letter
to the Moravian ruler Svatopluk in which he mentions a conversation with Arch-
bishop Methodius of Moravia, asking him ‘whether he believed the creed of the
orthodox faith and sang it (caneret) during the holy celebration of mass’ in the
same way as was Roman custom and as it had been handed down by the six Ecu-
menical Councils.35 As no such synodal instruction to sing the creed during mass
exists, John may simply have wanted to make certain that the creed used in Mora-
via did not include filioque.36 Nonetheless, it is remarkable that the chanting of
the creed during mass is specifically mentioned.
Be that as it may, the practice of chanting C2 may not have been introduced
into the (Latin) mass at Rome until the early eleventh century. As mentioned
above,37 in 1014 Abbot Berno of Reichenau travelled to the Eternal City in the reti-
nue of the German King Henry who was to be crowned emperor (Henry II) by
Pope Benedict VIII (sedit 1012–1024). Berno says that at Henry’s behest the creed
was chanted during mass in Rome from then on.38 Indeed, in 1054 Humbert of
Silva Candida defended the council of Nicaea against the charge of not mention-
ing the filioque ‘which the Roman Church now sings’ (quod romana mater nunc
canit ecclesia).39 The nunc may indicate that this custom had been introduced not
that long ago.40
We find the first examples of C2 accompanied by neumes in the tenth cen-
tury,41 and there have been attempts at reconstructing the ‘authentic’ melodies

the congregation professes the creed ‘with a loud voice’ (praeclara uoce). Furthermore, cf. Aeneas
of Paris, Liber aduersus Graecos 93 (868; § 852).
 Pope John VIII, Epistula 255 (MGH Epp. 7, p. 223, ll. 6–10). For general background cf. Betti
2014, pp. 87, 152 f., 162–8, 182.
 Cf. also Capelle 1951(1967), p. 77. As regards the filioque controversy in 879/880 cf. Gemein-
hardt 2002, pp. 244–65.
 Cf. above pp. 514 f.
 Cf. Berno, Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missae officium pertinentibus 2 (FaFo § 854). Cf. Ge-
meinhardt 2002, pp. 314 f.
 Humbert, Rationes de sancti spiritus processione a patre et filio 4,1 (Michel 1924/1930, vol. I,
p. 100, ll. 14–16); cf. Gemeinhardt 2002, p. 313.
 Cf. also Grohe 2015, pp. 35–8.
 Cf. Capelle 1951(1967), pp. 71 f. and the literature quoted above pp. 598 n. 1, 599 n. 10. In addi-
tion, Miazga 1976, p. 18; Russin 2021, pp. 80 f. The earliest manuscripts seem to be:
– cod. Chartres, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 47 (Bretagne, s. X), f. 69r–v (mutilated). The codex
was destroyed in 1944, but had already been heavily damaged before. URL <https://bvmm.irht.
cnrs.fr/resultRecherche/resultRecherche.php?COMPOSITION_ID=17376> (23/11/2023)
– cod. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Msc. Lit. 6 (Regensburg (St Emmeram), c. 1000), f. 95v; URL
<https://zendsbb.digitale-sammlungen.de/db/0000/sbb00000128/images/index.html> (23/11/2023)
604 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music

used then.42 Almost all these Latin versions of C2 follow the translation attributed
to Paulinus.43 Although initially the chant of the Credo ‘remained in the simplest
form of a syllabic recitation’,44 once it had been set to polyphony in the four-
teenth century,45 it often ‘became the show-piece amongst the chants of the Ordi-
nary’.46 As Jungmann notes:

In fact, because of its broad presentation and because of the musical unfolding of its inex-
haustible contents, it has attained such an importance in the full course of the mass that it
leaves the eucharistic prayer (which, in its design, is much akin to it) quite in the shadow.47

However, this fascinating development lies outside the scope of the present book.
✶
As regards T, there is evidence that it was sung at least occasionally in some pla-
ces. However, ‘no source with diastematic notation is known’.48 Around 475 Fau-
stus of Riez describes it as a ‘salutary poem/song’ (symboli salutare carmen).49 The
unknown author of a Sermo de symbolo from around the same time speaks of the

– cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 381 (s. XI), pp. 18–22 (called Symbolum apostolorum); URL
<https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/csg/0381> (23/11/2023)
– cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 776 (Albi, s. XI), f. 92v–93r (FaFo § 184f29); cf. also
Hiley 1993, pp. 169 f.
– cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 887 (Saint-Martial Abbey, Limoges, s. XI), f. 59v–60v
(a second Latin version on ff. 60v–61v is different); URL <https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/
btv1b84322963> (23/11/2023); cf. also Hiley 1993, p. 169
– cod. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, theol. qu. 11 (today in Cracow, Jagiellonian Library; St Gallen,
1024–7), ff. 100r–101r (Symbolum apostolorum); 101r–103v (Symbolum apostolorum Grece et
Latine; Greek transcribed) 103v–104r (Aliter; Greek transcribed/Latin); URL <https://www.e-
codices.unifr.ch/en/searchresult/list/one/bj/Berol-Theol-Lat-Qu-0011> (23/11/2023)
– cod. Colmar, Bibliothèque Municipale, 443 (cat. 218; s. XI/1), f. 4v; URL <https://bvmm.irht.
cnrs.fr/iiif/1960/canvas/canvas-539894/view> (23/11/2023).
 Cf., e.g., Mocquereau 1909; Huglo 1951(2005); Schlager 1984. On the earliest musical versions
cf. also Wagner 1911, 102–5; Wagner 1921, pp. 458–61; Russin 2021, pp. 77–110.
 Cf. above pp. 560 f.
 Cf. also Graduale Triplex 1979, pp. 769–84 which ascribes the oldest musical settings of the
creed (Credo I and Credo VI) to the eleventh centuries; cf., however, Russin 2021, pp. 79–87.
 An earlier example in a manuscript from Sens (s. XIII) is mentioned by Charles Burney (1726–
1814); cf. Burney 1789(1935), p. 504; Schlager 1995, col. 1039.
 Jungmann 1951, vol. I, p. 473; cf. Jungmann 1962, vol. I, p. 605.
 Jungmann 1951, vol. I, p. 473; cf. Jungmann 1962, vol. I, p. 605.
 Hiley 1993, p. 168. He adds, ‘Likewise unknown in any notated source is the Athanasian Creed
(“Quicumque vult salvus esse”), said at Prime.’
 Faustus, De spiritu sancto 1,1 (FaFo § 363).
 19 The Creeds in Medieval Music 605

Apostles as having ‘sung’ (cantare) the verses of the confession.50 Beda Venerabi-
lis, writing to Bishop Egberht of York in 734, exhorts the faithful to sing (decant-
are) the creed in their own language every morning as a spiritual antidote to the
devil’s poison.51 Here chanting evidently enhances the creed’s magical effect,
which is now also attributed to its vernacular versions!52 In the Frankish Empire,
T and the Lord’s Prayer were also chanted, as can be seen from the writings of
Alcuin53 and the Bishop of Metz, Amalarius.54 What this looked like in detail,
whether it was actually sung at full voice, rendered as a recitative-like chant, or
simply a half-voiced murmuring or humming, eludes us. St. Gallen codices from
the late ninth century onwards also contain T in Greek, written in Latin letters
and provided with neumes.55

 Anon., Sermo de symbolo 4 (CPL 1759; FaFo § 357). The date suggested in FaFo § 357 (s. V) can-
not be correct since the text depends on Gregory the Great; cf. Kinzig, ‘Liberating the Dead’, 2024
(sub prelo).
 Bede, Epistula ad Egbertum 5 (FaFo § 584).
 Cf. above ch. 15.
 Cf., e.g., Alcuin, Epistula 23 (to Felix of Urgel; FaFo § 702c). Further references in Levison 1946-
(1973), p. 320 n. 2.
 Cf. Amalarius, Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem de scrutinio et baptismo 40 (FaFo § 782a2).
 Early examples:
– cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 17 (St. Gallen, AD 880–900), pp. 334–6; URL <https://www.e-
codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0017/> (24/11/2023). T is bilingual. Only the Greek text is accompanied
by neumes.
– cod. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, theol. qu. 11 (today in Cracow, Jagiellonian Library; St Gallen,
1024–1027), ff. 103v–104r; URL <https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bj/Berol-Theol-Lat-Qu-0011/>
(24/11/2023). T is bilingual. Only the Greek text is accompanied by neumes.
– cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 338 (St. Gallen, c. 1050–1060), pp. 308 f. (FaFo § 431); URL
<https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0338/> (24/11/2023). Greek only.
– cod. St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 381 (St. Gallen, s. XI), pp. 14 f. (cf. Atkinson 1982, p. 124); URL
<https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0381> (24/11/2023). Greek only.
– cod. Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Rh. 97 (St. Gallen?; s. XI), p. 36 (non uidi, cf. Mohlberg 1951,
p. 206; Atkinson 1982, p. 125).
Cf. also Wagner 1911, p. 102 n. 5 (citing the text from Rh. 97; the reference to the Tropary of Win-
chester seems to be erroneous); Hiley 1993, pp. 168–71, 235 f. (referring to cod. Laon, Bibliothèque
Municipale, 263 (Laon; s. XII/XIII; Tropary), f. 139r–v: an extended (‘farsed’) Latin T with neumes),
528. I could not verify the reference in: Atkinson 1982, p. 122 to cod. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Sel-
den Supra 27 (s. XI in.). The codex seems to contain no Greek; cf. URL <https://medieval.bodleian.ox.
ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_8900> (24/11/2023).
20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History
of the Early Christian Creeds

We have come to the end of a long journey tracing more than eight centuries of
credal development. It is time to sum up some of our most significant insights into
this development. In doing so, I will not summarize the previous chapters one by
one, but, for the sake of clarity, will try to give a synthetic account of the results of
this study.
In the writings of the New Testament ‘faith’ predominantly signifies an in-
ward trust in and conviction of the veracity of the salvific divine actions, whereas
a ‘confession’ involves publicly admitting to or proclaiming such a faith. By the
end of the first century a set of certain theological propositions had emerged in
Christian communities that included the confession of Jesus’ lordship and the af-
firmation of his Sonship, death, and resurrection, and other statements relating
to the incarnation. Such confession took place in a variety of Sitze im Leben in-
cluding worship, mission and conversion, paraenesis and praise, and martyrdom.
These christological statements gradually came to be assembled to form ho-
mological ‘building blocks’, which in turn were combined with traditional divine
attributes relating to God the Father, such as his omnipotence and his activity as
creator. Thus slowly dyadic and triadic homologies developed as evidenced in
Christian writings from the first three centuries. They were extended to form
loose summaries of the Christian faith, called either a ‘rule of faith’ (κανὼν τῆς
πίστεως/regula fidei) or ‘rule of truth’ (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας/regula ueritatis), to be
used in mission and catechesis, but also to define normative Christian belief over
against dissenting views which were considered heretical. In addition, there is ev-
idence from the end of the second century onwards that in many places candi-
dates for baptism were asked a series of credal questions prior to or during the
act of baptism; they were to reply to these interrogations with ‘I believe’.
Written creeds were unknown in large parts of the Roman Empire until well
into the fourth century. Most Christians confessed their faith in a way which did
not require a written text. They memorized the creed which had been handed
over to them only orally, or they simply answered the baptismal interrogations in
the positive.

The doctrinal controversies, but also the expansion of the Church and the con-
comitant mass conversions of Christians in the fourth century required that the
faith be laid down in standardized written formulae. Perhaps the first such for-
mula is the Roman Creed (R). We have no direct evidence as to when R was actu-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-020
 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds 607

ally composed. It is first attested in a letter Marcellus sent to Pope Julius of Rome
in 340/341, but it is unclear to what extent Marcellus should in fact be regarded as
R’s author. There is a view that this is indeed the case; if so, R may then have
been extracted from this letter and adopted by a Roman synod, with subsequent
dissemination in the west. Yet we also have some, and I think stronger, evidence
to suggest that R was in some way modelled in the third century on even earlier
credal interrogations used at baptism in order to combat not only ‘docetic’ gnostic
views on the relation between the Father and the Son, which were being propa-
gated in Rome at around 150, but also a monarchian theology which tended to
consider the Father and Son to be identical, popular in Rome some fifty years
later. Still, the precise process through which this happened is as unclear as is the
exact text of R, which may not even have been fully fixed in its wording, let alone
written down. In addition, it is now considered to be likely that several creeds (in
either interrogatory or declaratory form) circulated in the capital.
Yet there is no doubt that by the end of the fourth century most of the Latin
west considered R normative. In the wake of the Church being promoted by the
emperors the numbers of converts had steadily increased, which necessitated the
development of a uniform procedure in transmitting the creed to these converts.
As a result, a ceremony prior to baptism had been introduced in which, at a certain
point during Lent, the bishop solemnly explained the creed’s text and ‘handed it
over’ to the catechumens (that is, he recited it three times or more; Traditio sym-
boli). Catechumens were then expected to learn the creed by heart and, some days
later, to ‘hand it back’ by reciting it solemnly in the presence of the bishop, their
sponsors, and, at least in some places, of the entire congregation (Redditio symboli).
The creed now had to be standardized to facilitate its memorizing and to
avoid doctrinal confusion. Nonetheless, at that time R was not considered primar-
ily a dogmatic creed, but, owing to its brevity, it was well-suited for mission and
for the catechesis of adults prior to their baptism, precisely because it could easily
be memorized. In that respect, R’s function approximated that of the earlier cre-
dal interrogations (which were not, however, jettisoned; therefore, in the early
sacramentaries we find a strange duplication of credal texts at baptism, i.e., bap-
tismal rites include both interrogatory and declaratory creeds). The legend of R’s
apostolic origins that took hold from the late fourth century onwards, culminat-
ing in the idea that the apostles had each contributed a clause to the creed, should
perhaps also be seen against this backdrop, since the legend, mainly spread
through explanations of the creed, served to increase that creed’s authority.
The rites of Traditio and Redditio symboli thus came to be inserted into bap-
tismal preparations in the mid-fourth century. This apparently first happened in
Rome, whence it spread elsewhere. However, these rites only made sense as long
as the catechumens were old enough to do so. But, as infant baptism started to
608 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds

become the norm, these rites lost their original function. Nonetheless, both Tradi-
tio and Redditio persisted for centuries, although from that point on the parents
or godparents had to recite the creed on behalf of the infants entrusted to them.
Owing to the old capital’s influence, by the end of antiquity R or some form
thereof had spread throughout the west. All the creeds used in the west in prepar-
ing for baptism from the second half of the fourth century onwards were either R
or one of its descendants. Still, until the ninth century no unified western text ex-
isted. Minor variations appeared in the various western regions of the empire. As
a result of the ongoing liturgical standardization in the early middle ages and, in
particular, at Charlemagne’s instigation, one particular descendant of R became
so popular that it superseded all other versions and is still used in the worship of
both Catholics and Protestants today: the Apostles’ Creed (T).
✶

There is no evidence that declaratory creeds existed in the Greek-speaking east of

the Roman Empire in the first three centuries. It is widely assumed, therefore,
that the emergence of such creeds is closely related to the doctrinal debates of the
fourth century. (The only exception is the Creed of Jerusalem which seems to be
closely related to R.) The Arian controversy sparked the production of a whole
string of creeds, the earliest example probably being the one Arius sent to Alexan-
der of Alexandria in c. 321. The fourth century also saw an important institutional
innovation, introduced by the emperor himself, which was to play a pivotal role
in the production of creeds: synods which drew together as many bishops as pos-
sible from across the empire in order to resolve doctrinal conflict. In fact, the
composition of creeds and credal texts by these episcopal assemblies was a
means to this very end. Subsequently, each confession came to build upon the
previous one, taking up material from the earlier creed while adding some new
phrases, thus turning the existing material against whichever opponent the
newer creed was targeting (‘building-block model’).
The first synod to use this compositional technique was probably held in
Antioch in the spring of 325. However, much more influential was the creed that
originated at the first ecumenical council held in Nicaea in 325. The council con-
demned Arius’ views and signed a creed (N) whose origins are unclear. In a letter
that Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea sent to his congregation sometime after the
council he claimed that N was based on a creed which he himself had submitted
to the council and which he quotes in his letter. According to Eusebius, his creed
had been revised by the council to include certain additions, in particular the ad-
jective homooúsios (‘of like/identical substance’), which had allegedly been sug-
gested by the emperor himself in order to describe the relation between God the
Father and the Son.
 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds 609

It has, therefore, often been assumed that the Vorlage quoted by Eusebius
was the local creed used in Palestine. However, for various reasons it now seems
more likely that the bishop himself had drafted this creed on the basis of the ‘rule
of faith’ in use in his local church. Furthermore, N seems to be the product of a
committee which probably used other Vorlagen besides Eusebius’ text. In this
context the information that Constantine himself was responsible for the addition
of homooúsios is not altogether implausible, given the emperor’s own interest in
Christianity and the fact that he had theological advisers at his disposal. The bish-
ops present at the council were asked to indicate their agreement with the draft
creed by adding their signatures (which a small number refused). Therefore,
from Nicaea onwards synodal creeds were considered not only theological, but
also legal documents (both ecclesial and secular) which later synods referred to
as definitions of orthodoxy and which emperors also enacted as law.
N failed to settle the trinitarian debates of the fourth century. Rather, a
whole string of creeds was produced at synods over the following decades: Anti-
och 341 (esp. Ant2; Ant4), Serdica 343 (east and west), the Macrostich Creed of 344,
the First Creed of Sirmium 351, the Second Creed of Sirmium 357. The so-called
‘Dated Creed’, promulgated in Sirmium on 22 May 359, rejected the use of the
term ousía as unscriptural, instead propagating the formula that the Son was
‘similar to the Father in all things’ (ὅμοιος τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα). This formula
became the hallmark of Homoianism. Emperor Constantius II used it to impose
doctrinal unity across both parts of the empire (Synods of Rimini 359; Niké 359;
Constantinople 359/360).
Constantius’ religious policy did, however, fail to produce the desired results. It
was only the Second Ecumenical Council summoned by Emperor Theodosius I to
Constantinople in 381 which largely settled the controversy over the precise nature
of the Trinity. Later tradition associated a creed with this council (C2, in previous
research referred to as C or NC) which was, however, not officially named the
‘Creed of Constantinople’ or adopted as such until the much later Council of Chalce-
don (451). It is a matter of controversy whether C2 was in fact a result of the council
of 381, as there are no unequivocal attestations of its existence until 451.
In my view, N was revised at a Synod in Rome under Pope Damasus in the
years 377/378. This was done as a defence against Apolinarianism, but also be-
cause the synod sought to harmonize N with R. This revision is lost. It was then
sent to the east, where it was again revised and approved in Antioch in 379 by a
large number of bishops led by Meletius of Antioch (NAnt). This creed is essentially
identical with that of Theodore of Mopsuestia (NAnt1). Its ‘Roman’ features include
Christ’s virgin birth and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Finally, NAnt was re-
vised twice at Constantinople: C1 and C2.
610 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds

NAnt was not adopted at Constantinople without alterations because this con-
fession had been approved at a synod presided over by Meletius, one of the parties
in the Antiochene schism. During the presidency of Gregory of Nazianzus at Con-
stantinople, however, the party supporting Paulinus, Meletius’ rival, had been
strengthened, which is why NAnt was possibly rejected as ‘Meletian’. Instead, a new
compromise was worked out (C1), which continued to be considered N. It repre-
sents a revision of NAnt with additions from N itself and from the Creed of Jerusa-
lem (J). It emphasized the Son’s divinity more strongly than NAnt did, by excising
NAnt’s quotation from Col 1:15 (‘first-born of all creation’). This shorter redaction of
N, C1, which Nestorius later quoted, was adopted at Constantinople and henceforth
functioned as a baptismal creed in the capital of the east, but was not received
throughout the Empire.
That meant that, in the period up to 451, at least three variants of N were in
use in the east, namely N, NAnt, and C1, all of which were (rightly) understood as
Nicene both in literary and theological terms:
– The authentic text of N was mainly used in Alexandria.
– The version of N revised in Rome and Antioch (NAnt) in 379 was subsequently
used especially in Antioch and later in the ‘Nestorian’ Syriac Church of the
East (see below).
– The version actually agreed in Constantinople (C1) in 381 continued to be re-
garded as N, although in reality it was NAnt with deletions and additions,
drawing on both N and J, in order to refute any form of subordinationism
and (possibly) to achieve an anti-Apolinarian consensus. It was in use espe-
cially in Constantinople and is attested by Nestorius.
By contrast, C2 contains further changes to N and an expansion of the third article
to include statements on baptism, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life.
This creed was not adopted in Constantinople, probably because of massive oppo-
sition from those for whom C2 was too far removed from N (e.g., Gregory of Na-
zianzus), although it was included in a local collection of canons underneath
N. (The reason for its failure to gain acceptance was therefore not, as has been
widely assumed, non-acceptance by the Pneumatomachians.)
It was not until Chalcedon that C2 was reintroduced into the ecumenical dis-
cussion as the confession of ‘the 150 Fathers’ by the imperial officials presiding
over this council, in order to clear up confusion over the ‘true’ text of N and to
resolve the multiplication of creeds in N, NAnt, and C1. In addition, they were in-
terested in presenting a confession of the eastern capital, henceforth to be re-
garded as an authoritative explication of N. Thus, not only was the authentic text
of N reaffirmed, but C2 filled the theological ‘gaps’ in N with regard to the incarna-
tion and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. However, more than one version of C2
 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds 611

can be found in the printed edition Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Recent re-
search suggests that the text of C2 officially adopted at the council is not that of
the fifth session as printed in the Acta as part of the Definition of Faith, but prob-
ably that of the second (or third) session. It is this version of C2 which may reason-
ably be linked to the Council of 381.
Like N, both C1 and C2 are marked by the theological debates of their time.
They emphasized the full humanity of the incarnate Christ over against Apolinar-
ius of Laodicea and his followers (who claimed that Christ possessed some kind of
celestial body) by referring to the virgin birth and (only in C2) his suffering under
Pontius Pilate. Furthermore, the Son’s sitting at the right hand of the Father (the
former, therefore, remaining a distinct hypostasis from the Father even after his
ascension) and, again only in C2, the endless nature of his kingdom were added to
the formula (against Marcellus of Ancyra).
The reason for extending the article on the Holy Spirit in C1 and C2 is that
from c. 360 theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea
argued that the Spirit, too, was of divine origin and status and as such was to be
accorded the same veneration as the Father and the Son. This led to considerable
controversy at Constantinople and may be the reason why the term homooúsios
was not included in this section in order to find a compromise with theologians
who were more cautious when it came to the divinity of the Spirit (they need not
necessarily have been militant ‘Spirit-fighters’). A dogmatic decree of this synod,
however, stated in no uncertain terms that there was one God, subsisting in three
consubstantial persons or hypostases; the original is lost, but its contents are sum-
marized in a synodal letter of another Synod held at Constantinople a year later
in 382.
Rather, in C2 the Holy Spirit is described as ‘Lord and life-giver who proceeds
from the Father, who is jointly worshipped and glorified with the Father and the
Son’ (in C1 this section is extended even further) which was no doubt meant to
paraphrase homooúsios and indeed amounted to the same thing. In the middle
ages the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ‘and the Son’ (Latin filio-
que), which was only expressed in Latin versions of C2, provoked a long-lasting
and tortuous controversy between western and eastern theologians and partly
contributed to the ultimate split between the Latin and the Orthodox churches.
In subsequent centuries C2 gradually came to supersede N in both east and
west. N and/or C2 were seen as standard creeds by which all later confessions and
definitions of faith were to be measured. It may, therefore, be more than just a co-
incidence that in the period under consideration no further eastern synod pro-
duced a text which was solemnly introduced by πιστεύομεν εἰς (‘we believe in’)
which had been the standard formula introducing a creed. In addition, alterations
to the liturgical calendar in the late fourth century suggest that attempts were
612 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds

made to illustrate the christological content of the creeds ritually through celebrat-
ing the Feasts of the Lord such as Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost.
However, notwithstanding the existence and authority of N and C2, the pro-
duction of credal formulae for various purposes continued unabated into the
sixth and subsequent centuries. The authors of later declarations, whether indi-
viduals or synods, all acknowledged the importance of the ‘Nicene faith’, but
went on to set out their own theological views, depending on the doctrinal contro-
versy in which they were involved at the time.
✶

In the sixth century C2, which like N had by then come to be used in catechesis,
may also have been introduced into the Greek mass. Perhaps this liturgical inno-
vation goes back to the Miaphysite patriarch of Constantinople, Timothy I, but de-
tails are unclear. Nonetheless, C2’s function in the great Byzantine liturgies of St
Basil and of St John Chrysostom may be determined with relative certainty: in
both the recital of C2 follows the liturgical imperative to close the church doors,
an instruction which marked the beginning of the eucharistic liturgy. The reason
for its prominent placement probably was to make sure that catechumens and
other unbaptized persons would stand out as unable to recite the creed; in that
case they could then be excluded from the most sacred part of the service. Thus,
C2 was, at least in this context, indeed used as a ‘password’ or ‘watchword’ (which
is one of the original meanings of symbolum, the Latin term for the creed bor-
rowed from the Greek).
As indicated above, for a long time C2 does not appear to have been widely
used in the west. Setting aside Latin translations of the acts of the Council of Chal-
cedon in 451, it does not appear to be quoted in any Latin source for two centuries
after it had first been composed. From the end of the sixth century onwards it
came to be cited by synods when some doctrinal issue or other was at stake. We
find it quoted as a matter of course in introducing the decrees of the various
Councils of Toledo in the Visigothic Kingdom, beginning with the Third Council of
589. At the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653 filioque was finally and firmly inserted
into the credal tradition, although the doctrine had de facto already been de-
fended at the Third Council of 589 and even earlier. It had been in 589 that the
Visigoth king Reccared had decided to convert from Homoian Christianity to Ca-
tholicism, a move which also led him to abandon the beliefs of his father and pre-
decessor Leovigild regarding the Holy Spirit, insofar as his father had denied the
Spirit’s divinity.
Whereas in Spain people did not shy away from altering C2 when they felt it
necessary to combat heresy, the Roman Church was much more conservative in
handling the creed’s text. In one of the earliest extant sacramentaries, the Old Ge-
 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds 613

lasian Sacramentary (c. 650; OGS), we find that the creed used for the Traditio
symboli is C2 – without the addition of filioque. It seems to have replaced R which
had originally been used in Rome. C2 is first recited in Greek and then in Latin,
the Greek having been transcribed in Latin letters. This may indicate that the
OGS retains evidence of an earlier period when the Roman community was still
bilingual (the sixth century), as has sometimes been suggested. Nonetheless, on
the basis of the sources available it seems more likely that R was replaced by the
more elaborate C2 in the second half of the seventh century under the Greek-
speaking popes Agatho or Leo II. When the Roman liturgy of baptism spread to
the Frankish empire in the later eighth century, it appears that either C2 or (some
form of) T were used at baptism. We have no evidence of filioque being quoted in
the baptismal rite in any liturgical book before the mid-tenth century.
In Spain the Visigoth king Reccared appears to have made an attempt to in-
troduce C2 into the Sunday liturgy at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, locating it
just before the recital of the Lord’s Prayer. This practice appears to have been
generally adopted in Spain. Elsewhere in the west, however, the creed does not
appear to have been introduced into the liturgy of the mass before the late eighth
century. Charlemagne insisted that C2 be chanted during mass and that filioque be
included, perhaps in order to combat Spanish adoptionism. In his sphere of influ-
ence C2 appears to have been placed after the Gospel reading. Pope Leo III firmly
resisted this order, apparently continuing to recite C2 for catechetical purposes
only. Oddly, none of the preserved Frankish Gelasian Sacramentaries of the
eighth and ninth centuries contain the creed in the liturgy of the mass. It appears
that C2 was perhaps not introduced into the celebration of the eucharist in the
Holy Roman Empire at large until the eleventh century, even then remaining
largely restricted to Sundays and certain feast days. On those occasions the creed
was chanted after the Gospel or after the homily, and preceded the preparation
of the offerings. Thus, it did not introduce the Liturgy of the Eucharist as in the
east, but instead concluded the Liturgy of the Word of God, thus serving as the
congregation’s (orthodox) answer to the Gospel.
The creed’s ritualistic handling and the widespread prohibition to write it
down led to an increased sacralization of its text. As a result the creed, like the
Lord’s Prayer, played a major role in the everyday lives of believers as charms,
recited, for example, to protect from the danger of travelling and to enhance the
efficacy of medicinal herbs.
However, the creed never lost its didactic purpose nor its character as a sum-
mary of the faith which could be imparted to converts by way of preaching. In
this respect, the number of pertinent sermons is much greater from the Latin
than it is from the Greek church. It appears that in the west such credal instruc-
tion was much more formalized in that each individual clause of R or one of its
614 20 By Way of Summary: A Very Brief History of the Early Christian Creeds

descendants was explained in turn. In addition, the creed’s contents were dis-
played in paintings and on murals, and its text was later also chanted and sung.
Finally, the creeds also played a role in academic teaching. For instance, in scho-
lasticism the creed’s articles were included in theological textbooks and in the
great summae.

Whereas in the Byzantine Empire N and later C2 remained the only normative
creeds, the situation was more complex in those eastern churches that lay beyond
the boundaries of the Roman Empire. In particular, from 410 onwards we find a
particular recension of N in the Syriac Church of the East that is often called Per-
sicum. From the sixth century onwards the creed used in its baptismal liturgy
was the Roman-Antiochene recension of N (i.e. NAnt). In Armenia what is referred
to as the Nicene Creed is often not N in its pure form but some recension, the
most important being the so-called Armeniacum from the first half of the seventh
century which continues to be used to this day at baptism and during the celebra-
tion of the eucharist. In Coptic Egypt, by and large, N and later C2 prevailed (with
some variations), just as they did in the Arabic-speaking regions of the Middle
East and in Georgia. Initially, in Ethiopia a variety of different creeds were used
until, from the sixteenth century onwards, we find predominantly variants of C2
attested in the anaphora.
21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some
Concluding Thoughts

I hope the preceding pages have made clear what enormous importance the
creeds had in regulating theological discourse in antiquity and the middle ages.
For the average worshipper who did not know the Bible very well they may have
even surpassed Scripture in importance in their everyday religious lives and,
therefore, played a role in the formation of Christendom that can hardly be over-
estimated. On the one hand, this development was a positive one for Christianity
because the creed, in its evolution and use, was an important tool of elementary
instruction in the Christian faith and contributed to the new religion’s compara-
tively rapid spread. On the other hand, it also represented a loss because this con-
fession developed from a (necessarily reductionist) memory aid and orientation
marker into a foundational formula that suggested theological sufficiency and
was even regarded as having magical powers. Such a one-sided appreciation en-
tailed a loss of the richness, and a reduction, of the many different ways in which
the faith is expressed in the Bible. In this final chapter I would like to address
these aspects in a little more detail by taking a summary look at the four most
important representatives of the genre as a group. What do the creeds offer in
doctrinal terms? Is it possible to speak of a ‘theology’ of the creeds? What do the
creeds cover and what is missing? And finally, why have creeds at all? Could we
do without them?
It is difficult to speak of ‘a’ theology of the creeds if by ‘theology’ one under-
stands a uniform and coherent system of religious thought. No such system lies at
the base of R, T, N, or C2 because, as I have tried to show in this book, these are texts
that have developed over a long period of time and been altered and added to ac-
cording to the circumstances and challenges of each era. Moreover, we are only able
to reconstruct the rationale for certain expressions and the clauses included in the
creeds to a limited extent. And even where we are able to do so, this rationale may
have altered over time as later theologians may have interpreted the same clause or
clauses differently. Above all, due to a lack of evidence we do not know how ‘regular’
believers (whoever that may have been) ‘heard’ the creeds, what they associated
with them, and what value they attached to them, except for the fact that later on
they used them as magical formulae. Any ‘understanding’ of the creed that individ-
ual believers may have had must have been closely linked to the degree of biblical
knowledge which the ‘average’ churchgoer possessed. As Bibles were not readily
available, much depended on how regularly they attended church and on the quality
of catechesis and preaching they encountered (which in village churches may have
been very low, if homilies were preached at all).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-021
616 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts

However, this is not to say that creeds are an incoherent assemblage of theo-
logical propositions which could be interpreted in whatever way one wanted. In
what follows, I will try to show and explain which traits all creeds have in com-
mon and then point out some of their respective differences. For the sake of con-
venience, I will place the above-named four creeds side by side, in English – first R
with T, then N with C2.

R T N C

I I/We believe in God I believe in God We believe in one God, We believe in one God,
[the Father RR, RL] the Father Almighty, the Father Almighty, the Father Almighty,
Almighty,
Creator of heaven Maker of heaven and
and earth; earth,
Maker of all things of all things visible
both visible and and invisible;
invisible;
II and in Christ Jesus, and in Jesus Christ, and in one Lord Jesus and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, Christ,
his only[-begotten] his only Son, the Son of God, the only-begotten Son
Son, of God,
begotten from the begotten from the
Father, Father
before all ages,
only-begotten,
that is, from the
substance of the
Father;
God from God,
Light from Light, Light from Light,
true God from true true God from true
God, God,
begotten, not made, begotten, not made,
consubstantial with consubstantial with
the Father; the Father;
through whom all through whom all
things came into things came into
being, being;
both things in heaven
and things on earth;
who for (or: because who for (or: because
of) us humans and for of) us humans and for
our salvation our salvation
descended, descended,
from the heavens;
 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 617

(continued)

R T N C

became flesh, became flesh from

the Holy Spirit and the
virgin Mary;
became human, became human,
our Lord, our Lord,
who was born from who was conceived of
the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit,
and the virgin Mary; born from the virgin
Mary,
suffered under suffered,
Pontius Pilate,
who was crucified was crucified, was crucified for us
under Pontius Pilate, under Pontius Pilate,
suffered,
[and dead RL?] dead,
and buried; and buried; and was buried;
descended to the
underworld;
[and] on the third day on the third day rose on the third day rose on the third day rose
rose again from the again from the dead; again, again
dead;
according to the
Scriptures;
ascended into the ascended to the ascended into the ascended into the
heavens heavens; heavens, heavens;
and is sitting at the sits at the right hand sits at the right hand
right hand of the of God, the Father of the Father;
Father, Almighty;
whence he is coming thence he will come will come to judge the and will come again
to judge the living to judge the living living and dead; with glory to judge
and the dead; and the dead. the living and dead;
of whose kingdom
there will be no end;
III I/we believe [or: and] I believe in the Holy and in the Holy Spirit. and in the Holy Spirit,
in the Holy Spirit, Spirit,
the Lord and life-
giver, who proceeds
from the Father, who
is jointly worshipped
and glorified with the
Father and the Son,
who spoke through
the prophets;
618 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts

(continued)

R T N C

the holy [catholic RL?] the holy catholic in one holy catholic
Church, Church, and apostolic Church.
the communion of
saints,
We confess one
baptism for
the remission of sins, the remission of sins, the remission of sins.
We look forward to
the resurrection of the resurrection of the resurrection of
the flesh, the flesh, the dead
[eternal life RM]. and eternal life. and the life of the
world to come.
Amen. Amen.

As may easily be seen, all four creeds share a basic structure which derives from
their common predecessors, the regulae fidei and baptismal interrogations. The
trinitarian pattern is probably a result of the triadic baptismal formula or of tri-
adic questions used at baptism which, in turn, are closely linked to Mt 28:19 (al-
though the details of this relationship remain unknown).
All four creeds are primarily concerned with God’s activity as it appertains to
humankind and to the universe (although N and C2 do add terms describing intra-
trinitarian relations as a result of the fourth-century controversies). The three sec-
tions relate to the three persons of the Trinity and are introduced by ‘I/we believe
in’ or simply ‘and in’, thus indicating a personal relationship between the speaker –
be it as an individual or as member of a group – and the ‘object’ of their faith. The
choice of the singular or plural depends on the situation, e.g., whether the creed is
said individually or in a liturgical setting jointly by the congregation. The explicit
mention of ‘belief’ suggests more than simple affirmation of a set of theological
propositions: the creed is not only an ‘intellectual possession’ but expresses a per-
sonal relationship between the speaker and the triune God, one based on trust, as
well as fellowship among Christians (whenever the phrase ‘we believe’ is said).
The first section emphasizes the belief that God is the Father of Jesus Christ,
but also of humankind (as also expressed in the Lord’s Prayer). It is also stressed
that the Father is ‘almighty’. In R the Father’s omnipotence remains unspecified;
in T, N, and C2 it is further explained by the mention of his creative activity: he
has simply created everything, that is the entire universe.
Christ is confessed as God’s Son and our Lord. No further explanations of the
precise nature of his lordship are given. In particular, it is not specified how
 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 619

Christ’s lordship relates to that of secular powers such as the emperor. One might
call this a ‘sleeping’ proposition which only came to be ‘activated’ if and when
these two lordships happened to clash (in which case Christ’s was clearly seen as
superior to that of the emperor). The creeds also agree in Christ being God’s only
Son. I will return to this point below. This is followed by the christological summary
which in all creeds consists of the generation (in R by implication) and birth in
which, according to R, T, and C2, both the Holy Spirit and Mary were involved. R, T,
and C2 also stress the virgin birth, but do not specify what its implications might be.
In particular, nothing further is added about the precise nature of this event. Nor is
anything said about Christ’s activities during his sojourn on earth, in particular his
proclamation and miracles. By contrast, all creeds mention the passion (although
the details differ). R, T, and C2 place this passion in the time of Pontius Pilate, thus
emphasizing the factuality of the event itself: Christ’s death occurred at a particular
point in history, and it did happen in actual fact (rather than just seeming to hap-
pen). All creeds also agree on Christ’s resurrection on the third day, on his ascen-
sion into the heavens, and on his eventual return to act as judge over all of
humankind. R, T, and C2 also add his sitting at the right hand of God/the Father:
after his ascension Christ does not ‘dissolve’ into the Godhead, he remains distinct
from the Father and is assigned a particular dignity resembling that granted to the
son of an emperor. By implication, his ‘sitting’ also indicates that the risen Christ is
not just a spiritual, incorporeal being but continues to possess some kind of body.
Finally, all creeds mention belief in the Holy Spirit, but they differ in what
follows. Interestingly, they fail to spell out the details of Christ’s saving action. In
fact, the western creeds do not specify at all why the incarnation happened,
whereas N and C2 only briefly indicate that it was ‘for us humans and for our
salvation’. It may, therefore, be fair to say that the creeds contain no (elaborate)
soteriology. In this they leave an ‘opening’ that would later to be filled by a very
diverse range of concepts of human salvation.

Let us now look at the specifics of R/T and N/C2 in turn. The earliest creeds, R and T,
are much blander than the eastern creeds. In fact, R offers nothing more than the
basic tenets I outlined in the previous section except for the pneumatological article.
In this the holy (catholic) Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh,
and eternal life were added, all of which were later repeated in T. It is not explained
how these elements relate to the Spirit, if at all. The fact that they are not preceded
by ‘in’ may indicate that they are attributes or operations of the Spirit: they detail
what we should think of when imagining the ‘nature’ and work of the Spirit. The
Church is a product of the Spirit which he fills with his presence and thus sanctifies.
However, the notion of ‘Church’ remains strangely ill-defined: is it the invisible body
620 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts

of Christ which is filled with the Spirit (in the sense of 1Cor 12:1–13) or is it also seen
as an institution? Does it include only the Church hierarchy (as opposed to the laity)?
Are, by implication, all bishops and priests holy? All these questions were posed in
expositions of the creed, but they remain unanswered in the text of the creed itself.
In addition, the Church is seen as ‘catholic’ which in the beginning simply
meant that it was ‘universal’. This could be understood as a claim to Christen-
dom’s world-wide presence and importance (which, perhaps, even included the
angels), but it also quickly came to be used to distinguish certain forms of Chris-
tianity from others considered ‘particular’ and as such heretical. Furthermore,
the remission of sins takes place through the work of the Holy Spirit, first at bap-
tism and then in penance. As regards the resurrection, the Spirit is the life-giving
force in the description of the raising from the dead in Ezek 37:1–14. One may,
perhaps, also cite the contrast drawn between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘physical’
body in 1Cor 15:44–46. Finally, the endings of R and T provide no answer as to
what the Spirit’s role, if any, might be in relation to eternal life.
However, the clauses following the Spirit were not always interpreted in this
manner, that is as further defining his activity: sometimes ‘in’ was added to
them – with ‘believe’ implied, and explanations were given according to which all
or some of the clauses were themselves objects of faith. If truth be told we do not
really know precisely why these clauses were added, while others such as about
baptism and the eucharist or any kind of ethical commandment were not. (Bap-
tism was later introduced in C2.)
Furthermore, there are some clauses which were inserted only in T: in the first
section God’s creative activity (a manifestation of his omnipotence) is specifically
highlighted. Moreover, the Spirit’s involvement in Christ’s conception is referred to
in order to prevent certain misinterpretations of the virgin birth. Christ’s suffering
was also added, probably in order to emphasize the reality of his passion. We also
find his descent to the underworld mentioned though it was interpreted in a range
of different ways; in any case it signified Christ’s participation in this aspect of
human existence after death (as it was envisaged in antiquity) too, as well as the
universality of Christ’s saving action which included those who had died before his
coming. The addition of the ‘Father Almighty’ to the sitting at the right hand is, per-
haps, less significant. Finally, the ‘communion of saints’ in the third section might,
again, be interpreted in different ways: it could refer to all Christians, dead and
alive, or to the assembly of saintly Christians (martyrs and miracle-workers) past
and present, or to every believer’s participation in the ‘holy elements’ of the eucha-
rist. The final ‘Amen’ (though not always spoken) concluded the recitation of the
creed and once more marked the speaker’s agreement with its content.
✶
 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 621

N is also divided into three sections (to which anathemas were appended which
were mostly not considered an integral part of N). N focusses on the relation be-
tween Father and Son and summarizes their respective actions in salvation his-
tory. In the first section God’s creative activity is emphasized even more strongly
by including the realm of invisible beings (such as angels and spirits). As a result
of the Arian controversy the relationship between the Father and the Son is fur-
ther defined by emphasizing generation ‘from the Father’ (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός) and the
Son’s full divinity. The verb ‘to beget’ (γεννᾶν) is used to describe this particular
relationship which is in every respect unique: the Son is the only being to whom
this status is accorded (μονογενῆ / ‘only-begotten’). He participates in the ‘sub-
stance’ of the Father (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός / ‘from the substance of the Fa-
ther’), he is ‘God from God’ and differs from all creatures which have been ‘made’
and came into being not from God but out of nothing (although the creation ex
nihilo (‘out of nothing’) is not explicitly mentioned). This status is then summa-
rized in two clauses: ‘begotten, not made’ (γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα), and ‘con-
substantial with the Father’ (ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί). The adjective homooúsios
serves to underline this particular relationship, which nonetheless remains some-
what fuzzy because it is not said what ‘from the substance of the Father’ means
precisely: is the substance of the Father and the Son completely identical or sim-
ply, in one way or another, of the same nature? Moreover, the Son’s cooperation
in creation (Jn 1:10) is added which strengthens the underlying Johannine dy-
namic of this creed (Jn 1:1–14).
The process of the incarnation is also set out in further detail with the terms
‘descended’ (κατελθόντα), ‘became incarnate’ (σαρκωθέντα), and ‘became human’
(ἐνανθρωπήσαντα). The descended Son does not only take on human flesh but be-
comes a full human being. The verb ἐνανθρωπεῖν and cognate noun ἐνανθρώπη-
σις are typical Christian neologisms1 which literally mean ‘inhumanization’, i.e.
‘to become’ or ‘to be an ἄνθρωπος’, i.e. a human being.2 Incarnation and ‘inhuma-
nization’ are obviously considered identical (which was later denied by Apolinar-
ians and Anhomoians alike, although for different reasons).
Christ’s birth (including the Spirit and the Virgin) is not explicitly listed – nor
is the sitting on the right mentioned either; the passion is summarized by the
word ‘suffered’. The third section is limited to naming the Holy Spirit, without
any further details as to its nature or operation being given.

 The only exception may be Heliodorus (s. III/IV), Aethiopica 2,31,1.

 Later Latin translations of N use inhumanatus here (cf. FaFo § 135d23.1.3 etc.). The translation
‘to become/be incarnate’ (suggested in Lampe 1961(1984), s.v.) is imprecise because it may imply
that Christ only became caro, i.e. flesh.
622 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts

This section is expanded in C2. By contrast, in its first two sections C2 does not
differ much from N in terms of theological content. Its first section concerning
the Father’s creative activity is the most ponderous of all the four creeds, combin-
ing as it does the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ and of ‘all things visible and invis-
ible’. The second section emphasizes that the Son was begotten before time (and
is, therefore, coeternal with the Father). This served to underline the consubstan-
tiality of Father and Son which by then had come to be understood as an identity
of substance rather than simply as some kind of ‘likeness’ (although this ‘identity’
posed new conceptual problems which, interestingly, were not often addressed).
The birth as such is not mentioned in this creed either, but the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary are added to ‘became flesh’ without any further elaboration. The
supplement ‘according to the Scriptures’ was added to the resurrection; it was
probably taken from 1Cor 15:3–4 to lend authority to this extraordinary event.
Furthermore, C2 adds the sitting at the right hand. It also contains the additions
‘with glory’ and ‘of whose kingdom there will be no end’. ‘With glory’ may allude
to 2Tim 2:10. The second addition is a quotation from Lk 1:33 and is directed
against the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. But even if someone was not aware
of this particular controversy, the references to the sitting at the right hand and
of the endless nature of his kingdom served as a hermeneutical guide to the inter-
pretation of 1Cor 15:28 (‘When all things are subjected to him, then the Son him-
self will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him,
so that God may be all in all.’): this sentence is not to be understood in such a way
that the Son and the Father will disappear as distinct hypostáseis, but rather that
they will forever remain own separate persons.
C2’s section on the Holy Spirit is the most elaborate of the creeds under con-
sideration. I have discussed these expansions at some length above.3 It may suf-
fice in the present context to point out once again that the Holy Spirit is described
as ‘Lord and life-giver who proceeds from the Father, who is jointly worshipped
and glorified with the Father and the Son’ which was no doubt meant to para-
phrase homooúsios and indeed amounts to the same thing. But even worshippers
who did not know the finer details of the controversies behind these terms would
realize that the Spirit was ‘Lord’, that as ‘life-giver’ he also had a role in creation
and in even in their daily lives, and that he was to be worshipped just like the
Father and the Son (which meant that he had some kind of divine status). After
the doxology C2 added that the Spirit ‘spoke through the prophets’, thus defining
his nature more precisely by tying him with the Old Testament: it is the Spirit of
the prophets who is venerated here, who is only found within the Judeo-Christian

 Cf. above pp. 370–4.

 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 623

tradition. One, therefore, ought to be wary of anyone who wished to ban the Old
Testament as outdated, as the Marcionites and some gnostic groups did, or of
those who claimed to possess the Spirit, without knowing its nature as evident
from the sayings of the prophets. Likewise, C2 thus implied that the divine hypós-
tasis of the Spirit had already been active in the Old Testament.
The clauses added after the section on the Spirit are introduced by ‘in’ the
Church (with ‘believe’ implied), followed by ‘we confess’ baptism and ‘we expect’
the resurrection. Thus a clear hierarchy of doctrinal propositions is indicated: ‘be-
lief statements’ are restricted to the persons of the Trinity and, perhaps, to the
Church (unless its mention is, as – perhaps – in R/T, seen as an extension of the
article on the Holy Spirit). At the same time the abrupt changes in confessional
‘intensity’ (from belief in to confessing and expectation) give this section a some-
what uneven structure. In the statement on the Church ‘one’ and ‘apostolic’ were
added as further attributes. Salvation could only be obtained within the fold of
the episcopal churches in apostolic succession which held ‘orthodox’ trinitarian
beliefs and were part of the official diocesan structure of the Roman Empire, as
such forming one orthodox Church that extended all over the world (as opposed
to the many congregations of the heretics that were only present in small areas).
It is much less clear why the oneness of baptism was affirmed and why baptism
was mentioned at all, whereas the eucharist, for example, was not. In terms of
sacramental theology, there seems to be a distinct gap here. This may have been
caused by C2 being intended for use in catechesis during which it was important
to impress on the catechumens that baptism could only be received once and that
its purpose was the forgiveness of sin.
✶

I have already indicated in the previous sections what is missing from the creeds.
Harnack phrased it like this, in a small treatise on the history of the Apostles’
Creed:

What gives [the creed] its greatest and lasting value is – apart from the confession of God as
the almighty Father – the confession of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God our Lord,
and the testimony that through him the holy Christendom, the forgiveness of sins, and eter-
nal life have come about. But one misses references to his preaching, to his characteristics
as Saviour of the poor and sick, of tax-collectors and sinners, to his personality as it shines
in the Gospels. In actual fact, the creed contains nothing more than headings. In this sense it
is imperfect; for no confession is perfect that does not paint the Saviour before one’s eyes
and impresses him upon one’s heart.4

 Harnack 1892(1904), p. 254.

624 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts

The accusation that the creeds lack any reference to Jesus’ preaching and the ethi-
cal instructions contained therein, which enable the Christian to follow Christ,
was not new. Indeed, it is repeated to the present day: there is no reference to
how Christians are to live their lives and relate to other human beings, although
the Bible contains ethical summaries such as the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1–17;
Deut 5:6–21), the double commandment of love (Mk 12:29–31 par.), or the Golden
Rule (Lev 19:18; Mt 7:12; Lk 6:31), which would have been suitable for inserting
into a creed or could at least have been referred to (in the case of the Decalogue).
Instead, right from the beginning the creed was understood to offer a summary
of dogmatic but not ethical teachings.
Of course, this does not have to remain the case going forward, but it would
be unfortunate to try to fill this gap in the creeds today by changing their texts,
because they are ecumenically acknowledged as they are, and thus are part of the
common heritage of Christendom and as such also of the wider world.5 Having
said that, I think it would be helpful if many churches could agree to supplement
the confession with the double commandment of love in both their preaching and
liturgy. This could address the justified concern of many Christians who see their
religion as not exclusively a religion of salvation but also as one of active love.
The theological reflection that the creeds encapsulate helped to establish a
wide consensus on how we describe the Christian God and his saving work in
Christ and in the Holy Spirit.6 This consensus continues to influence Christian the-
ology all over the world 1700 years later. However, with the rise of evangelicalism
and Pentecostalism, trinitarian theology has come under heavy criticism, some of
it justified. But we should not be too quick to belittle the achievements of the
Church Fathers. The trinitarian debates of the fourth century have shown that
the biblical evidence is not unequivocal, but that patient conceptual work is
needed to ensure we have a coherent and communicable narrative about God.
Nevertheless, these debates also had problematic consequences that have
left, and continue to leave, their mark on the theology of later centuries. On the
one hand, as I hope to have shown, they promoted the exclusion of those who
maintained that the ‘orthodox’ theology as expressed in the creeds did not do jus-
tice to the biblical evidence in its entirety. This was done for good reasons and
with honourable motives, either because they sought to protect the sovereignty of
the one God or because they feared that the Nicene way of speaking about Jesus
unduly overshadowed other aspects of his ministry and teaching. On the other
hand, the Nicenes contributed significantly to the formation of an ‘elitist’ theol-

 This does not, of course, mean that new creeds supplementary to T or C2 could not be used.
 The following reflections are based on Kinzig 2023, pp. 233 f.
 21 A Theology of the Creeds? Some Concluding Thoughts 625

ogy, which was thenceforth discussed in learned institutions and could no longer
be easily communicated to ordinary Christians.
Both these troublesome legacies are, in my opinion, clearly evident in the
Protestant tradition to which I belong. In our churches there is both an inability
and an unwillingness to explain the achievements of fourth-century trinitarian
theology in a way that resonates with today’s congregation. The doctrine of the
Trinity is considered by some to be incomprehensible and removed from the sim-
ple truth contained in the Bible. Others argue that normative creeds deprive the
individual believer of their intellectual independence and do not sufficiently take
into account the diversity of human spirituality.
There are two common reactions to these criticisms both of which I consider
fallacious: some retreat to insisting time and again on the creed’s venerable au-
thority which expresses truths contained in the Bible in a timeless manner, while
others choose to ignore the theological insights contained in the creeds, resorting
to simple biblical paraphrases or to problematic moralizing in their catechesis or
preaching. The problem with the first reaction is that a truth which ever more
Christians regard as outlandish will hardly be acknowledged by them as relevant
to their religion. By contrast, the second reaction’s plain paraphrases of biblical
stories or moralizing discourses about sin and Christian virtues seriously under-
rate the intellectual energy embodied in the New Testament: the ancient trinitar-
ian debates developed for a reason. That reason is the intellectual challenge the
biblical message posed as it claimed that God had come down to earth, together
with the clues it contained as to how he did so, which later generations used to
work out solutions that would – to a certain extent – satisfy the desire for concep-
tual consistency.
There is no easy solution to this dilemma. In order to come to terms with the
biblical evidence, most Church Fathers in fact took recourse to a Platonist ontol-
ogy that gave the divine substance pride of place, whereas the environment in
which we live, which is characterized by manifold and often conflicting ideas, ex-
periences, and emotions, was accorded a lesser degree of reality in this hierarchy
of being. In an age abounding with scientific explanations of the world and with
technologies that go a long way towards improving people’s daily lives, such an
ontology is no longer plausible. It is to be hoped that the present book, in studying
the history of the creeds, may contribute to developing new ways to communicate
the significance of Christ’s incarnation, passion, and resurrection for our salva-
tion to a wider public.
Bibliography
Abascal, Juan M./Gimeno, Helena, Epigrafía hispánica. Catálogo del Gabinete de Antigüedades, Madrid
2000 (Publicaciones del Gabinete de Antigüedades de la Real Academia de la Historia 1/
Antigüedades 1)
Abramowski, Luise, ‘Die Synode von Antiochien 324/25 und ihr Symbol’, ZKG 86 (1975), pp. 356–66;
English version under the title ‘The Synod of Antioch 324/25 and Its Creed’, in: id., Formula and
Context: Studies in Early Christian Thought, Hampshire/Brookfield, VT 1992 (CStS), no. III (page
numbers according to English version)
Abramowski, Luise, ‘Was hat das Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum (C) mit dem Konzil von
Konstantinopel 381 zu tun?’, ThPh 67 (1992), pp. 481–513
Abramowski, Luise, ‘Die liturgische Homilie des Ps. Narses mit dem Messbekenntnis und einem
Theodor-Zitat’, BJRL 78/3 (1996), pp. 87–100
Abramowski, Luise, Neue christologische Untersuchungen, ed. by Volker H. Drecoll, Hanns
C. Brennecke, Christoph Markschies, Berlin/Boston 2021 (TU 187)
Abramowski, Luise/Goodman, Alan E., A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts, 2 vols., Cambridge
1971 (UCOP 18–19)
Abramowski, Luise/Hainthaler, Theresia, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, vol. II/5: Die Kirche
in Persien, Freiburg etc. 2022
Akinian, Nerses/Casey, Robert P., ‘Two Armenian Creeds’, HTR 24 (1931), pp. 143–51
Alexopoulos, Theodoros, Photios’ von Konstantinopel – ‘Mystagogie des Heiligen Geistes’: Übersetzung
und theologischer Kommentar, Berlin/Boston 2023 (AKG 153)
Alikin, Valeriy A., The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the
Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries, Leiden/Boston 2010 (SVigChr 2010)
Allen, Pauline/Neil, Bronwen, Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile, edited
and translated, Oxford 2002 (OECT)
Amidon, Philip R., ‘Paulinus’ Subscription to the Tomus ad Antiochenos’, JThS 53 (2002), pp. 53–74
Anderson, Mary D., Drama and Imagery in English Medieval Churches, Cambridge 1963
Andrieu, Michel, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Age, 5 vols., Leuven 1931–1961 (SSL 11, 23, 24,
28, 29)
Andrist, Patrick, ‘Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste’, RechAug 34 (2005), pp. 63–141
Andrist, Patrick, ‘The Two Faces of Apollinarius: A Glimpse into the Complex Reception of an
Uncommon Heretic in Byzantium’, in: Bergjan/Gleede/Heimgartner 2015, pp. 285–306
Angenendt, Arnold, ‘Bonifatius und das Sacramentum initiationis: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Firmung’ [1977], in: id., Liturgie im Mittelalter: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by
Thomas Flammer/Daniel Meyer, second ed., Münster 2005 (Ästhetik – Theologie – Liturgik 35),
pp. 35–87
Angenendt, Arnold, ‘Der Taufritus im frühen Mittelalter’, in: Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale
occidentale, vol. I, Spoleto 1987 (SSAM 33), pp. 275–336
Angenendt, Arnold, Das Frühmittelalter: Die abendländische Christenheit von 400 bis 900, third ed.,
Stuttgart etc. 2001
Angenendt, Arnold, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, fourth ed., Darmstadt 2009
Articles. wherevpon it was agreed by the archbysshops and Bisshops of both the prouinces, and the whole
Clergye, in the Conuocation holden at London in the yere of our Lord God .M.D.lxii. accordyng to the
computation of the Churche of England, for thauoydyng of the diuersities of opinions, and for the
stablyshyng of consent touchyng true religion. Put foorth by the Quenes aucthoritie, London 1563

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-022
628 Bibliography

Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr, The Apostles’ Creed: The Apostles’ Creed and Its Early Christian Context,
London/New York 2009
Assemani, Giuseppe L., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae, vol. I, Rome 1749
Assemani, Giuseppe L., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae, vol. II: De baptismo, Rome 1749
Assemani, Giuseppe L., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae, vol. III: De confirmatione, Rome 1750
Atkinson, Charles M., ‘Zur Entstehung und Überlieferung der “Missa graeca”’, AfMW 39 (1982),
pp. 113–45
Atkinson, Charles M., ‘The Doxa, the Pisteuo and the ellinici fratres: Some Anomalies in the
Transmission of the Chants of the “Missa Graeca”’, Journal of Musicology 7 (1989), pp. 81–106
Atkinson, Charles M., ‘Further Thoughts on the Origin of the Missa Graeca’, in: Peter Cahn/Ann-
Katrin Heimer (eds.), De Musica et cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper.
Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, Hildesheim 1993 (Musikwissenschaftliche Publikationen/
Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst Frankfurt/Main 2), pp. 75–93
Aubineau, Michel, ‘Les 318 serviteurs d’Abraham (Gen., XIV, 14) et le nombre des pères au concile de
Nicée (325)’, RHE 61 (1966), pp. 5–43
Auf der Maur, Hansjörg, Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit I: Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr, Regensburg 1983
(GDK 5)
Auffarth, Christoph, art. ‘Mysterien (Mysterienkulte)’, in: RAC, vol. XXV, 2013, cols. 422–71
Auksi, Peter, Christian Plain Style: The Evolution of a Spiritual Idea, Montreal etc. 1995
Aust, Hugo/Müller, Dieter, ‘art. ἀνάθεμα’, in: TBLNT, vol. I, Studien-Ausgabe, 1977, pp. 348 f.
Avagyan, Anahit, Die armenische Athanasius-Überlieferung: Das auf Armenisch unter dem Namen des
Athanasius von Alexandrien tradierte Schrifttum, Berlin/Boston 2014 (PTS 69)
Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford 2004
Ayres, Lewis, ‘Irenaeus and the “Rule of Truth”: A Reconsideration’, in: Lewis Ayres/H. Clifton Ward
(eds.), The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual, Berlin/Boston 2020 (AKG 139), pp. 145–63
Backes, Katharina, ‘Zur Ikonographie der Credo-Apostel und ihren Beispielen in der Wandmalerei
zwischen Rhein, Neckar und Enz’, in: Beuckers Klaus G(ed.), Die mittelalterlichen Wandmalereien
zwischen Rhein, Neckar und Enz, Ubstadt-Weiher etc. 2011 (Heimatverein Kraichgau/
Sonderveröffentlichung 35), pp. 147–62
Badcock, Francis J., ‘The Council of Constantinople and the Nicene Creed’, JThS 16 (1915), pp. 205–25
Badcock, Francis J., ‘Sanctorum communio as an Article of the Creed’, JThS 21 (1920), pp. 106–26
Badcock, Francis J., ‘The Old Roman Creed,’ JThS 23 (1922), pp. 362–89
Badcock, Francis J., The History of the Creeds, second ed., New York 1938
Barbet, Jeanne/Lambot, Cyrille, ‘Nouvelle tradition du symbole de rite gallican’, RBen 75 (1965),
pp. 335–45
Barbian, Karl-Josef, Die altdeutschen Symbola: Beiträge zur Quellenfrage, Sankt Augustin 1964
(VMStA 14)
Barceló, Pedro, Constantius II. und seine Zeit: Die Anfänge des Staatskirchentums, Stuttgart 2004
Barnes, Timothy D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge, Mass./London 1982
Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire,
Cambridge, Massachusetts/London 1993
Barnes, Timothy D., ‘The Exile and Recalls of Asterius’, JThS 60 (2009), pp. 109–29
Barnes, Timothy D., Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, Chichester,
West Sussex 2011 (paperback 2014; Blackwell Ancient Lives)
Barnes, W. Emery, ‘The “Nicene” Creed in the Syriac Psalter’, JThS 7 (1906), pp. 441–9
Barry, Jennifer, Bishops in Flight: Exile and Displacement in Late Antiquity, Oakland, California 2019 (The
Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature)
 Bibliography 629

Barth, Gerhard, art. ‘πίστις κτλ.’, in: EDNT, vol. III, 1993, pp. 91–7
Bartl, Dominik, Der Schatzbehalter: Optionen der Bildrezeption, unpublished PhD diss., Heidelberg 2010;
download: URL <http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/10735> (27/11/2023)
Bartl, Dominik/Gepp-Labusiak, Miriam, Der Mainzer Schatzbehalter: Ein koloriertes Andachtsbuch von
1491, Darmstadt 2012
Bauckham, Richard J., Jude – 2 Peter, Dallas etc. 1990 (Word Biblical Themes)
Baum, Wilhelm/Winkler, Dietmar W., The Church in the East: A Concise History, London/New York 2003
Baumer, Christoph, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, new edition,
London/New York 2016
Baumstark, Anton, ‘Eine aegyptische Mess- und Taufliturgie vermutlich des 6. Jahrhunderts’, OrChr 1
(1901), pp. 1–45
Baumstark, Anton, Die Messe im Morgenland, 4. Tausend, Kempten etc. n.d. (1921; Sammlung Kösel 8)
Baumstark, Anton, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palästinensischen Texte,
Bonn 1922
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘La versione etiopica della Didascalia dei 318 niceni sulla retta fede e la vita
monastica’, in: Ugo Zanetti/Enzo Lucchesi (eds.), Aegyptus Christiana: Mélanges d’hagiographie
égyptienne et orientale dédiés à la mémoire du P. Paul Devos Bollandiste, Geneva 2004, pp. 225–48
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘The “so-called Traditio apostolica”: Preliminary Observations on the New Ethiopic
Evidence’, in: Heike Grieser/Andreas Merkt (eds.), Volksglaube im antiken Christentum, Darmstadt
2009, pp. 291–321
Bausi, Alessandro, art. ‘Traditio Apostolica’, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, vol. IV, 2010, pp. 980–1
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘La “nuova” versione etiopica della Traditio apostolica. Edizione e traduzione
preliminare’, in: Paola Buzi/Alberto Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and
Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, Rome 2011, pp. 19–69 (SEAug 125)
Bausi, Alessandro/Camplani, Alberto, ‘New Ethiopic Documents for the History of Christian Egypt’,
ZAC 17 (2013), pp. 195–227
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture’, in: Jörg
B. Quenzer/Dmitry Bondarev/Jan-Ulrich Sobisch (eds.), Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field,
Berlin etc. 2014, pp. 37–77
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘Zufallsfund in den Tigray-Bergen: Wenn ein Wissenschaftler unter einen
Kirchenschrank schaut . . .’, in: Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC), manuskript
des monats 08/2015; download: URL <https://www.manuscript-cultures.uni-hamburg.de/mom/
2015_08_mom.html> (25/10/2018)
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts: The Ethiopian Evidence’, in: Michael
Friedrich/Cosima Schwarke (eds.), One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts,
Berlin/Boston 2016 (Studies in Manuscript Cultures 9), pp. 111–53
Bausi, Alessandro/Camplani, Alberto, ‘The History of the Episcopate of Alexandria (HEpA): Editio minor of
the fragments preserved in the Aksumite Collection and in the Codex Veronensis LX (58)’, Adam. 22
(2016), pp. 249–302
Bausi, Alessandro, ‘The Baptismal Ritual in the Earliest Ethiopic Canonical Liturgical Collection’, in:
Heinzgerd Brakmann et al. (eds.), ‘Neugeboren aus Wasser und Heiligem Geist’: Kölner Kolloquium
zur Initiatio Christiana, Münster 2020 (JThF 37), pp. 31–83
Beatrice, Pier F., ‘The Word “Homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity’, ChH 74 (2002), pp. 243–72
Becker, Carl, art. ‘Fides’, in: RAC, vol. VII, 1969, cols. 801–39
Becker, Karl J., ‘Articulus fidei (1150–1230): Von der Einführung des Wortes bis zu den drei
Definitionen Philipps des Kanzlers’, Gr. 54 (1973), pp. 517–69
630 Bibliography

Becker, Matthias, Porphyrius, Contra Christianos: Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und
Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Berlin/Boston 2016 (TK 52)
Becker, Oswald/Michel, Otto, art. ‘Faith, Persuade, Belief, Unbelief’, in: NIDNTT, vol. I, 1975,
pp. 587–606
Behr, John, St Irenaeus of Lyons: On the Apostolic Preaching. Translated and with an Introduction,
Crestwood, New York 1997
Behr, John, The Nicene Faith, 2 vols., Crestwood, NY 2004 (The Formation of Christian Theology 2)
Belsheim, Johannes, art. ‘Caspari, Carl Paul’, in: RE, third ed., vol. III, 1897, pp. 737–42
Benga, Daniel, art. ‘Didascalia Apostolorum’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000927> (27/11/2023)
Benko, Stephen, The Meaning of Sanctorum Communio, London 1964 (Studies in Historical Theology 3)
Bensly, Robert L./Harris, J. Rendel/Burkitt, F. Crawford, The Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the
Sinaitic Palimpsest, Cambridge 1894
Berger, David, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Niẓẓaḥon
Vetus with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Philadelphia 1979
Berger, Jean-Denis/Fontaine, Jacques/Schmidt, Peter L. (eds.), Die Literatur im Zeitalter des Theodosius
(374–430 n. Chr.), part II: Christliche Prosa, München 2020 (HLLA VI/2)
Berger, Klaus, ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’, in: ANRW, vol. II 25/2, 1984,
pp. 1031–432, 1831–85
Berger, Klaus, Einführung in die Formgeschichte, Tübingen 1987 (UTB 1444)
Berger, Klaus, Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament, Tübingen 2005 (UTB 2532)
Bergjan, Silke-Petra/Gleede, Benjamin/Heimgartner, Martin (eds.), Apollinarius und seine Folgen,
Tübingen 2015 (STAC 93)
Bergmann, Rolf (ed.), Althochdeutsche und altsächsische Literatur, Berlin/Boston 2013, pp. 293–315
Berndt, Guido M./Steinacher, Roland (eds.), Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed, Farnham,
Surrey/Burlington, VT 2014
Bertram, Jerome, The Chrodegang Rules: The Rules of the Common Life of the Secular Clergy from the
Eigth and Ninth Centuries. Critical Texts with Translations and Commentary, Abingdon/New York
2005 (Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West)
Berzon, Todd S., ‘Between Presence and Perfection: The Protean Creed of Early Christianity’, JECS 29
(2021), pp. 579–606
Bethurum, Dorothy, The Homilies of Wulfstan, Oxford 1957
Betti, Maddalena, The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882): Papal Power and Political Reality, Leiden/
Boston 2014 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 24)
Bevan, George A., ‘The Sequence of the First Four Sessions of the Council of Chalcedon’, in: StPatr,
vol. XCII, 2017, pp. 91–102
Bidawid, Raphaël J., Les lettres du patriarche Nestorien Timothée I: Étude critique avec en appendice La
lettre de Timothée I aux moines du Couvent de Mār Mārōn (traduction latine et texte chaldéen,
Vatican City 1956 (StT 187)
Bieler, Ludwig/Binchy, Daniel A. (eds.), The Irish Penitentials, Dublin 1963 (SLH 5)
Bienert, Wolfgang A., Dionysius von Alexandrien: Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert,
Berlin/New York 1978 (PTS 21)
Binggeli, André et al., Catalogue des manuscripts syriaques et garshuni du patriarcat syriaque-catholique
de Charfet (Liban), vol. I: Fonds patriarcal (Raḥmani) 1–125, Dar‘un-Harissa 2021
Bischoff, Bernhard/Lapidge, Michael, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and
Hadrian, Cambridge 1994 (CSASE 10)
 Bibliography 631

Black, Robert R./St-Jacques, Raymond (eds.), The Middle English Glossed Prose Psalter: Edited from
Cambridge, Magdalene College, MS Pepys 2498, 2 vols., Heidelberg 2012 (Middle English Texts
45/46)
Blair, John, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford 2005
Blanchet, Marie-Hélène/Gabriel, Frédéric (eds.), L’Union à l’épreuve du formulaire: Professions de foi
entre Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle), Leuven etc. 2016 (Collège de France –
CNRS – Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monoigraphies 51)
Blanchet, Marie-Hélène, ‘Deux commentaires byzantins au Symbole des apôtres (fin XIVe-début XVe
siècle) et leurs modèles latins’, in: Panagiotis Ch. Athanasopoulos (ed.), Translation Activity in the
Late Byzantine World, Berlin/Boston 2022 (Byzantinisches Archiv – Series Philosophica 4),
pp. 407–40
Blatt, Franz, ‘Un nouveau texte d’une apologie anonyme’, in: ΔΡΑΓΜΑ Martino P. Nilsson A. D. IV ID.
IUL. ANNO MCMXXXIX dedicatum, Lund 1939 (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, series altera 1),
pp. 67–95
Bleckmann, Bruno/Stein, Markus, Philostorgios – Kirchengeschichte: Ediert, übersetzt und kommentiert,
2 vols., Paderborn 2015 (Kleine und Fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike E7)
Blowers, Paul M., Maximus the Confessor: Jesus Christ and the Transfiguration of the World, Oxford 2016
(Christian Theology in Context)
Blumell, Lincoln H., ‘P.Mich. inv. 4461kr: The Earliest Fragment of the Didascalia CCCXVIII Patrum
Nicaenorum’, JThS 68 (2017), pp. 607–20
Bochinger, Christoph et al., art. ‘Bekenntnis’, in: RGG, fourth ed., vol. I, 1998, cols. 1246–69
Boespflug, François, ‘Autour de la traduction picturale du Credo au Moyen Âge (XIIe–XVe siècle)’, in:
Paul De Clerck/Éric Palazzo (eds.), Rituels. Mélanges offerts à Pierre-Marie Gy, o.p., Paris 1990,
pp. 55–84
Böttrich, Christfried, ‘“Sorgt euch nicht, was ihr sagen sollt . . .”: Bekenntnisbildung im frühen
Christentum’, in: Thomas K. Kuhn (ed.), Bekennen – Bekenntnis – Bekenntnisse: Interdisziplinäre
Zugänge, Leipzig 2014 (GTF 22), pp. 61–102
Bonneau, Danielle, La crue du Nil: Divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire (332 av. – 641 ap. J.-C.)
d’après les auteurs grecs et latins, et les documents des époques ptolémaïque, romaine et byzantine,
Paris 1964 (EeC 52)
Bonneau, Danielle, ‘Les courants d’eau d’Isis (P. Lond. lit. 239)’, in: Sebastià Janeras (ed.), Miscel·lània
Papirològica Ramón Roca-Puig, Barcelona 1987, pp. 89–96
Bonwetsch, G. Nathanael, Die unter Hippolyts Namen überlieferte Schrift über den Glauben nach einer
Übersetzung der georgischen Version, Leipzig 1907 (TU 31/2, pp. 1–36)
Boodts, Shari/Schmidt, Gleb, art. ‘Sermon/Homiletics’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online,
2022; URL<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00003126> (27/11/2023)
Botte, Bernard, ‘Note sur la symbole baptismal de S. Hippolyte’, in: Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, vol.
I: Antiquité, Gembloux 1951 (ML.H 13), pp. 189–200
Botte, Bernard, La Tradition apostolique des Saint Hippolyte: Éssai de reconstitution, fifth ed., Münster,
Westfalen 1989 (LQF 39)
Bradshaw, Paul F., ‘“Diem baptismo sollemniorem”: Initiation and Easter in Christian Antiquity’
[1993], in: Maxwell E. Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation,
Collegeville, Minnesota 1995, pp. 137–47
Bradshaw, Paul F./Johnson, Maxwell E./Phillips, Edward, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, ed. by
Harold W. Attridge, Minneapolis 2002 (Hermeneia)
Bradshaw, Paul F., ‘Who Wrote the Apostolic Tradition? A Response to Alistair Stewart-Sykes’, SVTQ 48
(2004), 195–206
632 Bibliography

Bradshaw, Paul F., art. ‘Apostolic Constitutions’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018;
URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000246> (27/11/2023)
Bradshaw, Paul F., art. ‘Apostolic Tradition (Traditio Apostolica)’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
Online, 2018; URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000250> (27/11/2023)
Bradshaw, Paul F., Apostolic Tradition: A New Commentary, Collegeville, Minnesota 2023
Brandscheidt, Renate, art. ‘Glauben (AT)’ [2013], in: Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet
(WiBiLex); URL <http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/19652 > (27/11/2023)
Braun, Oskar, De sancta Nicaena synodo: Syrische Texte von Maruta von Maipherkat nach einer
Handschrift der Propaganda zu Rom übersetzt, Münster i.W. 1898 (KGS 4/3)
Braun, Oskar, Das Buch der Synhados oder Synodicon Orientale: Die Sammlung der nestorianischen
Konzilien, zusammengestellt im neunten Jahrhundert nach der syrischen Handschrift, Museo Borgiano
82, der Vatikanischen Bibliothek, übersetzt und erläutert, mit kritischen und historischen
Anmerkungen, Namen- und Sachregistern, Stuttgart/Wien 1900 (repr. Amsterdam 1975)
Braun, Oskar, ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timotheos I.’, OrChr 2 (1902), pp. 283–311
Braun, René, Deus Christianorum: Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien, second ed.,
Paris 1977
Bréhier, Louis, ἹΕΡΕΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ [1948], in: Herbert Hunger (ed.), Das byzantinische Herrscherbild,
Darmstadt 1975 (WdF 341), pp. 86–93
Bremmer, Jan N., Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity: Collected Essays I, Tübingen 2017
(WUNT 379)
Bremmer, Jan N., ‘God and Christ in the Earlier Martyr Acts’, in: Matthew V. Novenson (ed.),
Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Leiden/Boston 2020 (NT.S 180), pp. 222–48
Brennecke, Hanns C., Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II.:
Untersuchungen zur 3. Phase des Arianischen Streites (337 – 361), Berlin/New York 1984 (PTS 26)
Brennecke, Hanns C., art. ‘Hilarius von Poitiers (gest. 367 oder 368)’, in: TRE, vol. XV, 1986, pp. 315–22
Brennecke, Hanns C., art. ‘Lucian von Antiochien (Martyrium 7.1.312)’, in: TRE, vol. XXI, 1991, pp. 474–9
Brennecke, Hanns C., art. ‘Nicäa, Ökumenische Synoden, I. Ökumenische Synode von 325’, in: TRE,
vol. XXIV, 1994, pp. 429–41
Brennecke, Hanns C., art. ‘Paulinus von Antiochien’, in: BBKL, vol. XXXVII, 2016, cols. 803–13
Brennecke, Hanns Christof, Das Athanasianum – ein Text aus dem Westgotenreich? Uberlegungen zur
Herkunft des Symbolum quicumque, in: Uta Heil (ed.), Das Christentum im frühen Europa: Diskurse –
Tendenzen – Entscheiungen, Berlin/Boston 2019 (Millennium Studies 75), pp. 317–38
Brennecke, Hanns C. et al., Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, 3. Lieferung: Bis zur
Ekthesis makrostichos, Berlin etc. 2007 (Athanasius Werke 3/1,3)
Brennecke, Hanns C. et al., Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, 4. Lieferung: Bis zur
Synode von Alexandrien 362, Berlin/Boston 2014 (Athanasius Werke 3/1,4)
Brennecke, Hanns C., art. ‘Arianism’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000280> (27/11/2023)
Brennecke, Hanns C./Stockhausen, Annette von, Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites,
5. Lieferung: Bis zum Vorabend der Synode von Konstantinopel (381), Berlin/Boston 2020
(Athanasius Werke 3/1,5)
Brennecke, Hanns C./Grasmück, Ernst Ludwig/Markschies, Christoph (eds.), Logos: Festschrift für Luise
Abramowski zum 8. Juli 1993, Berlin/New York 1993 (BZNW 67)
Brent, Allen, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the
Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop, Leiden 1995 (SVigChr 31)
Brent, Allen, art. ‘Ignatians, Pseudo-’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00001666> (27/11/2023)
 Bibliography 633

Brewer, Heinrich, Das sogenannte Athanasianische Glaubensbekenntnis ein Werk des heiligen Ambrosius,
Paderborn 1909 (FChLDG 9/2)
Breydy, Michael, Jean Maron – Exposé de la foi et autres opuscules, 2 Bände, Löwen 1988 (CSCO
497–498/Scriptores Syri 209–210)
Breydy, Michael, ‘Richtigstellungen über Agapius von Manbiĝ und sein historisches Werk’, Oriens
Christianus 73 (1989), pp. 90–6
Breydy, Michael, art. ‘Johannes Maron’, in: BBKL, vol. III, 1992, cols. 480–2
Brightman, Frank E., Liturgies Eastern and Western Being the Texts Original or Translated of the Principal
Liturgies of the Church: Edited with Introductions and Appendices, vol. I: Eastern Liturgies, Oxford
1896 (repr. 1965)
Brinktrine, Johannes, ‘Die trinitarischen Bekenntnisformeln und Taufsymbole: Beiträge zu ihrer
Entstehung und Entwicklung’, ThQ 102 (1921), pp. 156–90
Brock, Sebastian, ‘A New Syriac Baptismal Ordo Attributed to Timothy of Alexandria’, Muséon 83
(1970), pp. 367–431
Brock, Sebastian, ‘A Remarkable Syriac Baptismal Ordo (BM Add. 14518)’, ParOr 2 (1971), pp. 365–78
Brock, Sebastian, ‘Studies in the Early History of the Syrian Orthodox Baptismal Liturgy’, JThS 23
(1972), pp. 16–64
Brock, Sebastian, ‘The Syrian Baptismal Ordines (With Special Reference to the Anointings)’, STLi 12
(1977), 177–83
Brock, Sebastian, ‘Some Early Syriac Baptismal Commentaries’, OCP 46 (1980), pp. 20–61
Brock, Sebastian, ‘The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early
Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Considerations and Materials’, in: George Dragas (ed.), Aksum-
Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyteira and Great Britain, London 1985,
pp. 125–42; also in: Sebastian Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature and Theology,
Aldershot/Brookfield Vermont 1992 (CStS CS357), no. XII
Brock, Sebastian, ‘Gabriel of Qatar’s Commentary on the Liturgy’, Hugoye 6 (2009), pp. 197–248
Brooks, Ernest W., A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts Edited
and Translated, Paris 1919 (PO 12/2)
Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, Madison, Wisconsin/
London 1992
Brown, Peter, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200–1000, Tenth Anniversary
Revised Edition, Chichester, West Sussex 2013
Brox, Norbert, art. ‘Häresie’, in: RAC, vol. XIII, 1986, cols. 248–97
Bruns, Peter, Theodor von Mopsuestia – Katechetische Homilien, vol. I, übersetzt und eingeleitet,
Freiburg etc. 1994 (FC 17/1)
Bruns, Peter, ‘Bemerkungen zur Rezeption des Nicaenums in der ostsyrischen Kirche’, AHC 32 (2000),
pp. 1–22
Bruns, Peter, ‘Das sogenannte “Nestorianum” und verwandte Symbole’, OrChr 89 (2005), pp. 43–62
Bruns, Peter, ‘Die Haltung der “Kirche des Ostens” zum Nicaenum’, AHC 40 (2008), pp. 47–60
Buber, Martin, Two Types of Faith, New York 1951
Bühler, Curt F., ‘The Apostles and the Creed’, Spec. 28 (1953), pp. 336–9
Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève, ‘Introduction’, in: Bührer-Thierry/Gioanni 2015, pp. 1–18
Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève/Gioanni, Stéphane (eds.), Exclure de la communauté chrétienne: Sens et
pratiques sociales de l’anathème et de l’excommunication (IVe–XIIe siècle), Turnhout 2015
Bultmann, Rudolf/Weiser, Artur, art. ‘πιστεύω κτλ.’, in: TDNT, vol. VI, 1968, pp. 174–228
Burgess, Richard W., Studies in Eusebian and post-Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart 1999 (Hist.E 135)
634 Bibliography

Burkard, Dominik, ‘Katechismen als Gegenstand kirchenhistorischer Forschung – Eine Einführung,

RoJKG 39 (2020), pp. 15–24
Burn, Andrew E., The Athanasian Creed and Its Early Commentaries, Cambridge 1896 (TaS 4/1)
Burn, Andrew E., An Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum, London 1899
Burn, Andrew E., Niceta of Remesiana: His Life and Works, Cambridge 1905
Burn, Andrew E., The Apostles’ Creed, New York 1906 (Oxford Church Text Books)
Burn, Andrew E., Facsimiles of the Creeds from Early Manuscripts, London 1909 (HBS 36)
Burn, Andrew E., The Nicene Creed, London 1909
Burn, Andrew E., The Athanasian Creed, second ed., London 1918 (Oxford Church Text Books)
Burn, Andrew E., The Council of Nicaea: A Memorial for its Sixteenth Centenary, London 1925
Burney, Charles, A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period (1789), ed. by
Frank Mercer, vol. I, New York, n.d. (1935)
Busch, Anja/Nicols, John/Zanella, Francesco, art. ‘Patronage (Patronus, Patronat)’, in: RAC, vol. XXVI,
2015, cols. 1109–38
Bynum, Caroline Walker, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336, New York 1995
Cabié, Robert, La Pentecôte: L’évolution de la Cinquantaine pascale au cours des cinq premiers siècles,
Paris 1965 (Bibliothèque de Liturgie)
Calhoun, Robert M., ‘The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets’, Early Christianity 11 (2020), pp. 415–50
Callahan, Daniel F., ‘The Problem of the “Filioque” and the Letter from the Pilgrim Monks of the
Mount of Olives to Pope Leo III and Charlemagne’, RBen 102 (1992), pp. 75–134
Cameron, Alan, ‘The Imperial Pontifex’, HSCP 103 (2007), pp. 341–84
Cameron, Alan, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford 2011
Cameron, Alan, ‘Pontifex Maximus: From Augustus to Gratian – and beyond’, in: Maijastina Kahlos
(ed.), Emperors and the Divine – Rome and its Influence, Helsinki 2016 (Collegium 20), pp. 139–59
Campenhausen, Hans von, ‘Taufen auf den Namen Jesu’ [1971], in: Campenhausen 1989, pp. 197–216
Campenhausen, Hans von, ‘Das Bekenntnis im Urchristentum’ [1972], in: Campenhausen 1979,
pp. 217–72
Campenhausen, Hans von, ‘Der Herrentitel Jesu und das urchristliche Bekenntnis’ [1975], in:
Campenhausen 1979, pp. 273–77
Campenhausen, Hans von, ‘Das Bekenntnis Eusebs von Caesarea (Nicaea 325)’ [1976], in:
Campenhausen 1979, pp. 278–99
Campenhausen, Hans von, Urchristliches und Altkirchliches: Vorträge und Aufsätze, Tübingen 1979
Camplani, Alberto, ‘Fourth-Century Synods in Latin and Syriac Canonical Collections and their
Preservation in the Antiochene Archives (Serdica 343 CE – Antioch 325 CE)’, in: Sofía Torallas
Tovar/Juan P. Monferrer-Sala (eds.), Cultures in Contact: Transfer of Knowledge in the
Mediterranean Context. Selected Papers, Córdoba/Beyrouth 2013 (CNERU – CEDRAC Series Syro-
Arabica 1), pp. 61–72
Campos, Julio, Juan de Bíclaro, obispo de Gerona: Su vida y su obra. Introducción, texto crítico y
comentarios, Madrid 1960 (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas/Estudios 32)
Capelle, Bernard, ‘Le symbole romain au second siècle’, RBen 39 (1927), pp. 33–45
Capelle, Bernard, ‘L’origine antiadoptianiste de notre texte du symbole de la messe’ [1929], in:
Capelle 1967, pp. 47–59
Capelle, Bernard, ‘Les origines du symbole romain’, RThAM 2 (1930), pp. 5–20
Capelle, Bernard, ‘Alcuin et l’histoire du symbole de la messe’ [1934], in: id., Travaux liturgiques de
doctrine et d’histoire, vol. II: Histoire. La messe, Leuven 1962, pp. 211–21
Capelle, Bernard, ‘L’introduction du symbole à la messe’ [1951], in: id. 1967, pp. 60–81
 Bibliography 635

Capelle, Bernard, Travaux liturgiques de doctrine et d’histoire, vol. III: Histoire. Varia – L’assomption,
Leuven 1967
Carlson, Stephen C., ‘The Fragments of Papias’, in: Michael F. Bird/Scott D. Harrower (eds.), The
Cambridge Companion to the Apostolic Fathers, Cambridge 2021, pp. 332–50
Cartwright, Sophie, The Theological Anthropology of Eustathius of Antioch, New York/Oxford 2015
(Oxford Early Christian Studies)
Caspari, Carl P., Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols
und der Glaubensregel herausgegeben und in Abhandlungen erläutert, 3 vols, Christiania 1866–1875
(repr. Brussels 1964)
Caspari, Carl P., Kirchenhistorische Anecdota nebst neuen Ausgaben patristischer und kirchlich-
mittelalterlicher Schriften, vol I.: Lateinische Schriften. Die Texte und die Anmerkungen,
Christiania 1883
Castelberg, Marcus, Wissen und Weisheit: Untersuchungen zur spätmittelalterlichen ‘Süddeutschen
Tafelsammlung’ (Washington, D.C., Library of Congress, Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, ms. no. 4),
Berlin/Boston 2013 (ScFr 35)
Catergian, Joseph, De fidei symbolo quo Armenii utuntur observationes, Vienna 1893
Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, Synodicon Orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens: Publié, traduit et annoté,
Paris 1902
Chadwick, Henry, ‘Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325 ’ [1958], in:
id., Selected Writings, Grand Rapids, Mich. 2017, pp. 87–100
Chadwick, Henry, Origen – Contra Celsum, repr. with corrections Cambridge 1965 (Pb 1980)
Chadwick, Henry, ‘The Chalcedonian Definition’ [1983], in: id., Selected Writings, ed. by William
G. Rusch, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2017, pp. 101–14
Chandler, Kegan A., Constantine and the Divine Mind: The Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism,
Eugene, Oregon 2019
Chébli, P., Sévère Ibn-al-Moqaffa῾, évèque d’Aschmounain: Réfutation de Sa῾îd Ibn-Batriq (Eutychius) (Le
livre des conciles), texte arabe publié et traduit, Paris 1909 (PO 3/2)
Çiçek, Julius Y. (ed.), The Sacraments of Holy Baptism, Marriage, and Burial of the Dead According to the
Ancient Rite of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, Piscataway, NJ 2010 (Bar Ebroyo Kloster
Publications 17)
Clemoes, Peter, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series. Text, Oxford etc. 1997
Coakley, James F., art. ‘Qdām w-Bāthar (Book of before and after)’, in: Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of
the Syriac Heritage 2011, p. 345
Cochlaeus, Johannes, Speculum antiquae devotionis circa missam, et omnem alium cultum dei: ex
antiquis, et antea nunquam evulgatis per Typographos Autoribus, Mainz 1549
Collins, Roger J.H., art. ‘Athanasianisches Symbol’, in: TRE, vol. IV, 1979, pp. 328–33
Collins, Roger J.H., Visigothic Spain 409–711, Malden, MA/Oxford 2004
Connolly, R. Hugh, ‘The Early Syriac Creed’, ZNW 7 (1906), pp. 202–23
Connolly, R. Hugh, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai: Translated into English with an Introduction,
Cambridge 1909 (TaS 8/1)
Connolly, R. Hugh, The Explanatio symboli ad initiandos: A Work of Saint Ambrose, Cambridge 1952
(TaS 10)
Connolly, R. Hugh/Codrington, Humphrey W., Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy by George
Bishop of the Arab Tribes and Moses Bār Kēphā: Together with the Syriac Anaphora of St James and a
Document Entitled The Book of Life, text and English translation, London/Oxford 1913 (Text and
Translation Society)
636 Bibliography

Contino, Carlo, La célébration du Nil dans les papyrus littéraires grecs, vol. I: Présentation des
témoignages papyrologiques, unpublished MA thesis, 2 vols. plus Liège 2020/2021; download:
URL <http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/12888> (27/11/2023)
Cook, John G., The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, Peabody,
Massachusetts 2002
Cooper, Stephen A., Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians. Introduction, Translation, and Notes,
Oxford 2005 (OECS)
Cowdrey, Herbert E.J., ‘John Norman Davidson Kelly, 1909–1997’, in: PBA 101 (1999), pp. 419–37
Cowper, Benjamin H., Syriac Miscellanies; or Extracts Relating to the First and Second General Councils,
and Various Other Quotations, Theological, Historical, & Classical: Translated into English from Mss. in
the British Museum and Imperial Library of Paris with Notes, London/Edinburgh 1861
Cramer, Peter, Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–c. 1150, Cambridge etc. 1993
(repr. 1994)
Crawford, Peter, Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist, Barnsley, South Yorkshire 2016
Crawford, Samuel J., ‘The Worcester Marks and Glosses of the Old English Manuscripts in the
Bodleian, Together with the Worcester Version of the Nicene Creed’, Anglia 52 (1928), pp. 1–25
Crocker, Richard L./Hiley, David, art. ‘Credo’, in: Grove Music Online, 2001; URL <https://doi.org/10.
1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.06803> (27/11/2023)
Cross, Frank L., ‘The Council of Antioch in 325 A.D.’, CQR 128 (1939), pp. 49–76
Crouzel, Henri, art. ‘Geist (Heiliger Geist)’, in: RAC, vol. IX, 1976, cols. 490–545
Crum, Walter E., Short Texts from Coptic Ostraca and Papyri, London etc. 1921
Crum, Walter E./Bell, Harold I., Wadi Sarga: Coptic and Greek Texts from the Escavations Undertaken by
the Byzantine Research Account, Copenhagen 1922 (Coptica 3)
Crum, Walter E./Evelyn-White, Hugh G., The Monatery of Epiphanius at Thebes, Part II: Coptic Ostraca
and Papyri/Greek Ostraca and Papyri, New York 1926 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian
Expedition)
Cullmann, Oscar, The Earliest Christian Confessions, London 1949
Cureton, William, Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects by Muhammad Al-Shahrastani: Now First
Edited from the Collation of Several Mss., 2 vols. London 1842/1846 (repr. Piscataway, NJ 2002)
Cvetković, Carmen A., ‘Greek Thought in Latin Language: Niceta of Remesiana’s View of the Church’,
in: Peter Gemeinhardt (ed.), Was ist Kirche in der Spätantike? Publikaton der Tagung der
Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft in Duderstadt und Göttingen (02.–05.01.2015), Leuven etc. 2017
(Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 14), pp. 101–16
d’Alès, Adhémar, ‘Novatien et la doctrine de la Trinité à Rome au milieu du troisième siècle’, Gr. 3
(1922) pp. 420–46, 497–523
d’Alverny, Marie-Thérèse, Alain de Lille: Textes inédits. Avec une introduction sur sa vie et ses œuvres,
Paris 1965 (EPhM 52)
Daley, Brian E., Gregory of Nazianzus, London/New York 2006 (The Early Church Fathers)
Daley, Brian E., Leontius of Byzantium – Complete Works: Edited and Translated, with an Introduction,
Oxford 2017 (OECT)
Dalmais, Irénée-Henry, ‘Die Mysterien (Sakramente) im orthodoxen und altorientalischen
Christentum’, in: Nyssen et al. 1989, pp. 141–81
Dalmais, Irénée-Henry, ‘Die nichtbyzantinischen orientalischen Liturgien: Entwicklung und Eigenart
der einzelnen Riten, besonders der Eucharistiefeier und des Stundengebets’, in: Nyssen et al.
1989, pp. 101–40
Daoud, Marcos/Hazen, Marsie, The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, n.p., n.d. (Cairo 1959)
Day, Juliette, Proclus on Baptism in Constantinople, Norwich 2005 (Joint Liturgical Study 59)
 Bibliography 637

Day, Juliette, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourth- and Fifth-Century Evidence from Palestine, Syria
and Egypt, Aldershot, Hampshire/Burlington, VT 2007 (Liturgy, Worship and Society)
De Aldama, José A., El Símbolo Toledano I: Su texto, su origen, su posición en la historia de los símbolos,
Rome 1934 (AnGr 7)
De Boer, Martinus C., Galatians: A Commentary, Louisville, Kentucky 2011 (The New Testament Library)
De Bruyn, Theodore, ‘Papyri, Parchments, Ostraca, and Tablets Written with Biblical Texts in Greek
and Used as Amulets’, in: Thomas J. Kraus/Tobias Nicklas (eds.), Early Christian Manuscripts:
Examples of Applied Method and Approach, Leiden/Boston 2010 (Texts and Editions for New
Testament Study 5), pp. 145–89
De Clercq, Victor C., Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period,
Washington 1954 (SCA 13)
De Halleux, André, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Louvain 1963 (DGMFT III/8)
De Halleux, André, ‘La philoxénienne du symbole’, in: Symposium Syriacum: Célébré du 13 au 17
septembre 1976 au Centre culturel Les Fontaines de Chantilly, France: Communications, Rome 1978
(OCA 205), pp. 295–315
De Halleux, André, ‘Le symbole des évêques perses au synode de Séleucie-Ctésiphon (410)’, in:
Gernot Wiessner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen II, Wiesbaden 1978 (GOF I/17), pp. 161–90
De Halleux, André, ‘La profession de l’Esprit Saint dans le symbole de Constantinople’ [1979], in: id.
1990, pp. 303–37
De Halleux, André, ‘“Hypostase” et “personne” dans la formation du dogme trinitaire’ [1984], in: id.
1990, pp. 113–214
De Halleux, André, ‘La réception du symbole œcuménique, de Nicée à Chalcédoine’ [1985], in: id.
1990, pp. 25–67
De Halleux, André, Patrologie et Œcuménisme: Recueil d’études, Leuven 1990 (BEThL 93)
De Halleux, André, ‘Toward a Common Confession of Faith according to the Spirit of the Fathers’, in:
S. Mark Heim (ed.), Faith to Creed: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Affirmation of the Apostolic Faith
in the Fourth Century. Papers of the Faith to Creed Consultation Commission on Faith and Order
NCCCUSA, October 25–27, 1989 – Waltham, Massachusetts, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1991 (Faith &
Order USA/Faith and Order Series), pp. 20–44
Delamare, René, Le De Officiis ecclesiasticis de Jean d’Avranches, Archevêque de Rouen (1067–1079): Étude
liturgique et publication du texte inédit du Manuscrit H. 304 de la Bibliothèque de la Faculté de
Montpellier, Paris 1923
Delattre, Alain, ‘Graffitis de la montagne thébaine. I’, ChrEg 76 (2001), pp. 333–9
Delattre, Alain, ‘Un symbole de Nicée à Deir el-Bahari’, JJP 31 (2001), pp. 7 f.
Delattre, Alain, ‘Un symbole de Nicée en copte sur ostracon: Édition de O. Berol. Inv. 20892’, Journal
of Coptic Studies 13 (2011), pp. 113–15
Delattre, Alain/Vanthieghem, Naïm, ‘Un symbole de Nicée-Constantinople en copte au verso d’un
protocole arabe: Édition de P. Stras. Inv. Kopt. 221+224’, Journal of Coptic Studies 15 (2013),
pp. 239–52
DelCogliano, Mark, ‘Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the Image of God before 341’, JECS 14 (2006),
pp. 459–84
DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The Date for the Council of Serdica: A Reassessment of the Case for 343’, Studies
in Late Antiquity 1 (2017), pp. 282–310
Delen, Karijn M. et al., ‘The Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense: A Witness of the Cariolingian Contribution to
the Tenth-century Reforms in England’, SE 41 (2002), pp. 341–73
638 Bibliography

Dell’Omo, Mariano, ‘Il più antico libellus precum in scrittura beneventana (cod. Casin. 575, già Misc.
T. XLV): Un testimone di rapporti tra Nonantola e Montecassino nel secolo IX’, RBen 113 (2003),
pp. 235–84
Dell’Omo, Mariano, ‘Nel raggio di Montecassino: Il libellus precum di s. Domenico di Sora (Vat. Reg.
Lat. 334)’, in: Frank T. Coulson/Anna A. Grotans, Classica et Beneventana: Essays Presented to
Virginia Brown on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday, Turnhout 2008 (Textes et Études du Moyen
Âge 36), pp. 235–91
Delling, Gerhard, art. ‘ὕμνος κτλ.’, in: TDNT, vol. VIII, 1972, pp. 489–503
Den Boeft, Jan, et al., Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI, Leiden/
Boston 2018
Denzinger, Heinrich, Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum et Armenorum, in Administrandis Sacramentis,
2 vols., Würzburg 1863/1864
Dib, Pierre, ‘L’initiation chrétienne dans le rite maronite’, ROC 15 (1910), pp. 73–84
Dick, Ernst, ‘Das Pateninstitut im altchristlichen Katechumenat’, ZKTh 63 (1939), pp. 1–49
Dickens, Mark, ‘The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan’ (2013), in: id., Echoes of a Forgotten Presence:
Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia, Vienna 2020 (OPOe 15),
pp. 149–72
Didier, Jean-Charles, ‘Une adaptation de la liturgie baptismale au baptême des enfants dans l’Église
ancienne’, MSR 22 (1965), pp. 79–90
Diefenbach, Steffen, ‘Constantius II. und die “Reichskirche” – ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von
kaiserlicher Kirchenpolitik und politischer Integration im 4. Jh.’, Millennium 9 (2012), pp. 59–122
Diesenberger, Maximilian, Predigt und Politik im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern: Karl der Große, Arn von
Salzburg und die Salzburger Sermones-Sammlung, Berlin/Boston 2016 (Millennium-Studien 58)
Diettrich, Gustav, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie ins Deutsche übersetzt und unter Verwertung der neusten
handschriftlichen Funde historisch-kritisch erforscht, Gießen 1903
Digeser, Elizabeth D., ‘Platonism in the Palace: The Character of Constantine’s Theology’, in:
M. Shane Bjornlie (ed.), The Life and Legacy of Constantine: Traditions through the Ages, London/
New York 2017, pp. 49–61
Dindorf, Ludwig, Chronicon Paschale, vol. I, Bonn 1832 (CSHB)
Dingel, Irene (ed.), Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche: Vollständige Neuedition,
Göttingen 2014
Dinkler-von Schubert, Erika, Der Schrein der hl. Elisabeth zu Marburg: Studien zur Schrein-Ikonographie,
Marburg an der Lahn 1964 (Veröffentlichungen des Forschungsinstitutes für Kunstgeschichte
Marburg/Lahn)
Dinsen, Frauke, Homousios: Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel, diss. theol.,
Kiel 1976
Dix, Gregory, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr, ed. by
G.D.; reissued with corrections, preface and bibliography by Henry Chadwick, London 1992
Dobbie, Elliott V.K. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, New York 1942
Dörrie, Heinrich, ‘Emanation: Ein unphilosophisches Wort im spätantiken Denken [1965]’, in: id.,
Platonica Minora, Munich 1976 (Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 8), pp. 70–86
Dörries, Hermann, De spiritu sancto: Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluß des trinitarischen Dogmas,
Göttingen 1956 (AAWG.PH 3/39)
Dondeyne, Albert, ‘La discipline des scrutins dans l’église avant Charlemagne’, RHE 28 (1932),
pp. 5–33, 751–87
Doskocil, Walter, art. ‘Exkommunikation’, in: RAC, vol. VII, 1969, cols. 1–22
Dossetti, Giuseppe L., Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli: Edizione critica, Rome etc. 1967 (TRSR 2)
 Bibliography 639

Doval, Alexis J., ‘The Fourth Century Jerusalem Catechesis and the Development of the Creed’, in:
StPatr, vol. XXX, 1997, pp. 296–305
Doval, Alexis J., Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses,
Washington, D.C. 2001 (North American Patristic Society/Patristic Monograph Series 17)
Dovere, Elio, ‘Normazione e Credo: Enciclica e Antienciclica di Basilisco’ [1985], in: id. 2011, pp. 1–40
Dovere, Elio, ‘L’Enotico di Zenone Isaurico, un preteso editto dogmatico’ [1988], in: id. 2011, pp. 41–70
Dovere, Elio, Ius principale e catholica lex (secolo V), second ed., Naples 1999 (Collezione di opere
giuridiche e storiche 4)
Dovere, Elio, Medicina legum, vol. II: Formula fidei e normazione tardoantica, Bari 2011
Drake, Harold A., Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance, Baltimore/London 2000
Drake, Harold A., ‘The Impact of Constantine on Christianity’, in: Noel Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge 2006, pp. 111–36
Drake, Harold A., ‘The Elephant in the Room: Constantine at the Council’, in: Kim 2021, pp. 111–32
Draper, Richard D., The Role of the Pontifex Maximus and Its Influence in Roman Religion and Politics,
diss., Ann Arbor 1988
Drecoll, Volker H., Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea: Sein Weg vom
Homöusianer zum Neonizäner, Göttingen 1996 (FKDG 66)
Drecoll, Volker H., ‘Wie nizänisch ist das Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum? Zur Diskussion der Herkunft
von NC durch Staats, Abramowski, Hauschild und Ritter’, ZKG 107 (1996), pp. 1–18
Drecoll, Volker H., review of Gerber 2000, ThLZ 127 (2002), cols. 62–4
Drecoll, Volker H., ‘Das Symbolum Quicumque als Kompilation augustinischer Tradition’, ZAC 11
(2007), pp. 30–56
Drecoll, Volker H., ‘Das Symbolum Athanasianum’, in: Gemeinhardt 2011, pp. 386–90
Drecoll, Volker H., ‘Apollinarius, Ad Iovianum: Analyse und Bedeutung für die
Apollinariuschronologie’, in: Bergjan/Gleede/Heimgartner 2015, pp. 35–57
Drecoll, Volker H., ‘Die Edition des Textes des Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanums in den Konzilsakten
von Chalkedon durch Schwartz’, in: Uta Heil/Annette von Stockhausen (eds.), Crux interpretum:
Ein kritischer Rückblick auf das Werk von Eduard Schwartz, Berlin/Boston 2015 (TU 176), pp. 111–27
Drijvers, Jan W., ‘Marutha of Maipherqat on Helena Augusta, Jerusalem and the Council of Nicaea’,
in: StPatr, vol. XXXIV, 2001, pp. 51–64
Drijvers, Jan W., Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City, Leiden 2004 (SVigChr 72)
Duc, Paul, Étude sur l’‘Expositio Missae’ de Florus de Lyon suivie d’une édition critique du texte,
Belley 1937
Duffy, John/Parker, John, The Synodicon vetus: Text, Translation, and Notes, Washington, DC 1979
(CFHB Series Washingtonensis 15)
Dujarier, Michel, Le parrainage des adultes aux trois premiers siècles de l’église: Recherche historique sur
l’évolution des garanties et des étapes catéchuménales avant 313, Paris 1962 (ParMiss)
Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘The Diversity and Unity of God in Novatian’s De Trinitate’, ETL 78 (2002),
pp. 385–409
Dunn, James D.G., Romans 9–16, Dallas, Texas 1988 (WBC 38B)
Dunn, James D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Enquiry into the Character of Earliest
Christianity, second ed., London 2006
Durst, Michael, Studien zum ‘Liber de synodis’ des Hilarius von Poitiers, 3 vols., Habilitationsschrift,
Bonn 1993
Dutton, Paul E., Charlemagne’s Courtier: The Complete Einhard, edited and translated, Peterborough,
Ontario 1998 (repr. 2006; Readings in Medieval Civilizations and Cultures 3)
640 Bibliography

Dvornik, Francis, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background, 2 vols.,
Washington, D.C. 1966 (DOS 9)
Dyer, Joseph, ‘Sources of Romano-Frankish Liturgy and Music’, in: Everist/Kelly 2018, pp. 92–122
Eberhardt, Johannes/Franz, Ansgar, art. ‘Musik II (Vokalmusik)’, in: RAC, vol. XXV, 2013, cols. 247–83
Ebied, Rifaat Y./Wickham, Lionel R., ‘A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus’,
JThS 21 (1970), pp. 321–69
Edwards, Mark, ‘Alexander of Alexandria and the Homoousion’, VigChr 66 (2012), pp. 482–502
Edwards, Mark, ‘The Creed’, in: Kim 2021, pp. 135–57
Edwards, Robert G.T., ‘Travelling Festivals in Late Antiquity: How Christians Came to the Greek East’,
JEH 75 (2024; forthcoming)
Ehrensperger, Alfred, Karolingische Liturgiereformen, 2006; download: URL <https://www.gottesdienst-
ref.ch/liturgie/gottesdienst-geschichte/mittelalter> (27/11/2023)
Eichele, Hermann, art. ‘Hypomnema’, in: HWRh, vol. IV, 1998, cols. 122–8
Eichenseer, Caelestin, Das Symbolum Apostolicum beim heiligen Augustin mit Berücksichtigung des
dogmengeschichtlichen Zusammenhangs, St. Ottilien 1960 (KGQS 4)
Ekonomou, Andrew J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy
from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752, Lanham, Md. etc. 2007 (Pb 2009)
Elert, Werner, ‘Die Herkunft der Formel Sanctorum communio’, ThLZ 74 (1949), pp. 577–86
Elliott, John H., 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York etc. 2000
(AncB 37B)
Engberg, Gudrun, ‘Les credos du synodicon’, CM 23 (1962), pp. 293–301
Errington, R. Malcolm, ‘Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I’, Klio 79 (1997),
pp. 398–443
Errington, R. Malcolm, ‘Church and State in the First Years of Theodosius I’, Chiron 27 (1997),
pp. 21–72
Esterson, Zachary C., A Translation of and Select Commentary on Victorinus of Pettau’s Commentary on
the Apocalypse, PhD diss., Cardiff University 2015; download: URL <https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/
eprint/97767/> (27/11/2023)
Evans, Gillian R., ‘The Academic Study of the Creeds in Twelfth-Century Schools’, JThS 30 (1979),
pp. 463–80
Everist, Mark/Kelly, Thomas F. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Music, vol. I, Cambridge
etc. 2018
Fairbairn, Donald, ‘The Sardican Paper, Antiochene Politics and the Council of Alexandria (362):
Developing the “Faith of Nicaea”,’ JThS 66 (2015), pp. 651–78
Fairbairn, Donald/Reeves, Ryan M., The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the
Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2019
Fassler, Margot, ‘Music and Prosopography’, in: Everist/Kelly 2018, pp. 176–209
Fedwick, Paul J. (ed.), Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteen-Hundredth Anniversary
Symposium, Parte One, Toronto, Ontario 1981
Feeney, Denis, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs, Cambridge 2001 (Roman
Literature and its Contexts)
Feldmeier, Reinhard, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Waco, Texas 2008
Ferguson, Everett, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries,
Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge 2009
Fernández, Samuel, ‘Who Convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius?’, JThS 71
(2020), pp. 196–211
 Bibliography 641

Fernández, Samuel, ‘Eusebio de Cesarea y desarrollo del sínodo de Nicea’, Anuario de Historia de la
Iglesia 32 (2023), pp. 97–122
Fernández Nieto, Francisco J., ‘A Visigothic Charm from Asturias and the Classical Tradition of
Phylacteries Against Hail’, in: Richard L. Gordon/Francisco M. Simón (eds), Magical Practice in the
Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept. –
1 Oct. 2005, Leiden/Boston 2010 (Religions in the Greco-Roman World 168), pp. 551–99
Ffoulkes, Edmund S., The Athanasian Creed: By whom Written and by whom Published; with Other
Enquiries on Creeds in General, London n.d. (1871)
Field, Lester L., On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the
Codex Veronensis LX. Edited and translated, Toronto 2004 (STPIMS 145)
Filotas, Bernadette, Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures in Early Medieval Pastoral
Literature, Toronto 2005 (STPIMS 151)
Firey, Abigail (ed.), A New History of Penance, Leiden/Boston 2008 (Brill’s Companions to the Christian
Tradition 14)
Fischer, Ludwig (ed.), Bernhardi Cardinalis et Lateranensis ecclesiae prioris Ordo officiorum ecclesiae
Lateranensis, Munich/Freising 1916 (Historische Forschungen und Quellen 2–3)
Flemming, Johannes/Lietzmann, Hans, Apollinarische Schriften Syrisch: Mit den griechischen Texten und
einem syrisch-griechischen Wortregister, Berlin 1904 (AGWG, NF VII/4)
Flint, Valerie I.J., The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe, Oxford 1991
Fogleman, Alex, Knowledge, Faith, and Early Christian Initiation, Cambridge etc. 2023
Förster, Hans, Die Feier der Geburt Christi in der Alten Kirche. Beiträge zur Erforschung der Anfänge
des Epiphanie- und des Weihnachtsfests, Tübingen 2000 (STAC 4)
Förster, Hans, Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias, Tübingen 2007 (STAC 46)
Förster, Max, ‘Die altenglischen Bekenntnisformeln’, Englische Studien 75 (1942/1943), pp. 159–69
Folda, Jaroslav, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187–1291,
Cambridge etc. 2005
Foreville, Raymonde, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se), VI. Mittelalter’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1984, pp. 412–14
Fowler, Roger, ‘A Late Old English Handbook for the Use of a Confessor’, Anglia 83 (1965), pp. 1–34
Foxhall Forbes, Helen, Heaven and Earth in Anglo-Saxon England: Theology and Society in an Age of Faith,
Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT 2013 (Studies in Early Medieval Britain)
Fraas, Hans-Jürgen et al., art. ‘Katechismus’, in: TRE, vol. XVII, 1988, pp. 710–44
Frank, Günter, Topik als Methode der Dogmatik: Antike – Mittelalter – Frühe Neuzeit, Berlin/Boston 2017
(TBT 179)
Frantzen, Allen J., The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1983
Franz, Adolph, Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter, vol. II, Freiburg im Breisgau 1909
Frenschkowski, Marco, art. ‘Magie’, in: RAC, vol. XXIII, 2010, cols. 857–957
Frenschkowski, Marco, Magie im antiken Christentum: Eine Studie zur Alten Kirche und ihrem Umfeld,
Stuttgart 2016 (Standorte in Antike und Christentum 7)
Fridolin, Stephan, Schatzbehalter der wahren Reichtümer des Heils, Nuremberg 1491 (cf. URL
<https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:bsz:31-130913> (27/11/2023)
Friedberg, Emil, Aus Deutschen Bussbüchern: Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Culturgeschichte, Halle 1868
Friedman, Lionel J., Text and Iconography for Joinville’s Credo, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1958
(MAAP 68)
Frivold, Leif, The Incarnation: A Study of the Doctrine of the Incarnation in the Armenian Church in the 5th
and 6th Centuries according to the Book of Letters, Oslo etc. 1981
Fürst, Alfons, Die Liturgie der Alten Kirche: Geschichte und Theologie, Münster 2008
Fürst, Alfons, Hieronymus: Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg etc. 2016
642 Bibliography

Fürst, Dieter, art. ‘Confess’, in: NIDNTT, vol. I, 1975, pp. 344–8
Gabriel, Frédéric, ‘Des professions de foi à l’Église, une communauté de parole mise à l’épreuve’, in:
Blanchet/Gabriel 2016, pp. 1–27
Gaffino-Mœri, Sarah et al. (eds.), Les papyrus de Genève: Textes littéraires et documentaires. Bibliothèque
Publique et Universitaire 4, nos 147–205. Textes littéraires, semi-littéraires et documentaires,
Geneva 2010
Galvão-Sobrinho, Carlos R., Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in
Later Roman Empire, Berkeley etc. 2013 (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 51)
Garitte, Gérard, ‘Le traité géorgien “Sur la Foi” attribué à Hippolyte’, Le Muséon 78 (1965), pp. 119–72
Garsoïan, Nina, L’église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient, Leuven 1999 (CSCO.Sub 100)
Garsoïan, Nina, ‘Persien: Die Kirche des Ostens’, in: Pietri 2001(2010), pp. 1161–86
Gassó, Pius M./Batlle, Columba M., Pelagii I papae epistulae quae supersunt collexit, notulis historicis
adornavit P.M.G.: Ad fidem codicum recensuit, praefatione et indicibus instruxit C.M.B., Abadía de
Montserrat 1956 (SDM 8)
Gatch, Milton McC., Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric and Wulfstand, Toronto/
Buffalo 1977
Gebhard, Rudolf, Umstrittene Bekenntnisfreiheit: Der Apostolikumsstreit in den reformierten Kirchen der
Deutschschweiz im 19. Jahrhundert, Zurich 2003
Gelzer, Heinrich/Hilgenfeld, Heinrich/Cuntz, Otto, Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina Latine Graece Coptice
Syriace Arabice Armeniace, Leipzig 1898 (BSGRT/Scriptores Sacri et Profani 2)
Gemayel, Pierre-Edmond, Avant-messe maronite: Histoire et structure, Rome 1965 (OCA 174)
Gemeinhardt, Peter, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter, Berlin/
New York 2002 (AKG 82)
Gemeinhardt, Peter (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch, Tübingen 2011
Gemeinhardt, Peter, review of Siecienski 2010, ThLZ 137 (2012), cols. 69–71
Gemeinhardt, Peter, ‘Die Heiligen der Kirche – die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen’ [2012], in: id., Die
Kirche und ihre Heiligen: Studien zu Ekklesiologie und Hagiographie in der Spätantike, Tübingen
2014, pp. 71–98 (STAC 90)
Gemeinhardt, Peter, ‘Sphärenwechsel im Christusmythos: Höllen- und Himmelfahrt Christi als
mythische Strukturmomente in spätantiken christlichen Glaubensbekenntnissen und ihren
Kontexten’, in: Annette Zgoll/Christian Zgoll (eds.), Mythische Sphärenwechsel: Methodisch neue
Zugänge zu antike Mythen in Orient und Okzident, Berlin/Boston 2020, pp. 539–622 (Mythological
Studies 2)
Gemeinhardt, Peter, ‘Vom Werden des Apostolikums’, in: Anne Käfer/Jörg Frey/Jens Herzer (eds.), Die
Reden von Gott Vater und Gott Heiligem Geist als Glaubensaussage: Der erste und dritte Artikel des
Apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses im Gespräch zwischen Bibelwissenschaft und Dogmatik,
Tübingen 2020 (UTB 5268), pp. 15–58
Gemeinhardt, Peter, Geschichte des Christentums in der Spätantike, Tübingen 2022 (Neue Theologische
Grundrisse)
Gerber, Simon, Theodor von Mopsuestia und das Nicänum. Studien zu den katechetischen Homilien,
Leiden etc. 2000 (SVigChr 51)
Gerlitz, Peter et al., art. ‘Taufe’, in: TRE, vol. XXXII, 2001, pp. 659–741
Geuenich, Dieter, ‘Die volkssprachige Überlieferung der Karolingerzeit aus der Sicht des Historikers’,
DA 39 (1983), pp. 104–30
Gillman, Ian/Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, Christians in Asia before 1500, Richmond, Surrey 1999
 Bibliography 643

Girardet, Klaus M., ‘Kaiser Konstantin d. Gr. als Vorsitzender von Konzilien: Die historischen
Tatsachen und ihre Deutung’ [1991], in: id., Studien zur Alten Geschichte der Europäer, Bonn 2015,
pp. 435–47
Girardet, Klaus M., ‘Der Vorsitzende des Konzils von Nicaea (325) – Kaiser Konstantin d. Gr.’ [1993],
in: id., Kaisertum, Religionspolitik und das Recht von Staat und Kirche in der Spätantike, Bonn 2009
(Ant. 56)
Girardet, Klaus M., Der Kaiser und sein Gott: Das Christentum im Denken und in der Religionspolitik
Konstantins des Großen, Berlin/New York 2010 (Millennium-Studien 27)
Gismondi, Henry, Maris Amri et Slibae De Patriarchis Nestorianorum Commentaria ex Codicibus Vaticanis
Eddidit ac Latine Reddidit, 2 vols. in 4 parts, Paris 1897
Glauch, Sonja, ‘Notker III. von St. Gallen’, in: Bergmann 2013, pp. 293–315
Gneuss, Helmut/Lapidge, Michael, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts
and Manuscripts Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100, Toronto etc. 2014
Goar, Jacques, ΕΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ sive Rituale Graecorum complectes ritus et ordines divinae liturgiae,
officiorum, sacramentorum, consecrationum, benedictionum, funerum, orationum, etc. cuilibet
personae, statui, vel tempori congruos, juxta usum orientalis ecclesiae, second ed., Venice 1730
Godden, Malcolm, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary, Oxford etc. 2000
(EETS S.S. 18)
Göbl, Peter, Geschichte der Katechese im Abendlande vom Verfalle des Katechumenats bis zum Ende des
Mittelalters, Kempten 1880
Gössmann, Elisabeth, art. ‘Glaube, V. Mittelalter’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1985, pp. 308–18
Gounelle, Rémi, La descente du Christ aux enfers: Institutionnalisation d’une croyance, Paris 2000
(CEAug/Série Antiquités 162)
Graduale Triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP.VI cura recognitum & rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus
monachis ornatum neumis Laudunensibus (cod. 239) et Sangallensibus (codicum San Gallensis 359 et
Einsidlensis 121) nunc auctum, Solesmes 1979
Gräßer, Erich, An die Hebräer, 1. Teilband: Hebr 1–6, Zurich etc. 1990 (EKK XVII/1)
Gräßer, Erich, An die Hebräer, 3. Teilband: Hebr 10,19–13,25, Zurich etc. 1997 (EKK XVII/3)
Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 5 vols., Vatican City 1944–1953 (StT 118,
133, 146, 147, 172)
Graumann, Thomas, Die Kirche der Väter: Vätertheologie und Väterbeweis in den Kirchen des Ostens bis
zum Konzil von Ephesus (431), Tübingen 2002 (BHTh 118)
Graumann, Thomas, ‘Frieden schließen auf Konzilien? Zwei Beispiele aus dem vierten Jahrhundert’,
AHC 48 (2016/2017), pp. 53–69
Graumann, Thomas, ‘Die Verschriftlichung synodaler Entscheidungen: Beobachtungen von den
Synoden des östlichen Reichsteils’, in: Wolfram Brandes et al. (eds.), Konzilien und kanonisches
Recht in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter: Aspekte konziliarer Entscheidungsfindung, Berlin/Boston
2020 (FBRG Neue Folge 2), pp. 1–24
Graumann, Thomas, The Acts of the Early Church Councils: Production and Character, Oxford
2021 (OECS)
Grdzelidze, Tamara, art. ‘Georgia, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of’, in: John A. McGuckin (ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 2 vols., Malden, MA 2011, vol. I, pp. 264–75
Grébaut, Sylvain, ‘Ordre du baptème et de la confirmation dans l’église éthiopienne’, ROC 26 (1927/
1928), pp. 105–89
Grelier, Hélène, ‘Comment décrire l’humanité du Christ sans introduire une quarternité de Dieu? La
controverse de Grégoire de Nysse contre Apolinaire de Laodicée’, in: Volker H. Drecoll/Margitta
Berghaus (eds.), Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism.
644 Bibliography

Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Tübingen, 17–20

September 2008), Leiden 2011 (SVigChr 106), pp. 541–56
Gretsch, Mechthild, The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform, Cambridge 1999
(CSASE 25)
Gribomont, Jean, ‘La catéchèse de Sévère d’Antioche et le Credo’, Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/1976),
pp. 125–58
Gribomont, Jean, ‘Le symbole de la foi de Séleucie-Ctesiphon (410)’, in Robert H. Fischer (ed.) A
Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, Chicago 1977,
pp. 283–94
Griffith, Francis L., ‘Oxford Excavations in Nubia’, AAA 14 (1927), pp. 57–116
Griggs, C. Wilfred, Early Egyptian Christianity from its Origins to 451 CE, Leiden etc., n.d. [2000] (Brill’s
Scholars’ List)
Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. I: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), second
ed., 1975
Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. II: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory
the Great (590–604), Part One: Reception and Contradiction: The development of the discussion
about Chalcedon from 451 to the beginning of the reign of Justinian, Atlanta, Georgia 1987
Grillmeier, Aloys/Hainthaler, Theresia, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. II: From the Council of
Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), Part Two: The Church of Constantinople in the
sixth century, London/Louisville, Kentucky 1995
Grohe, Johannes, ‘Storia del Filioque prima del 1014 e il suo inserimento nel Credo’, in: Mauro
Gagliardi (ed.), Il Filioque: A mille anni dal suo inserimento nel Credo a Roma (1014–2014): Atti del
Convegno di Studi Ateneo Pontificio “Regina Apostolorum”, Roma (27–28 novembre 2014), Vatican
City 2015, pp. 15–38
Grossman, Joan D., ‘Feminine Images in Old Russian Literature and Art’, California Slavic Studies 11
(1980), pp. 33–70
Grumel, Venance, ‘Le symbole “Quicumque” et Jean Italos’, EOr 37 (1938), pp. 136–140
Guerrier, Louis, ‘Un texte éthiopien du symbole de saint Athanase’, ROC 20 (1915–1917), pp. 68–76,
133–41
Guidi, Ignazio, Storia della letteratura etiopica, Rome 1932 (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente)
Gwynn, David M., The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the
‘Arian Controversy’, Oxford etc. 2007 (OTM)
Gwynn, David M., ‘Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea’, in: Kim 2021, pp. 90–110
Haacker, Klaus, art. ‘Glaube, II/. Neues Testament’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1985, pp. 289–304
Haarbrücker, Theodor, Abu-’l-Fath῾ Muhammad asch-Scharastâni’s Religionspartheien und Philosophen-
Schulen: Zum ersten Male vollständig aus dem Arabischen übersetzt und mit erklärenden
Anmerkungen versehen, vol. I, Halle 1850
Haase, Felix, Die koptischen Quellen zum Konzil von Nicäa: Übersetzt und untersucht, Paderborn 1920
(SGKA 10/4)
Haensch, Rudolf, ‘Inscriptions as Sources of Knowledge for Religions and Cults in the Roman World
of Imperial Times’, in: Jörg Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, Malden, MA etc. 2013,
pp. 176–87
Hahn, August, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Apostolisch-katholischen Kirche,
Breslau 1842
Hahn, August/Hahn, G. Ludwig, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, second
rev. ed., Breslau 1877
 Bibliography 645

Hahn, August/Hahn, G. Ludwig, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, third rev.
ed., Breslau 1897
Hahn, Ferdinand, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., third ed., Tübingen 2011 (UTB 3500)
Hainthaler, Theresia, art. ‘Doketismus’, in: LThK, third ed., vol. III, 1995, cols. 301 f.
Hall, Stuart G., ‘Some Constantinian Documents in the Vita Constantini’, in: Samuel N.C. Lieu/Dominic
Montserrat (eds.), Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend, London 1998, pp. 86–103
Hamlyn, Timothy, Pontifex Optimus Maximus: The Office of Pontifex Maximus from the Middle Republic to
Caesar, Saarbrücken 2011
Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, art. ‘Hypostasis’, in: RAC, vol. XVI, 1994, cols. 986–1035
Hammerstaedt, Jürgen/Terbuyken, Peri, art. ‘Improvisation’, in: RAC, vol. XVII, 1996, cols. 1212–84
Hammond Bammel, Caroline P., Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes, vol. III: Buch 7–10. Kritische
Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Freiburg 1998 (VL/AGLB 34)
Handl, András, ‘Praxeas und die Ausbreitung des “Monarchianismus” in Rom zwischen Migration,
innerchristlichen Konflikten und der Entstehung der “Orthodoxie”’, in: Carl J. Berglund et al.
(eds.), Why We Sing: Music, Word, and Liturgy in Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Anders
Ekenberg’s 75th Birthday, Leiden 2022 (SVigChr 177), pp. 250–82
Hansen, Günther C. (ed.), Theodoros Anagnostes – Kirchengeschichte, second ed., Berlin/New York 1995
(repr. 2009; GCS NF 3)
Hansen, Joseph, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgung
im Mittelalter, Bonn 1901
Hanson, Richard P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381,
Edinburgh 1988
Hanssens, Jean M., La liturgie d’Hippolyte: Ses documents, son titulaire, ses origines et son caractère,
second ed., Rome 1965 (OCA 155)
Haring, Nicholas M., ‘Commentaries on the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed’, MS 34 (1972), pp. 208–52
Haring, Nicholas M., ‘A Poem by Alan of Lille on the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed’, RHT 4 (1974),
pp. 225–38
Haring, Nicholas M., ‘Two Redactions of a Commentary on a Gallican Creed by Simon of Tournai’,
AHDL 41 (1974), pp. 39–112
Haring, Nicholas M., ‘Simon of Tournai’s Commentary on the So-called Athanasian Creed’, AHDL 43
(1976), pp. 135–99
Harmening, Dieter, Superstitio: Überlieferungs- und theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-
theologischen Aberglaubensliteratur des Mittelalters, Berlin 1979
Harnack, Adolf, ‘Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, ein geschichtlicher Bericht nebst einer
Einleitung und einem Nachwort (1892)’, in: id., Reden und Aufsätze, vol. I, Gießen 1904,
pp. 219–64
Harnack, Adolf (von), art. ‘Apostolisches Symbolum’, in: RE, third ed., vol. I, 1896, pp. 741–55
Harnack, Adolf (von), ‘Anhang: Materialien zur Geschichte und Erklärung des alten römischen
Symbols aus der christlichen Litteratur der zwei ersten Jahrhunderte’, in: Hahn/Hahn 1897,
pp. 364–90
Harnack, Adolf (von), art. ‘Konstantinopolitanisches Symbol’, in: RE, third ed., vol. XI, 1902, pp. 12–28
Harnack, Adolf (von), ‘Zur Abhandlung des Hrn. Holl: “Zur Auslegung des 2. Artikels des sog.
apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses”’, in: SPAW 1919, pp. 112–16
Harries, Jill, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge etc. 1999
Harrisson, Juliette, Dreams and Dreaming in the Roman Empire: Cultural Memory and Imagination,
London etc. 2013
646 Bibliography

Hartman, Lars, ‘Usages – Some Notes on the Baptismal Name-Formulae’, in: Hellholm et al. 2011, vol.
I, pp. 397–413
Hasenohr, Geneviève, ‘Religious Reading amongst the Laity in France in the Fifteenth Century’, in:
Peter Biller/Anne Hudson (eds.), Heresy and Literacy, 1000–1530, Cambridge 1994, pp. 205–21
Haubrichs, Wolfgang, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Neuzeit,
vol. I: Von den Anfängen zum hohen Mittelalter, Teil 1: Die Anfänge: Versuche volkssprachiger
Schriftlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter (ca. 700–1050/60), second ed., Tübingen 1995
Haug, Andreas, ‘Tropes’, in: Everist/Kelly 2018, pp. 263–99
Hauler, Edmund, ‘Eine lateinische Palimpsestübersetzung der Didascalia apostolorum’, SAWW.PH 134
(1896), pp. 1–54
Hauler, Edmund, Didascaliae Apostolorum – Fragmenta Veronensia Latina. Accedunt Canonum Qui
Dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum Reliquiae, vol. I, Leipzig 1900
Hausammann, Susanne, Alte Kirche, vol. III: Gottes Dreiheit – des Menschen Freiheit, second ed.,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, Die Pneumatomachen: Eine Untersuchung zur Dogmengeschichte des vierten
Jahrhunderts, Diss. theol., Hamburg 1967
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, review of Jungck 1974, AHC 9 (1977), pp. 213–16
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, art. ‘Nicäno-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntnis’, in: TRE, vol. XXIV,
1994, pp. 444–56
Haußleiter, Johannes, Trinitarischer Glaube und Christusbekenntnis in der alten Kirche, Gütersloh 1920
(BFChTh 25/4)
Hauswald, Eckhard, Pirmin – Scarapsus, Hannover 2010 (MGH.QG 25)
Heather, Peter, Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian, Oxford 2018
Hebblewhite, Mark, Theodosius and the Limits of Empire, London/New York 2020
Heil, Günter, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita – Über die himmlische Hierarchie: Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit
Anmerkungen versehen, Stuttgart 1986 (BGrL Abteilung Patristik 22)
Heil, Günter/Ritter, Adolf Martin (eds.), Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De
coelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae, second ed., Berlin/
Boston 2012 (PTS 67)
Heil, Uta, Athanasius von Alexandrien: De Sententia Dionysii. Einleitung Übersetzung und Kommentar,
Berlin/New York 1999 (PTS 52)
Heil, Uta, ‘“. . . bloß nicht wie die Manichäer!” Ein Vorschlag zu den Hintergründen des arianischen
Streits’, ZAC 6 (2002), pp. 299–319
Heil, Uta, ‘Markell von Ancyra und das Romanum’, in: Stockhausen/Brennecke 2010, pp. 85–104
Heil, Uta, Avitus von Vienne und die homöische Kirche der Burgunder, Berlin/Boston 2011 (PTS 66)
Heil, Uta, ‘Kontingenz und Varianz: Zur Verbindlichkeit der altkirchlichen Christologie’, in: Christian
Danz/Michael Hackl (eds.), Transformationen der Christologie: Herausforderungen, Krisen und
Umformungen, Göttingen 2019 (Wiener Forum für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft/Vienna
Forum for Theology and the Study of Religions 17), pp. 15–39
Heil, Uta/Scheerer, Christoph, Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites: Die Entwicklungen in
den Nachfolgestaaten des Römischen Reiches bis zum Symbolum Quicumque, Berlin/Boston 2022
(Athanasius Werke 3/2)
Heimgartner, Martin, Die Briefe 42–58 des ostsyrischen Patriarchen Timotheos I.: Einleitung, Übersetzung
und Anmerkungen, 2 vols., Louvain 2012 (CSCO 644/Scriptores Syri 248–249)
Hellgardt, Ernst, ‘“Altsächsisches/frühmittelniederdeutsches Glaubensbekenntnis”, auch
“Niederdeutscher Glaube”, in: Bergmann 2013, pp. 18–20
 Bibliography 647

Hellholm, David et al. (eds.), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early
Christianity/Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe: Spätantike, Frühes Judentum und Frühes Christentum,
2 vols., Berlin/Boston 2011 (BZNW 176/2)
Hen, Yitzhak, The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul: To the Death of Charles the Bald (877),
London 2001 (HBS)
[Hennecke, Edgar]/Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung,
sixth ed., 2 vols., Tübingen 1999
Hensel, Roman/Klippel, Diethelm, art. ‘Juridification’ in: Encyclopedia of Early Modern History Online,
2015; URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2352-0272_emho_COM_029645> (27/11/2023)
Hermansen, Marcia, ‘The shahāda: faith’, in: Zafar I. Ansari/Ismacil I. Nawwab (eds.), The Different
Aspects of Islamic Culture, vol. I: Foundations of Islam, Paris 2016, pp. 627–52
Heyworth, Melanie, ‘The “Late Old English Handbook for the Use of a Confessor”: Azúthorship and
Connections’, NQRW 54 (2007), pp. 218–22
Hiley, David, Western Plainchant, Oxford 1993
Hillner, Julia, Prison, Punishment and Penance in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2015
Hillner, Julia, Helena Augusta: Mother of the Empire, New York 2023 (Women in Antiquity)
Hills, Julian, Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum, Minneapolis 1990 (HDR 24)
Hödl, Ludwig, ‘Articulus fidei: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Arbeit’, in: Joseph Ratzinger/Heinrich Fries
(eds.), Einsicht und Glaube, Freiburg etc. 1962, pp. 358–76
Hoffmann, Thomas, art. ‘Nicene Creed, II. Islam’, in: EBR, vol. XXI, 2023, cols. 399 f.
Hofius, Otfried, art. ‘ὁμολογέω κτλ.’, in: EDNT, vol. II, 1991, cols. pp. 514–17
Hofmann, Karl, art. ‘Anathema’, in: RAC, vol. I, 1950, cols. 427–30
Hoheisel, Karl, art. ‘Do ut des’, in: HRWG, vol. II, 1990, p. 229
Holl, Karl, ‘Zur Auslegung des 2. Artikels des sog. apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses’ [1919], in:
id., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. II: Der Osten, Tübingen 1928, pp. 115–22
Holland, David L., ‘The Earliest Text of the Old Roman Symbol. A Debate with Hans Lietzmann and
J.N.D. Kelly’, ChH 34 (1965), pp. 262–81
Holland, David L., ‘Die Synode von Antiochien (324/25) und ihre Bedeutung für Eusebius von
Caesarea und das Konzil von Nizäa’, ZKG 81 (1970), pp. 163–81
Holthausen, Ferdinand, ‘Eine altenglische Interlinearversion des athanasianischen
Glaubensbekenntnisses’, Englische Studien 75 (1942/1943), pp. 6–8
Hommel, Hildebrecht, Schöpfer und Erhalter: Studien zum Problem Christentum und Antike, Berlin 1956
Honoré, Tony, Law in the Crisis of Empire 379–455 AD: The Theodosian Dynasty and Its Quaestors,
Oxford 1998
Hopkins, Keith, ‘Christian Number and its Implications’ [1998], in: id., Sociological Studies in Roman
History, ed. by Christopher Kelly, Cambridge 2018 (Cambridge Classical Studies), pp. 432–80
Horak, Ulrike, ‘Credo mit magischen Zeichnungen’, Analecta Papyrologica 13 (2001), pp. 55–61
Horn, Friedrich W., ‘Glaube – Nicht Weisheit der Menschen, sondern Kraft Gottes’, in: id., Glaube,
2018, pp. 33–63
Horn, Friedrich W. (ed.), Glaube, Tübingen 2018 (utb 5034/Themen der Theologie 13)
Hornung, Christoph, art. ‘Pate’, in: RAC, vol. XXVI, 2015, cols. 1077–91
Hornung, Christian, Apostasie im antiken Christentum: Studien zum Glaubensabfall in altkirchlicher
Theologie, Disziplin und Pastoral (4.–7. Jahrhundert n. Chr.), Leiden/Boston 2016 (SVigChr 138)
Hort, Fenton J.A., Two Dissertations: I. On ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΘΕΟΣ in Scripture and Tradition, II. On the
‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed and Other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century, Cambridge 1876
Houghton, Hugh A.G., The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Text, and Manuscripts,
Oxford 2016
648 Bibliography

Houghton, Hugh A.G., Fortunatianus of Aquileia – Commentary on the Gospels, Berlin/Boston 2017 (CSEL
Extra Seriem)
Hoyland, Robert G., Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and
Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Princeton, New Jersey 1997 (repr. 2001; SLAEL 13)
Hoyland, Robert G., ‘Agapius of Manbiǧ, Qusṭā ibn Lūqā and the Graeco-Roman Past: The Beginnings
of Christian Arabic and Muslim Historiography’, Quaderni di Studi Arabi 16 (2021), pp. 7–41
Huebner, Dietmar von, art. ‘Credo, 2. Liturgisch-musikalische Entwicklung’, in: LMA, vol. III, 1986,
cols. 338 f.
Hübner, Reinhard M., Die Schrift des Apolinarius von Laodicea gegen Photin (Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra
Sabellianos) und Basilius von Caesarea, Berlin/New York 1989 (PTS 30)
Hübner, Reinhard M., Der paradox Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert. Mit
einem Beitrag von Markus Vinzent, Leiden etc. 1999 (SVigChr 50)
Hughes, Andrew, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and
Terminology, Toronto etc. 1982 (repr. 2004)
Huglo, Michel, ‘Origine de la mélodie du Credo “authentique” de la Vaticane’, Revue Grégorienne 30
(1951), pp. 68–78; also in: id., Les anciens répertoire de plain-chant, Aldershot, Hampshire/
Burlington VT 2005 (CStS 804), no. XVII and p. 22 (Addenda et Corigenda)
Humfress, Caroline, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007
Hunt, Arthur S., Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, vol. I: Literary
Texts (Nos. 1–61), Manchester 1911
Hunt, David, ‘Valentinian and the Bishops: Ammianus 30.9.5 in Context’, in: Jan den Boeft et al. (eds.),
Ammianus after Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae, Leiden
2007 (Mnemosyne Supplementum 289), pp. 71–93
Hunter, David G., ‘Vigilantius of Calagurris and Victricius of Rouen: Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics in Late
Roman Gaul’, JECS 7 (1999), pp. 401–30
Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno,art. ‘Bann, II. Frühjudentum und Neues Testament’, in: TRE, vol. V, 1980,
pp. 161–7
Hutter, Manfred, art. ‘Manichäismus’, in: RAC, vol. XXIV, 2012, cols. 6–48
Hutter, Manfred, Der Manichäismus: Vom Iran in den Mittelmeerraum und über die Seidenstraße nach
Südchina, Stuttgart 2023 (Standorte in Antike und Christentum 11)
Iacobone, Pasquale, Mysterium Trinitatis: Dogma e Iconografia nell’Italia medievale, Rome 1997 (TG.T 28)
Ingram, Robert G., Reformation Without End: Religion, Politics and the Past in Post-revolutionary England,
Manchester 2018
Innocent III (pope), D. Innocentii Pontificis Maximi Eius Nominis III. Viri Eruditissimi Simul Atque
Grauissimi Opera [. . .], Cologne 1575
Izbicki, Thomas M., Hildegard of Bingen – An Explanation of the Athanasian Creed: Translated, with
Introduction and Notes, Toronto 2001 (Peregrina Translation Series; not accessible to me)
Jacobs, Ine, ‘Hosting the Council in Nicaea: Material Needs and Solutions’, in: Kim 2021, pp. 65–89
Jacobsen, Anders-Christian, art. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online,
2018; URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000832> (27/11/2023)
Jaeger, Werner (ed.), Contra Eunomium Libri, vol. II: Liber III (uulgo III–XII). Refutatio confessionis
Eunomii (uulgo lib. II), Leiden 1960 (GNO 2)
Jakobs, Dörthe, ‘Die Wandmalereien von St. Georg in Reichenau-Oberzell. Untersuchung –
Dokumentation – Kontroversen’, in: Matthias Exner (ed.), Wandmalerei des frühen Mittelalters:
Bestand, Maltechnik, Konservierung, Munich 1998, pp. 161–90 (ICOMOS 23)
 Bibliography 649

Jankowiak, Marek/Booth, Phil, ‘A New Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor’, in: Pauline
Allen, Pauline/Bronwen Neil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, Oxford 2015,
pp. 19–83
Jaser, Christian, Ecclesia maledicens: Rituelle und zeremonielle Exkommunikationsformen im Mittelalter,
Tübingen 2013 (SMHR 75)
Jilek, August, Initiationsfeier und Amt: Ein Beitrag zur Struktur und Theologie der Ämter und des
Taufgottesdienstes in der frühen Kirche (Traditio Apostolica, Tertullian, Cyprian), Frankfurt am Main
etc. 1979 (EHS.T 130)
Joest, Wilfried, art. ‘Fundamentalartikel’, in: TRE, vol. XI, 1983, pp. 727–32
Johnson, Maxwell E., ‘Reconciling Cyril and Egeria on the Catechetical Process in Fourth-Century
Jerusalem’, in: Paul F. Bradshaw (ed.), Essays in Early Eastern Inititation, Bramcote, Nottingham
1988 (Alcuin/Grow Liturgical Study 8/GLS 56), pp. 18–30
Johnson, Maxwell E., ‘The Problem of Creedal Formulae in Traditio Apostolica 21:12–18’, EO 22 (2005),
pp. 159–75
Johnson, Maxwell E., The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation, second ed.,
Collegeville, Minnesota 2007
Jolly, Karen L., Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context, Chapel Hill/London 1996
Jungck, Christoph, Gregor von Nazianz – De vita sua: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung Kommentar.
Herausgegeben, eingeleitet und erklärt, Heidelberg 1974 (WKLGS)
Jungmann, Josef A., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarium Sollemnia),
2 vols., New York etc. 1951
Jungmann, Josef A., Handing on the Faith: A Manual of Catechetics, Freiburg 1959
Jungmann, Josef A., Missarum Sollemnia: Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe, 2 vols., fifth
ed., Vienna etc. 1962
Just, Patricia, Imperator et Episcopus: Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen
dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), Stuttgart 2003
(Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 8)
Kaczynski, Bernice M., Greek in the Carolingian Age: The St. Gall Manuscripts, Cambridge, Mass. 1988
(Spec.AM 13)
Kamesar, Adam, ‘The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo
and the D-Scholia to the Iliad,’ GRBS 44 (2004), pp. 163–81
Karmann, Thomas R., Meletius von Antiochien: Studien zur Geschichte des trinitätstheologischen Streits in
den Jahren 360–364 n.Chr., Frankfurt am Main 2009 (RSTh 68)
Kaser, Max, ‘Infamia und ignominia in den römischen Rechtsquellen’, ZSRG.R 73 (1956), pp. 220–78
Kaser, Max, Das römische Privatrecht, second ed., 2 vols., Munich 1971/1975 (HAW 10,3,3,1–2;
Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums 3,3,1–2)
Kaser, Max, Roman Private Law, fourth ed., Muckleneuk, Pretoria 1984
Kasparick, Hanna, Lehrgesetz oder Glaubenszeugnis? Der Kampf um das Apostolikum und seine
Auswirkungen auf die Revision der preußischen Agende (1892–1895), Bielefeld 1996 (UnCo 19)
Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, Beiträge zur Geschichte des altkirchlichen Taufsymbols, Gießen 1892
(Programm Sr. Königlichen Hoheit dem Grossherzoge von Hessen und bei Rhein Ernst Ludwig
Ihrem Rector Magnificentissimus zum 25. August gewidmet von Rector und Senat der
Landesuniversität)
Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, Das Apostolische Symbol: Seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn, seine
ursprüngliche Stellung im Kultus und in der Theologie der Kirche: Ein Beitrag zur Symbolik und
Dogmengeschichte, vol. I: Die Grundgestalt des Taufsymbols, Leipzig 1894
Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, review of Burn 1896, ThLZ 22 (1897), cols. 138–46
650 Bibliography

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, review of Hahn/Hahn 1897, ThLZ 22 (1897), cols. 561–5

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, Das Apostolische Symbol: Seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn, seine
ursprüngliche Stellung im Kultus und in der Theologie der Kirche: Ein Beitrag zur Symbolik und
Dogmengeschichte, vol. II: Verbreitung und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, Leipzig 1900
Kaufhold, Hubert, Die Rechtssammlung des Gabriel von Baṣra und ihr Verhältnis zu den anderen
juristischen Sammelwerken der Nestorianer, Berlin 1976 (MUS/Juristische Fakultät/Abhandlungen
zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung 21)
Kaufhold, Hubert, ‘Sources of Canon Law in the Eastern Churches’, in: Wilfried Hartmann/Kenneth
Pennington (eds.), The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500, Washington, D.C. 2012
(History of Medieval Canon Law), pp. 215–342
Kaufhold, Hubert, Ebedjesus von Nisibis: “Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum”: Eine Zusammenstellung der
kirchlichen Rechtsbestimmungen der ostsyrischen Kirche im 14. Jahrhundert, herausgegeben,
übersetzt und eingeleitet, Wiesbaden 2019 (Eichstätter Beiträge zum christlichen Orient 7)
Keefe, Susan A., Water and the Word: Baptism and the Education of the Clergy in the Carolingian Empire,
2 vols., Notre Dame, Ind. 2002 (PMS)
Keefe, Susan A., A Catalogue of Works Pertaining to the Explanation of the Creed in Carolingian
Manuscripts, Turnhout 2012 (IPM 63)
Keefe, Susan A., Explanationes Symboli Aevi Carolini, Turnhout 2012 (CChr.CM 254)
Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Peabody, Mass. 2003 (repr. Grand Rapids,
Michigan 2012)
Keller, Rebecca J., His Hands are Laden with the Relics of the Saints: Sanctorum Communio, the Apostles’
Creed, and the Cult of the Saints, PhD diss., The Catholic University of America 2022
Kelly, John N.D., The Athanasian Creed: The Paddock Lectures for 1962–3, London 1964
Kelly, John N.D., Early Christian Creeds, third ed., London 1972
Kelly, John N.D., Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom. Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London 1995
Kendrick, Laura, Medieval Remediations of the Apostles’ Creed (NCS working paper), 2016; URL:
<http://dhmedievalist.com/scalar/medievaldigital-multimodalities/medieval-remediations-of-
the-apostles-creed> (03/10/2017; this page is no longer available)
Kéry, Lotte, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the
Manuscripts and Literature, Washington, DC 1999 (History of Medieval Canon Law 1)
Khoperia, Lela, art. ‘Georgia’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000435> (27/11/2023)
Khouri-Sarkis, Gabriel, ‘Réception d’un évêque syrien au VIe siècle’, OrSyr 2 (1957), pp. 137–84
Kidane, Habtemichael, L’ufficio divino della Chiesa etiopica: Studio storico-critico con particolare
riferimento alle ore cattedrali, Rome 1998 (OCA 257)
Kim, Young R., ‘Nicaea is Not Enough: The Second Creed of Epiphanius’ Ancoratus, in: StPatr, vol.
XCVI, 2017, pp. 11–20
Kim, Young R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea, Cambridge etc. 2021
Kinzig, Wolfram, In Search of Asterius: Studies on the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms, Göttingen
1990 (FKDG 47)
Kinzig, Wolfram, Novitas Christiana: Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis Eusebius, Göttingen
1994 (FKDG 58)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Greek Christian Writers’, in: Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical
Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400, Leiden 1997, pp. 633–70
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“. . . natum et passum etc.” Zur Geschichte der Tauffragen in der lateinischen Kirche
bis zu Luther’ [1999], in: id., Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 237–67
 Bibliography 651

Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Überlegungen zum Sitz im Leben der Gattung Πρὸς Ἕλληνας/Ad nationes’, in:
Raban von Haehling (ed.), Rom und das himmlische Jerusalem: Die frühen Christen zwischen
Anpassung und Ablehnung, Darmstadt 2000, pp. 152–83
Kinzig, Wolfram, review of Westra 2002, JEH 56 (2005), pp. 548–9
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Jewish and “Judaizing” Eschatologies in Jerome’, in: Richard Kalmin/Seth Schwartz
(eds.), Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire, Leuven 2003 (Interdisciplinary
Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 3), pp. 409–29
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“Auszeit”: Anmerkungen zu Ursprung und Sinn von Sonn- und Feiertagen aus
kirchenhistorischer Sicht, ThZ 62 (2006), pp. 357–75
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Creed in the Liturgy: Prayer or Hymn?’ in: Albert Gerhards/Clemens Leonhard
(eds.), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into its History and Interaction, Leiden
etc. 2007 (JCPS 15), pp. 229–46
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Nazoraeans’, in: Oskar Skarsaune/Reidar Hvalvik (eds.), Jewish Believers in Jesus,
vol. I: The Early Centuries, Peabody, Mass. 2007, pp. 463–87
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Eigenart und Aussprache des Tetragramms bei den Kirchenvätern’, in: Heinrich
Assel/Hans-Christoph Askani (eds.), Sprachgewinn: Festschrift für Günter Bader, Berlin 2008 (AHST
11), pp. 202–33
Kinzig, Wolfram, art. ‘Ascension of Christ, II. Christianity’, in: EBR, vol. II, 2009, cols. 913–17
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Creed and the Development of the Liturgical Year in the Early Church’ [2011],
in: id., Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 329–64
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘From the Letter to the Spirit to the Letter: The Faith as Written Creed’ [2013], in: id.,
Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 293–310
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“Gründungswunder” des Christentums? Die Auferstehung Christi in der
altkirchlichen Diskussion’, in: id./Jochen Schmidt (eds.), Glaublich – aber unwahr? (Un-)
Wissenschaft im Christentum, Würzburg 2013 (Studien des Bonner Zentrums für Religion und
Gesellschaft 10), pp. 41–59
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Herrschaft und Bekenntnis: Überlegungen zur imperialen Normierung des
christlichen Glaubens in der Spätantike’ [2016], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 208–26
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Christus im Credo: Überlegungen zur Herkunft und Alter des Christussummariums
im Apostolikum’, in: id., Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 269–91
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Das Glaubensbekenntnis im Gottesdienst – Gebet oder Hymnus?’, in: id., Neue Texte
I, 2017, pp. 311–27
Kinzig, Wolfram, Faith in Formulae: A Collection of Early Christian Creeds and Credal Formulae, 4 vols.,
Oxford 2017 (OECT)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Ist das Christentum monotheistisch? Bemerkungen aus kirchenhistorischer Sicht’,
in: id., Neue Texte I, 2017, pp. 217–35
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Monarchianismus und Monarchie: Überlegungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen
Theologie und Politik im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert’ [2017], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 137–60
Kinzig, Wolfram, Neue Texte und Studien zu den antiken und frühmittelalterlichen Glaubensbekenntnissen
[Neue Texte I], Berlin 2017 (AKG 132)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘§ 122. Areios und der Arianismus’, in: Christoph Riedweg/Christoph Horn/Dietmar
Wyrwa (eds.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike, vol.
V: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, part 2, Basel 2018, pp. 1478–90
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘§ 123. Neuarianismus’, in: Christoph Riedweg/Christoph Horn/Dietmar Wyrwa
(eds.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. V: Philosophie der
Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, part 2, Basel 2018, pp. 1491–6
652 Bibliography

Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis – Leistung und Grenzen eines christlichen
Fundamentaltextes’ [2018], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 286–307
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Die Verpflichtungserklärung der getauften Juden von Toledo aus den Jahren 637
und 654’ [2019], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 53–90
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Formation des Glaubens: Didaktische und liturgische Aspekte der Rezeption
altkirchlicher Symbole in der lateinischen Kirche der Spätantike und des Frühmittelalters’ [2019],
in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 227–62
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Warum es im Glaubensbekenntnis keine Ethik gibt: Überlegungen aus
kirchenhistorischer Perspektive’ [2019], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 263–85
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Glauben lernen im Mittelalter: Eine Predigt über das Apostolicum in cod. Paris,
Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 18104’ [2020], in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 91–116
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Zwei neuentdeckte Predigten des Nestorios: Adversus haereticos de divina trinitate
(CPG 5691) und In symbolum fidei: Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar’ [2020], in: id., Neue
Texte III, 2022, pp. 3–52
Kinzig, Wolfram, Christian Persecution in Antiquity, Waco, Texas 2021
Kinzig, Wolfram, Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Konstantinopel (381): Herkunft, Geltung und Rezeption.
Neue Texte und Studien zu den antiken und frühmittelalterlichen Glaubensbekenntnissen II, Berlin/
Boston 2021 (AKG 147)
Kinzig, Wolfram, art. ‘Symbolum’, in: AugL, vol. V, fasc. 3/4, 2021, cols. 621–6
Kinzig, Wolfram, art. ‘Symbolum’, in: RAC, vol. XXXI, Lieferung 244, 2021, cols. 381–93
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘What’s in a Creed? A New Perspective on Old Texts’ [2021], in: id., Neue Texte III,
2022, pp. 119–36
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Der Ursprung des römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses’, in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022,
pp. 161–88
Kinzig, Wolfram, Neue Texte und Studien zu den antiken und frühmittelalterlichen Glaubensbekenntnissen
III, Berlin/Boston 2022 (AKG 151)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Sunday Observance – Norms and Norm Deviation in Late Antiquity’, in: Uta Heil
(ed.), From Sun-Day to the Lord’s Day: The Cultural History of Sunday in Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages, Turnhout 2022 (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 39),
pp. 319–72
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Origin of the Creed of Jerusalem’, in: id., Neue Texte III, 2022, pp. 189–207
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The Creed of Nicaea: Old Questions, New Answers’, ER 75 (2023), pp. 172–84
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“I abjure Satan, his Pomp, and his Service”: Exchanging Religious Dependencies in
the Early Church’, in: id./Barbara Loose (eds.), Control, Coercion, and Constraint: The Role of
Religion in Overcoming and Creating Structures of Dependency, Berlin/Boston 2024 (sub prelo)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘Liberating the Dead – The Descent to the Underworld as Redemptive Event in Late-
antique and Early Medieval Explanations of the Creed’, in: Hermut Löhr (ed.), Freedom and
Liberation in Mediterranean Antiquity, Berlin/Boston 2024 (Dependency and Slavery Studies; sub
prelo)
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“Obedient unto death”. Christ as Slave in Late Antique Commentaries on the Epistle
to the Philippians’, in: Julia Winnebeck/Maria Munkholt Christensen (eds.), In the Grip of the
Supernatural: Dependencies Above, Within, and Before Us, Berlin/Boston 2024 (sub prelo)
Kinzig, Wolfram/Markschies, Christoph/Vinzent, Markus, Tauffragen und Bekenntnis: Studien zur
sogenannten ‘Traditio Apostolica’, zu den ‘Interrogationes de fide’ und zum ‘Römischen
Glaubensbekenntnis’, Berlin/New York 1999 (AKG 74)
Kinzig, Wolfram/Vinzent, Markus, ‘Recent Research on the Origin of the Creed’, JThS 50 (1999),
pp. 535–59
 Bibliography 653

Kinzig, Wolfram/Wallraff, Martin, ‘Das Christentum des dritten Jahrhunderts zwischen Anspruch und
Wirklichkeit’, in: Dieter Zeller (ed.), Das Christentum I: Von den Anfängen bis zur Konstantinischen
Wende, Stuttgart 2002 (RM I), pp. 331–88
Kirsch, Johann P., The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of
Dogma, Edinburgh/London n.d. (1910)
Kirsten, Hans, Die Taufabsage: Eine Untersuchung zu Gestalt und Geschichte der Taufe nach den
altkirchlichen Taufliturgien, Berlin 1960
Kitchen, Robert A., art. ‘Narsai’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2019; URL <http://dx.
doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_040689> (27/11/2023)
Klauck, Hans-Josef, Der erste Johannesbrief, Zurich etc. 1991 (EKK XXIII/1)
Klauck, Hans-Josef, Der zweite und der dritte Johannesbrief, Zurich etc. 1992 (EKK XIII/2)
Klein, Anja et al., art. ‘Faith’, in: EBR, vol. VIII, 2014, cols. 690–732
Klein, Richard, Constantius II. und die christliche Kirche, Darmstadt 1977 (IdF 26)
Klijn, Albertus F.J., ‘The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians’, VigChr 17
(1963), pp. 2–23
Klingshirn, William E., Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul,
Cambridge 1994 (repr. 1995; CSMLT IV/22)
Klöckener, Martin, ‘Liturgiereformen in der Geschichte’, in: Gordon Lathrop/Martin Stuflesser (eds.),
Liturgiereformen in den Kirchen: 50 Jahre nach Sacrosanctum Concilium, Regensburg 2013
(Theologie der Liturgie 5), pp. 57–79
Knecht, Johannes J., Verus filius Dei incarnatus: The Christologies of Paulinus II of Aquileia, Benedict of
Aniane, and Agobard of Lyon in the Context of the Felician Controversy, Münster 2022 (ArVe.S 20)
Knoben, Ursula, art. ‘Paraskeve (Pjatnika)’, in: LCI, vol. VIII, 1976 (repr. 1994), cols. 118–20
Knupp, Josef, Das Mystagogieverständnis des Johannes Chrysostomus, ed. by Anton Bodem and Alois
Kothgasser, Munich 1995 (BBSt 4)
Koch, Klaus, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method, New York n.d. (1969)
Koeckert, Charlotte,art. ‘Creation and Cosmogony, VI. Christianity, A. Patristics, Orthodox Churches,
and Early Medieval Times’, in: EBR, vol. V, 2012, cols. 989–92
Koeckert, Charlotte, art. ‘Schöpfung’, in: RAC, vol. XXIX, 2019, cols. 1006–113
Körting, Corinna et al., art. ‘Doxology’, in: EBB, vol VI, 2013, cols. 1135–42
Körtner, Ulrich H.J., ‘The Papias Fragments’, in: Wilhelm Pratscher (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: An
Introduction, Waco, Texas 2010. pp. 159–79
Koester, Craig R., Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New Haven etc. 2001
(AB 36)
Köster, Helmut, art. ὑπόστασις, in: TDNT, vol. VIII, 1972 (repr. 1995), pp. 572–89
Kösters, Oliver, Die Trinitätslehre des Epiphanius von Salamis: Ein Kommentar zum ‘Ancoratus’, Göttingen
2003 (FKDG 86)
Kötter, Jan-Markus, ‘Die Suche nach der kirchlichen Ordnung: Gedanken zu grundlegenden
Funktionsweisen der spätantiken Reichskirche’, HZ 298 (2014), pp. 1–28
Kötting, Bernhard/Kaiser, B., art. ‘Gelübde’, in: RAC, vol. IX, 1976, cols. 1055–99
Kohlbacher, Michael, ‘Das Symbolum Athanasianum und die orientalische Bekenntnistradition:
Formgeschichtliche Anmerkungen’, in: Martin Tamcke (ed.), Syriaca II: Beiträge zum 3. deutschen
Syrologen-Symposium in Vierzehnheiligen 2002, Münster 2004 (SOKG 33), pp. 105–64
Kohlbacher, Michael, ‘Rabbula in Edessa: Das Weiterwirken eines Schismas in der armenischen
Bekenntnistradition’, in: Martin Tamcke (ed.), Blicke gen Osten: Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zum
95. Geburtstag, Münster 2004, pp. 233–73
654 Bibliography

Kolbaba, Tia M., Inventing Latin Heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century,
Kalamazoo 2008
Kolditz, Sebastian, ‘Ein umstrittener Kaiser und patriarchale Kirchen im späteren fünften
Jahrhundert: Weltliche und geistliche Macht unter Basiliskos’, in: Michael Grünbart/Lutz Rickelt/
Martin Marko Vučetić (eds.), Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im
byzantinischen Mittelalter, vol. II, Berlin 2013, pp. 19–53
Kollautz, Arnulf, ‘Orient und Okzident am Ausgang des 6. Jh. Johannes, Abt von Biclarum, Bischof von
Gerona, der Chronist des westgotischen Spaniens’, Byzantina 12 (1983), pp. 464–506
Konradt, Matthias, art. ‘Excommunication, II. New Testament’, in: EBR, vol. VIII, 2014, cols. 367–9
Konradt, Matthias, art. ‘Faith, II. New Testament’, in: EBR, vol. VIII, 2014, cols. 691–701
Kraatz, Wilhelm, Koptische Akten zum ephesinischen Konzil vom Jahre 431: Übersetzung und
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1904 (TU 26/2)
Krebs, Johann Ph./Schmalz, Joseph H., Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache: Nebst einem kurzen Abriss
der Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache und Vorbemerkungen über reine Latinität, eventh ed.,
Basel 1905
Kreis, Oliver, ‘Ein hispanischer Bischof am Hof des römischen Kaisers. Welchen Einfluss hatte Ossius
von Corduba auf die Kirchenpolitik Konstantins des Großen?’, in: Sabine Panzram (ed.),
Oppidum – Civitas – Urbs: Städteforschung auf der Iberischen Halbinsel zwischen Rom und
al-Andalus, Berlin 2017 (Geschichte und Kultur der Iberischen Welt 13), pp. 401–27
Kretschmar, Georg, ‘Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes in der alten Kirche’, in: Leit., vol. V, 1970,
pp. 1–348
Kretschmar, Georg/Hauschildt, Karl, art. ‘Katechumenat/Katechumenen’, in: TRE, vol. XVIII, 1989,
pp. 1–14
Kritikou, Flora, ‘The Byzantine Compositions of the “Symbolon of Faith”’, in: Nina-Maria Wanek (ed.),
Psaltike: Neue Studien zur Byzantinischen Musik: Festschrift für Gerda Wolfram, Vienna 2011, pp. 167–86
Kropp, Manfred, ‘Tripartite, but ant-Trinitarian formulas in the Qur’ānic Corpus, Possibly pre-
Qur’ānic, in: Gabriel S. Reynolds (ed.), New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: The Qur’ān in its Historical
Context 2, London/New York 2011 (Routledge Studies in the Qur’ān), pp. 247–64
Krueger, Derek, Liturgical Subjects: Christian Ritual, Biblical Narrative, and the Formation of the Self in
Byzantium, Philadelphia 2014 (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion)
Kühne, Udo/Tönnies, Bernhard/Haucap, Anette, Handschriften in Osnabrück: Bischöfliches Archiv,
Gymnasium Carolinum, Bischöfliches Generalvikariat, Kulturgeschichtliches Museum,
Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Diözesanmuseum, Pfarrarchiv St. Johann, Wiesbaden 1993
(Mittelalterliche Handschriften in Niedersachsen; Kurzkatalog 2)
Künstle, Karl, Antipriscilliana: Dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Texte aus dem Streite gegen
Priscillians Irrlehre, Freiburg 1905
Kunze, Johannes, Das nicänisch-konstantinopolitanische Symbol, Leipzig 1898 (SGTK III/3)
Kunze, Johannes, ‘Die Entstehung des sogenannten apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses unter
dogmengeschichtl[ichem] Gesichtspunkt’, IMW 8 (1914), cols. 1311–30
Labahn, Michael, ‘Kreative Erinnerung als nachösterliche Nachschöpfung: Der Ursprung der
christlichen Taufe’, in: Hellholm et al. 2011, vol. I, pp. 337–76
Labourt, Jérôme, Dionysius bar Ṣalībī: Expositio Liturgiae, Paris 1903 (repr. Leuven 1955; CSCO
13–14/Scriptores Syri 13–14)
Ladaria, Luis F., El Espiritu Santo en San Hilario de Poitiers, Madrid 1977
Ladaria, Luis F., La cristología de Hilario de Poitiers, Rome 1989 (AnGr 255/SFT A 32)
Lai, Andrea, Il codice Laudiano greco 35: L’identità missionaria di un libro nell’Europa altomedievale,
Cargeghe 2011
 Bibliography 655

Łajtar, Adam, ‘The Constantinopolitan Creed in an Inscription from the Monastery Church on Kom H
in Dongola,’ in: Włodzimierz Godlewski/Dorota Dzierzbicka/Adam Łajtar (eds.), Dongola
2015–2016: Fieldwork, Conservation and Site Management, Warsaw 2018 (PCMA Excavation Series
5), pp. 37–46
Lampe, Geoffrey W.H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 (seventh impression 1984)
Lampe, Peter, From Paulus to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, ed. by Marshall
D. Johnson, Minneapolis 2003
Lang, Uwe M., The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform, Cambridge 2022
Lange, Christian, Mia Energeia: Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des
Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel, Tübingen 2012 (STAC 66)
Lange-Sonntag, Ralf, art, ‘Elias von Nisibis’, in: BBKL, vol. XXVII, 2007, cols. 369–74
Lapidge, Michael (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Litanies of the Saints, London 1991 (HBS 106)
Lapidge, Michael, ‘The Career of Archbishop Theodore’, in: id. (ed.), Archbishop Theodore:
Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influences, Cambridge 1995 (CSASE 11), pp. 1–29
Larchet, Jean-Claude/Ponsoye, Emmanuel, Saint Maxime le Confesseur: Opuscules théologiques et
polémiques, introduction par J.-C- L., traduction et notes par E.P., Paris 1998 (Sagesses
Chrétiennes)
Larchet, Jean-Claude, Saint Maxime le Confesseur (580–662), Paris 2003 (Initiations aux Pères de
l’Église)
Lasker, Daniel J., Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages, Liverpool 2007
(The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization)
Latte, Kurt, Römische Religionsgeschichte, second ed. (second repr.), Munich 1992 (Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft V/4)
Lattke, Michael, Hymnus: Materialien zur Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie, Freiburg, Schweiz/
Göttingen 1991 (NTOA 19)
Lattke, Michael, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary, Minneapolis 2009 (Hermeneia)
Laurent, Vitalien, ‘Le Symbole “Quicumque” et l’Église byzantine’, EOr 39 (1936), pp. 385–404
Lavarra, Caterina, Maghi, santi e medici: Interazioni culturali nella Gallia merovingia, Galatina 1994
Lebon, Joseph, ‘Les citations patristiques grecques du “Sceau de la foi”’, RHE 25 (1929), pp. 5–32
Lebon, Joseph, ‘Les anciens symboles dans la définition de Chalcédoine’, RHE 32 (1936), pp. 809–76
Leclercq, Jean/Bonnes, Jean-Paul, Jean de Fécamp: Un maître de la vie spirituelle au XIe siècle, Paris 1946
(ETHS 9)
Legg, John W. (ed.), Tracts on the Mass, London 1904 (HBS)
Lehtipuu, Outi, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, Oxford
2015 (OECS)
Lehto, Adam, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, Piscataway, NJ 2010 (Gorgias Eastern
Christian Studies 27)
Lenski, Noel, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D., Berkeley etc. 2002
(The Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature)
Lenski, Noel, ‘Imperial Legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius’, in:
Richard Miles (ed.), The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts, Liverpool 2016 (Translated
Texts for Historians, Contexts 2), pp. 166–219
Leppin, Hartmut, Von Constantin dem Großen zu Theodosius II: Das christliche Kaisertum bei den
Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret, Göttingen 1996 (Hyp. 110)
Leppin, Hartmut, Theodosius der Große, Darmstadt 2003 (Gestalten der Antike).
Leppin, Hartmut, ‘Zum Wandel des spätantiken Heidentums’, Millennium-Jahrbuch 1 (2004), pp. 59–82
Leppin, Hartmut, Justinian: Das christliche Experiment, Stuttgart 2011
656 Bibliography

Leppin, Hartmut, ‘Christianisierungen im Römischen Reich: Überlegungen zum Begriff und zur
Phasenbildung’, ZAC 16 (2012), pp. 247–78
Leppin, Hartmut, ‘Kaisertum und Christentum in der Spätantike: Überlegungen zu einer
unwahrscheinlichen Synthese’, in: Andreas Fahrmeir/Annette Imhausen (eds.), Die Vielfalt
normativer Ordnungen: Konflikte und Dynamik in historischer und ethnologischer Perspektive,
Frankfurt am Main 2013, pp. 197–223
Leppin, Volker, art. ‘Excommunication, III. Christianity’, in: EBR, vol. VIII, 2014, cols. 369 f.
Leroquais, Victor, Les psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, vol. I, Paris 1940
Leroy, François J., L’homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople: Tradition manuscrite, inédits, études
connexes, Città del Vaticano 1967 (StT 247)
Leroy, Lucien/Grébaut, Sylvain, Sévère ibn al-Muqaffa‛, évêque d’Aschmounaïn: Histoire des conciles
(second livre), édition et traduction du texte arabe par L.L., étude de la version éthiopienne par
S.G., Paris 1911 (PO 6/4)
Leuenberger-Wenger, Sandra, Das Konzil von Chalcedon und die Kirche: Konflikte und
Normierungsprozesse im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert, Leiden/Boston 2019 (SVigChr153)
Levin, Christoph, ‘Glaube im Alten Testament’, in: Horn, Glaube, 2018, pp. 9–31
Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century: The Ford Lectures Delivered in the
University of Oxford in the Hilary Term, 1943, Oxford 1946 (repr. 1973)
Levy, Kenneth, Gregorian Chant and the Carolingians, Princeton, New Jersey 1998
L’Huillier, Peter, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Councils,
Crestwood NY 1996
Liesel, Nikolaus/Makula, Tibor, The Eucharistic Liturgies of the Eastern Churches, Collegeville,
Minnesota 1963
Lietzmann, Hans, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule: Texte und Untersuchungen, Tübingen 1904
Lietzmann, Hans, ‘Die Urform des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses’ [1919], in: id. 1962,
pp. 182–8
Lietzmann, Hans, ‘Symbolstudien I–XIV’, ZNW 21 (1922), pp. 1–34; 22 (1923), pp. 257–279; 24 (1925),
pp. 193–202; 26 (1927), pp. 75–95; also separately: Darmstadt 1966; also in: id. 1962, pp. 189–281
(quoted thereafter)
Lietzmann, Hans, Kleine Schriften, vol. III: Studien zur Liturgie- und Symbolgeschichte: Zur
Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Berlin 1962 (TU 74)
Lietzmann, Hans, Zeitrechnung der römischen Kaiserzeit und der Neuzeit für die Jahre 1–2000 n.Chr.,
fourth ed., Berlin/New York 1984
Lindemann, Andreas, ‘Zur frühchristlichen Taufpraxis: Die Taufe in der Didache, bei Justin und in der
Didaskalia’, in: Hellholm et al. 2011, vol. II, pp. 767–815
Linder, Amon, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages: Edited with Introductions,
Translations, and Annotations, Detroit/Jerusalem 1997
Lionarons, Joyce T., The Homiletic Writings of Archbishop Wulfstan: A Critical Study, Woodbridge, Suffolk
2010 (Anglo-Saxon Studies 14)
Lippold, Adolf, Die Kaiser Theodosius der Große und Theodosius II, Stuttgart 1972
Lipton, Sara, ‘Unfeigned Witness: Jews, Matter, and Vision in Twelfth-Century Christian Art’,
in: Herbert L. Kessler/David Nirenberg, Judaism and Christian Art: Aesthetic Anxieties from the
Catacombs to Colonialism, Philadelphia/Oxford 2011, pp. 45–73
Löhr, Hermut, Studien zum frühchristlichen und frühjüdischen Gebet: Untersuchungen zu 1 Clem 59 bis 61
in seinem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Kontext, Tübingen 2003 (WUNT 160)
Löhr, Hermut, ‘Der Messias als Richter: Zur Entstehung und Bedeutung einer Aussage im zweiten
Artikel des Credos in den Anfängen des christlichen Glaubens’, in: Jens Herzer/Anne Käfer/Jörg
 Bibliography 657

Frey (eds.), Die Rede von Jesus Christus als Glaubensaussage: Der zweite Artikel des Apostolischen
Glaubensbekenntnisses im Gespräch zwischen Bibelwissenschaft und Dogmatik, Tübingen 2018,
pp. 457–77
Löhr, Winrich A., art. Eudoxios, in: LThK, third ed., vol. III, 1995, cols. 978 f.
Löhr, Winrich A., Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten
Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1996 (WUNT 83)
Löhr, Winrich A., art. ‘Logos’, in: RAC, vol. XXIII, 2010, cols. 327–435
Longère, Jean, ‘L’enseignement du Credo: conciles, synodes et canonistes médiévaux jusqu’au XIIIe
siècle’, SacEr 32 (1991), pp. 309–41
Longo, Augusta, ‘Il testo integrale della “Narrazione degli abati Giovanni e Sofronio” attraverso le
“Ἑρμηνείαι” di Nicone’, RSBN 12/13 (1965/1966), pp. 223–50
Loofs, Friedrich, art. ‘Athanasianum’, in: RE, third ed., 1897, vol. II, 177–94
Lorenz, Rudolf, art. ‘Eustathius von Antiochien’, in: TRE vol. X, 1982, pp. 543–6
Lotter, Friedrich, Völkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonau-Raum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter
(375–600), Berlin/New York 2003 (RGA.E 39)
Lougovaya, Julia, ‘Greek Literary Ostraca Revisited’, in: Clementina Caputo/Julia Lougovaya (eds.),
Using Ostraca in the Ancient World: New Discoveries and Methodologies, Berlin/Noston 2020
(Materiale Textkulturen 32), pp. 109–41
Lührmann, Dieter, art. ‘Glaube’, in: RAC, vol. XI, 1979, cols. 48–122
Luibhéid, Colm, ‘The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia’, IThQ 43 (1976), pp. 3–23
Lumby, J. Rawson, The History of the Creeds, Cambridge 1873 (second ed. 1880)
Lumma, Liborius O./Vonach, Andreas, ‘Glaubensbekenntnis’, in: Birgit Jeggle-Merz/Walter
Kirchschläger/Jörg Müller (eds.), Das Wort Gottes hören und den Tisch bereiten: Die Liturgie mit
biblischen Augen betrachten, Stuttgart 2015 (Luzerner biblisch-liturgischer Kommentar zum Ordo
Missae II), pp. 67–78
Luttikhuizen, Gerard, ‘The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul’, in:
Jan N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, Kampen 1996 (Studies on the
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 2), pp. 75–91
Luykx, Bonifaas, ‘Essai sur les sources de l’“Ordo missae” Prémontré’, APraem 22/23 (1946/1947),
pp. 35–90
Luykx, Bonifaas, ‘Der Ursprung der gleichbleibenden Teile der Heiligen Messe’, LuM 29 (1961), pp. 72–119
Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, Minneapolis 2005 (Hermeneia)
Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, Minneapolis 2007 (Hermeineia)
Lynch, Joseph H., Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe, Princeton, N.J., 1986
Macé, Caroline et al., ‘Chapter 3. Textual Critsicism and Text Editing’, in: Alessandro Bausi (ed.),
Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, n.p. (Hamburg) 2015, pp. 321–465
MacLean, Arthur J., East Syrian Daily Offices: Translated from the Syriac with Introduction, Notes, and
Indices and an Appendix Containing the Lectionary and Glossary, London 1894 (repr. Westmead,
Farnborough 1969)
MacMullen, Ramsay, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 200–400), New Haven, Conn. 1984
Macomber, William F., ‘The Nicene Creed in a Liturgical Fragment of the 5th or 6th Century from
Upper Egypt’, OrChr 77 (1993), pp. 98–103
Madoz, José, Excerpta Vincentii Lirinensis según el códice de Ripoll, n. 151 con un estudio crítico
introductorio, Madrid 1940
Madoz, José, Un tratado desconocido de San Vicente de Lerins: “Excerpta sancte memorie Vincentii
Lirinensis insule presbiteri ex uniuerso beate recordacionis Agustini in unum collecta”, Gr. 21
(1940), pp. 75–94
658 Bibliography

Mai, Angelo, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codicibus Edita, vol. X, Rome 1838
Maisonneuve, Henri, Études sur les origines de l’inquisition, second ed., Paris 1960 (EEMA 7)
Mâle, Émile, L’art religieux de la fin du moyen âge en France: Étude sur l’iconographie du moyen age et
sur ses sources d’inspiration, fifth ed., Paris 1949
Maraval, Pierre, ‘Die Rezeption des Chalcedonense im Osten des Reiches’, in: Luce Pietri (ed.), Der
lateinische Westen und der byzantinische Osten, Freiburg etc. 2001(2010; GeChr 3), pp. 120–57
March, Joseph M., ‘En Ramón Martí y la seva “Explanatio simboli apostolorum”’, Anuari de l’Institut
d’Estudis Catalans 2 (1908), pp. 443–96
Mardirossian, Aram, La Collection canonique d’Antioche. Droit et hérésie à travers le premier recueil de
législation ecclésiastique (IVe siècle), Paris 2010 (Collège de France – CNRS/Centre de Recherche
d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance/Monographies 34)
Margoliouth, George, Descriptive List of Syriac and Karshuni Mss. in the British Museum Acquired since
1873, London 1899
Markschies, Christoph, ‘“Sessio ad dexteram”: Bemerkungen zu einem altchristlichen
Bekenntnismotiv in der Diskussion der altkirchlichen Theologen’ [1993], in: id., Alta Trinità Beata:
Gesammelte Studien zur altkirchlichen Trinitätstheologie, Tübingen 2000, pp. 1–69
Markschies, Christoph, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: Kirchen- und
theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Antiarianismus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im
lateinischen Westen (364–381 n.Chr.), Tübingen 1995 (BHTh 90)
Markschies, Christoph, ‘Wer schrieb die sogenannte Traditio Apostolica? Neue Beobachtungen und
Hypothesen zu einer kaum lösbaren Frage aus der altkirchlichen Literaturgeschichte’, in: Kinzig/
Markschies/Vinzent 1999, pp. 1–74
Markschies, Christoph, ‘Haupteinleitung’, in: id./Jens Schröter/Andreas Heiser (eds.), Antike christliche
Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, seventh edition, vol. I: Evangelien und Verwandtes, fasc. 1,
Tübingen 2012, pp. 1–180
Markschies, Christoph, art. ‘Montanismus’, in: RAC, vol. XXIV, 2012, cols. 1197–220
Markschies, Christoph, ‘On Classifying Creeds the Classical German Way: “Privat-Bekenntnisse”
(“Private Creeds”), in: StPatr, vol. LXIII, 2013, pp. 259–71
Markschies, Christoph, ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν oder: Schwierigkeiten bei der Beschreibung dessen, was
vor aller Zeit war’, in: Eve-Marie Becker/Holger Strutwolf (eds.), Platonismus und Christentum: Ihre
Beziehungen und deren Grenzen, Tübingen 2022, pp. 11–40
Markus, Robert A., Gregory the Great and His World, Cambridge 1997
Marrone, Steven P., A History of Science, Magic and Belief: From Medieval to Early Modern Europe,
London etc. 2015
Martimbos, Nicolas, D.D. Durandi a Sancto Porciano in Sententias Theologicas Petri Lombardi
Commentariorum Libri Quatuor, Lyons 1587
Martin-Hisard, Bernadette, ‘Das Christentum und die Kirche in der georgischen Welt’, in: Pietri
2001(2010), pp. 1231–305
Martínez Díez, Gonzalo/Rodríguez, Félix, La colección canónica Hispana, 6 vols., Madrid/Barcelona
1966–2002 (MHS.C 1–6)
Martini, Aldo (ed.), Il cosidetto Pontificale di Poitiers (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, cod. 227), Rome
1979 (RED.F 14)
Masser, Achim, ‘“Weißenburger Katechismus”’, in: Bergmann 2013, pp. 506–8
May, Gerhard,art. ‘Bann, IV. Alte Kirche und Mittelalter’, in: TRE, vol. V, 1980, pp. 170–82
Mayser, Edwin, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen
Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften, vol. II/3: Satzlehre. Synthetischer Teil, Berlin/
Leipzig 1934 (repr. 1970)
 Bibliography 659

McCarthy, Daniel P., ‘The Council of Nicaea and the Celebration of the Christian Pasch’, in: Kim 2021,
pp. 177–201
McGowan, Andrew B., Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and
Theological Perspective, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2014
McGuckin, John, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, Crestwood, New York 2001
McKenna, Stephen, Paganism and Pagan Survivals in Spain up to the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom,
Washington 1938 (SMH.NS 1)
McKitterick, Rosamond, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895, London 1977
McNeill, John T./Gamer, Helena M., Medieval Handbooks of Penance: A Translation of the principal libri
poenitentiales and Selections from Related Documents, New York/Chichester 1938 (repr. 1990)
Mearns, James, The Canticles of the Christian Church Eastern and Western in Early and Medieval Times,
Cambridge 1914
Meens, Rob, Het tripartite boeteboek: Overlevering en betekenis van vroegmiddeleeuwse
biechtvoorschriften (met editie en vertaling van vier tripartita), Hilversum 1994 (Middeleeuwse
Studies en Bronnen 41)
Meens, Rob, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600–1200, Cambridge 2014
Meier, Mischa, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians: Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im
6. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Göttingen 2004 (Hyp. 147)
Meier, Mischa, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart 2009
Menze, Volker/Akalin, Kutlu, John of Tella’s Profession of Faith, Piscataway, NJ 2009 (Texts from
Christian Late Antiquity 25)
Mériaux, Charles, ‘Ideal and Reality: Carolingian Priests in Northern Francie’, in: Patzold/Van Rhijn
2016, pp. 78–97
Metzger, Bruce M., The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations,
Oxford 1977 (repr. 2001)
Metzger, Marcel, History of the Liturgy: The Major Stages, Collegeville, Minnesota 1997
Metzger, Marcel/Drews, Wolfram/Brakmann, Heinzgerd, art. ‘Katechumenat’, in: RAC, vol. XX, 2004,
cols. 497–574
Metzger, Paul, ‘Arkandisziplin’, in: WiBiLex 2010 (version 2018); URL <https://www.bibelwissenschaft.
de/stichwort/49934> (27/11/2023)
Metzler, Karin/Hansen, Dirk U./Savvidis, Kyriakos, Die dogmatischen Schriften, 1. Lieferung: Epistula ad
Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae. Edition, Berlin/New York 1996 (Athanasius Werke 1/1,1)
Metzler, Karin/Savvidis, Kyriakos (eds.), Die dogmatischen Schriften, 2. Lieferung: Orationes I et II
Contra Arianos. Edition, Berlin/New York 1998 (Athanasius Werke 1/1,2)
Meunier, Bernard, ‘Ni ajouter ni retrancher: une qualification du texte inspiré?’, REAugP 63 (2017),
pp. 311–26
Mews, Constant J./Renkin, Claire, ‘The Legacy of Gregory the Great in the Latin West’, in: Bronwen
Neil/Matthew Dal Santo (eds.), A Companion to Gregory the Great, Leiden/Boston 2013 (Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition 47), pp. 315–42
Meyer, Hans B., Eucharistie: Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, Regensburg 1989 (GDK 4)
Miazga, Tadeusz, Die Melodien des einstimmigen Credo der römisch-katholischen lateinischen Kirche,
Graz 1976
Michaelis, Wilhelm, art. κράτος κτλ., in: TDNT, vol. III, 1965, pp. 905–15
Michel, Anton, Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols.,
Paderborn 1924/1930 (QFG 21, 23)
Michel, Charles, art. ‘Anathème’, in: DACL, vol. II, 1907, cols. 1926–40
Michel, Otto, art. ‘ὁμολογέω κτλ.’, in: TDNT, vol. V, 1967, pp. 199–220
660 Bibliography

Mihálykó, Ágnes T., The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction, Tübingen 2019 (STAC 114)
Milne, Herbert J.M., Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum, London 1927
Mingana, Alphonse, Narsai doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina, 2 vols., Mossul 1905
Mingana, Alphonse, Commentary of Theodore of Mopsestia on the Nicene Creed, Cambridge 1932
(WoodSt 5)
Missale Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosanctio Concilii Tridentini Restitutum Pii V. Pont. Max. Iussu Editum,
Venice n.d. (1570)
Mitalaité, Kristina, ‘La transmission de la doctrine dans la prédication carolingienne’, RSPhTh 97
(2013), pp. 243–76
Mocquereau, André, ‘Le chant “authentique” du Credo selon l’édition vaticane’, in: PalMus, vol. X,
1909, pp. 90–176
Mohlberg, Leo C., Radulph de Rivo, der letzte Vertreter der altrömischen Liturgie, 2 vols., Münster 1911/
1915 (RTCHP 29)
Mohlberg, Leo C., Mittelalterliche Handschriften, Zurich 1951 (Katalog der Handschriften der
Zentralbibliothek Zürich 1)
Mohlberg, Leo C./Eizenhöfer, Leo/Siffrin, Petrus, Missale Gallicanum Vetus (Cod. Vat. Palat. lat. 493),
Rome 1958 (RED.F 3)
Molland, Einar, ‘“Des Reich kein Ende haben wird”: Hintergrund und Bedeutung einer dogmatischen
Aussage im nicäno-constantinopolitanischen Glaubensbekenntnis’, in: id., Opuscula Patristica,
Oslo etc. 1970 (BTN 2), pp. 235–253
Mone, Franz Joseph (ed.), Altteutsche Schauspiele, Quedlinburg/Leipzig 1841 (BDNL 21)
Monnot, Guy, art. ‘al-S̲h̲ahrastānī’, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., 2012; URL <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_6769> (27/11/2023)
Montanari, Franco, art. ‘Hypomnema’, in: Brill’s New Pauly online, 2006; <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
1574-9347_bnp_e519990> (27/11/2023)
Morard, Martin, ‘Quand liturgie épousa predication: Note sur la place de la prédication dans la
liturgie romaine au moyen âge (VIIIe – XIVe siècle)’, in: Nicole Bériou/Franco Morenzoni (eds.),
Prédication et liturgie au Moyen Âge: Études réunies, Turnhout 2008 (Bibliothèque d’histoire
culturelle du Moyen Âge 5), pp. 79–126
Mordek, Hubert, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: Die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die älteste
systematische Kanonessammlung des fränkischen Gallien. Studien und Edition, Berlin/New York 1975
(BGQMA 1)
Morgan, Teresa, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early
Churches, Oxford 2015
Morin, Germain, ‘Le Symbole d’Athanase et son premier témoin: Saint Césaire d’Arles’, RBen 18
(1901), pp. 337–62
Morin, Germain, ‘L’origine du symbole d’Athanase’, JThS 12 (1911), pp. 160–90, 337–59
Morin, Germain, ‘L’origine du symbole d’Athanase: Témoignage inédit de S. Césaire d’Arles’, RBen 44
(1932), pp. 207–19
Morin, Germain, Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos reperti, Rome 1930 (Miscellanea Agostiniana 1)
Morison, Ernest F., A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed by Tyrannius Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia,
London 1916
Mühl, Max, ‘Der λοόγος ἐνδιαάθετος und προφορικοός von der älteren Stoa bis zur Synode von
Sirmium 351’, ABG 7 (1962), pp. 7–56
Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, Apollinaris von Laodicea, Göttingen 1969 (FKDG 23)
Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, 3 vols., Berlin/New York
1975–1978 (PTS 15, 16, 19)
 Bibliography 661

Mühlsteiger, Johannes, Kirchenordnungen: Anfänge kirchlicher Rechtsbildung, Berlin 2006 (KStT 50)
Müller, Christian, ‘Das Phänomen des “lateinischen Athanasius”’, in: Stockhausen/Brennecke 2010,
pp. 3–42
Müller, Christian, ‘From Athanasius to “Athanasius”: Usurping a “Nicene Hero” or: The Making-of of
the “Athanasian Creed”’, in: Jörg Ulrich/Anders-Christian Jacobsen/David Brakke (eds.), Invention,
Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, Frankfurt am Main etc.
2012 (Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11), pp. 19–40
Müller, Christian ‘Revisiting an Authority’s Secret(s) of Success: The Rise and Decline of the Latin
Athanasius’, in: Shari Boodts/Johan Leemans/Brigitte Meijns (eds.), Shaping Authority: How Did a
Person Become an Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance?, Turnhout 2016
(Lectio-E 4), pp. 197–22
Mulders, Jacques, ‘Victricius van Rouaan: Leven en leer’, Bijdr. 17 (1956), pp. 1–25; 18 (1957),
pp. 19–40, 270–89
Munkholt Christensen, Maria, ‘“Light from Light”: A Nicene Phrase and Its Use in the Early Church’,
ER 75 (2023), pp. 249–62
Muyldermans, Joseph, Evagriana Syriaca: Textes inédits du British Museum et de la Vaticane édités et
traduits, Louvain 1952 (BMus 31)
Napier, Arthur S., The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang together with the Latin
Original: An Old English Version of the Capitula of Theodulf together with the Latin Original: An
Interlinear Old English Rendering of the Epitome of Benedict of Aniane, London 1916
Neri, Valerio, I marginali nell’occidente tardoantico: Poveri, ‘infames’ e criminali nella nascente società
cristiana, Bari 1998 (Munera 12)
Neumann, Bernd, art. ‘Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Fronleichnamsspiel’, in: VerLex, second ed., vol. IV,
1982, cols. 398–400
Nicol, Donald M., ‘Byzantine Political Thought’, in: James H. Burns (ed.), Medieval Political Thought
c. 350–c. 1450, Cambridge 1988 (repr. 2003)
Nissel, Johann G., S. Jacobi Apostoli Epistolae Catholicae Versio Arabica et Aethiopica, Leiden 1654
Noethlichs, Karl L., Die gesetzgeberischen Maßnahmen der christlichen Kaiser des vierten Jahrhunderts
gegen Häretiker, Heiden und Juden, Diss., Köln 1971
Noethlichs, Karl L., art. ‘Heidenverfolgung’, in: RAC, vol. XIII, 1986, cols. 1149–90
Noethlichs, Karl L., art. ‘Iustinianus (Kaiser)’, in: RAC, vol. XIX, 2001, cols. 668–763
Noethlichs, Karl L., ‘Revolution from the Top? “Orthodoxy” and the Persecution of Heretics in
Imperial Legislation from Constantine to Justinian, in: Clifford Ando/Jörg Rüpke (eds.), Religion
and Law in Classical and Christian Rome, Stuttgart 2006 (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche
Beiträge 15), pp. 115–25
Nutton, Vivian, ‘Archiatri and the Medical Profession in Antiqity’, PBSR 45 (1977), pp. 191–226 and
plates XXXI–XXXII; also in: id., From Democedes to Harvey: Studies in the History of Medecine,
London 1988 (CStS CS 277), no. V (and Addenda et Corrigenda)
Nyssen, Wilhelm et al. (eds.), Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, vol. II, [second ed.], Düsseldorf 1989
Oberdorfer, Bernd, Filioque: Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischen Problems, Göttingen 2001
(FSÖTh 96)
Odenthal, Andreas, ‘“Ante conspectum diuinae maiestatis tuae reus assisto”: Liturgie- und
frömmigkeitsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum “Rheinischen Messordo” und dessen
Beziehungen zur Fuldaer Sakramentartradition’ [2007]’, in: id., Liturgie vom Frühen Mittelalter zum
Zeitalter der Konfessionalisierung: Studien zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes, Tübingen 2011 (SMHR
61), pp. 16–49
662 Bibliography

O’Donnell, James J./Drecoll, Volker H., art. ‘Regula, regula fidei’, in: AugL, vol. IV, 2012–2018,
cols. 1128–34
Oefele, Christine, art. ‘Music’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2022; URL <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00002315> (27/11/2023)
Ohme, Heinz, Kanon ekklesiastikos: Die Bedeutung des altkirchlichen Kanonbegriffs, Berlin/New York
1998 (AKG 67)
Ohme, Heinz, art. ‘Kanon I (Begriff)’, in: RAC, vol. XX, 2004, cols. 1–28
O’Leary, Joseph S., ‘The Homoousion as Shield of the Son’s Divinity’, Eastern Theological Journal 8
(2022), pp. 145–64
Olivar, Alexandre, La predicación cristiana antigua, Barcelona 1991 (BHer.TF 189)
Ommanney, George D.W., Early History of the Athanasian Creed: The Results of Some Original Research
upon the Subject, London etc. 1880
Ommanney, George D.W., A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed: Its Original Language, Date,
Authorship, Titles, Text, Reception, and Use, Oxford 1897
Opitz, Hans-Georg (ed.), Athanasius – Werke, vol. III, 1–2: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen
Streites, Berlin 1934/1935
Ostheim, Martin von, Ousia und Substantia: Untersuchungen zum Substanzbegriff bei den vornizänischen
Kirchenvätern, Basel 2008
Packer, James I., Affirming the Apostles’ Creed, Wheaton, Illinois 2008
Padwick, Constance E., Muslim Devotions: A Study of Prayer-Manuals in Common Use, London 1961
(repr. 1969)
Page, Christopher, The Christian West and its Singers: The First Thousand Years, New Haven/London
2010 (second printing 2012)
Palazzo, Éric, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, Collegeville,
MN 1998
Papandrea, James L., Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy, Eugene, Oregon
2012 (PTMS 175)
Parisot, Jean, Patrologia Syriaca, pars I: Ab initiis usque ad annum 350, vol. I, Paris 1894
Parker, David C., An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts, Cambridge 2008
Parmentier, Leon/Hansen, Günther Christian (eds.), Theodoret – Kirchengeschichte, third ed., Berlin/
New York 1998 (repr. 2009; GCS NF 5)
Parmentier, Martien/Rouwhorst, Gerard, ‘Early Christian Baptismal Questions and Creeds’, Bijdr. 62
(2001), pp. 455–66
Parvis, Paul, ‘Constantine’s Letter to Arius and Alexander’, in: StPatr, vol. XXXIX, 2006, pp. 89–95
Parvis, Sara, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345, Oxford etc.
2006 (OECS)
Pasquato, Ottorino/Brakmann, Heinzgerd, art. ‘Katechese (Katechismus)’, in: RAC, vol. XX, 2004,
cols. 422–96
Pass, H. Leonard, ‘The Creed of Aphraates’, JThS 9 (1908), pp. 267–84
Patzold, Steffen, ‘Pater noster: Priests and the Religious Instruction of the Laity in the Carolingian
populus christianus’, in: id./Van Rhijn 2016, pp. 199–221
Patzold, Steffen, Presbyter: Moral, Mobilität und die Kirchenorganisation im Karolingerreich, Stuttgart
2020 (MGMA 68)
Patzold, Steffen/Van Rhijn, Carine (eds.), Men in the Middle: Local Priests in Early Medieval Europe,
Berlin/Boston 2016 (RGA.E 93)
Peitz, Wilhelm M., ‘Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Apostel’, Stimmen der Zeit 94 (1918), pp. 553–66
 Bibliography 663

Pelikan, Jaroslav, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the
Christian Tradition, New Haven/London 2003
Pelikan, Jaroslav/Hotchkiss, Valerie, Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols.
and CD-ROM, New Haven/London 2003
Pennington, Kenneth, art. ‘Anathema’, in: EBR, vol. I, 2009, cols. 1097–9
Perrone, Lorenzo, ‘Christus-Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter der christologischen Auseinandersetzungen:
Das Zeugnis des Mönchtums von Gaza’, in: Theresia Hainthaler/Dirk Ansorge/Ansgar
Wucherpfennig (eds.), Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche: Christologie – Kirchen des
Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge, Freiburg etc. 2019, pp. 187–216
Perrone, Lorenzo et al. (eds.), Origenes Werke, Dreizehnter Band: Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine
kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, Berlin/Munich/Boston 2015 (GCS NF 19)
Peters, Albrecht, Kommentar zu Luthers Katechismen, vol. II: Der Glaube – Das Apostolikum, ed. by
Gottfried Seebaß, Göttingen 1991
Petersen, Nils H., art. ‘Credo’, in: EBR, vol. V, 2012, cols. 1015–18
Pettit, Edward, Anglo-Saxon Remedies, Charms, and Prayers from British Library MS Harley 585: The
Lacnunga, 2 vols., Lewiston/Lampeter 2001 (Mellen Critical Editions and Translations 6)
Pfisterer, Andreas, ‘Origins and Transmission of Franco-Roman Chant’, in: Everist/Kelly 2018,
pp. 69–91
Phelan, Owen M., The Formation of Christian Europe: The Carolingians, Baptism, and the Imperium
Christianum, Oxford 2014
Phrantzolas, Konstantinos G., ΟΣΙΟΥ ΕΦΡΑΙΜ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΡΟΥ ΕΡΓΑ, vol. VII, Thessaloniki 1998
Pietras, Henryk, Council of Nicaea (325): Religious and Political Context, Documents, Commentaries,
Rome 2016
Pietri, Charles, Roma Christiana: Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son
idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), 2 vols., Paris 1976 (BEFAR 224)
Pietri, Charles/Markschies, Christoph, ‘Theologische Diskussionen zur Zeit Konstantins: Arius, der
“arianische Streit” und das Konzil von Nizäa, die nachnizänischen Auseinandersetzungen bis
337’, in: Pietri/Pietri 1996(2010), pp. 271–344
Pietri, Charles, ‘Vom homöischen Arianismus zur neunizänischen Orthodoxie (361–385)’, in: Charles
Pietri/Luce Pietri (eds.), Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250–430), Freiburg etc. 1996 (repr.
2010; GCh 2), pp. 417–61
Pietri, Charles/Pietri, Luce (eds.), Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250–430), Freiburg etc. 1996
(repr. 2010; GCh 2)
Pietri, Luce (ed.), Der lateinische Westen und der byzantinische Osten, Freiburg etc. 2001 (repr. 2010;
GCh 3)
Pignot, Matthieu, The Catechumenate in Late Antique Africa (4th–6th Centuries), Leiden/Boston 2020
(SVigChr 162)
Pigott, Justin, New Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day: Rethinking Councils and Controversy at Early
Constantinople 381–451, Turnhout 2019 (Studia Antiqua Australiensia 9)
Pintaudi, Rosario, ‘Filatterio su carta araba originale: Il simbolo Niceno-Costantinopolitano (PL III/
960)’, Analecta Papyrologica 13 (2001), pp. 47–53
Planchart, Alejandro E., ‘Institutions and Foundations’, in: Everist/Kelly 2018, pp. 627–73
Pogatscher, Alois, Zur Lautlehre der griechischen, lateinischen und romanischen Lehnworte im
Altenglischen, Strassburg/London 1888 (QFSKG 64)
Pohlsander, Hans A., ‘Constantia’, Ancient Society 24 (1993), pp. 151–67
Pope, John C., Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection Being Twenty-one Full Homilies of his Middle
and later Career for the Most Part not Previously Edited with Some Shorter Pieces Mainly Passages
664 Bibliography

Added to the Second and Third Series: Edited from all the Known Manuscripts with Introduction, Notes,
Latin Sources and a Glossary, London etc. 1967 (EETS 259)
Price, Richard, ‘The Development of a Chalcedonian Identity in Byzantium (451–553)’, CHRC 89 (2009),
pp. 307–25
Price, Richard/Gaddis, Michael, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon: Translated with an Introduction and
Notes, 3 vols. Liverpool 2005 (Translated Texts for Historians 45)
Price, Richard/Graumann, Thomas, The Council of Ephesus: Documents and Proceedings. Translated by
R.P. with introduction and notes by Th.G., Liverpool 2020 (Translated Texts for Historians 72)
Probst, Manfred, art. ‘Credo’, in: LThK, third ed., vol. II, 1994, cols. 1340 f.
Quecke, Hans, Untersuchungen zum koptischen Stundengebet, Leuven 1970 (PIOL 3)
Rabe, Susan A., Faith, Art, and Politics at Saint-Riquier: The Symbolic Vision of Angilbert, Philadelphia
1995 (University of Pennsylvania Press Middle Ages Series)
Rabin, Andrew, The Political Writings of Archbishop Wulfstan of York: Selected Sources Edited and
Translated, Manchester 2015
Rabin, Andrew/Felsen, Liam, The Disputatio Puerorum: A Ninth-Century Monastic Instructional Text.
Edited from Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 458, Toronto 2017 (TMLT 34)
Rabo, Gabriel, ‘Dionysius Jacob Bar Ṣalibi’s Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith’, Hekamtho 1
(2015), pp. 20–39
Rad, Gerhard von, ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch’ [1938], in: id., The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays, New York 1966, pp. 1–78
Rad, Gerhard von, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1962/1965
Rad, Gerhard von, Genesis: A Commentary, revised ed., Philadelphia 1973 (OTL)
Rahmani, Ignatius Ephrem II, Vetusta Documenta Liturgica Primo Edidit, Latine Vertit, Notis Illustravit,
Charfeh 1908 (Studia Syriaca 3)
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E., art. ‘Aphrahat’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity online, 2018;
URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000212> (29/11/2023)
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E., art. ‘De recta in Deum fide’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity online, 2018;
URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_036558> (29/11/2023)
Rapp Jr., Stephen H., ‘Georgian Christianity’, in: Parry 2007, pp. 137–55
Rapp Jr., Stephen H., ‘The Making of Kʻartʻlis cʻxovreba, the So-Called Georgian Chronicles’, SE 56
(2017), pp. 465–88
Ratzinger, Joseph, art. ‘Emanation’, in: RAC, vol. IV, 1959, cols. 1219–28
Rauer, Max,Origenes Werke, vol. IX: Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und
die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars, second ed., Berlin 1959 (GCS)
Raven, Charles E., Apollinarianism: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church, Cambridge 1923
Raw, Barbara C., Trinity and Incarnation in Anglo-Saxon Art and Thought, Cambridge 1997 (CSASE 21)
Raynaud de Lage, Guy, ‘Deux questions sur la foi inspirées d’Alain de Lille: Bibliothèque Nationale,
manuscrit latin 2504’, AHDL 14 (1943–1945), pp. 323–36, 609
Reeves, Andrew, ‘Teaching the Creed and Articles of Faith in England: 1215–1281’, in: Ronald
J. Stansbury (ed.), A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200–1500), Leiden/Boston
2010 (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 22), pp. 41–72
Reischl, Wilhelm K./Rupp, Joseph, S. Patris Nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum Archiepiscopi Opera Quae
Supersunt Omnia, 2 vols., Munich 1848/1860
Renaudot, Eusèbe, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, vol. I, Frankfurt a.M./London 1847
Reu, Johann M., Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrichts in der evangelischen Kirche
Deutschlands zwischen 1530 und 1600, 10 vols., Gütersloh 1904–1935
Reutter, Ursula, Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384): Leben und Werk, Tübingen 2009 (STAC 55)
 Bibliography 665

Rexer, Jochen, ‘Die Entwicklung des liturgischen Jahres in altkirchlicher Zeit’, JBTh 18 (2003),
pp. 279–305
Reynolds, Gabriel S., The Qur’ān and the Bible: Text and Commentary, New Haven/London 2018
Ridley, Ronald T., Zosimus – New History: A Translation with Commentary, Canberra 1982 (Australian
Association for Byzantine Studies/Byzantina Australiensia 2)
Riedel, Wilhelm, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien: Zusammengestellt und zum Teil
übersetzt, Leipzig 1900
Riedinger, Rudolf/Thurn, Hans, ‘Die Didascalia CCCVIII Patrum Nicaenorum und das Syntagma ad
monachos im Codex Parisinus graecus 1115 (a. 1276)’, JÖB 35 (1985), pp. 75–92
Riedl, Gerda, Hermeneutische Grundstrukturen frühchristlicher Bekenntnisbildung, Berlin/New York 2004
(TBT 123)
Riedlberger, Peter, Prolegomena zu den spätantiken Konstitutionen: Nebst einer Analyse der
erbrechtlichen und verwandten Sanktionen gegen Heterodoxe, Stuttgart 2020
Rist, Josef, ‘Die Synode von Serdika 343: Das Scheitern eines ökumenischen Konzils und seine Folgen
für die Einheit der Reichskirche’, in: Roald Dijkstra/Sanne van Poppel/Daniëlle Slootjes (eds.),
East and Weist in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century, Leiden/Boston 2015, pp. 63–81
Ristow, Sebastian, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, Münster, Westfalen 1998 (JbAC.E 27)
Ritter, Adolf Martin, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol: Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie
des II. Ökumenischen Konzils, Göttingen 1965 (FKDG 15)
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Zum Homousios von Nizäa und Konstantinopel: Kritische Nachlese zu einigen
neueren Diskussionen’ [1979], in: id., Chrisma und Caritas: Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche,
Göttingen 1993, pp. 161–79
Ritter, Adolf Martin, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se), V. Alte Kirche’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1984, pp. 399–412
Ritter, Adolf Martin, art. ‘Konstantinopel (Ökumenische Synoden I)’, in: TRE, vol. XIX, 1990, pp. 518–24
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Creeds’, in: Ian Hazlett (ed.), Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to AD 600. In
Honour of W H C Frend, London 1991, pp. 92–100
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Noch einmal: “Was hat das Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum (C) mit dem Konzil
von Konstantinopel zu tun?”’, ThPh 68 (1993), pp. 553–60
Ritter, Adolf Martin, review of Gerber 2000, ZAC 8 (2004), pp. 137–40
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Dogma und Lehre in der Alten Kirche’, in: Carl Andresen et al., Die christlichen
Lehrentwicklungen bis zum Ende des Spätmittelalters, bearbeitet von Adolf Martin Ritter, new ed.,
Göttingen 2011, pp. 99–288
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘The “Three Main Creeds” of the Lutheran Reformation and their Specific
Contexts: Testimonies and Commentaries’, in: StPatr, vol. LXIII, 2013, pp. 287–311
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Die altkirchlichen Symbole’, in: Dingel 2014, pp. 35–60
Rituale Romanum Ex veteri Ecclesiae usu restitutum. Gregorii XIII. Pont. Max. Iussu Editum, Rome: Ex
typographia Dominici Basae 1584
Rodwell, John M., Aethiopic Liturgies and Prayers: Translated from MSS. in the Library of the British
Museum and of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and from the Edition Printed at Rome in 1548,
London 1864
Rodwell, John M., Aethiopic Prayers and Baptismal Offices, and Selections from the Degua or Hymnal of
Jared; Including Hymns of the Abyssinian Church, and Prayers: Translated from MSS. in the Library of
the British Museum and of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and from the Edition Printed at Rome
in 1548, London 1867
Römer, Cornelia E., ‘Ostraka mit christlichen Texten aus der Sammlung Flinders Petrie’, ZPE 145
(2003), pp. 183–2001
666 Bibliography

Rösch, Gerhard, ΟΝΟΜΑ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ: Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und
frühbyzantinischer Zeit, Vienna 1978 (ByV 10)
Roldanus, Johannes, The Church in the Age of Constantine: The Theological Challenges, Abingdon/
New York 2006
[Rolle, Richard,] D. Richardi Pampolitani eremitae, scriptoris perquam vetusti ac eruditi, de Emendatione
peccatoris opusculum, nunc primum typis excusum, cum alijs aliquot appendicibus, quas versa
indicabit pagella, Cologne 1535
Romano, John F., Liturgy and Society in Early Medieval Rome, Farnham/Burlington 2014
Romano, John F., ‘Baptizing the Romans’, AAAHP 31 (2019), pp. 43–62
Rordorf, Willy, ‘Hérésie et orthodoxie selon la Correspondance apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et
l’apôtre Paul’, in: Hérésie et orthodoxie dans l’Église ancienne (Cahier de la RThPh 17), 1993,
pp. 21–63 (quoted thereafter); also in: id. Lex orandi, lex credendi: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60.
Geburtstag, Freiburg, Schweiz 1993 (Par. 36), pp. 389–431 (no. XXV)
Rose, Eugen, Die manichäische Christologie, Wiesbaden 1979 (StOR 5)
Rossi, Francesco, ‘Trascrizione di alcuni testi copti tratti dai papiri del Museo Egizio di Torino con
traduzione italiana e note’, in: MAST.M, vol. XXXVI, Turin 1885, pp. 89–182
Rouwhorst, Gerard A.M., art. ‘Taufe I (Liturgie, Theologie)’, in: RAC, vol. XXXI, 2022, cols. 976–1016
Rubellin, Michel, ‘Entrée dans la vie, entrée dans la chrétienté, entrée dans la société: Autour du
baptême à l’époque carolingienne’, in: Les entrées dans la vie: Initiations et apprentissages. XIIe
Congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’enseignement supérieur public, Nancy 1981,
Nancy 1982, pp. 31–51 (AEst, série 5, no. 1/2; numéro spécial)
Rucker, Ignaz, Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenisch-georgischer Überlieferung, Munich 1930 (SBAW.PH
1930, Heft 3)
Rüpke, Jörg, Fasti sacerdotum. Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funktionspersonal
römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdisch-christlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr.
bis 499 n. Chr., Teil 3: Beiträge zur Quellenkunde und Organisationsgeschichte. Bibliographie.
Register, Wiesbaden 2005 (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 12/3)
Rüpke, Jörg, Religion of the Romans, Cambridge 2007
Rüpke, Jörg, On Roman Religion: Lived Religion and the Individual in Ancient Rome, Ithaca/London 2016
(Townsend Lectures/CSCP)
Ruiz Asencio, José M., ‘Pizarra visigoda con Credo’, in: Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz/Manuela Domínguez
García/Mercedes Díaz de Bustamante (eds.), Escritos dedicados a José María Fernández Catón, vol.
II, León 2004, pp. 1317–28
Russin, Harrison B., ‘I believe’: The Credo in Music, 1300 to 1500, PhD diss., Duke University 2021
Sachot, Maurice, art. ‘Homilie’, in: RAC, vol. XVI, 1994, cols. 148–75
Sader, Jean, Le De oblatione de Jean de Dara, Leuven 1970 (CSCO 308/Scriptores Syri 1970)
Sághy, Marianne, art. ‘Liberius (Bishop of Rome)’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online,
2018; URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_036561> (29/11/2023)
Sako, Louis R., Lettre christologique du patriarche syro-oriental Īšō’yahb II de Gḏālā (628–646): Étude,
traduction et édition critique, Rome 1983
Sako, Louis R., Le rôle de la hierarchie syriaque orientale dans les rapports diplomatiques entre la Perse et
Byzance aux Ve – VIIe siècles, Paris 1986
Salamito, Jean-Marie, ‘Christianisierung und Neuordnung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens’, in: Pietri/
Pietri 1996(2010), pp. 768–815
Salisbury, Joyce E., Iberian Popular Religion 600 B.C. to 700 A.D.: Celts, Romans and Visigoths, New York/
Toronto 1985 (TSR 20)
 Bibliography 667

Sallmann, Klaus (ed.), Die Literatur des Umbruchs von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur, 117 bis 284
n. Chr., Munich 1997 (HLLA IV)
Salzmann, Jorg C., Lehren und Ermahnen: Zur Geschichte des christlichen Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten
drei Jahrhunderten, Tübingen 1994 (WUNT II/59)
Samir, Samir K., ‘Bibliographie du dialogue islamo–chrétien: Élie de Nisibe (Iliyyâ al-Naṣîbî) (975–
1046)’, IslChr 3 (1977), pp. 257–86; also in: id., Foi et culture en Irak au XIe siècle: Elie de Nisibe et
l’Islam, Aldershot, Hampshire/Brookfield, Vermont 1996 (CSS 544), no. I
Sandler, Lucy F., The Psalter of Robert de Lisle in the British Library, London etc. 1983
Santer, Mark, ‘ἘΚ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ ἉΓΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΡΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΥ’, JThS 22 (1971), pp. 162–7
Sanzo, Joseph E., Scriptural Incipits on Amulets from Late Antique Egypt: Text, Typology, and Theory,
Tübingen 2014 (STAC 84)
Sarot, Marcel/Van Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M. (eds.), The Apostles’ Creed: ‘He Descended Into Hell’,
Leiden 2018 (STAR 24)
Sartori, Paul, art. ‘Niesen’, in: HWDA, vol. VI, 1934/1935, cols. 1072–83
Saxer, Victor, Morts, martyrs, reliques en Afrique chrétienne aux premiers siècles: Les témoignages de
Tertullien, Cyprien et Augustin à la lumière de l’archéologie africaine, Paris 1980 (ThH 55)
Saxer, Victor, Les rites de l’initiation chrétienne du IIe au VIe siècle: Esquisse historique et signification
d’après leurs principaux témoins, Spoleto 1988 (Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 7)
Schäferdiek, Knut, Schwellenzeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Christentums in Spätantike und
Frühmittelalter, ed. by Winrich A. Löhr/Hanns C. Brennecke, Berlin/New York 1996 (AKG 64)
Schäferdiek, Knut, ‘Die Anfänge des Christentums bei den Goten und der sog. gotische Arianismus’,
ZKG 112 (2001), pp. 295–310
Schäferdiek, Knut, ‘Der gotische Arianismus’, ThLZ 129 (2004), cols. 587–94
Schäferdiek, Knut, art. ‘Wulfila (Ulfila) (gest. 383)’, in: TRE, vol. XXXVI, 2004, pp. 374–8
Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, 3 vols., New York 1877
(Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis); sixth ed., revised and enlarged [by David
S. Schaff] 1931
Scheibelreiter, Philipp, art. ‘Schande’, in: RAC, vol. XXIX, 2019, cols. 699–726
Schermann, Theodor (ed.), Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae Indices Apostolorum Discipulorumque Domini
Dorotheo Epiphanio Hippolyto Aliisque Vindicata inter quae nonnulla primum edidit recensuit schedis
vir. cl. Henr. Gelzer usus prolegomenis indicibus testimoniis appparatu critico instruxit, Leipzig 1907
(BSGRT)
Schermann, Theodor, Propheten- und Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und
verwandter Texte, Leipzig 1907 (TU 31)
Scherrer, Gustav, Verzeichniß der Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Gallen, Halle 1875
Schindler, Alfred, art. ‘Catholicus, -a’, in: AugL, vol. I, 1986–1994, cols 815–19
Schlager, Karlheinz, ‘Eine Melodie zum griechischen Credo’, AMl 56 (1984), pp. 221–34
Schlager, Karlheinz, Art. Credo, in: MGG, second ed., Sachteil, vol. II, 1995, cols. 1036–40
Schlier, Heinrich, ‘art. ᾄδω, ᾠδή’, in: TDNT, vol. I, 1964, pp. 163–5
Schmitz, Hermann J., Die Bußbücher und die Bußdisciplin der Kirche, vol. II: Die Bußbücher und das
kanonische Bußverfahren nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt, Düsseldorf 1898
Schmitz, Josef, Gottesdienst im altchristlichen Mailand: Eine liturgiewissenschaftliche Untersuchung über
Initiation und Meßfeier während des Jahres zur Zeit des Bischofs Ambrosius († 397), Cologne/Bonn
1975 (Theoph. 25)
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ‘Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341’ [1977], in: id., Reden und Aufsätze:
Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte und zum ökumenischen Gespräch, Tübingen 1991, pp. 94–125
Schneider, Carl, art. ‘Fides’, in: RAC, vol. VII, 1969, cols. 801–39
668 Bibliography

Schöllgen, Georg/Geerlings, Wilhelm, Didache – Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre/Traditio Apostolica – Apostolische

Überlieferung, third ed., Freiburg etc. 2000 (FC 1)
Schönbach, Anton E., ‘Eine Auslese altdeutscher Segensformeln’, in: Analecta Graeciensia: Festschrift
zur 42. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien 1893, Graz 1893, pp. 25–50
Schulthess, Friedrich, Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen
zugehörigen Dokumenten, Berlin 1908 (AGWG.PH N.F. 10/2)
Schwab, Moïse, ‘Le Credo traduit en hébreu et transcrit en caractères latins’, REJ 45 (1902), pp. 296–8
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Die Aktenbeilagen in den Athanasiushandschriften’ [1904], in: id. 1959, pp. 73–85
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Die Dokumente des arianischen Streits bis 325’ [1905], in: id. 1959, pp. 117–68
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon’,
ZNW 25 (1926), pp. 38–88
Schwartz, Eduard, Cyrill und der Mönch Viktor, Wien/Leipzig 1928 (SAWW.PH 208/4)
Schwartz, Eduard, Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon, Berlin 1930 (= SPAW.PH
27, 1930, pp. 611–40)
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Über die Sammlung des Cod. Veronensis LX’, ZNW 35 (1936), pp. 1–23
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Zur Kirchengeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts’ [1935], in: id. 1960, pp. 1–110
Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche’ [1936], in: id. 1960, pp. 159–275
Schwartz, Eduard., Gesammelte Schriften, vol. III: Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, ed. by Walther
Eltester und Hans-Dietrich Altendorf, Berlin 1959
Schwartz, Eduard, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. IV: Zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche und ihres Rechts, ed.
by Walther Eltester und Hans-Dietrich Altendorf, Berlin 1960
Schwartz, Eduard, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians, second ed. by Mario Amelotti/Rosangela
Albertella/Livia Migliardi, Milan 1973 (Legum Iustiniani Imperatoris Vocabularium. Subsidia 2)
Schwartz, Eduard/Mommsen, Theodor, Eusebius – Werke, vol. II Die Kirchengeschichte, Zweiter Teil:
Die Bücher VI bis X/Über die Märtyrer in Palästina, Leipzig 1908 (GCS 9/2 = repr. 1999, GCS
N.F. 6/2)
Schwarz, Hans, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se), VII. Reformationszeit bis 17. Jh.’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1984,
pp. 416–29
Schwarz, Hans, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se), VIII. 18. Jahrhundert bis Neuzeit’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1984,
pp. 430–7
Schwertner, Siegfried M., IATG3 – Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete:
Zeitschriften, Serien, Lexika, Quellenwerke mit bibliographischen Angaben, third ed., Berlin/
Boston 2014
Seeberg, Reinhold, ‘Zur Geschichte der Entstehung des apostolischen Symbols’, ZKG 40 (1922),
pp. 1–41
Sehrt, Edward H. (ed.), Notkers des Deutschen Werke: Nach den Handschriften neu herausgegeben, vol.
II/3: Der Psalter. Psalmus CI–CL. nebst Cantica und katechetischen Stücken, Halle, Saale 1955
Seibt, Klaus, ‘Beobachtungen zur Verfasserfrage der pseudoathanasianischen “Expositio fidei”’, in:
Brennecke/Grasmück/Markschies 1993, pp. 281–96
Seibt, Klaus, Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra, Berlin/New York 1994 (AKG 59)
Seidler, Martin, Der Schrein des Heiligen Heribert in Köln-Deutz, Regensburg 2016
Selb, Walter, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht, vol. II: Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von
den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit), Wien 1989 (SÖAW.PH 543/Veröffentlichungen der
Kommission für Antike Rechtsgeschichte 6)
Sieben, Hermann-Josef, Tertullian – Adversus Praxeas: Im Anhang: Hippolyt – Contra Noëtum/Gegen
Noët, übersetzt und eingeleitet, Freiburg 2001 (FC 34)
 Bibliography 669

Sieben, Hermann-Josef, Vetustissimae Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum: Die ältesten Papstbriefe,

eingeleitet und herausgegeben von H.-J. S., 3 vols., Freiburg im Breisgau 2014/2015 (FC 58)
Siebigs, Gereon, Kaiser Leo I.: Das oströmische Reich in den ersten drei Jahren seiner Regierung (457–460
n. Chr.), 2 vols., Berlin 2010
Siecienski, A. Edward, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, Oxford etc. 2010
Simonetti, Manlio, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Rome 1975 (SEAug 11)
Simperl, Matthias, Das Schreiben der Synode von Antiochia 324/325 (Urk. 18): Überlieferungsgeschichtliche
Einordnung, Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar, unpublished diss., Augsburg 2022 (forthcoming
in TU, Berlin/Boston 2024)
Sims-Williams, Nicholas/Schwartz, Martin/Pittard, William J. (eds.), Biblical and other Christian Sogdian
Texts from the Turfan Collection, Turnhout 2014 (Berliner Turfantexte 32)
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.), Aelfric’s Lives of Saints: A Set of Sermons on Saints’ Days formerly observed by the
English Church, 2 vols., London 1881–1900 (EETS 76, 82, 94, 114)
Smith, Joseph P., St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated and Annotated, Westminster,
Maryland/London 1952 (ACW 16)
Smith, Mark S., The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431–451, Oxford 2018 (OECS)
Smith, Shawn C., ‘The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of Isidore of
Seville’, JECS 22 (2014), pp. 261–86
Smulders, Pieter, ‘Some Riddles in the Apostles’ Creed’, Bijdr. 31 (1970), pp. 234–60; 32 (1971),
pp. 350–66; 41 (1980), pp. 3–15
Smulders, Pieter, ‘The Sitz im Leben of the Old Roman Creed: New Conclusions from Neglected Data’,
in: StPatr, vol. XIII/2, 1975 (TU 116), pp. 409–21
Smyth, Marina, ‘The Seventh-Century Hiberno-Latin Treatise Liber de ordine creaturarum: A
Translation’, Journal of Medieval Latin 21 (2011), pp. 137–222
Sode, Claudia, Jerusalem – Konstantinopel – Rom: Die Viten des Michael Synkellos und der Brüder
Theodoros und Theophanes Graptoi, Stuttgart 2001 (Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 4)
Speyer, Wolfgang, art. ‘Fluch’, in: RAC, vol. VII, 1969, cols. 1160–288
Spiazzi, Raimondo M./Calcaterra, Mannes, S. Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opuscula Theologica,
vol. II: De re spirituali cura et studio R.M.S., accedit Expositio super Boetium De Trinitate et De
Hebdomadibus cura et studio M.C., Turin/Rome 1954
Spinks, Bryan D., Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the
Council of Trent, Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT 2006 (repr. 2016; Liturgy, Worship and Society)
Spinks, Bryan D., Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day,
London 2013 (SCM Studies in Worship and Liturgy)
Spoerl, Kelly McC., ‘Photinus of Sirmium’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity online, 2022; URL
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00002752> (27/11/2023)
Staats, Reinhart, ‘Die römische Tradition im Symbol von 381 (NC) und seine Entstehung auf der
Synode von Antiochien 379’, VigChr 44 (1990), pp. 209–21
Staats, Reinhart, art. ‘Messalianer’, in: TRE, vol. XXII, 1992, pp. 607–13
Staats, Reinhart, Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel: Historische und theologische
Grundlagen, second ed., Darmstadt 1999
Staats, Reinhart, ‘Das Taufbekenntnis in der frühen Kirche’, in: Hellholm et al. 2011, vol. II,
pp. 1553–83
Stäblein, Bruno, art. ‘Credo’, in: MGG, vol. II, 1952, 1769–73
Stammler, Wolfgang, ‘Mittelalterliche Prosa in deutscher Sprache’, in: id. (ed.) Deutsche Philologie im
Aufriß, vol. II, second ed., Berlin 1960 (repr. 1978), cols. 749–1102
670 Bibliography

Stark, Rodney, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant
Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, Princeton, N.J. 1996 (PB n.p. 1997)
Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, Oxford 1977
Stead, Christopher, art. ‘Homousios (ὁμοούσιος)’, in: RAC, vol. XVI, 1994, cols. 364–433
Steenson, Jeffrey/DelCogliano, Mark, ‘Basil of Ancyra, The Synodal Letter of the Council of Ancyra’, in:
Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (ed.), The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings, Cambridge 2017,
pp. 134–49
Steer, Georg, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnisse (Deutsche Übersetzungen und Auslegungen)’, in: VerLex,
second ed., vol. XI, 2004, cols. 529–42
Steimer, Bruno, Vertex Traditionis: Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen, Berlin/New York
1992 (BZNW 63)
Stein, Evina, ‘Early Medieval Catechetic Collections Containig Material from the Etymologiae and the
Place of Isidore of Seville in Carolingian Correctio’, in: Sinéad O’Sullivan/Arthur Ciaran (eds.),
Crafting Knowledge in the Early Medieval Book: Practices of Collecting and Concealing in the Latin
West, Turnhout 2023 (Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 16), pp. 315–56
Steinacker, Harold, Die antiken Grundlagen der frühmittelalterlichen Privaturkunde, Leipzig/Berlin 1927
(GdG Ergänzungsband 1)
Stenzel, Alois, Die Taufe: Eine genetische Erklärung der Taufliturgie, Innsbruck 1958 (FGTh 7/8)
Stephens, Christopher, Canon Law and Episcopal Authority: The Canons of Antioch and Serdica, Oxford
2015 (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs)
Stępień, Tomasz, art. ‘Ousia’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00002497> (29/11/2023)
Stepper, Ruth, ‘Zum Verzicht Kaiser Gratians auf den Oberpontifikat’, in: Carles Rabassa/Ruth Stepper
(eds.), Imperios sacros, monarquías divinas/Heilige Herrscher, göttliche Monarchien, Castelló de la
Plana 2002 (Collecció Humanitats 10), pp. 39–55
Stepper, Ruth, Augustus et sacerdos: Untersuchungen zum römischen Kaiser als Priester, Stuttgart 2003
(Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 9).
Stevenson, James/Frend, William H.C., A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church
to AD 337, London 1987
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair C., From Prophecy to Preaching: A Search for the Origins of the Christian Homily,
Leiden 2001 (SVigChr 59)
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair C., ‘Traditio Apostolica: The Liturgy of Third-century Rome and the Hippolytan
School or Quomodo historia liturgica conscribenda sit’, SVTQ 48 (2004), pp. 233–48
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair C., ‘The Baptismal Creed in Traditio Apostolica: Original or Expanded?, QuLi 90
(2009), pp. 199–213
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair C., The Didascalia apostolorum: An English Version Edited, Introduced and
Annotated, Turnhout 2009 (StTT 1)
Stewart(-Sykes), Alistair C., Hippolytus – On the Apostolic Tradition: An English Version with Introduction
and Commentary, second ed.,Yonkers, New York 2015 (SVPPS 54)
Stewart(-Sykes), Alistair C., The Canons of Hippolytus: An English Version, with Introduction and
Annotation and an Accompanying Arabic Text, Sydney 2021 (Early Christian Studies 22)
Stiglmayr, Josef, ‘Das “Quicunque” und Fulgentius von Ruspe’, ZKTh 49 (1925), pp. 341–57
Stiglmayr, Josef, Der im sog. Symbolum Athanasianum verwendete Vergleich der Einheit von Leib
und Seele mit der Einheit der zwei Naturen in Christus, ZKTh 49 (1925), pp. 628–32
Stiglmayr, Josef, art. ‘Athanase (Le prétendu symbole d’)’, in: DHGE, vol. IV, 1930, cols. 1341–8
Stockhausen, Annette von/Brennecke, Hanns C. (eds.), Von Arius zum Athanasianum: Studien zur Edition
der ‘Athanasius Werke’, Berlin/New York 2010 (TU 164)
 Bibliography 671

Stopka, Krysztof, Armenia Christiana: Armenian Religious Identity and the Churches of Constantinoplr and
Rome (4th–15th Century), Cracow 2016
Storms, Godfrid, Anglo-Saxon Magic, The Hague 1948
Stow, Kenneth R., ‘Conversion, Christian Hebraism, and Hebrew Prayer in the Sixteenth Century’,
HUCA 47 (1976), pp. 217–36
Strutwolf, Holger, Die Trinitätstheologie und Christogie des Euseb von Caesarea: Eine
dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte, Göttingen
1999 (FKDG 72)
Strutwolf, Holger, ‘Das Konzil von Antiochien 324/5 und sein vermeintliches Symbol – einige
metakritische Bemerkungen’, ZKG 122 (2011), pp. 301–23
Stuiber, Alfred, art. ‘Doxologie’, in: RAC, vol. IV, 1959, cols. 210–26
Stutz, Jonathan, Constantinus Arabicus: Die arabische Geschichtsschreibung und das christliche Rom,
Piscataway, NJ 2017 (Islamic History and Thought 4)
Stutz, Jonathan, ‘The Writings of Mārūtā of Maipherqat and the Making of Nicaea in Arabic’, JEastCS
71 (2019), pp. 1–28
Suermann, Harald, ‘Die syrische Liturgie im syrisch-palästinensischen Raum in vor- und
frühislamischer Zeit’, in: Tilmann Nagel/Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (eds.), Der Koran und sein
religiöses und kulturelles Umfeld, Munich 2010 (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs/Kolloquien 72),
pp. 157–72
Suolahti, Jaakko, The Roman Censors: A Study on Social Structure, Helsinki 1963 (STAT.H 117)
Swainson, Charles A., The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds: Their Literary History; Together with an Account of
the Growth and Reception of the Sermon on the Faith Commonly Called ‘The Creed of St Athanasius’,
London 1875
Swanson, Dwight D./Satlow, Michael, art. ‘Faith, III. Judaism’, in: EBR, vol. VIII, 2014, cols. 701–4
Sweeney, Marvin A./Dormeyer, Detlev, art. ‘Form Criticism’, in: EBR, vol. IX, 2014, cols. 468–74
Taft, Robert F., The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other Pre-anaphoral Rites of the
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, second ed., Rome 1978 (OCA 200)
Taft, Robert F., The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning
for Today, Collegeville, Minnesota 1986
Taft, Robert F., The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, Collegeville, Minnesota 1992 (American Essays in
Liturgy Series)
Taft, Robert F., ‘The Pontifical Liturgy of the Great Church according to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in
Codex British Museum Add. 34060, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45 (1979), pp. 279–307; 46 (1980),
pp. 89–124; also in: id., Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Aldershot, Hampshire/Brookfield,
Vermont 1995 (CStS CS 493), no. II (additional notes and comments on pp. 1–2)
Taft, Robert F., ‘Quaestiones disputatae: The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and the Entrances of the
Liturgy Revisited’, OrChr 82 (1998), pp. 53–87
Taft, Robert F., Through their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw it, Berkeley Calif. 2006 (The Paul
G. Manolis Distinguished Lectures 2005; non uidi)
Tarchnišvili, Michael, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, Vatican City 1955 (StT 185)
Tax, Petrus W., ‘Notkers Erklärung des Athanasianischen Glaubensbekenntnisses und seine
angebliche Schrift De sancta trinitate’, in: Frithjof A. Raven/Wolfram K. Legner/James C. King
(eds.), Germanic Studies in Honor of Edward Henry Sehrt, Presented by his Colleagues, Students, and
Friends on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, March 3, 1968, Coral Gables, Florida 1968 (Miami
Linguistic Series 1), pp. 219–28
Tax, Petrus W., Notker latinus: Die Quellen zu den Psalmen. Psalm 1–50, Tübingen 1972 (ADTB 74)
672 Bibliography

Tax, Petrus W. (ed.), Notker der Deutsche: Der Psalter., Psalm 101–150, die Cantica und die katechetischen
Texte, Tübingen 1983
Taylor, Justin, art. ‘Apostles, The Twelve’, in: EBR, vol. II, 2009, cols. 493–8
ter Haar Romeny, Bas (ed.), Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, Leiden/Boston 2008
(MPIL 18)
Terian, Abraham, Macarius of Jerusalem – Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335: Introduction, Text,
Translation and Commentary, Crestwood, NY 2008 (AVANT Series)
Terian, Abraham, ‘The Early Creeds of the Armenian Church’, Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 24 (2011),
pp. 299–312
Terian, Abraham, ‘Monastic Turmoil in Sixth-Century Jerusalem and the South Caucasus: The Letter
of Patriarch John IV to Catholicos Abbas of the Caucasian Albanians’, DOP 74 (2020), pp. 9–40
Ter-Mikelian, Aršak, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen (vom IV. bis zum XIII.
Jahrhundert), Leipzig 1892
TeSelle, Eugene, art. ‘Credere’, in: AugL, vol. II (1996–2002), cols. 119–31
Tetz, Martin, ‘Über nikäische Orthodoxie: Der sog. Tomus ad Antiochenos des Athanasius von
Alexandrien’ [1975], in: id. 1995, pp. 107–34
Tetz, Martin, ‘Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien (341) und Marcellus von Ancyra: Zu der
Glaubenserklärung des Theophronius von Tyana und ihren Folgen [1989]’, in: id. 1995,
pp. 227–48
Tetz, Martin, ‘Zur strittigen Frage arianischer Glaubenserklärung auf dem Konzil von Nicaea (325)’, in:
Brennecke/Grasmück/Markschies 1993, pp. 220–38
Tetz, Martin, Athanasiana: Zu Leben und Lehre des Athanasius, ed. by Wilhelm Geerlings/Dietmar
Wyrwa, Berlin/New York 1995 (BZAW 78)
The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari Together with Two Additional Liturgies to be said on Certain
Feasts and Other Days: and the Order of Baptism, Urmi 1893 (repr. Piscataway, NJ 2002)
Thomas, Kate, Late Anglo-Saxon Prayer in Practice: Before the Book of Hours, Berlin/Boston 2020
(Richard Rawlinson Center Series for Anglo-Saxon Studies)
Thompson, Augustine, Cities of God: The Religion of the Italian Communes 1125–1325, University
Park 2005
Thomson, Robert W., Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian
Chronicles: The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation, Oxford 1996 (OOM)
[Thorpe, Benjamin], Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, [vol. I], London 1840
Thorpe, Benjamin, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones
Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric. In the Original Anglo-Saxon, with an English Version, vol. I,
London 1844
Thorpe, Benjamin, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones
Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric. In the Original Anglo-Saxon, with an English Version, vol. II,
London 1846
Thraede, Klaus, art. ‘Hymnus I’, in: RAC, vol. XVI, 1994, cols. 915–46
Thrams, Peter, Christianisierung des Römerreiches und heidnischer Widerstand, Heidelberg 1992
Tidner, Erik, Didascaliae Apostolorum, Canonum Ecclesiasticorum, Traditionis Apostolicae Versiones
Latinae, Berlin 1963 (TU 75)
Till, Walter/Leipoldt, Walter, Der koptische Text der Kirchenordnung Hippolyts, Berlin 1954 (TU 58)
Tixeront, Joseph, art. ‘2. Athanase (Symbole de saint)’, in: DThC, vol. I, 1903, cols. 2178–87
Toom, Tarmo, ‘Appealing to Creed: Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria’, HeyJ 62 (2021),
pp. 290–301
Toom, Tarmo, ‘Creed as Verbum Breviatum’, JEBS 22 (2022), pp. 143–67
 Bibliography 673

Torrell, Jean-Piere, Saint Thomas Aquinas vol. I: The Person and his Work, Washington, D.C. 1996
Treitinger, Otto, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell,
Jena 1938 (repr. Darmstadt 1956)
Troianos, Spyros, Die Quellen des byzantinischen Rechts, Berlin/Boston 2017
Trostyanskiy, Sergey, ‘The Encyclical of Basiliscus (475) and its Theological Significance: Some
Interpretational Issues’, in: StPatr LXII, 2013, pp. 383–94
Turner, Cuthbert H., Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, 2 vols (9 fascicles;
incomplete), Oxford 1899–1939
Turner, Cuthbert H., ‘A Critical Text of the Quicumque vult’, JThS 11 (1910), pp. 401–411
Turner, Cuthbert H., The History and Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church,
second ed., London/Brighton 1910 (CHS 6)
Tydeman, William, The Theatre in the Middle Ages: Western European Stage Conditions, c. 800–1576,
Cambridge etc. 1978
Ubl, Karl, ‘Der lange Schatten des Bonifatius: Die Responsa Stephans II. aus dem Jahr 754 und das
fränkische Kirchenrecht’, DA 63 (2007), pp. 403–50
Uhalde, Kevin, art. ‘Excommunication’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, 2018; URL
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00001223> (29/11/2023)
Ullmann, Lisa, ‘Two Ostraca with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Israel Museum’, ZPE 113
(1996), pp. 191–96
Ullmann, Walter, ‘The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great’s Settlement’, JEH 27
(1976), pp. 1–16; also in: id., Scholarship, 1978, no. 1
Ullmann, Walter, ‘Über die rechtliche Bedeutung der spätrömischen Kaisertitulatur für das
Papsttum’, in: Peter Leisching et al. (eds.), Ex aequo et bono: Willibald M. Plöchl zum 70.
Geburtstag, Innsbruck 1977 (FRKG 10), pp. 23–43; also in: Ullmann, Scholarship, 1978, no. 2
Ullmann, Walter, ‘Der Grundsatz der Arbeitsteilung bei Gelasius I.’, HJ 97/98 (1978), pp. 41–70
Ullmann, Walter, Scholarship and Politics in the Middle Ages: Collected Studies, London 1978 (CStS 72)
Ullmann, Walter, Gelasius I. (492–496): Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter,
Stuttgart 1981 (PuP 18)
Ulrich, Jörg, Die Anfänge der abendländischen Rezeption des Nizänums, Berlin/New York 1994 (PTS 39)
Ure, James M. (ed.), The Benedictine Office: An Old English Text, Edinburgh 1957 (Edinburgh University
Publications/Language and Literature 11)
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz, art. ‘Paulus von Samosata’, in: BBKL, vol. VII, 1994, cols. 66–89
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz, art. ‘Photeinos’, in: LThK, third ed., vol. VIII, 1999, col. 267
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz, ‘Kaiser Justinian als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe’ [1999], in: id., Christus,
Kosmos, Diatribe: Themen der frühen Kirche als Beiträge zu einer historischen Theologie, Berlin/
New York 2005 (AKG 93), pp. 257–331
Vaggione, Richard P., ‘Some Neglected Fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Contra Eunomium’,
JThS 31 (1980), pp. 403–70
Vaggione, Richard P., Eunomius – The Extant Works: Text and Translation, Oxford 1987 (OECT)
Vaggione, Richard P., Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, Oxford 2000
Vaggione, Richard P., art. ‘Eudoxius of Antioch’, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity online, 2018;
URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_036680> (29/11/2023)
Van den Eynde, Damien, ‘Nouvelles précisions chronologiques sur quelques œuvres théologiques du
XIIe siècle’, FrS 13 (1953), pp. 71–118
Van der Speeten, Joseph, ‘Le dossier de Nicée dans la Quesnelliana’, SE 28 (1985), pp. 383–450
674 Bibliography

Van der Vliet, Jacques, ‘The Wisdom of the Wall: Innovation in Monastic Epigraphy’, in: Malcolm
Choat/Maria C. Giorda (eds.), Writing and Communication in Early Egyptian Monasticism, Leiden/
Boston 2017 (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 9), pp. 151–64
Van Egmond, Peter J., “A Confession Without Pretense”: Text and Context of Pelagius’ Defence of 417 AD,
diss. theol., no place 2012
Van Ginkel, Jan J., ‘Greetings to a Virtuous Man: The Correspondence of Jacob of Edessa’, in: ter Haar
Romeny 2008, pp. 67–81
Van Os, Hendrik W., art. ‘Credo’, in: LCI, vol. I, 1968, cols. 461–4
Van Rhijn, Carine, Leading the Way to Heaven: Pastoral Care and Salvation in the Carolingian Period,
London/New York 2022 (The Medieval World)
Van Rompay, Lucas, art. ‘Synodicon Orientale’, in: Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage
2011, pp. 387–9
Van Unnik, Willem C., ‘De la règle Μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l’histoire du Canon’ [1949]; in:
id., Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik, vol. II, Leiden 1980 (NT.S. 30),
pp. 123–56
Varghese, Baby, Dionysius bar Salibi: Commentary on the Eucharist, translated from Syriac, Kottayam
1998 (Mōrān ’Eth’ō 10)
Varghese, Baby, John of Dara – Commentary on the Eucharist, translated from the Syriac, Kottayam
1999 (Mōrān ’Eth’ō 12)
Varghese, Baby, ‘The Anaphora of Saint James and Jacob of Edesse’, in: ter Haar Romeny 2008,
pp. 239–64
Varghese, Baby, ‘The Liturgy of the Syriac Churches’, in: Daniel King (ed.), The Syriac World, London/
New York 2019 (The Routledge Worlds), pp. 391–404
Vaschalde, Arthur, Babai Magni Liber de Unione, 2 vols., Paris 1915 (CSCO 79–80/Scriptores Syri 34–35)
Vasiliev, Alexandre, Kitab al-‘Unvan: Histoire Universelle Écrite par Agapius de Menbidj, éditée et traduite
en français, seconde partie, fasc. 1, Paris 1911 (PO 7/4)
Vasiliev, Alexandre, Kitab al-‘Unvan: Histoire Universelle Écrite par Agapius de Menbidj, éditée et traduite
en français, seconde partie, fasc. 2, Paris 1912 (PO 8/3)
Velázquez Soriano, Isabel, Las pizarras visigodas (Entre el latín y su disgregación. La lengua hablada en
Hispania, siglos VI–VIII), n.p. [Burgos] 2004 (Colección Beltenebros 8).
Velázquez Soriano, Isabel, ‘Between Orthodox Belief and ‚Superstition‘ in Visigothic Hispania’, in:
Richard L. Gordon/Francisco M. Simón (eds.), Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the
International Conference Held at the University of Zaragoza 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005, Leiden/Boston
2010 (RGRW 168), pp. 601–27
Verardo, Raimondo A. (ed.), S. Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opuscula Theologica, vol. I: De re
dogmatica et morali, Turin/Rome 1954
Veyne, Paul, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths: An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination, Chicago/
London 1988
Viciano, Alberto, Cristo salvador y liberador del hombre: Estudio sobre la soteriología de Tertuliano,
Pamplona 1986
Vielhauer, Philipp, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die
Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter, Berlin/New York 1975 (fourth print-run 1985; GLB)
Villecourt, Louis/Tisserant, Eugène/Wiet, Gaston, Livre de la Lampe des Ténèbres et de l’Exposition
(Lumineuse) du Service (de l’Église) par Abû’l-Barakât Connu sous le Nom d’Ibn Kabar: Texte Arabe
Édité et Traduit, Turnhout 1928 (repr. 1974; PO 20/4, no. 99)
Vinzent, Markus, Asterius von Kappadokien, Die Theologischen Fragmente: Einleitung, kritischer Text,
Übersetzung und Kommentar, Leiden 1993 (SVigChr 20)
 Bibliography 675

Vinzent, Markus, Markell von Ankyra – Die Fragmente/Der Brief an Julius von Rom, herausgegeben,
eingeleitet und übersetzt, Leiden etc. 1997 (SVigChr 39)
Vinzent, Markus, ‘Die Entstehung des “Römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses”’, in: Kinzig/Markschies/
Vinzent 1999, pp. 185–409
Vinzent, Markus, Der Ursprung des Apostolikums im Urteil der kritischen Forschung, Göttingen 2006
(FKDG 89)
Vinzent, Markus, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament,
Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT 2011
Vinzent, Markus, ‘From Zephyrinus to Damasus – What Did Roman Bishops Believe?’, in: StPatr, vol.
LXIII, 2013, pp. 273–86
Vinzent, Markus, Writing the History of Early Christianity: From Reception to Retrospection,
Cambridge 2019
Vinzent, Markus, Resetting the Origins of Christianity: A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings,
Cambridge 2023
Vivian, Tim/Athanassakis, Apostolos N., Athanasius of Alexandria – The Life of Antony, Kalamazoo,
Michigan 2003 (CistSS 202)
Vodola, Elizabeth, Excommunication in the Middle Ages, Berkeley etc. 1986
Vööbus, Arthur, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, Leuven 1951 (CSCO.Sub 3)
Vööbus, Arthur, ‘New Sources for the Symbol in Early Syrian Christianity’, VigChr 26 (1972), pp. 291–6
Vööbus, Arthur, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, 4 vols., Leuven 1975/1976 (CSCO 367, 368,
375, 376/Scriptores Syri 161, 162, 163, 164)
Vööbus, Arthur, The Canons Ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqaṭ and Related Sources, 2 vols., Leuven 1982
(CSCO 439, 440/Scriptores Syri 191, 192)
Vogel, Cyrille, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, Washington, DC 1986
Vokes, Frederick E., art. ‘Apostolisches Glaubensbekenntnis, I. Alte Kirche und Mittelalter’, in: TRE, vol.
III, 1978, pp. 528–54
Vollenweider, Samuel, ‘III. Frühe Glaubensbekenntnisse’, in: Jens Schröter/Christine Jacobi (eds.),
Jesus Handbuch, Tübingen 2017, pp. 504–15
Vona, Costantino, L’Apologia di Aristide: Introduzione, versione dal Siriaco e commento, Rome 1950 (Lat.
NS 16,1–4)
Voss, Gerhard J., Opera, vol. VI: Tractatus theologici, Amsterdam 1701
Wagner, Peter, Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies: A Handbook of Plainsong, part I: Origin and
Development of the Forms of the Liturgical Chant up to the End of the Middle Ages, second ed.,
London 1901
Wagner, Peter, Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien: Ein Handbuch der Choralwissenschaft, Erster
Teil: Ursprung und Entwicklung der liturgischen Gesangsformen bis zum Ausgange des
Mittelalters, third ed., Leipzig 1911
Wagner, Peter, Gregorianische Formenlehre: Eine choralische Stilkunde, Leipzig 1921
Wagschal, David, Law and Legality in the Greek East: The Byzantine Canonical Tradition, 381–883, Oxford
2015 (OECS)
Wallace-Hadrill, David S., Eusebius of Caesarea, London 1960
Wallraff, Martin, Sonnenkönig der Spätantike: Die Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen, Freiburg im
Breisgau 2013
Walther, Otto K., Codex Laudianus G35 – a Re-Examination of the Manuscript: A Reproduction of the Text
and an Accompanying Commentary, 3 vols., PhD Thesis, University of St. Andrews 1980; download:
URL <http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2670> (29/11/2023)
676 Bibliography

Wanek, Nina-Maria, ‘Missa graeca: Mythen und Fakten um griechische Gesänge in westlichen
Handschriften’, in: Falko Dain et al. (eds.), Menschen, Bilder, Sprache, Dinge: Wege der
Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen, vol. II: Menschen und Worte, Mainz 2018
(Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 9/2), pp. 113–26
Wansleben, Johann M./Ludolf, Hiob, Confessio fidei Claudii regis Aethiopiae [. . .], London 1661
Warner, George F., The Stowe Missal, 2 vols., London 1906/1915 (HBS 31, 32)
Wasserschleben, Friedrich W., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche nebst einer
rechtsgeschichtlichen Einleitung, Halle 1851
Waterland, Daniel, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge 1724
Waterland, Daniel, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, second ed., Cambridge 1728
Waterland, Daniel, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, a new edition revised and corrected by
John R. King, Cambridge 1870
Weckwerth, Andreas, Das erste Konzil von Toledo: Ein philologischer und historischer Kommentar zur
Constitutio concilii, Münster, Westfalen 2004 (JbAC.KR 1)
Weckwerth, Andreas, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverständnis westlicher antiker Synoden im Spiegel
ihrer Akten, Münster, Westfalen 2010 (JbAC.KR 5)
Weckwerth, Andreas, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium Septem Prioribus Saeculis Celebratorum,
Turnhout 2013 (CChr/Claves – Subsidia 3)
Weckwerth, Andreas, ‘The Twenty Canons of the Council of Nicaea’, in: Kim 2021, pp. 158–76
Weckwerth, Andreas, art. ‘Synode (synodos, concilium)’, in: RAC, vol. XXXI, 2023, cols. 592–638
Weidenhiller, Egino, Untersuchungen zur deutschsprachigen katechetischen Literatur des späten
Mittelalters: Nach den Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, Munich 1965 (Münchener
Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 10)
Weischer, Bernd M., ‘Die Glaubenssymbole des Epiphanios von Salamis und des Gregorios
Thaumaturgos im Qērellos’, OrChr 61 (1977), pp. 20–40
Weischer, Bernd M., ‘Die ursprüngliche nikänische Form des ersten Glaubenssymbols im Ankyrōtos
des Epiphanios von Salamis: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Entstehung des
konstantinopolitanischen Glaubenssymbols im Lichte neuester äthiopistischer Forschungen’,
ThPh 53 (1978), pp. 407–14
Weischer, Bernd M., Quērellos IV 2: Traktate des Epiphanios von Zypern und des Proklos von Kyzikos,
Wiesbaden 1979 (ÄthF 6)
Wengst, Klaus, art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis(se), IV. Neues Testament’, in: TRE, vol. XIII, 1984, pp. 392–9
Wensinck, Arent J., The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, second impression,
London 1965
Wernicke, Ernst, ‘Die bildliche Darstellung des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses in der
deutschen Kunst des Mittelalters’, CKBK 29 (1887), pp. 102–5, 123–6, 135–9, 155–60, 171–5; 30
(1888), pp. 10–15; 31 (1889), pp. 42–6, 59–64; 35 (1893), pp. 20–7, 41–6, 72–9
Westra, Liuwe H., The Apostles’ Creed: Origin, History, and Some Early Commentaries, Turnhout 2002
(IPM 43)
Westra, Liuwe H., ‘Creating a Theological Difference: The Myth of Two Grammatical Constructions
with Latin Credo’, in: StPatr vol. XCII, 2017, pp. 3–14
Westwell, Arthur, ‘The Ordines Romani and the Carolingian Choreography of a Liturgical Route to
Rome’, AAAHP 31 (2019), pp. 63–79
Wharton, Annabel J., ‘The Baptistery of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Politics of Sacred
Landscape’, DOP 46 (1992), pp. 313–25
Wheaton, Benjamin, Venantius Fortunatus and Gallic Christianity: Theology in the Writings of an Italian
Émigré in Merovingian Gaul, Leiden 2022 (BSEMA 29)
 Bibliography 677

Whitaker, Edward C., ‘The History of the Baptismal Formula’, JEH 16 (1965), pp. 1–12
Whitaker, Edward C./Johnson, Maxwell E., Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, third ed., Collegeville,
Minnesota 2003
Wickham, Lionel R., art. ‘Chalkedon. ökumenische Synode (451)’, in: TRE, vol. VII, 1981, pp. 668–75
Wickham, Lionel R., Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-century Church.
Translated with Introduction and Notes, Liverpool 1997 (Translated Texts for Historians 25)
Wieacker, Franz, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, Zweiter Abschnitt: Die Jurisprudenz vom frühen Prinzipat bis
zum Ausgang der Antike im Weströmischen Reich und die oströmische Rechtswissenschaft bis zur
justinianischen Gesetzgebung, ed. by Joseph Georg Wolf, Munich 2006 (HAW X 3,1;
Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums 3,1)
Wiegand, Friedrich, Die Stellung des apostolischen Symbols im kirchlichen Leben des Mittelalters, vol.
I: Symbol und Katechumenat, Leipzig 1899 (SGTK 4/2)
Wiegand, Friedrich, Das apostolische Symbol im Mittelalter, Gießen 1904 (VTKG 21)
Wilcox, Miranda, ‘Confessing the Faith in Anglo-Saxon England’, JEGP 113 (2014), pp. 308–41
Wiles, Maurice F., ‘A Textual Variant in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea’, StPatr, vol. XXVI, 1993,
pp. 428–33
Wiles, Maurice F., Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries, Oxford 1996 (repr. 2004)
Williams, Daniel H., Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts, Oxford 1995 (OECS)
Williams, Daniel H., ‘Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the Persistent Heretical Face of the
Fourth Century’, HTR 99 (2006), pp. 187–206
Williams, Daniel H., ‘The Evolution of Pro-Nicene Theology in the Church of the East’, in: Li Tang/
Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.), From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac
Christianity in China and Central Asia, Vienna/Berlin 2013 (OPOe 5), pp. 387–95
Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, revised ed., Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge 2001
Willis, Geoffrey G., A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory the Great, London 1994
(HBS Subsidia 1)
Winkelmann, Friedhelm, Eusebius Werke, Erster Band, Erster Teil: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin,
second ed., Berlin/New York 1991 (GCS)
Winkler, Dietmar W., ‘Zur Rezeptiuon “Ökumenischer Konzilien” am Beispiel der persischen und
armenischen Kirche’, in: Peter Bruns/Hein O. Luthe (eds.), Orientalia Christiana: Festschrift für
Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 2013, pp. 615–36
Winkler, Gabriele, ‘Eine bemerkenswerte Stelle im armenischen Glaubensbekenntnis: Credimus et in
Sanctum Spiritum qui descendit in Jordanem proclamavit missum’, Oriens Christianus 63 (1979),
pp. 130–62
Winkler, Gabriele, Das armenische Initiationsrituale: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und liturgievergleichende
Untersuchung der Quellen des 3. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, Rome 1982 (OCA 217)
Winkler, Gabriele, ‘Armenian Anaphoras and Creeds: A Brief Overview of Work in Progress’, in:
Robert F. Taft (ed.), The Armenian Christian Tradition; Scholarly Symposium in Honor of the Visit to
the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome of His Holiness Karekin I, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of
all Armenians, December 12, 1996, Rome 1997 (OCA 254), pp. 41–55
Winkler, Gabriele, Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symbolums: Ein Vergleich mit dem
syrischen und griechischen Formelgut unter Einbezug der relevanten georgischen und äthiopischen
Quellen, Rome 2000 (OCA 262)
Winkler, Gabriele, ‘Zur Erforschung orientalischer Anaphoren in liturgievergleichender Sicht II: Das
Formelgut der Oratio post Sanctus und Anamnese sowie Interzessionen und die
Taufbekenntnisse’, in: Robert F. Taft/Gabriele Winkler (eds.), Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after
Anton Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International Congress, Rome 2001 (OCA 265), pp. 403–97
678 Bibliography

Winkler, Gabriele, ‘Anhang zur Untersuchung “Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen
Symbolums” und seine Bedeutung für die Wirkungsgeschichte der antiochenischen Synoden
von 324/325 und 341–345, in: Robert F. Taft (ed.), The Formation of a Millennial Tradition: 1700
Years of Armenian Christian Witness (301–2002), Rome 2004 (OCA 271), pp. 107–59
Winkler, Gabriele, ‘Über die Evolution der Eingliederung von Bekenntnisformeln und des Credos in
die östlichen Liturgien’, in: Tinatin Khidesheli/Nestor Kavvadas (eds.), Bau und Schrift: Studien zur
Archäologie und Literatur des antiken Christentums für Hans Reinhard Seeliger, Münster 2015
(JbAC.KR, 12), pp. 237–54
Winkler, Lorenz, Salus: Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee. Eine archäologische Untersuchung,
Heidelberg 1995 (Archäologie und Geschichte 4)
Winnebeck, Julia, Apostolikumsstreitigkeiten: Diskussionen um Liturgie, Lehre und Kirchenverfassung in
der preußischen Landeskirche 1871–1914, Leipzig 2016 (AKThG 44)
Winnebeck, Julia, ‘The Thompson Case’, ZNThG 26 (2019), pp. 20–46
Wischmeyer, Oda, ‘Hermeneutische Aspekte der Taufe im Neuen Testament’, in: Hellholm et al.
2011, vol. I, pp. 735–63
Witkamp, Nathan, Tradition and Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Narsai of Nisibis, Leiden/Boston 2018 (SVigChr 149)
Wochnik, Fritz, ‘Credo-Apostel in der mittelalterlichen Mark Brandenburg’, in: Ulrich Kalmbach/Frank
Riedel (eds.), 80. Jahresbericht des Altmärkischen Vereins für vaterländische Geschichte zu Salzwedel
e.V., Salzwedel 2010, pp. 19–44
Wolff, Hans Julius, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des
Prinzipats, 2 vols., Munich 1978 (HAW 10,5,1–2/Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums 5,1–2)
Wolter, Michael, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, Waco, Texas 2015
Wolter, Michael, Der Brief an die Römer, Teilband 2: Röm 9–16, Ostfildern/Göttingen 2019 (EKK)
Wood, D.T. Baird, ‘“Credo” Tapestries’, BurlM 24 (1913/1914), pp. 247–54, 309–17
Wood, Michael, In Search of England: Journeys into the English Past, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1999
Woolf, Rosemary, The English Mystery Plays, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1972
Wordsworth, John/White, Henry J., Nouum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine secundum
editionem sancti Hieronymi, vol. III, Oxford 1954
Wyrwa, Dietmar, ‘§ 94 Irenäus von Lyon’, in: Christoph Riedweg/Christoph Horn/Dietmar Wyrwa
(eds.), Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. V/1: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, Basel
2018 (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie), pp. 883–896, 1087–90
Young, Frances M., The Making of the Creeds, London/Philadelphia 1991
Yousif, Pierre, The Order of the Holy Qurbana in the East Syrian Tradition, revised translation by P.Y., ed.
by Johnson Chittilappilly, Kerala 2000
Zachhuber, Johannes, art. ‘Physis’, in: RAC, vol. XXVII, 2016, cols. 744–81
Zawadzki, Konrad, ‘Die Anfänge des “Anathema” in der Urkirche’, Vox Patrum 28 (2008), pp. 1323–34;
29 (2009), pp. 495–520; 30 (2010), pp. 721–66
Zwierlein, Otto, Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom: Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen
Apostelakten, Berlin/Boston 2013 (UALG 109)
Indices
I Biblical Passages
1. Old Testament and Old Testament Apocrypha
Gen Jdt
1:1–2 532 13:24(Vg) 164
1:1 368 14:10 58
14:14 245, 388
14:19 164 2Macc
7:28 93
Ex 7:35 254
4:31 55
14:31 55 3Macc
20:1–17 624 6:18 254
20:3 141 f. 6:28 254
20:11 135, 222
23:17 520 Ps
24:3 55 2:7 582
24:7 55 2:11 98
50(51) 540
Lev 61(62):13 280, 309, 314, 321
19:18 624 90(91) 540
109(110):1 134
Num 109(110):3 216, 257
21:22 401 132(133) 543
145(146):6 135
Deut
4:2 327 Prov
5:6–21 624 8 258
6:4 55 8:22–23 257
6:17–19 55 8:22 293, 298
13:1 327 8:25 257
26:5–9(11) 56 24:12 280, 309, 314, 321
30:14 59 26:11 493

1Sam (1Kings) Eccles

17:51 262 3:14 327

2Sam (2Kings) Job

7:27 254 1:14 581
38:17 308, 310, 314, 316, 321
1Chron
8:40 388 Wis
17:24 254 1:14 93
7:25–26 269
2Ezra (Neh)
15:17 (= Neh 5:17) 388

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-023
682 I Biblical Passages

Hos 44:6 296

6:1 114 45:5 139, 142
6:3 532 49:1–6 79
12:6 254 49:22 97
13:14 582 50:4–9 79
52:13–53:12 79
Amos 53:7 582
3:13 123, 124, 254 53:8 301
4:13 124, 254 62:10 97
5:8 254 66:2 117
5:14 254
5:15 254 Jer
5:16 254 3:19 582
5:27 254 31:33 537
9:5 254 38(31):22 298
9:6 254, 582 39(32):19 254
9:15 254
Bar
Mic 3:1 254
7:19 582 3:4 254

Joel Ezek
2:28 582 37:1–14 620
3:1 277 37:12 582
3:8 582
Dan
Obad 14:4(Vg) 164
21 582
2. New Testament
Nahum Mt
3:5 254 1:23 272
2 5
Zeph 3:6 64
3:20 582 3:7 103
3:15 97
Hag 6:14 583
1:14 254 7:12 624
10:2–4 192, 194, 196
Zech 10:16–33 76
10:3 254 10:32–33 56, 65, 75 f.
10:32 66, 70, 72
Is 11:27 223, 227
5:26 97 12:18 278
7:14 453, 455, 457, 582 12:34 103
34:8 227 16:16 70, 84, 94
42:1–4 79 16:27 135, 240, 280, 309, 314, 321
43:10 58 17:5 278
 I Biblical Passages 683

18:20 126 22:69 134

23:33 103 22:70 85
24:4 75
24:10 75 Jn
24:30 135, 240 1 72
25:31 135, 254 1:1–18 85
25:41 135 1:1–14 254, 621
26:64 134, 152 1:1–9 232
28:19 21, 24, 26, 70, 75, 88, 90 f., 1:1–5 85
96, 104, 120, 123, 132 f., 1:1–3 81, 89, 99, 141, 274
237 f., 254, 273 f., 618 1:1–2 272
1:3 94, 105, 137, 206 f., 237, 254,
Mk 272, 278, 280, 293, 308, 313,
1:4 208 320, 349, 449
1:11 278 1:4 254, 272
3:16–19 194 1:9 254, 272
6:38 90 1:10 621
8:29 70, 84, 86 1:14 85, 254
8:34–38 76 1:18 81, 85, 236, 254, 272, 286
10:18 268 1:20 65
10:30 427 3:13 254
12:29–31 624 3:15 62
12:36 134 3:16 85, 254
14:36 278 3:18 62, 85
14:62 134 3:19 94, 254
16:19 134, 137, 141, 254 3:33 254
4:24 142
Lk 4:34 278
1:2 118 5:30 278
1:31 453, 455, 457 6:9 90
1:33 287, 370, 622 6:38 272
1:35 140, 166, 369 6:63 352
2:2 5 f. 6:69 62, 85
3:3 208 6:70–71 86
3:38 532 8:12 254
6:31 624 8:42 62, 216, 257
9:58 374 8:44 127
10:17 136 9:22 64 f., 78, 86
10:22 223 10:15 227
11:50–51 98 10:30 139, 274
12:1–12 76 10:38 174
12:8–9 65, 75 f. 11:27 62, 86, 254
12:8 66 12:42–46 78
15:12–13 254 12:42 64 f., 82
18:39 427 12:45 269
20:35 188 13:3 62
20:42 134 14:9–11 139
684 I Biblical Passages

14:9–10 559 8:26–40 74

14:9 260, 269, 298 8:33 301
14:16–17 309 8:37 74, 85, 121
14:16 274, 277, 550 8:38 120
14:17 314, 321, 349 9:20 67
14:26 314, 321 9:22 67
14:28 227, 268 10:42 85, 98, 254
15:26 277, 309, 314, 321, 349, 352, 13:24 208
550, 559 14:15 135, 222, 368
16:7 137, 309, 550 15:7 62
16:13–14 309 16:31–33 62, 74
16:13 136, 227, 314, 321, 349, 371 17:16–34 74
16:27 62 17:17 74
16:30 62 17:31 74
17 86 18:8 62, 74
17:3 81, 86, 115, 254, 375 19:4 62, 208
17:8 62 19:21–40 73
17:21 62, 549 24:14 65 f.
19:26–28 532
20:21 316 Rom
20:29 63 1:1–4 83
20:31 62 1:2 208, 373
1:3–4 67
Acts 1:3b 61
1:3 316 1:4 82
1:5 272 1:4a 61
1:8 193 1:5 272
1:11 254 2:6 280, 309, 314, 321
1:13 194 f. 4:5 59
1:15 272 4:24 59, 82
1:26 192, 194 4:24b 61
2:1–11 193 4:25 61
2:3–4 277 5:8 61, 370
2:32–33 87 6:4 60, 418, 427 f.
2:33 116 6:5 82
2:34 134 6:8 60
2:36 85 8:15 425
2:38 120, 208 8:24 63
2:41 485 8:32 370
4:24 135, 222, 368 8:34 82
4:24b–30 73 10:8–10 59, 64
4:26 117 10:9–10 75, 82
5:42 67 10:9 82
7:50 117 10:10 156, 507, 512 f.
7:55 134 11:36 532
8:12–13 62, 74 16:27 82 f., 87
 I Biblical Passages 685

1Cor 4:4 82
1:13 120 4:5 425
1:17 304 5:6 60, 537
1:24 280 5:15 323
3:8 103 6:5 60
3:14 103 6:16 101, 110, 119
6:11 274
8:6 61, 82, 94, 105, 206, 215, 237, Eph
254, 271 f., 278, 280, 308, 1:10 105, 308, 314, 316, 321
313, 315, 320, 349, 371, 499 1:13 495
12:1–13 620 1:14 116
12:3 65, 67, 93 1:20–23 84
12:3b 82 1:21 268, 280
12:4–6 82, 84 3:9 93, 115
13:12 63 3:14–17 84
15:3–5 61 3:15 280
15:3–4 82, 137, 141, 254, 622 3:19 135
15:4 82, 240, 352 4:4 61
15:12–13 82 4:4–6 84
15:20 227 4:5–6 173, 254
15:21 82 4:10 298
15:24 287 4:14 323
15:28 302, 622 5:27 126, 423
15:44–46 620
15:45 352 Phil
16:22 234, 276 2:5–11 82
2:6–11 254
2Cor 2:8 100
3:3 135, 537 2:10 98
3:6 352 2:11 65, 240
3:17–18 372 3:10–11 82
4:4 224, 269 3:16 101
4:5 65
4:14 97 Col
5:10 82, 224, 583 1:5 237, 276, 495
6:18 123 f., 254 1:15–20 72, 83, 89
9:13 67 1:15–16 254
10:13–16 101 1:15 94, 136, 218, 224, 236 f., 239,
13:13 82, 84 260, 269, 272, 274, 276, 286,
303, 319, 343, 349 f., 354,
Gal 360, 368, 610
1:8–9 100, 234 1:16 236, 239, 272, 278, 313, 315,
1:8 99 f. 320, 368
1:9 233, 276, 342 1:17 272
2:20 60 1:18 188, 286
3:3 274 1:20 178
3:26–27 61 3:1 352
686 I Biblical Passages

1Thess 2:3–4 67
2:12 537 2:10 206
4:14 60 3:1 67 f.
5:10 370 3:14 86
3:15 68 f.
2Thess 4:12 298
1:10 61 4:14 68 f.
2:2–3 75 5:7 278
2:8 422 f. 6:1 58
2:11–12 61 6:5 374
2:13 274 9:26 227, 280, 308, 316
10:19 68, 181
1Tim 10:23 69
1:1 97 10:35 68
1:17 81 11 523
2:1–4:4 61 11:1 63, 86
2:5–6 83 11:2 354
2:5 272 11:3 349, 351, 354
3:16 61, 84, 135 11:6 61, 594
4:1–5 75 13:15 68 f.
4:6 61
6:12–14 64, 78 Jas
6:13 67, 83, 97 2:7 120
6:15 215 2:19 63, 93
5:16 64
2Tim
1:13 61 1Pet
2:8–13 76 62
2:8 84 1:8 63
2:10 622 1:13 98
3:10 61 1:21 62, 98
4:1–2 84 2:21 167
4:1 99, 137, 237, 254, 272, 279, 3:18 87
349 3:19–20 170
4:3 127 3:21–22 86
3:21 121
Tit 3:22 98, 254
1:16 65, 67 4:1 167
4:5 99, 137, 237, 254, 349
Heb 4:16 80
1:1 208, 373
1:2–3 86 2Pet
1:2 95, 254, 272, 278, 280 1:21 208, 373
1:3 217 f., 223–5, 227, 229, 251, 2:4 170
254, 260, 269, 283, 317, 322, 2:17 278
349 2:22 493
1:13 134
 I Biblical Passages 687

1Jn Rev
1:1 272 1:8 81, 123, 254
1:9 64 3:5 76
2:8 272 4:8 123, 254
2:18 127 4:8b 81
2:22–23 65 5:1 117
2:22 86, 127 5:5 117
2:23 66 5:8–9 117
3:8 127 11:1 116 f.
4:1–3 71 11:17 81, 123, 254
4:2–3 65, 127, 371 13 75
4:2 65, 371 14:7 368
4:3 66 15:3 123, 254
4:6 314, 321, 349, 371 15:3b 83
4:9 85, 254 16:7 123, 254
4:15 65 f. 16:7b 83
5:1 62 16:14 123, 254
5:5 62, 66 19:6 123, 254
5:7–8 126 19:6b 83
5:8 549 19:15 123, 254
5:10 62 21:11 123
5:20 254 21:22 254
22:1 565
2Jn 22:12 280, 309, 314, 321
7 65, 127 22:18–19 327, 527
12 135

3Jn
13 135

Jude
14 87
15 423
24–25 87
II Ancient and Medieval Sources
‛Abdīšō‛ bar Brīḵā (Ebedjesus of Nisibis) Adamantius
Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum De recta in deum fide (FaFo § 128) 95
1,1 425
Ado of Vienne
Abu’l-Barakāt Chronicon
Lamp of Darkness 6 (FaFo § 829) 555
2 452
Ælfric of Eynsham
Acacius of Caesarea Catholic Homilies
Expositio fidei (FaFo § 158a) 240, I,19–20 586
319, 368 Sermo in laetania maiore (De auguriis)
ll. 96–9 541
Acta Iustini et septem sodalium
Recension A (FaFo § 105a) Aeneas of Paris
2,5 79 Liber aduersus Graecos 568
3,4 79 93 (FaFo § 852) 569, 603
Recension B
3,4–4,9 79 Agapius (Maḥbūb) of Manbiǧ (Mabbūg,
5,7 79 Hierapolis)
Historia uniuersalis
Acta S. Stephani et martyris (FaFo § 91) 131 Vasiliev 1911, p. 546 220
Vasiliev 1911, pp. 548 f. 450
Acts of Cyprian Vasiliev 1912, p. 401 452
1,2 80
Pseudo-Agathangelos
Acts of Donatus, Venustus, and Hermogenes History of the Armenians 464
2 80
Alan of Lille
Acts of Euplus Expositio super symbolum apostolicum et
B 2,5–6 80 Nicenum 577, 580

Acts of John Pseudo-Alan of Lille

4 80 Tractatus magistri Alani: quid sit fides, et quid
articulus fidei, et quid coarticulus, et quot sint
Acts of Mari 414 articuli 573

Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Pseudo-)Albertus Magnus

10 80 Expositio symboli 580
13 80
Alcuin
Adalwin of Regensburg Aduersus Felicem Urgellitanum episcopum
Testimonia de aequalitate spiritus sancti cum 1,9 (FaFo § 702g1) 601
patre et filio 1,16 (FaFo § 702g2) 601
28 565 1,17 601

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-024
690 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

3,6 601 III,3, inq. 2, tract. 2, q. 2, tit. 1, c. 1 (FaFo

4,4 601 § 421) 195
De sacramento baptismatis (FaFo § 775) 190,
502 Al-S̲h̲ahrastānī
De trinitate ad Fredegisum quaestiones XXVIII Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects 458
quaestio 25 (FaFo § 702l) 602
Epistulae Amalarius of Metz
23 (FaFo § 702c) 601, 605 Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem de scrutinio et
111 501 baptismo
139 (FaFo § 703c) 561 23–27 (FaFo § 782a1) 191
Epistula ad Beatum Liebanensem abbatem (FaFo 27 180
§ 702f) 601 40 (FaFo § 782a2) 605
Liber officialis
Pseudo-Alcuin 1,8,2 (FaFo § 782b1) 501
De diuinis officiis 1,12,1 (FaFo § 782b2) 502
13 (FaFo § 761b) 583 4,2,22 (Fafo § 855) 517
41 (FaFo § 70) 568 Missae expositionis codex I
41 (creed; FaFo § 342) 573 8,2 (FaFo § 850b) 602
Disputatio puerorum 574 Ordinis missae expositio I
11 (FaFo § 527) 174, 177, 196 9 (FaFo § 850a) 602

Alexander of Alexandria Pseudo-Amalarius of Metz

Arii depositio 466 Epistula ad Carolum imperatorem
1 217 6 412
Epistula ad Alexandrum Thessalonicensem
(Byzantinum; FaFo § 132) Ambrose of Milan
16 260 De fide
19 260 1,1 124
20–21 260 1,119 (FaFo § 455a2) 234
38 260 2,4 124
46 206, 218, 225, 232 3,125 245, 262
48 260 De incarnationis dominicae sacramento
53 172, 217, 353 10,115 124
56 233 De officiis
Epistula encyclica 466 1,170 180
11 233, 466 De spiritu sancto
13 260 2,48 124
19 217 3,152–153 565
20 233 De uirginibus
21 467 3,20 (FaFo § 15b) 536
Tomus ad omnes episcopos 218, 466 Epistulae
2 217, 232 f. 76(20)
4 487
Alexander of Hales 4 (FaFo § 632a) 487
Summa theologica Explanatio symboli 488, 526
III,3, inq. 2, tract. 2, q. 2 581 2 (FaFo § 15a1) 51
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 691

2 (FaFo § 351a) 192, 527 Apolinarius of Laodicea

3 (FaFo § 351a) 192 Ad Iouianum
6 174 2 (FaFo § 164b) 370
7 (FaFo § 15a2) 327, 527 3 (FaFo § 164b) 369
9 (FaFo § 15a3) 536 f., 540 Fides secundum partem
32 (FaFo § 164a2) 353, 373
Ambrosiaster
Commentarius in Pauli epistulas ad Corinthios Ardo Smaragdus
ad Cor. II, 6,18 124 Vita Benedicti Anianensis
38 517
Amphilochius of Iconium
Contra haereticos Aristides
17, ll. 652 f. 181 Apologia
De recta fide (FaFo § 181) 373 frg. 15,3 374
Epistula synodalis
2 (FaFo § 178) 337 Arius
4 337 Epistula ad Eusebium Nicomediensem
3 234
Anastasius I (emperor) 5 243, 256
Epistula ad senatum urbis Romae 483
Arius and Euzoius
Angilbert of Saint-Riquier Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem (FaFo
Epistula (FaFo § 727) 190 § 131c) 265
Institutio de diuersitate officiorum 2 205 f., 210, 217, 268
9 602 3–4 172
3 207, 353, 373, 497
Antiphonary of Bangor (Antiphonale 7 210
Benchorense) 14 210
12 (FaFo § 698a) 516
35 (FaFo § 698b) 166, 170, 172, 516 Arius et al.
Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum (FaFo
Annales Regni Francorum § 131a) 214, 465
a. 809 565 2 215
3–5 216
Apertio symboli 3 232, 289
FaFo § 44 51 5 257
FaFo § 263 199
FaFo § 332 188 Ascension of Isaiah
3,18 (FaFo § 95a) 96
Aphrahat
Acts of Thomas 415 Asterius of Cappadocia (the Sophist)
Demonstrationes Fragments
1 2–4 289
19 414 9 (FaFo § 137a) 206, 275
Doctrine of Addai 415 10 275
692 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

16 289 13 324
18 289 18,3 (FaFo § 153) 300, 324
39 274 19,7 301
40 274 21,1 324
57 275 21,5 324
60 275 Epistula ad Iouianum imperatorem
63 304 3 324
Epistula catholica
Athanasius of Alexandria 8 (FaFo § 166b) 328
Contra Arianos Expositiones in Psalmos
1,29,2 290 on Ps 60:6 374
1,31,2 289 on Ps 111:1 374
3,16,4 289 Historia Arianorum 261
De decretis Nicaenae synodi 259, 324 20 291
19–20 261 42,3 261
19,2 260 45,4 302
26 144 Tomus ad Antiochenos 355
De sententia Dionysii 3,1 328
18,2–3 256 5,1 (FaFo § 144c) 284, 327
De synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria 5,3 328
3 307 6,4 328
15,2 243 10,3 328
21,2–7 211 11,2 328
21,4 211 Vita Antonii
22 279 6,1 490
23,1 271
24,1 277 Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria
25,1 279 De sancta trinitate dialogi (CPG 2284)
26,1 291 3
Epistula ad Epictetum 1 (FaFo § 183) 327, 359
1 329 Epistula ad Liberium 298, 440
2 369 2 (FaFo § 150) 287, 298, 440
Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae Expositio fidei (FaFo § 149) 297, 370, 440
3,5 301 1 260, 429
5,1–4 (FaFo § 153) 300 3 298
5,4 (FaFo § 153) 324 Interpretatio in symbolum (Hermeneia FaFo
6,1 (FaFo § 153) 300 § 185) 208, 240, 373, 436–8
6,4–7,1 324 Sermo de miraculo Beryti
7,2–6 300 6 (FaFo § 192) 588
7,2 (FaFo § 153) 300
8,1–2 (FaFo § 153) 300 Augustine
8,1 324 Confessiones
8,2 300 f. 6,7 5
8,4 300 8,5 (FaFo § 636a) 486
9,6 300 f. Contra epistulam Parmeniani
10–11 301 1,10 176
11,1 300 Contra Iulianum opus perfectum
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 693

4,47 338 Sermones

Contra litteras Petiliani Fragment of a sermon
3,9 (FaFo § 599b) 489 see Decretum Gratiani 3,4,105
Contra sermonem Arianorum 52
4,4 560 3,6 176
11,9 560 58
De adulterinis coniugiis 1 (FaFo § 636b1) 489
1,21 560 13 (FaFo § 636b2) 489, 527, 536
1,33 (FaFo § 599e) 489 59
De baptismo 1 (FaFo § 636c) 489
1,21 (FaFo § 599a1) 489 149
4,31 (FaFo § 599a2) 489 10 176
De doctrina Christiana 212–215 526
2,31 541 212
De fide et operibus 1 (FaFo § 19a) 51, 53
1,14 (FaFo § 599c) 489 2 (FaFo § 19a) 527, 537
De fide et symbolo (FaFo § 316k) 184–6, 526 213 (FaFo § 316e)
21 172 1 489
De fide rerum inuisibilium 5 2 (FaFo § 19b) 51 f.
De natura et origine animae 7 560
1,12 (FaFo § 599d1) 489 11 (FaFo § 636d) 489
3,12 (FaFo § 599d2) 489 214
De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1 (FaFo § 636e) 527, 52
1,63 489 12 (FaFo § 19c) 51 f.
De praedestinatione sanctorum 215 (FaFo § 636f) 489
8,13 560 1 (FaFo § 636f) 527, 536
De trinitate 215 (FaFo § 316g) 133, 182
15,45 557 1 489
De utilitate credendi 5 4 167
Enarrationes in Psalmos 216
36,2,20 176 2 489
Epistulae 6 489
5 375B
2,2–3 489 6 (FaFo § 316j) 168
54 Sermo de symbolo ad catechumenos (FaFo
1 521 § 316l) 182, 184–6, 526
98 1,1–2 (FaFo § 636g) 527
7 (FaFo § 618) 489 1,1 (FaFo § 636g) 536
164 7 (FaFo § 316l) 168
17 560
227 (FaFo § 636i) 544 Pseudo-Augustine
In Iohannis euangelium tractatus Expositio super symbolum (CPL 365; FaFo § 274)
29 9 166
6 4 Homilia de sacrilegiis
95 4 (14; FaFo § 669a) 542
1 560 8 (27; FaFo § 669b) 541
694 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Sermones 2 330
237–239 (FaFo § 275) 527 140
240 (FaFo § 383) 188, 196 2 (FaFo § 174b) 330, 495
1 (FaFo § 383) 178 156
241 (FaFo § 386) 194 3 330
4 179 159
242 (FaFo §§ 32, 276c) 527 2 331
4 178 175 331
244 (CPL 368; FaFo § 269) 214
see (Pseudo-)Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 10 2 332
216 331, 339
Auxentius 243
Confessio fidei (FaFo § 453) 115, 372 2 322
4 334
Babai the Great 244
Liber de unione 9 260
2,8 429 251
4 337
Bachiarius 258
Libellus de fide 2 (FaFo § 174e) 336
5 (FaFo § 487) 551 263
2 261
Barsanuphius of Gaza 265
Epistulae 3 335
58, ll. 28–32 401 266
2 338
Basil of Caesarea In sanctos quadraginta martyres
Asceticon magnum 3 80
309 181 4 80
Contra Eunomium 7 80
1,4 305 Regulae morales
De baptismo 1,2 227
1,17 181 18,4 228
De spiritu sancto 356 68 374
1,3 331
12,28 (FaFo § 174c) 331 Basiliscus
Epistulae Antiencyclion (FaFo § 549) 501
81 260 Encyclicon (FaFo § 548) 400, 478, 501
89 329
90 Beatus of Liébana
2 329 Tractatus de Apocalipsin II
91 329 prol. 10,2 (FaFo § 506b) 553
92 329
125 (FaFo §§ 135c, 174a) 330 Beda Venerabilis
1 495 Epistula ad Egbertum
3 (FaFo § 174a) 495 5–6 (FaFo § 584) 470
138 5 (FaFo § 584) 540, 584, 605
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 695

Beleth, Jean Buzandaran Patmut‛iwnk‛ (The Epic

Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis Histories) 432
40 578
Caesarius of Arles
Bernard of Clairvaux Expositio de Apocalypsi Sancti Iohannis
Liber Floretus 4,11 118
ll. 29–37 (FaFo § 425) 581 Sermones
6
Bernard of Porto 3 (FaFo § 656b) 540
Ordo officiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis 576 9 (FaFo § 271a1) 158, 171, 176, 188,
65 577 529
1 (FaFo § 271a1/271a2) 164, 166, 169 f.,
Berno of Reichenau 492
Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missae officium 13
pertinentibus 2 (FaFo § 656d) 535
2 (FaFo § 854) 515, 603 54
1 (FaFo § 656e) 541
Bernold of Constance 84
Micrologus de ecclesiasticis obseruationibus 6 535
46 576 130
3 530
Bonaventura 5 (FaFo § 656f) 503, 530, 535 f.
Commentaria in quattuor libros sententiarum 201 530
III, dist. XXV, art. I, quaest. I (FaFo 225
§ 422) 197, 581 6 535
229
Boniface 6 (FaFo § 656h) 535
Epistulae
26 (FaFo § 666) 488 (Pseudo-)Caesarius of Arles
80 471 Sermones
2 (FaFo § 656a) 469, 526
Book of Common Prayer 13 10 (FaFo § 269) 526, 554

Book of Concord 13 f. Capitula Frisingensia Prima 471

1–3 (FaFo § 756) 190
Book of Hours of Joan of Navarre 594
Capitula Parisiensia 470
Book of Mulling 2 (FaFo § 744) 190
FaFo § 695 600
FaFo § 699 517 Cassiodorus
Historia ecclesiastica tripartita
Breviary of Belleville 594 5,32,1 552

Burchard, Johann Charisius

Ordo Missae 580 Confessio fidei (FaFo § 204a) 372
696 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Charlemagne Pseudo-Clement of Rome (2 Clement) 75

Admonitio generalis 191
32 (FaFo § 719a) 189 Codex Iustinianus
Capitulare aduersus synodum see Justinian, Codex Iustinianus
1 (FaFo § 831a) 557
Epistula ad Elipandum et episcopos Hispaniae Codex Theodosianus
(FaFo § 722) 559, 564 16,1,2 (Cunctos populos; FaFo § 532a)
Epistula de oratione dominica et symbolo 343, 475
discendis (FaFo § 731) 189, 470 16,1,3 (Episcopis tradi; FaFo § 534) 478
16,2,25 475
Pseudo-Chrodegang of Metz 16,5,1 267
Regula Longior Canonicorum seu Regula 16,5,6 (Nullus haereticis; FaFo § 533) 383, 477
S. Chrodegangi Interpolata 16,5,14 179
32 583
Collectio Auellana
(Pseudo-)Chrodegang of Metz 51
Regula canonicorum see Leo I, Epistula 169
30 583 66
see Simplicius, Epistula 15
Chromatius of Aquileia 84
Tractatus in Mathaeum see Justinian, Codex Iustinianus 1,1,8
41 113
8 183 see Anastasius I, Epistula ad senatum urbis
Romae
Clement of Alexandria
Paedagogus Collectio duorum librorum 601
3,59,2 57 1,52–53 (De symbolo; FaFo § 528) 602
Stromata
4,9,71–72 77 Collectio Eusebiana 170, 183, 187
6,39,2–3 (FaFo § 94a) 90 Homiliae
6,58,1 (FaFo § 94b) 90 9 (FaFo § 266a) 166, 169, 171, 527
6,128,1–2 (FaFo § 94c) 96 1 (FaFo § 30) 51 f.
7,29,3 126 10 (FaFo § 266b) 166, 171, 176, 527
7,87,4 126 4 167
11 178
Clement of Rome (1 Clement) 11
praescr. 123 5 181
2,3 123 56
3,4 127 4–5 80
8,5 123 Sermo extrauagans
32,4 123 2
42,2–3 (FaFo § 348) 192 4 167
46,6 (FaFo § 93a) 89
56,6 123 Collectio Frisingensis prima 469
58,2 (FaFo § 93b) 89
60,4 123 Collectio Heroualliana
62,2 123 13 471
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 697

Collectio Quesnelliana (FaFo § 135d31) 469 Epistula ad Theodotum Laodicenum (Opitz 1934/
1935, Urkunde 28)
Collectio Sabbaitica 1 474
5,27 (FaFo § 574a1) 401 Lex de Arii damnatione (Opitz 1934/1935,
5,27 (FaFo § 686) 509 Urkunde 33) 267, 474

Commentarius in Symbolum Nicaenum (CPL Constantius II (emperor)

1745; FaFo § 135d5) 525 Epistula ad synodum Ariminensem 311
1 312
Commentarius alter in Symbolum Nicaenum
siue potius in Tomum Damasi papae (CPL Constitutiones apostolorum (FaFo § 182) 192,
633, 1746) 370, 497, 519
see Pseudo-Jerome, Epistula 17, 1 6,14,1–15,2 (FaFo § 182b) 192
7,39,1–4 496
Concilia 7,41,3–8 (FaFo § 182c) 497
see Councils 7,41,5 (FaFo § 182c) 350, 370
7,41,6 (FaFo § 182c) 152, 370
Constantine I (emperor) 7,41,7 (FaFo § 182c) 353
Epistula ad Alexandrum (Opitz 1934/1935, 8,33,3–6 519
Urkunde 32) 268
Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum et Arium Corpus canonum (Antioch) 378, 386 f., 401,
(Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde 17) 416, 441, 443, 468
4–6 219
7–8 245 Councils
9–10 219 Agde (506)
11 245 can. 13 (FaFo § 573) 535 f., 492
12–14 219 Ancyra (358)
Epistula ad Arium et socios (Opitz 1934/1935, Epistula synodalis 302–4
Urkunde 34) Antioch (325)
39 267 Epistula synodica 220, 222, 369, 466
41 267 8 (FaFo § 133) 368
Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam (Opitz 1934/ 12 (FaFo § 133) 172, 353
1935, Urkunde 25) 266, 474 14 228
5 267 Antioch (341)
6–9 474 Expositio fidei, Formula prima (FaFo
Epistula ad ecclesiam Nicomediensem (Opitz § 141c) XVII, 206, 271, 278
1934/1935, Urkunde 27) 265, 267, 474 Expositio fidei, Formula altera (FaFo
1–5 263, 267 § 141b) XVII, 206, 271, 350, 370, 432, 609
8–17 474 Expositio fidei, Formula tertia (FaFo
13 267 § 141a) XVII, 206 f., 210, 271, 276, 372
14 243 Expositio fidei, Formula quarta (FaFo § 141d)
Epistula ad episcopos (Opitz 1934/1935, Urkunde XVII, 173, 206 f., 210, 271, 279 f., 282, 284,
20) 219 292, 295–7, 306, 316, 319, 368, 432, 497,
Epistula ad omnes ecclesias (Opitz 1934/1935, 609
Urkunde 26) 474 Arles (314)
2 267 can. 9(8) (FaFo § 11) 52
698 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Epistula ad Silvestrum (FaFo § 11) 52 15 (FaFo § 570c) 385

Autun (670) 29–45 385
can. 1 (FaFo § 581) 45, 470 Actio IV
Bithynia (320) 5–8 (FaFo § 570d) 388
Epistula synodica 466 6 (FaFo § 570d) 327
Braga (572) 9 389
can. 1 (FaFo § 578) 526 25 389
Carthage (411) 88 (FaFo § 570e) 389
Gesta collationis Carthaginiensis 93–97 389
3,258 176 94 389
Chalcedon (451) 108 (FaFo § 570f) 389
ACO II 1 393, 398 f., 483 110 389
p. 336 392 112 389
ACO II 1 2 115 389
p. 157 483 Actio V 392
ACO II 2 8 390
p. 97 392 10 390
p. 98 392 22 (FaFo § 542) 390
ACO II 3 30–34 (FaFo § 215) 391
p. 265 406 33 393–5, 553
p. 346 483 34 (FaFo § 215) 391
p. 409 392 Actio VI
p. 410 392 4 392
ACO II 5 Collectio Sangermanensis
p. 21 399 1 399
p. 22 399 2 398
p. 52 399 3 398
p. 68 399 Collectio Vaticana
Actio I 8 (FaFo § 543) 398
51 384 9 (FaFo § 544) 398
52 384 15 399
157 (FaFo § 213b) 381 Gesta Chalcedone
159 381 26 398
160 381 27 398
161 382 28 (FaFo § 546) 399
163 382 29 398
1072 (FaFo § 570b) 382 31 398
Actio II(III) 387 Gestorum Chaledonensium Versio a Rustico
2 (FaFo § 570c) 384 Edita
2–15 (FaFo § 570c) 384 108 (FaFo § 545) 398
9 (FaFo § 570c) 385 Chalon-sur-Saône (647–654)
10–11 385 can. 1 (FaFo § 580) 412
11 (FaFo § 570c) 385 Clofesho (747)
11 (FaFo § 135c) 393–5 can. 10 (FaFo § 587b) 584
13–14 (FaFo § 570c) 385 can. 11 (FaFo § 587b) 506
13 (FaFo § 570c) 386 Constantinople (359/360)
14 (FaFo § 184e1) 364–7, 393–5, 553 Confessio fidei (FaFo § 160) 166, 320, 369, 372
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 699

Constantinople (381) 1 380

see also Symbola fidei: Nicaeno- 92
Constantinopolitanum (C2) 1 379
can. 1 (FaFo § 565c) 34, 264, 357, 363 94
Epistula synodalis ad Theodosium imperatorem 3 379
(FaFo § 565b) 34, 357 96 (Mandatum orientalium) 380
Constantinople (382) 146 (FaFo § 197g) 380
can. 5 (FaFo § 566b) 344 151
Epistula synodalis (FaFo § 566a) 13, 357, 370 10 380
Constantinople (448) 12 380
ACO II 1 1 15 (FaFo § 568g) 380
p. 138 483 155 380
Constantinople (518) 156 380
see Collectio Sabbaitica 5,27 157
Constantinople (533) 3 380
Actio I 163 (Orientalium relatio ad imperatores) 327
7 (Iustiniani forma ante synodum lecta 14; title 380
FaFo § 557) 401 3 380
Constantinople (680/681) 170 (Gregorii Thaumaturgi qui feruntur
Actio XV (FaFo § 582a) 547 anathematismi; FaFo § 118) 95
Actio XVII 403 Formula of Union (433; FaFo § 207) 380
Actio XVIII (cf. FaFo § 242c) 396, 403 Ephesus (449)
Elvira (314?) Gesta Ephesi, Libellus confessionis (FaFo
can. 52 234 § 213b)
Ephesus (431) see Councils: Chalcedon (451), Actio I
can. 7 (FaFo § 568e) Friuli (796–799)
see Collectio Atheniensis 77 Gesta synodalia
Collectio Atheniensis 7 (FaFo § 703a) 559
48 (FaFo § 205) 119, 327 8 560
2 380 11 560
4–7 380 Jerusalem (335)
4 327 Epistula synodalis
74 2 211
2–4 379 5 211
77 (FaFo § 568e) 379, 469 Laodicea (325–382?)
105 327 can. 7 (FaFo § 562a) 52
Collectio Casinensis can. 46 (FaFo § 562b) 496, 527, 538
II,96 380 can. 47 (FaFo § 562c) 496, 527, 538
Collectio Vaticana Legatine Councils in England (786)
43 (FaFo § 568a) 379 can. 1 (FaFo § 588) 412
81 can. 2 (FaFo § 588) 506
5 (Synodi relatio ad imperatores; FaFo Mainz (813)
§ 568b) 379 can. 45 (FaFo § 754) 584
82 Nicaea (325)
5 (Synodi relatio ad Caelestinum; FaFo Epistula ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam et
§ 568c) 379 episcopos Aegypti, Libyae et Pentapolis 329
84 4–5 266
700 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Nicaea (787) Toledo I (400)

Actio III 467 Regula fidei catholicae
Actio IV 467 16 (FaFo § 486a) 168
Actio VII 403 Toledo III (589)
Niké (359) Canones / Allocutio Reccaredi (FaFo
Confessio fidei (FaFo § 159a) 165 f., 313, 369, § 687a) 406
372 can. 2 (FaFo § 687b) 406, 510, 599
Nîmes (394/396) Regis professio fidei (FaFo §§ 135d26.1.4(3),
can. 1 180 184f24.3, 490) 406, 484, 552
Palestinian Synod (321/322) Gothorum professio fidei (cf. FaFo
Epistula synodica (Opitz 1934/35, Urkunde § 184f24.4) 406, 467, 552 f.
10) 466 Toledo IV (633)
Rimini (359) can. 1 (FaFo § 493) 556
Damnatio blasphemiae Arii 312 Toledo VIII (653)
Definitio (FaFo § 564a) 312, 327 can. 1 (FaFo § 496) 511
Epistula synodalis episcoporum Catholicorum Toledo XII (681)
ad Constantium II imperatorem (cf. FaFo can. 9 587
§ 564b) 312
8 312 Creeds
Fragmentum gestorum synodalium 312 see Symbola fidei
Serdica (east; 342)
Epistula synodalis (east) Cyprian of Carthage
3 207 Ad Demetrianum
3–6 287 13 80
7–15 287 24,2 (FaFo § 122b) 182
24 287 De dominica oratione
29 287 35 114
Fides synodi (FaFo § 143a2) 206, 288, 368 De mortalitate
Serdica (west; 343) 21 (FaFo § 122c) 370
Epistula ad Iulium papam Epistulae
3 283 69
Epistula synodalis (west) 7 52
11 287 7,1–2 (FaFo § 92a) 52
Professio fidei ab episcopis occidentalibus 7,1 115
promulgata (FaFo § 144a) 207, 285, 326, 7,2 (FaFo § 92a) 126, 131 f., 182
355 70
Sirmium (351) 1,2 126
Fidei confessio prima (FaFo § 148) 294, 368 2,1 (FaFo § 92b) 126, 132, 182
9(8) 260, 297 71
28(27) 296 2,3 126
Sirmium (357) 73
Fidei confessio altera (FaFo § 154 and 5,2 (FaFo § 122d) 95
154a) 114, 301, 368 21,3 126
Sirmium (359) 75
Fidei confessio quarta (‘Dated Creed’; FaFo 10,5–11,1 (FaFo § 85) 121
§ 157) 152, 307 f., 351 19,3 (Firmilian) 126
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 701

Pseudo-Cyprian of Carthage 7
De rebaptismate 4–5 201
10 (FaFo § 86) 131 4 210
Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de 8 208
haereticis baptizandis (FaFo § 84) 133 10
6 126 title 210
13 126 15
14 126 17 207
27 207
Cyprian of Toulon 31–33 207
Epistula ad Maximum episcopum Genavensem 16
(FaFo § 272) 166 3–4 208
4 209, 371
Cyril of Alexandria 6–7 208
Contra Nestorium 7 209
1,7–8 376 24–32 208
1,7,3 352 17
Epistulae paschales 5 208
6 18 208
12 181 34 210
25 18
3 181 8 208
Epistulae 20 207
33 (Collectio Atheniensis 107) 21 (FaFo § 624b) 494, 527
5 327, 380 22 208
39 (Epistula ad Iohannem Antiochenum; 23 209
Collectio Vaticana 127) 380 25 209
55 (FaFo § 135d25) 341 26 209
93 (Collectio Atheniensis 126) 500 32 494
Epistula III ad Nestorium (Third Letter to Procatechesis 523
Nestorius) 436, 464 7 209
Qērellos (attributed) 446
(Pseudo-)Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril of Jerusalem Mystagogia
Catecheses ad illuminandos 201, 493, 523 1
2 208 9 (FaFo § 631a) 208, 494
3 2
15 208 4 (FaFo § 631b) 495
4
15 207 Damasus I (pope)
16 208 Epistulae
5 1 (Confidimus quidem; FaFo § 438)
12 (FaFo § 624a) 494, 527 329, 335
6–18 523 2
6 frg. 2 (Ea gratia; FaFo § 439a) 334
16 209 frg. 3 (Illud sane miramur; FaFo
29 536 § 439b) 333
702 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

frg. 4 (Non nobis quidquam; FaFo 3 507

439c) 335, 351 Epistulae
3 (Per ipsum filium) 332 9
4 (Tomus Damasi; FaFo §§ 135d8, 440) 36 f., 5 181
333 f., 342 f., 526
Dionysius of Alexandria
Decretum Aquisgranense (FaFo § 748) 565 Epistulae
V
Decretum Gratiani 1 (Feltoe; FaFo § 124a) 99
3,4,105 (FaFo § 636h) 489 4 (Feltoe; FaFo § 87a)
12,1,11 522 see Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia
ecclesiastica 7,8
De fide trinitatis quomodo exponitur (CPL 1762) 5 (Feltoe; FaFo § 87b)
2 (FaFo § 364) 187, 196 see Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia
4 (FaFo § 29) 52 ecclesiastica 7,9,2

De miraculis sancti Stephani Dionysius Bar Ṣalibi

1,6 (FaFo § 637) 546 Confession of the Syrian Orthodox Faith 416
Expositio liturgiae
Denebeorht of Worcester 6,12 419
Professio 6,13 419
3–4 (FaFo § 479) 554
Pseudo-Dionysius of Rome
Didache Epistula ad Dionysium Alexandrinum (FaFo
1–6 74 § 142) 206
7,1 (FaFo § 97) 75, 88, 90 f., 104, 120, 123
7,3 (FaFo § 97) 75, 88, 90 f., 104, 120, 123 Du Prier, Jean
see Jean du Prier
Didascalia apostolorum
26,8 (FaFo § 121) 98 f. Durandus of Saint-Pourçain
Scriptum super IV libros sententiarum
Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum Nicaenorum (FaFo lib. 3, dist. 25, qu. 3, n. 9 200
§ 176) 337, 353, 373, 441, 446
Ebedjesus of Nisibis
Didymus the Blind see ‛Abdīšō‛ bar Brīḵā
Fragmenta in Psalmos
frg. 624a on Ps 60:6b 374 Egeria
Peregrinatio
(Pseudo-)Didymus the Blind 46,1–5 (FaFo § 630) 494
De sancta trinitate dialogi (CPG 2284) 46,3 (FaFo § 630) 524
see Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, De 46,5 (FaFo § 630) 494
sancta trinitate dialogi 48–49 212
De trinitate (CPG 2570)
1,36,9 274 Einhard
Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite Petri
De ecclesiastica hierarchia 4,14 512
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 703

Pseudo-Eleutherius Ephraem Syrus

Sermones Sermo de martyrio sancti Bonifatii 80
1 (FaFo § 529a) 568
Etherius of Osma and Beatus of Liébana
Epiphanius of Salamis Aduersus Elipandum
Ancoratus 32, 450 1,22 (FaFo § 314a) 172
119,1–12 (FaFo § 175) 337
119,5 (FaFo § 175) 369 Eucherius of Lyons
119,8 (FaFo § 175) 240, 497 Instructiones ad Salonium 2,15 (FaFo § 20) 53
119,9 (FaFo § 175) 373
118,9–13 (FaFo 184e5) 261 Eunomius
118,9–12 31, 446 Apologia
119,11 (FaFo § 175) 172, 208, 353, 373 5 (FaFo § 163a) 305
De fide 28 (FaFo § 163b) 305
14–18 446 Confessio fidei
Panarion 3 (FaFo § 163c2) 350
42,3,6–10 209 4 (FaFo § 163c2) 372
57,1,8 (FaFo § 108b) 142 Liber Apologeticus
68,4,4 243 23–24 311
69,5,2 243
69,7,1 243 Eusebius of Caesarea
71,2,2–4 295 De ecclesiastica theologia
71,3,9 295 1,8 (FaFo § 134b2) 206, 311
72,2–3 145 2,6 (FaFo § 134b3) 206
72,2,6–3,4 (FaFo § 253) Demonstratio euangelica
see Symbola fidei: (Old) Roman Creed, RM 4,3 239
73,2 (FaFo § 155) 475 Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem (FaFo
73,21,5–8 311 § 134) 235
73,22,8 307 3 235
74,14,4–8 336 4 (Eus; FaFo § 134a) XVII, 31–3, 47, 205 f.,
209 f., 235 f., 246–51, 253 f., 311, 350, 368,
Epistula Apostolorum 378
3(14; FaFo § 103a) 90 7 (FaFo § 135b1) 241, 255, 258, 262
5(16; FaFo § 103b) 90, 207 9 258
10 242
Epistulae mutuae Corinthiorum et Pauli (CANT– 12–13 259
211.IV) 12 259
Epistula Corinthiorum 13 259, 262
10–15 102 17 242
Tertia Epistula ad Corinthios (FaFo § 96) Historia ecclesiastica
7–8 102 1,13,20 (FaFo § 129) 100
36–39 103 5,1,20 (Letter of the Churches of Lyons and
Vienne) 80
Epistulae selectae pontificum Romanorum 5,7,1 109
8 562 f. 5,18,5 126
8 (FaFo § 844b) 564 6,11,5 126
9 565 6,43,6 126
704 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

7,8 (FaFo § 87a) 116, 121 Expositio de credulitate (Keefe, Explanations,

7,9,2 (FaFo § 87b) 121 2012, text 11; cf. FaFo § 713) 556, 568
Vita Constantini
2,4 219 Expositio de fide catholica (CPL 505; FaFo
3,11 245 § 265) 166, 173
3,12 244
3,15 244 Expositio fidei (CPL 1763; FaFo § 273) 188
4,24 245, 482
4,27,2 474 Expositio super symbolum (CPL 1760; FaFo
4,61–62 269 § 277) 187, 198
1 (FaFo § 33) 52
Eusebius of Dorylaeum 14 180
Contestatio (FaFo § 198) 346
Expositio symboli (CPL 229a; FaFo § 262) 187
Pseudo-Eusebius of Emesa
see Collectio Eusebiana Pseudo-Facundus of Hermiane
Epistula fidei catholicae in defensione trium
Eusebius of Nicomedia capitulorum
Epistula ad Paulinum Tyrium 12 (FaFo § 37) 527
3–6 257 13 (FaFo § 322a) 167
4 217
Faustus of Riez
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of De spiritu sancto
Nicaea 1,1 (FaFo § 363) 604
Libellus paenitentiae 1,2 (FaFo § 267b2) 174–6, 182
2 265 1,3 (FaFo § 267b2) 166
3 265 Epistulae
7
Eustathius of Sebaste, Theophilus of 24 166
Castabala, Silvanus of Tarsus
Epistula ad Liberium papam (FaFo § 170) Pseudo-Faustus of Riez
358 Sermones
1
Euthymius Zigabenus 1 181
Expositio symboli 571 2 (creed; FaFo § 268) 179, 187
1 (FaFo § 34) 51 f.
Pseudo-Evagrius Ponticus 10 179
Fides quae in Nicaea 433
Ferrandus of Carthage
Evagrius Scholasticus Epistulae
Historia ecclesiastica 4
3,32 480 1 554
5
Explanation of baptism (De baptismo; FaFo 2 (FaFo § 321b1) 554
§ 783b) 179, 568 11
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 705

2–3 (FaFo § 659a) 490 Gabriel of Qatar

2 (FaFo § 659a) 490 f. Memre
5
Filastrius 2,52 418
Diuersarum haereseon liber 520
140,2–4 521 Gelasius of Caesarea
Historia ecclesiastica
Firmilianus of Caesarea frg. 22a 269
Epistula ad Cyprianum
see Cyprian, Epistula 75 Pseudo-Gelasius of Cyzicus
Historia ecclesiastica
Florilegium Frisingense (FaFo § 467b) 2,13 (FaFo § 136c) 547
554
Gennadius of Marseille
Florus of Lyons Liber siue definitio ecclesiasticorum dogmatum
De expositione missae 39 181
11–12,1 512
Gerbald of Liège
Fortunatianus of Aquileia Epistulae
Commentaria in euangelia 2 (Ad dioeceseos suae presbyteros epistula;
ll. 2922–2928 324 FaFo § 745c) 190
ll. 2935–2941 324 3 (Instructio pastoralis ad gregem suum)
1 (FaFo § 745d1) 190, 507
Fridolin, Stephan 3 (FaFo § 745d2) 190
Schatzbehalter der wahren Reichtümer des
Heils 596 (Pseudo-)Gerbald of Liège
Second Capitulary
Fructuosus of Braga 1 (FaFo § 745b) 190
Regula complutensis
1 (FaFo § 697) 516 Pseudo-Germanus of Paris
Expositio breuis antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae
Fulgentius of Ruspe Epistula secunda de communi officio
Ad competentes post traditum symbolum (FaFo 6–9 (FaFo § 662) 492
§ 654) 530
Contra Fabianum Girk‛ T‛łt‛oc‛ (Book of Letters) 436
frg. 32,3 (FaFo § 319a1) 167
frg. 36,1 (FaFo § 35) 52 f. Gregory I (the Great; pope)
frg. 36,13 (FaFo § 319a2) 554 Epistulae
frg. 36,14 (FaFo § 319a2) 133 9,26 410
De ueritate praedestinationis et gratiae dei Homiliae in Euangelia
2,31 483 26
Epistulae 2 557, 563
12 30
6,14–16 (FaFo § 659b) 491 3 188

Pseudo-Fulgentius of Ruspe Gregory of Nazianzus

Sermo de symbolo (FaFo § 320) 133 Carmen de uita sua
706 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

1703–1759 360 Heraclius

1703–11 (FaFo § 184a2) 360 Ecthesis 481
1709 358, 362
1800 358 Herard of Tours
Epistulae Capitulary
102 16 471, 602
2 (FaFo § 184a1) 361
Homiliae Hermas
40 see Pastor Hermae
45 (FaFo § 179) 524
Orationes Hilary of Poitiers
40 Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (Fragmenta
11 (FaFo § 628a) 498 historica)
41 (FaFo § 628b) 498 app. II 3(8),1 325
44–45 (FaFo §§ 628c, 179) 498 app. II 3(8),2 (FaFo § 152) 299, 325
A IV 2,1–5 (FaFo § 143a1) 201
Gregory of Nyssa B II 10,1–3(27) (FaFo § 135d1) 300, 324
Dialogus B II 11,1(28) (FaFo § 151b1) 325
2,38,4 563 B VI 3 307
Epistulae B VII 8,2(6) 297, 307
5,2 344 Commentarius in Matthaeum
Refutatio confessionis Eunomii ( = Contra 1,3 (FaFo § 151a) 165
Eunomium II) 3,2 286
108 495 De synodis
Vita Macrinae 2 302
15 344 10 301
11 (FaFo § 154a)
(Pseudo-)Gregory Thaumaturgus see Councils: Sirmium (357), Fidei confessio
Confessio fidei (FaFo § 117) 95 Sirmiensis altera
31 275
Gregory of Tours 32–33 275
Historiae 34 (FaFo § 143a2) 201, 288
2,34 483 63 (FaFo § 151d1) 156
6,18 552 84 (FaFo § 135d3) 324, 578
91 (FaFo § 151d2) 325
Haito of Basel De trinitate
Capitulary 2,24 (FaFo § 151c1) 169
2 (FaFo § 747a) 190, 584 7,6 (FaFo § 151c3) 168, 351
4 (FaFo § 747b) 517 10,65 (FaFo § 151c5) 168 f.
12,4 164
Heliodorus Liber (I) in Constantium imperatorem
Aethiopica 12 319
2,31,1 621 26 302
Liber (II) ad Constantium imperatorem
Heracleon 5 (FaFo § 151e1) 323
frg. 50 Tractatus super Psalmos
see Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4,9,71–72 134,18 164
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 707

Pseudo-Hilary of Poitiers Honorius Augustodunensis

Epistula seu libellus Gemma animae
6,129 286 1,78 577
2,59 578
Hildegard of Bingen 3,67 412
Explanatio symboli Sancti Athanasii 3,119 576
580 Speculum ecclesiae 575

Hincmar of Reims Hormisdas (pope)

First Capitulary Fides (FaFo § 442) 119, 404
1 573
Hrabanus Maurus
Hippolytus of Rome De clericorum institutione
Contra Noetum 1,27 (FaFo § 769) 190
18,10 126 Homiliae
Refutatio omnium haeresium 13 (FaFo § 306) 191
7,21,1 289 43 541
8,19,3 141
9,7,1 141 Hugh of Amiens
9,10,9–12 141 De fide catholica et oratione dominica 573
9,11,3 (FaFo § 112) 125, 142
9,12,16 142 Humbert of Silva Candida
9,13,4 209 Rationes de sancti spiritus processione a patre et
10,26–27,2 141 filio
10,27,3 142 4,1 603

Pseudo-Hippolytus of Rome Pseudo-Hymenaeus of Jerusalem et al.

Canones (Arabic) 450 Epistula ad Paulum Samosatenum (FaFo
can. 1 (FaFo § 138) 468 § 126) 118
can. 19 (FaFo § 606) 493
De fide (Pseudo-)Ignatius of Antioch
12,1–2 464 Ad Magnesios
13,1–2 464 11 (middle version; FaFo § 98b2a) 97
Traditio Apostolica (FaFo § 89) XVIII 11,3 (long version; FaFo § 98b2b) 240
21,11–18 Ad Philippenses
Aksumite Collection (Ethiopic version, TAE; 1,1–3,3 (FaFo § 98g) 103
FaFo § 89c) XVIII, 130, 150 f., 153, 240, 446 f. Ad Smyrnaeos
Greek version (TAG; FaFo § 89c) XVIII, 122, 1,1–2 (FaFo § 98e1) 97, 134
129 f., 144, 151–3, 155 f., 163, 167 f., 173, 183, 1,2 (FaFo § 98e2) 370
187, 281 f., 369 3,1–3 127
Fragmentum Veronense (TAL; FaFo 12,2 127
§ 89b) XVIII, 130, 149 f., 168, 240 Ad Trallianos
Synodus Alexandrinus 9,1–2 (FaFo § 98c1) 97, 134
Arabic version (FaFo § 89e) 450
Ethiopic version (FaFo § 89f1) 446, 448 Ildefonsus of Toledo
Ethiopic version (FaFo § 89f2) 446 f. De cognitione baptismi
708 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

30–35 (FaFo § 664) 492 3,15,1 105

35 (FaFo § 664) 506 3,16,1 106
37–95 (creed; FaFo § 312) 170, 172 3,16,5 (FaFo § 109b8) 106
3,16,6 (FaFo § 109b9) 108, 206
Innocent III (pope) 3,18,3 (FaFo § 109b10) 108
Mysteriorum euangelicae legis et sacramenti 3,20,2 105
eucharistiae libri VI 577 3,24,1 126
4, prol. 1 108
Irenaeus of Lyon 4, prol. 2 106
Aduersus haereses 4, prol. 3 106
1, prol. 2–3 109 4,9,2 (FaFo § 109b11) 108
1, prol. 2 109 4,20,4 (FaFo § 109b12) 108
1,1,6 236 4,33,7 (FaFo § 109b13) 106
1,1,20 279 4,33,8 (FaFo § 109b13) 106
1,2,1 279 4,35,2 106
1,3,6 (FaFo § 109b1) 108, 205, 236 4,35,4 105
1,9,4 (FaFo § 109b2) 105 f. 5,1,2 108
1,10,1 (FaFo § 109b3) 106, 205, 236 5,20,1 (FaFo § 109b14) 106, 126
1,21 108 7 210
1,20,3 106 8 210
1,22,1 (FaFo § 109b4) 93, 105 f., 108 Armenian frg. 2 (FaFo § 109c1) 98
1,31,3 106 Epideixis 108 f.
2 210 1 109
2, prol. 2 106 3 (FaFo § 109a1) 103–5
2,7,2 106 6 (FaFo § 109a2) 105, 206
2,12,8 106
2,18,4 106 Isidore of Seville
2,18,7 106 De origine officiorum (De ecclesiasticis
2,19,8 106 officiis)
2,25,1 106 1,16 (FaFo § 688) 511
2,25,2 105 2,22(21),2 (FaFo § 39a) 492
2,27,1 105 2,23(22),2 (FaFo § 39a) 52
2,28,1 105 2,23(22),3 (FaFo § 39a) 52
2,31,2 126 2,24(23),1–7 (FaFo § 491) 492
2,32,3 (FaFo § 109b5) 108, 240 2,24(23),1 (FaFo § 491) 553
2,35,1 106 2,25(24),5 (FaFo § 661a) 492
3 210 De uiris inlustribus
3,1,2 (FaFo § 109b6) 108, 206 31,44 406
3,2,1 105 35,45 42
3,4,1–2 (FaFo § 109b7) 135 Epistulae
3,4,1 (FaFo § 349b) 192 6
3,4,2 (FaFo § 109b7) 98, 106, 108, 162, 206, 4 553
240, 279 Etymologiarum siue originum libri XX
3,11,1 105 6,8,15 (FaFo § 661b) 492
3,11,3 106 6,19,57 (FaFo § 39b) 52
3,12,6 105 Liber numerorum
3,12,8 121 8 187
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 709

Pseudo-Isidore of Seville Joan of Navarre

Liber de ordine creaturarum (FaFo § 472) Book of Hours 594
554
Jocelin of Soissons
Išo‛yahb II Expositio in symbolum 575
Christological Letter 429 2 200, 584

Ivo of Chartres Johann Burchard

Sermones see Burchard, Johann
23 575
John VIII (pope)
Jacob of Edessa Epistulae
Epistulae 255 603
35 418
John of Avranches
Jean Beleth De officiis ecclesiasticis 576
see Beleth, Jean
John XI Beccus
Jean du Prier Refutatio libri Photii de processione spiritus
Le mystère de la Résurrection 588 32,89 (FaFo § 862) 570

Jerome John of Biclaro

Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (FaFo Chronicon
§ 159b) 165, 318 2 (FaFo § 689) 402, 510, 577
17–18 317 57 552
Apologia aduersus libros Rufini
2,2 483 John Cassian
Chronicon De incarnatione domini contra Nestorium
a. 337 269 6,3 (FaFo § 21) 52
Commentarii in prophetas minores 6,3,2 (FaFo § 203) 346
In Osee 2, 6 114 6,4,2 (FaFo § 203) 346
Contra Vigilantium 6,6 497
1 181 6,9,1–2 (FaFo § 203) 346
Epistulae 6,11,1 (FaFo § 641b) 504
92 181
109 John Chrysostom
1 181 Catechesis baptismalis
2/3
Pseudo-Jerome 3 (FaFo § 597) 496, 498
Explanatio symboli (FaFo § 61) 51 4 496
Epistula 17 3/1
1 (FaFo § 135d11) 526 19 (FaFo § 189a) 497
Fides sancti Hieronymi (FaFo § 484) De beato Philogonio
see Symbola fidei: Fides sancti Hieronymi 3–4 520
De sancta pentecoste
Jesse of Amiens 1
Epistula de baptismo (FaFo § 780a) 528 1 520
710 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

2 John of Tella
1 520 Profession of Faith 418
Homilia in sanctum martyrem Lucianum
3 80 Jonas of Bobbio
In epistulam ad Colossenses homiliae Vita Columbani
6 2,15 516
4 (FaFo § 189e) 497
In epistulam I ad Corinthios homiliae Julius I (pope)
40 Epistula ad Antiochenos episcopos 155, 270
1–2 (FaFo § 189c) 497
In Iohannem homiliae Justin II (emperor)
17 Edictum primum de fide (FaFo § 558) 402
4 (FaFo § 189d) 497
Justin Martyr
Pseudo-John Chrysostom Apologia prima
In ingressum sanctorum ieiuniorum 181 6,2 (FaFo § 104a1) 92
In illud: Simile est regnum caelorum patri 11,1 80
familias (FaFo § 196) 372 13,1–3 (FaFo § 104a2) 92, 135
13,3 (FaFo § 104a2) 98
John of Dalyatha 14,2 121
Homiliae 21,1 (FaFo § 104a3) 98 f.
25 23,2 (FaFo § 104a4) 99
4 424 25,2 121
31,7 (FaFo § 104a5) 98 f.
(Pseudo-)John of Damascus 35,6 92
Martyrdom of Artemius 42,4 (FaFo § 104a6) 98, 240
24 80 44,2 91
46,1 92
John (Iwannis) of Dara 46,5 (FaFo § 104a7) 98
De oblatione 49,5 121
3,2 419 61,1 121
61,3 (FaFo § 104a8) 75, 91
John the Deacon 61,10–13 (FaFo § 104a9) 91, 136
Epistula ad Senarium 61,13 (FaFo § 104a9) 98
4 (FaFo § 655) 408, 488 65,3 (FaFo § 104a10) 91
7 503 67,2 (FaFo § 104a11) 92
Apologia secunda
John of Fécamp 2,10–11 80
Confessio fidei 573 5,6 92
Dialogus cum Tryphone
John IV of Jerusalem 16,4 124
Epistula ad Abam 22,4 124
9–10 402 30,3 92
12 402 35,2 80
38,1 (FaFo § 104b1) 98
John of Maron 38,2 124
Expositio fidei 431 63,1 (FaFo § 104b2) 98
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 711

76,6 92 Lacnunga
83,4 124 29 542
85,1–2 (FaFo § 104b3) 98 176 542
85,2 (FaFo § 104b3) 92, 98, 136
96,2 80 Leechbook
96,3 124 1,62 542
126,1 (FaFo § 104b4) 98 3,62 542
132,1 (FaFo § 104b5) 98 3,68 542
139,4 124
142,2 124 Leidrad of Lyons
Liber de sacramento baptismi ad Carolum
Justinian (emperor) Magnum imperatorem
Forma ante synodum lecta 5 (FaFo § 785) 190
7 (FaFo § 557)
see Councils: Constantinople (553), Actio Leo I (the Great, pope)
I 7 Epistulae
Codex Iustinianus 482 4b(31)
1,1,1 (FaFo § 532a) 4 (FaFo § 360a) 193
see Theodosius I, Codex Theodosianus 15
16,1,2 1 551
1,1,2 (FaFo § 533) 2 172
see Theodosius I, Codex Theodosianus 4 172
16,5,6 11 172
1,1,5 (FaFo § 552) 480 16 172
1,1,6 (Contra Nestorianos; FaFo § 553) 480 24 483 f.
1,1,7 (FaFo § 554) 28
see Epistula ad Epiphanium Archiepiscopum 14 (FaFo § 255a) 404
Constantinopolitanum 159
1,1,8 (Collectio Auellana, Epistula 84: Epistula 7 209
ad Iohannem II papam; FaFo § 555) 480 169 ( = Collectio Auellana, Epistula 51)
Digesta 1 484
1,1,1,2 482 Tractatus
Edictum rectae fidei (FaFo § 556) 263, 24
401, 480 6 (FaFo § 643a) 487
Epistula ad Epiphanium Archiepiscopum 62
Constantinopolitanum 480 2 (FaFo § 255c) 168
11 (FaFo § 554) 401 75
Epistula ad Iohannem II papam (FaFo § 555) 5 172
see Codex Iustinianus 1,1,8 77
Epistula contra tria capitula 5 172
21 453 79
2 172
K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba (‘Georgian Chronicles’) 91
frg. 1 461 2 172
96
Knik‛ Hawatoy (‘Seal of Faith’) 437 1 (FaFo § 360b) 193
712 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

98 (FaFo § 255g) 410, 527 f. Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (cf. FaFo

98 (FaFo §§ 255g, 675a) 408 § 694b) 508 f., 612
Missale Gallicanum Vetus 187, 529
Leontius 26 (FaFo § 678a1) 171
Aduersus fraudes Apollinaristarum 339 27 (FaFo § 678a1) 527
Missale mixtum (FaFo § 184f30) 172, 411, 553
Lex Visigothorum Old Gelasian Sacramentary (OGS)
12,2,18 538 see Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus
12,3,13 493 Ordines Romani
12,3,14 493 V
12,3,15 493 40 602
IX 504
Liber pontificalis 21 407, 602
98,84–85 (FaFo § 856) 569 X
32 602
Liberius (pope) XI 407, 409 f., 505, 600
Epistula ad Constantium imperatorem XI (FaFo §§ 184f4, 808a) 528
7 299, 325 62 (FaFo § 808a) 600
Epistula ad orientales episcopos 64 (FaFo § 808a) 600
see Hilary of Poitiers, Collectanea Antiariana 86 (FaFo § 808b) 505, 600
Parisina B VII 8,2(6) XV (FaFo § 809a, b) 407, 409, 601
106–8 (FaFo § 809a) 410
(Pseudo-)Liberius L 570
Epistula ad Athanasium (FaFo § 165) 166 Pontificale Parisiense (of Poitiers) 504
Pontificale Romano-Germanicum (FaFo
Liturgical books § 184f12.1) 504, 560, 570
Anaphora of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Pontifical of Donaueschingen 528
Orthodox 450 324 (FaFo § 683a) 407, 601
Barberini Euchologion 403 342 (FaFo § 683b) 601
119,8–12 (FaFo § 677a) 499 Qdām w-Bāthar (Book of before and after) 430
143,16–22 (FaFo § 677b) 499 Rituale Romanum 408 f., 412
Bobbio Missal (Sacramentarium Sacramentary of Angoulême (FaFo §§ 184f14,
Gallicanum) 164, 166, 170, 187 f., 194 796a) 407, 504, 528
184 (FaFo § 676a) 164, 167, 170 f., 184, 188 Sacramentary of Gellone (FaFo §§ 184f6,
245 (FaFo § 676c) 164 797a) 24, 407, 409, 504, 528
591 (FaFo § 375) 170 f., 194 545 (FaFo § 797a) 601
Holy Qurbana 430 547 (FaFo § 797a) 601
Leofric Missal 542 671 (FaFo § 797b) 601
Liber misticus (FaFo § 684d) 160, 407 2281–3 (FaFo 797d) 410
Liber misticus (FaFo § 184f13) 411, 553, 570 Sacramentary of Reims (FaFo § 799a, b) 407,
Liber ordinum de ordinibus ecclesiasticis (FaFo 504, 528, 601
§ 684c4) 165, 407, 506 Sacramentary of Saint-Amand (FaFo
Liturgy of Addai and Mari 430 § 184f16) 504
Liturgy of the Holy Apostles 430 Sacramentarium Engolismense
Liturgy of St Basil (cf. FaFo § 694b) 403, 432, see Sacramentary of Angoulême
508 f., 599, 612 Sacramentarium Gallicanum
Liturgy of St Gregory 599 see Bobbio Missal
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 713

Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus XVII, 24, 73 295

26, 121, 163, 407, 410, 527, 569 97–98 296
310–315 (FaFo §§ 675a, 255g) 503
311 (FaFo § 675a) 600 Marcian (emperor)
314 (FaFo § 675a) 600 Epistula ad monachos Alexandrinos (FaFo
418–424 (FaFo § 675b) 504 § 546) 478, 501
422 (FaFo § 675b) 600 Epistula ad Synodum Palaestinam 398
448–449 (FaFo § 675c) 122
449 (FaFo § 675c) 164, 493 Marius Victorinus
608 (FaFo § 675f) 164, 493 Aduersus Arium
Sacramentarium Gellonense 2,12 (FaFo § 437) 164
see Sacramentary of Gellone
Sacramentarium Remense Martin of Braga
see Sacramentary of Reims De correctione rusticorum
Stowe Missal (FaFo § 680a) 492, 505, 15 (FaFo § 608) 170, 491
511, 513 16,6 (FaFo § 660) 541
16,7 541
Lucifer of Cagliari
De non conueniendo cum haereticis (Pseudo-)Martin of Braga
13 124 Capitula
De non parcendo in deum deliquentibus 74 (FaFo § 576b) 541
18 (FaFo § 135d2) 300, 324
Martin of Leon
Luther, Martin Sermones
Large Catechism 182 34 (In festiuitate sanctae trinitatis) 575
Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione XIII. de
potestate papae 182 Martyrdom of Agape, Irene and Chione
3,2 80
Magnus of Sens
Libellus de mysterio baptismatis (FaFo Martyrdom of Apollonius
§ 783a) 179 1–2 80

Mansuetus of Milan Martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus and Agathonice

Epistula ad Constantinum imperatorem 406 3 79
5 79 f.
Marcellus of Ancyra 23 79
Epistula ad Iulium papam 34 79
see Symbola fidei: (Old) Roman Creed, RM
Epistula ad Liberium Martyrdom of Crispina
2 (FaFo § 150) 1,4 80
see Pseudo-Athanasius, Epistula ad 1,6–7 80
Liberium
frgs. Martyrdom of Dasius
5–8 288 6,1 80
10 286 7,2 80
12–16 286 8,2 80
48 295 10,2 80
714 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Martyrdom of Fructuosus and Companions Meinhard of Bamberg

2,3–4 80 De fide, uarietate symboli, ipso symbolo et
2,3 80 pestibus haeresium 413

Martyrdom of Ignatius (Martyrium Romanum) Melito of Sardes

8,4 80 De pascha
104 (FaFo § 107) 76, 92, 137, 240, 270, 369
Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas
3,2 80 Middle English Glossed Prose Psalter 587
6,4 80
Missals
Martyrdom of Phileas see Liturgical Books
3,4 80
Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay (‘The Conversion of
Martyrdom of Pionius K‛art‛lis’)
8,2–3 80 1,7 461
8,2 80 14 461
15,7 80
16,2–4 80 Moses bar Kepha
16,2 80 Commentarius in liturgiam
18,6 80 ff. 152b–153a 419
20,7 80
Narcissus of Neronias
Martyrdom of Polycarp Epistula ad Chrestum, Euphronium et
inscr. 126 Eusebium 262
10,1 79
12,1 79 Pseudo-Narsai
Liturgical Homily 400, 424, 431, 508
Martyrdom of Ptolemaeus and Lucius
11–13 79 Nestorius
16–18 79 Aduersus haereticos de diuina trinitate 498
In symbolum fidei
Martyrium Calixti (FaFo § 90) 131 4 498

Maximus the Confessor Nicephorus Callistus

Ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum 411 Historia ecclesiastica
Mystagogia 12
15 508 13 361
18 (FaFo § 690) 508
Relatio motionis Nicetas of Remesiana
4 402 Competentibus ad baptismum instructionis libelli
(FaFo § 14a)
Pseudo-Maximus of Turin 2
Homiliae frg. 4 (FaFo § 625) 487, 527, 536
83 (FaFo § 23) 51 f., 194 frg. 5 (FaFo § 14a) 52
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 715

5 172, 182, 526 8,14–15 269

2 164 De principiis
5 167 1 praef. 4–8 (FaFo § 116a) 93
10 (FaFo § 324) 176, 178 1 praef. 4 (FaFo § 116a) 93, 269
13 (FaFo § 14b) 53 4,4,8 269
Dialogus cum Heraclide
Niẓẓaḥon Vetus 1 (FaFo § 260a) 99
231 588 2 (FaFo § 120b) 94
Fragmenta in Lucam
Novatian frg. 154 on Lk 9:58 374
De trinitate Homiliae in Psalmos
1,1 (FaFo § 119a) 114, 127, 205 hom. 4 in Ps 77 269
9,1 (FaFo § 119b) 114, 127, 162 In epistulam Pauli ad Romanos
11,10 114 10,14 181
16,4 114 In Matthaeum commentariorum series
16,5 114 33 (FaFo § 116c) 94, 269
17,1 115 In Numeros homiliae
26,17 114 f. 5
21,1 114 1 (FaFo § 83) 121
29,1 (FaFo § 119c) 115
29,19 114 Ossius of Cordoba and Protogenes of Serdica
Epistula de cibis Iudaicis Epistula ad Iulium papam (FaFo § 144b) 284,
7,3 114 326 f.

Odes of Solomon Palladius of Amaseia

19 Kanonikon
2 89 can. 18 (FaFo § 566b note) 345
23
22 89 Palladius of Galatia
Dialogus de uita Ioannis Chrysostomi
Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri 9, l 485
Carolini)
3,1 558 Pastor of Palencia
3,3 (FaFo § 832a) 557 f. Libellus in modum symboli (FaFo § 486b) 551
4,13 (FaFo § 832h) 558
Pastor Hermae 77, 95
Origen 1 ( = Visio I,1),6 126
Commentarii in Iohannem 3 ( = Visio I,3),4 126
13,151–153 269 22 ( = Visio IV,1),3 126
32,187–189 (FaFo § 116b) 93, 269 26 ( = Mandatum I),1–2 (FaFo § 100) 93
32,363 269 72 ( = Mandatum VIII,6),4 120
Commentarii in Matthaeum 78 ( = Similitudo IX,1),1 125
15,10 269 105 ( = Similitudo IX,28),4 78
Contra Celsum
5,11 269 Paulinus II of Aquileia
7,43 269 Contra Felicem
8,12 274 1,14 562
716 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

1,16 562 58 (FaFo § 259b) 182, 526

1,17 562 2 (FaFo § 22c) 53, 527, 536
1,30 562 59 (FaFo § 259c) 182, 526
1,34 562 1–2 (FaFo § 22d1) 53
2,1 562 1 (FaFo § 22d1) 527
3,27 562 18 (FaFo § 22d2) 53, 527
Conuentus episcorporum ad ripas Danubii (FaFo 60 (FaFo § 259d) 182, 526
§ 774) 471, 502 2 (FaFo § 22e1) 51
Libellus sacrosyllabus episcoporum Italiae (FaFo 18 (FaFo § 22e2) 527, 536
§ 701a) 558 61 (FaFo § 259e) 526
2 (FaFo § 22f1) 52, 527
Pelagius 15 (FaFo § 22f2) 527, 536
Libellus fidei 179 62 (FaFo § 259f) 182, 526
4 (FaFo § 517) 556 3–4 (FaFo § 22g) 537
3 (FaFo § 22g) 51, 527
Pelagius I (pope)
Epistulae Peter Lombard
7 (FaFo § 445) 405 Sententiae
10 3,25 581
4 405 3,25,2 581
11 405
Petites heures de Jean de Berry 594
Pelagius II (pope)
Epistula I ad episcopos Histriae Philostorgius
8 (FaFo § 367) 405 Historia ecclesiastica
15 405 1,7 261
1,9–10 265
Penitentials 1,9 264
Paenitentiale Bigotianum 1,9a 261, 264
VII 2 466 1,9c 264
Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense 583 1,10 265
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti 2,14 243
2,23 542 2,16 269
Paenitentiale Floriacense 3,13 552
42 542 3,15 243
8,8a 483
Peter Abelard
Expositio symboli quod dicitur apostolorum (cf. Phoebadius of Agen
FaFo § 861c) 175, 181, 573 Contra Arianos
6,3 (FaFo § 154c) 326
Peter Chrysologus (FaFo § 259) 8,2 301
Sermones
56 (FaFo § 62a) 526 Pirmin
3 (FaFo § 22a1) 527 Scarapsus 191
5 (FaFo § 22a3) 527, 536 10 (FaFo § 376) 157, 164, 166, 169–71, 194 f.
57 (FaFo § 259a) 182, 536 12 (FaFo § 610) 157, 164, 166, 169–71
16 (FaFo § 22b) 52, 527, 537 28a (FaFo § 298) 157, 164, 166, 169–71
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 717

Pliny the Younger Psalter of King Aethelstan (FaFo § 295) 15, 147,
Epistulae 152
10,96 73, 80
10,97 79 f. Quodvultdeus
Sermones
Polycarp of Smyrna 1–3 (FaFo § 317a–c) 526
Epistula ad Philippenses 1 (De symbolo I; FaFo § 317a) 167
praescr. 123 12,1 (FaFo § 317a) 182
2,1 (FaFo § 102) 98 2
7,1 127 2,1 (FaFo § 317b) 489
3 (De symbolo III)
Pontificals 1,21 489
see Liturgical Books 13,1 (FaFo § 317c) 133
4 (Contra Iudaeos, paganos et Arianos; FaFo
Praedicatio (Kerygma) Petri § 317d) 167
frg. 2a (FaFo § 94a) 10
see Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6,7 (FaFo § 317e) 167
6,39,2–3
frg. 2b (FaFo § 94b) Qur’ān
see Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6,58,1 112 7
frg. 9 (FaFo § 94c)
see Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Radulph of Rivo
6,128,1–2 De canonum obseruantia liber
propositio 23 579
Priscillian of Avila
Tractatus Raimundus Martini
1 Explanatio symboli apostolorum ad institutionem
f. 2 (FaFo § 16a1) 52 fidelium (FaFo § 423) 197, 574
f. 38 (FaFo § 16a2) 52
3 (FaFo § 16c) 53 Ratherius of Verona
Epistulae
Proclus of Constantinople 25 45, 573
Homiliae 26 573
23 (De dogmate incarnationis) 446
27 Ratio Romana de symbolo fidei 566
4–7 525 6–8 (FaFo § 848a) 514
4,16 498 12 (FaFo § 848b) 514
4,19 498 25–26 (FaFo § 848c) 514
4,20 498 31–32 (FaFo § 848d) 514
4,21 498
4,23 498 Rolle, Richard
9,55 498 Symboli apostolici clarissima et admodum
9,56 498 catholica enarratio 574
Homilia in theophania
11,71 208 Rufinus
Tomus ad Armenios Expositio symboli 15, 486, 526
33 (FaFo § 210b) 376 2 (FaFo § 18) 51 f., 193, 527, 537
718 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

3 (FaFo § 254b) Sicard of Cremona

see Symbola fidei: (Old) Roman Creed, RR Mitralis de officiis
3 (FaFo § 638) 48, 487 3,4 578
4 499
5 499 Simon of Tournai
16 170, 499 Expositio super symbolum (ed. Haring, ‘Two
34 175 Redactions’, 1974) 575
37 209 Expositio symboli (ed. Haring 1976) 580
Historia ecclesiastica
10,1 265 Simplicius (pope)
10,3 (FaFo § 136a) 547 Epistulae
10,6 (FaFo § 135d12) 499 15 ( = Collectio Auellana, Epistula 66)
10,12 211, 263, 269 1 483 f.
11,20 338
Socrates
Rupert of Deutz Historia Ecclesiastica
De diuinis officiis 1,8,32 265
2,1 576 1,8,33 234, 265
1,8,34 235, 265
Sacramentaries 1,14,1 265
see Liturgical Books 1,25 211
1,33,1 211
Sermo de symbolo (CPL 1759) 174, 188 1,39,3–4 269
1 (FaFo § 27a) 51 2,8,3 270
3 (FaFo § 27b) 52 2,8,4 270
4 (FaFo § 357) 605 2,8,5 270
22 173 2,10,2 271
2,10,9 271, 278 f.
Severian of Gabala 2,15,5–6 271
De fide 446 2,18,1 279
2,19–20 291
Severus of Antioch 2,19,2 291
Liber contra impium Grammaticum 2,20,1 291
3,11 417 2,31 302
2,37,16–17 307
Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‛ 2,37,52 307
Historia Conciliorum 2,37,75 307
1,3 452 2,39–40 318
2,5 452, 454 2,40,31 319
2,9 454 4,37,1–2 338
2,10 457 5,8 (FaFo § 184b) 363
5,8,1–10 (FaFo § 184b) 358
Shepherd of Hermas 5,8,3 (FaFo § 184b) 368
see Pastor Hermae 5,8,4 (FaFo § 184b) 383
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 719

5,8,10 (FaFo § 184b) 359 Sulpicius Severus

5,10,14 (FaFo § 184b) 359 Chronica
5,10,21–26 (FaFo § 163c1) 37 2,39,3 299
2,39,4 299
Sophronius of Jerusalem 2,39,5 300
Epistula synodica ad Sergium 2,44 318
Constantinopolitanum 2,44,6–7 318
2,5,2 (FaFo § 235b) 400
Symbola fidei
Sozomen see also Councils
Historia ecclesiastica Alexander of Alexandria (FaFo § 132)
1,15,11 233 see id., Epistula ad Alexandrum
1,18 (FaFo § 136b) 547 Thessalonicensem (Byzantinum)
1,19,2 245 Antioch (325; FaFo § 133)
1,25,1 244 see Councils: Antioch (325), Epistula synodica
2,26,4 212 Antioch (341)
2,27 211 First creed (Ant1; FaFo § 141c)
3,5,6–7 276 see Councils: Antioch (341), Expositio fidei,
3,5,8 279 Formula prima
3,5,9 275 Second creed (Ant2; FaFo § 141b)
3,5,10–6,1 270 see Councils: Antioch (341), Expositio fidei,
3,6,8 270 Formula altera
3,8,3–8 271 Third Creed (Ant3; Theophronii Tyanensis;
3,11 291 FaFo § 141a)
3,11,1 291 see Councils: Antioch (341), Expositio fidei,
3,12,6 326 Formula tertia
4,12,6 302 Fourth Creed (Ant4; FaFo § 141d)
4,14,4 (FaFo § 531) 474 see Councils: Antioch (341), Expositio fidei,
4,15,1–3 (FaFo § 156) 47, 306 Formula quarta
4,15,3 (FaFo § 156) 307, 475 Apostles’ Creed (Symbolum apostolicum/
4,16,19–20 307 apostolorum; T; FaFo § 344) XVII, 1 f., 5,
4,17,3–5 307 8–11, 13–31, 39 f., 45, 47, 52–4, 71, 85,
4,17,10 307 145, 156–212, 405, 407–12, 439, 469–72,
4,17,11 313 491, 493, 505, 511, 516 f., 521, 525 f., 528,
4,22,6 307 536, 538, 568, 571–5, 577–82, 584 f.,
6,12,4 350 587–93, 595–98, 600, 604 f., 608, 613,
6,39,1 338 615–25
6,7,2 483 Arius and Euzoius (FaFo § 131c)
6,21,7 483 see iid., Epistula ad Constantinum
7,4,4–6 (FaFo § 532b) 477 imperatorem
7,4,4–5 (FaFo § 532b) 343 Armeniacum 436–8, 614
7,7–9 (FaFo § 184c) 363 Athanasian Creed
7,7,1–5 (FaFo § 184c) 358 see Symbolum Quicumque
7,7,3 (FaFo § 184c) 368 Pseudo-Athanasius (FaFo § 185)
7,7,5 (FaFo § 184c) 359 see id., Interpretatio in symbolum
7,9,1 (FaFo § 184c) 359, 362 Auxentius (FaFo § 453)
7,9,7 478 see id., Confessio fidei
720 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Babgēn 438 Fides catholica (FaFo § 707) 554

Catechismus Romanus (FaFo § 345) 574 f. Fides sancti Hieronymi (FaFo § 484) 176 f.
Chapters of the Egyptian Clergy (FaFo Formulae Hispanicae in modum symboli (FaFo
§ 219) 400 § 510) 187, 553
Charisius (FaFo § 204a) Gothorum professio fidei
see id., Confessio fidei see Councils: Toledo III, Gothorum professio
Collectio Vetus Gallica (T; FaFo § 373) 195 fidei
Collectio Vetus Gallica (N; FaFo § 135d40) 172 (Pseudo-)Gregory the Great (FaFo § 446) 554
Confessio Antiochena (FaFo § 127) 206, 431, (Pseudo-)Gregory the Illuminator 432
439, 465 Hormisdas (pope; FaFo § 442)
Confessio fidei Claudii Regis Aethiopiae 448 see id., Fides
Constantinople (359/360; FaFo § 160) Howard Psalter 593, 595
see Councils: Constantinople (359/360), Ildefonsus of Toledo (FaFo § 312)
Confessio fidei see id., De cognitione baptismi 37–95
Constantinople (381) Interrogationes of Etty (FaFo § 526) 556
Creed (C1) XVII, 38, 212, 336, 342, 355–78, Jacobi’s Creed (FaFo § 525) 168, 553
380–3, 387, 389, 399–402, 497–9, 509 f., Jerusalem (Hierosolymitanum; J; FaFo
515, 609–11 § 147) XVII, 11, 31, 33, 47, 83, 99, 164, 172,
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum (C2; FaFo 174, 200–3, 205, 207–12, 240, 341, 608, 610
§ 184e1) XVII, 1, 8–10, 12 f., 18, 24, 27, 31–9, John Cassian (FaFo § 203) 152, 346
45, 48, 53 f., 58, 85, 119, 160, 164, 166–8, see also id., De incarnatione domini contra
171 f., 174 f., 182, 188 f., 212, 337, 341 f., Nestorium
344, 351 f., 355–465, 468 f., 478–80, 484, Pseudo-John Chrysostom (FaFo § 196)
493, 497, 499, 501, 504 f., 510–13, 515, see id., In illud: Simile est regnum caelorum
525 f., 538 f., 543, 549–570, 571–3, patri familias
575–80, 584–7, 590, 593 f., 596, 598–604, Leo I (pope) (FaFo § 255)
609–25 see id., Epistula 28
Dagulf Psalter (FaFo § 299) 191, 572 Pseudo-Narsai
De Lisle Psalter 593 see id., Liturgical Homily
Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus (FaFo § 146) 19, 172, 206, Lullus of Mainz (FaFo § 700) 555, 563
353, 447, 538 Mark the Monk (FaFo § 200) 500
Dicta Leonis episcopi (FaFo § 706) 560 Martyrius of Jerusalem (FaFo § 217)
Eadwin (Canterbury) Psalter see Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Historia
T (FaFo § 419) 198, 587 ecclesiastica 5,6c–d
T trilingual (FaFo § 432) 181, 587, 595 f. Miaphysite bishops to Justinian (FaFo
Ecthesis macrostichos (FaFo § 145) 173, 206 f., § 222) 400
210, 280, 290 f., 294–8, 303, 368, 373, 609 Nestorian Creed (NAnt3; FaFo § 208) 346, 352
9–10 260, 297 f., 363, 373 f., 378, 382, 420, 424, 428 f., 454
10 305, 310 f., 459, 461
11 310 Nicaea (325; N; FaFo § 135c) XVII, 7, 8–10,
Eusebius of Caesarea (Eus; FaFo § 134a) 12, 15, 24, 31–8, 47 f. 53, 85, 119, 133, 160,
see id., Epistula ad ecclesiam Caesariensem 4 164, 167 f., 171–3, 176, 200 f., 206, 210,
Eustathius of Sebaste, Theophilus of 212 f., 217, 235, 238, 241–68, 271, 274, 277,
Castabala, Silvanus of Tarsus (FaFo § 170) 280 f., 283–6, 291 f. 294, 299 f., 302, 312,
see iid., Epistula ad Liberium papam 319, 323–38, 340–42, 346–50, 352–55,
Fides catholica (Fides Damasi; FaFo 357–370, 372, 375–413, 415–21, 424 f.,
§ 522b1) 549 428, 431–438, 441–3, 446 f., 450, 452 f.,
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 721

454, 460–2, 464 f., 468 f., 474, 477–81, see Councils: Sirmium (351), Fidei confessio
484, 495, 497–501, 508–10, 512 f., prima
525 f., 538–40, 543, 550, 557–9, 571 f., Sirmium (357)
578–80, 584, 590, 599, 608–12, 614–19, Second Creed of Sirmium (FaFo § 154)
621 f. see Councils: Sirmium (357)
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (C2) Sirmium (358)
see Councils: Constantinople (381), Nicaeno- Third Creed of Sirmium (FaFo § 156)
Constantinopolitanum (C2) see Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4,15,1–3
Nicene Creed (N; FaFo § 135c) Sirmium (359)
see Nicaea (325; N) Fourth Creed of Sirmium (FaFo § 157)
Niké (359; FaFo § 159a) see Councils: Sirmium (359), Confessio fidei
see Councils: Niké (359), Confessio fidei quarta
Northern France (FaFo § 282) 188 St. Gallen (FaFo § 297) 161, 166, 187
(Old) Roman Creed (R) XVII, 9–11, 15–31, 41, St. Gallen (FaFo § 385) 188, 199
47 f., 53, 113, 116, 119 f., 129, 131, 133, 143, Symbolum apostolicum/apostolorum (T; FaFo
145–90, 192, 200–13, 251–3, 281 f., 316, 318, § 344)
341 f., 350–3, 372 f., 378, 404 f., 407–11, see Apostles’ Creed
413, 415, 439, 447, 450, 469 f., 485, 491, Symbolum apostolorum (CPL 1758; FaFo
504 f., 511, 521, 525, 528, 553, 573, 575, 600, § 280) 157 f., 178, 188
606–9, 613, 615–20, 623 Symbolum Apsarense (FaFo § 325) 172
RM (version of Marcellus; FaFo § 253) 15, Symbolum Quicumque (Ath; FaFo § 434) XI,
29, 133, 145 f., 153, 159, 161, 252, 281, 287 XVII, 8, 10, 12 f., 18, 39–45, 190, 469–71, 517,
RR (version of Rufinus; FaFo § 254b) 15, 526, 533 f., 542, 554, 556, 563, 571–3,
146, 152, 164, 168 578–80, 584–7, 590, 595
RL (version of Leo; FaFo § 255g) XVII, 133, Theodor von Mopsuestia (NAnt1; FaFo
146 f., 163 f., 172, 182, 206, 353, 616–18 § 180a) 166, 168, 172, 200, 346, 352, 363,
Pelagius I (pope; FaFo § 445) 374–6, 378, 420, 454, 459, 524, 609
see id., Epistula 7 Theophronius of Tyana (Ant3; FaFo § 141a)
Persicum 420 f., 550, 614 see Councils: Antioch (341), Expositio fidei,
Placitum (Toledo 637; FaFo § 494) Formula tertia
2–3 587 Toledo I (FaFo § 486a)
Psalter of Charles the Bald 191, 572 see Councils: Toledo I, Regula fidei catholicae
Quartodecimans (FaFo § 204b) 454 16
Queen Mary Psalter 593 Traditio Apostolica
Reccared see Pseudo-Hippolytus of Rome, Traditio
see Councils: Toledo III, Regis professio fidei Apostolica
Romanum (R) Utrecht Psalter (FaFo § 288) 572, 595
see Old Roman Creed (R) Venantius Fortunatus (FaFo § 329) 152, 170
Seleucia (359; FaFo § 158a) Vitalis of Antioch (FaFo § 177) 332
see Acacius of Caesarea, Expositio fidei
Serdica east (342; FaFo § 143a2) Synodicon Orientale 420, 425, 428
see Councils: Serdica (east; 342), Fides synodi
Serdica west (342; FaFo § 144a) Synodicon Vetus (Libellus synodicus)
see Councils: Serdica (west; 343), Professio 42 270
fidei ab episcopis occidentalibus promulgata
Sirmium (351) Synods
First Creed of Sirmium (FaFo § 148) see Councils
722 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Tacitus 4,1 (FaFo § 111e2) 110, 279

Annals 5,1 139
15,44,4 73 9,1 110, 139
10,1 139
Tarasius 10,7 140
Epistula ad episcopos Antiochiae, Alexandriae et 10,9 139
Hierosolymae (FaFo § 245c) 557 11,1 139
11,4 139
Teaching of Saint Gregory 432 13,5 141
14,1 110
Tertullian 14,5–6 140
Ad martyras 14,7 140
3,1 (FaFo § 82a) 132 16,6–7 140
Ad nationes 17,1 140
1,2,1 80 17,4 140
1,3,2 80 18,1 140
Aduersus Hermogenem 19,1 140
1,1 110 19,7 139
Aduersus Iudaeos 20,1 110
9,29 112 20,3 110
13,23 114 25,4 139
Aduersus Marcionem 26,2–3 140
1,1,7 110 27,1 140
1,20,1 110 27,2 139
1,21,5 112 27,4 140
3,1,2 110 29,3 140
3,17,5 112 29,5 140
4,2,5 110 30,5 (FaFo § 111e3) 110
4,5,6 110 31,1 139
4,17,11 110 31,3 139
4,36,12 110 Aduersus Valentinianos
5,1,2 (FaFo § 8b) 51 4,1 110
5,3,1 110 4,3 110
5,4,8 126 4,4 110
5,5,3 128 30,1 110
5,12,6 126 Apologeticum
5,19,1 110 1,4 80
5,20,2 110 2–3 80
Aduersus Praxeam 143 17,1–3 (FaFo § 111a1) 110
1,1 (FaFo § 110a) 125, 127, 139, 141 18,2–3 (FaFo § 111a2) 110
1,4 139 47,10 (FaFo § 350a) 110
2,1 (FaFo § 110b) 111 f., 125, 136–9, 141, 168, 49,5 80
206 De anima
2,1 (FaFo § 111e1) 2,5 110
2,2 (FaFo § 111e1) 110 De baptismo 113
2,3 (FaFo § 110c) 90, 139 6,2 (FaFo § 82c) 126, 132
3,1 110 11,3 126
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 723

De carne Christi 127 Testamentum Domini (FaFo § 615)

5,4 (FaFo § 111d1) 110 Syriac version (FaFo § 615a) 415
5,7 (FaFo § 111d2) 110 Ethiopic version (FaFo § 615b) 447
6,4 110 2,18 (Syriac version) 493
20,1 (FaFo § 111d3) 110
De corona Theobaldus Brito
1 80 Abbreuiati symboli apostolorum expositio 573
3,3 (FaFo § 82e) 132
De ieiunio Theodore I (pope)
1,3 110 Synodicas fraternitatis uestrae litteras
De monogamia 407
2,3 110
2,4 110 Theodore of Mopsuestia
De paenitentia Contra Eunomium
6,12 (FaFo § 8a) 52 frg. 2 552
De praescriptione haereticorum 112 De incarnatione 338
13,1–5 (FaFo § 111b1) 111 f. Homiliae catecheticae
13,1 (FaFo § 111b1) 127 1–10 (FaFo § 180) 524
13,4 (FaFo § 111b1) 240 1 524
13,6 (FaFo § 111b1) 110 3–8 524
20,1–5 (FaFo § 350b1) 110 9
20,4–5 (FaFo § 350b1) 192 1 (FaFo § 180b1) 330, 340, 344 f.
21,1–7 (FaFo § 111b3) 110 14 (FaFo § 180b2) 340
23,11 (FaFo § 111b4) 110 16–18 352, 371
26,9 110 16 (FaFo § 180b2) 341, 345
36,3 (FaFo § 111b5) 110 10
36,5 (FaFo § 111b5) 110, 128, 162 1–3 352, 371
37,1–7 (FaFo § 111b6) 110 3–7 352
De pudicitia 7–10 352
8,12 110 11–12 352
12,3 110 13 353
15,11 110 14 353 f.
De resurrectione mortuorum 127 15–19 353
3,4 128 20 353
18–19 126 21 353
48,2 110 12
48,11 (FaFo § 82d) 132 25 496
48,13 128 27 (FaFo § 635b) 53, 496
De spectaculis 13
4,1 (FaFo § 82b) 132 13–16 496
De uirginibus uelandis 113, 143
1,4–5 (3–4; FaFo § 111c) 137 Theodore the Reader
1,4(3; FaFo § 111c) 98, 110–12, 127 f., 137, Historia ecclesiastica
141, 164, 240 epit. 429 (FaFo § 685a) 399, 508
1,5(4; FaFo § 111c) 113 epit. 446 480
1,9(6)–11(7) 139 epit. 501 (FaFo § 685b) 499, 509
8(5) 113 frg. 39 480
724 II Ancient and Medieval Sources

Theodoret Theophilus I of Alexandria (patriarch)

Epistulae Epistula ad Palaestinos et ad Cyprios episcopos
146(145; FaFo § 642a) 500 missa
151 (FaFo § 202b) 500 3,2
Eranistes (FaFo § 202c) 500 see Jerome, Epistula 92
Historia ecclesiastica
1,7,10 245 Thomas Aquinas
1,7,14–15 246 De articulis fidei et ecclesiae sacramentis 574
1,7,15 (FaFo § 135a1) 246 Summa theologiae
1,8,1–3 (FaFo § 135a2) 246 II–II q1
1,12,5–6 238 a9 581
2,9,1–10,1 291 a10 581
2,10,2 291 a10ad3 44
2,24,3 552 III q83
2,27,20 475 a4c 578
4,13–19 322
4,21,2 338 (Pseudo-)Thomas Aquinas
4,7,1 483 In symbolum apostolorum scilicet ‘Credo in
5,8,10 (FaFo § 184d) 359, 363 Deum’ expositio 574
5,9,13 (FaFo § 566a) 344
5,10,2 339 Timothy II of Alexandria (Aelurus)
5,10,3 339 Epistula ad Constantinopolitanos 399
5,10,4 339, 342
5,10,5 338 Timothy I of Seleucia-Ctesiphon
Interpretatio in Psalmos Epistulae
on Ps 60:6 374 41 424
Quod et post humanitatis assumptionem unicus
filius sit dominus noster Iesus Christus (FaFo Tractatus super simbolo (in cod. Paris,
§ 642b) 500 Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 3640) 574

Theodotus of Ancyra Tractatus symboli (CPL 1751; FaFo § 260) 180

Expositio symboli Nicaeni 525
Tractatus tripartitus (NHC I,5) 95
Theodulf of Orléans pp. 127, l. 25 128, l.19 (FaFo § 130) 96
Libellus de processione spiritus sancti
16 565 Troyes Anonymous (Keefe 2002, vol. II, text 17;
Liber de ordine baptismi FaFo § 788) 568
5 (FaFo § 787a) 502
7 (FaFo § 787b) 568 Venantius Fortunatus
8 (FaFo § 787b) 502 Expositio symboli
Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) 1–2 (FaFo § 38) 52
see ibid. 2–3 (FaFo § 38) 52

Theophilus of Alexandria (apologist) Victorinus of Poetovio

Ad Autolycum Explanatio in Apocalypsin
2,14 126 2, ll. 190–202 117
3,12 126 3, ll. 110–19 117
 II Ancient and Medieval Sources 725

Victricius of Rouen 4,25,8 579

De laude sanctorum 4,25,9–10 579
4 (FaFo § 462) 549 f. 4,25,11–12 579
4,25,13 580
Vigilius (pope) 4,25,14 580
Constitutum II 4,25,15–30 580
6 (FaFo § 184f17.3) 405 4,26,1 579
Epistulae
15 (Dum in sanctae; FaFo § 444) 404 Wulfstan
Canons of Edgar
Vigilius of Thapsus can. 17 586
Contra Eutychetem can. 22 586
2,8 (FaFo § 318a) 168 English Handbook for the Use of a
4,1 (FaFo § 318a2) 404, 486 Confessor 583, 586
ll. 17–19 586
Vita Eligii ll. 27–31 586
2,16 (FaFo § 668) 541 Sermones
VII 586
Vita Michaelis Syncelli VIIa 586
6 (FaFo § 846) 564 VIIIa 586
VIIIb 586
Walahfrid Strabo VIIIc 586
Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in
obseruationibus ecclesiasticis rerum Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor
23 (FaFo § 851) 512 f., 599, 602 Historia ecclesiastica
3,11 398
Waltcaud of Liège 5,6c–d (FaFo § 217) 501
Capitulary
1–2 (FaFo § 749) 190 Zeno (emperor)
Henoticon 473, 478 f., 483
Walter of Orléans 5 (FaFo § 550) 400, 501
Capitulary
1 602 Zeno of Verona
Tractatus
William Durand of Mende 1,2
Rationale diuinorum officiorum 24 187
4,25–26 578
4,25,1–2 579 Zosimus
4,25,3–4 579 Historia noua
4,25,5 579 4,36,3–5 475
4,25,7 (FaFo § 424) 196, 579
III Inscriptions, Papyri, Parchments, Ostraca,
Wooden Tablets
Inscriptions P.Palau Rib inv. 68 538 f.
Graffiti de la Montagne Thébaine, no. 3122 539 P.Ryl. I 6 543
I.Eph. P.Stras. Inv. Kopt. 221+224 444
IV.1278 539
V.1675 539 Parchments
Old Dongola 539 Brigham Young University Collection of Coptic
Fragments 90 508
Papyri
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Gr. Lit. d 2–4 (P) Ostraca
(Dêr Balyzeh Papyrus) 19, 172, 206, 353, London, British Museum, O.Sarga 14 443
447, 538 Jerusalem, Israel Museum
P.Berlin 11631 543 69 74 312 539
P.Cairo JE 65738 538 87 56 560 539
P.Colon. inv. 684 538 O.Berol.Inv.P. 20892 443
P.Gen. IV 154 539 O.Crum ST 15 443
P.Lond.Copt. 155 Fr. 2 539 O.Deir el-Bahari 16 539
P.Lond.Lit. 239 543 O.Heid. Inv. 419 539
P.Mon.Epiph. 43 445 O.Heid. 437 539
P.Naqlun 2 18 538
P.Naqlun inv. 20/87 538 Wooden tablets
P.Oxy. London, British Museum, EA 54037 445
XV 1784 538 T.Med. Inv. 71.00 A 539
XVII 2067 538

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-025
IV Manuscripts
Bamberg Geneva
Staatsbibliothek Bibliothèque de Genève
Msc. Lit. 6 603 Ms. lat. 41 573

Berlin Hamburg
Staatsbibliothek Hiob Ludolf Centre for Ethiopian and Eritrean
Ms. Ham. 552 572 Studies, University of Hamburg
theol. qu. 11 604 f. Ms. Təgrāy, ‘Urā Masqal, Ethio-SPaRe
UM-039 [olim C3-IV-73] 150
Cambrai
Bibliothèque Municipale Innsbruck
625 199 Universitätsbibliothek
960 582
Cambridge
Corpus Christi College Karlsruhe
Ms. 191 583 Badische Landesbibliothek
Trinity College Augiensis perg. 18 195
R.17.1 198, 587, 595 Augiensis perg. 229 197

Charfet Laon
Bibliothèque patriarchale syro-catholique Bibliothèque Municipale
Fonds Raḥmani 87 430 263 605
303 198
Chartres
Bibliothèque Municipale London
Ms. 47 603 British Library
Add. 12156 417
Colmar Add. 14528 386 f., 416
Bibliothèque Municipale Add. 14533 431
443 604 Add. 34060 598
Arundel MS 83 II 593
Cologne Cotton MS Galba A XVIII 147
Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln Or. 2307 432
GB 80 96 581 Royal MS 2 B VII 593

Den Haag Milan

Het huis van het boek (Museum Meermanno- Biblioteca Ambrosiana
Westreenianum) O 212 sup. 45
10.B.4 600
Montpellier
Dublin Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire
Trinity Library Section Médécine, H 141 199
60 (A. I. 15) 517

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-026
730 IV Manuscripts

Munich Pommersfelden
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Schloss Weissenstein
Clm 3909 196 215 594
Clm 14410 501
Clm 16086 574 Reims
Clm 19410 412 Bibliothèque Carnegie
Clm 19417 542 213 576
Clm 22053 197, 592
Syr. 4 346 Rome
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
New York ar. 148 460
Pierpoint Morgan Library et. 4 448
M 574 443 et. 21 516
Reg. lat. 231 534
Osnabrück Reg. lat. 316 122
Gymnasium Carolinum lat. 81 572
Hs. 2 580 lat. 481 197, 593
Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio-Emanuele
Oxford 2096 575
Bodleian Library
Holkham gr. 6 599 St. Gallen
Junius 121 585, 587 Stiftsbibliothek
Laudianus Gr. 35 15, 195 17 605
Selden Supra 27 605 27 533
40 51, 196, 502
Paris 125 555
Bibliothèque Nationale 338 605
Arsenal 227 504 381 604 f.
Arsenal 8407 572 974 580
coptus 129/14 441
lat. 776 604 Saint Petersburg
lat. 887 604 Russian National Library
lat. 1152 191, 572 Q I 15 45
lat. 1603 191
lat. 2796 196 Troyes
lat. 3640 574 Bibliothèque Municipale
lat. 7193 122 804 195
lat. 10483–10484 594
lat. 11907 596 Uppsala
lat. 13159 572 Universitetsbibliotek
lat. 14085 195 C 194 197
lat. 18014 594
NAF 4509 596 Utrecht
NAL 3145 594 Universiteitsbibliotheek
syr. 62 220 32 595
283 196
 IV Manuscripts 731

Venice Wiesbaden
Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Hessische Landesbibliothek
gr. Z. 502 571 35 197, 581
San Lazzaro
320 438 Würzburg
Universitätsbibliothek
Verona M.p.th.f. 109 195
Biblioteca Capitolare
LV 149 Yale
LX 341, 345 University Library
Beinecke MS 416 593
Vienna
Library of the Mekhitarists Zurich
324 437, 440 Zentralbibliothek
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek C.64 199
2681 585 Rh. 97 605
lat. 1861 191
theol. gr. 190 197
V Numbers in FaFo
8a 52 38 52
8b 51 39a 52, 492
11 52 39b 52
14 526 43 51
14a 52 44 51, 531
14b 52 f. 47 531
15 526 61 51
15a1 51 63 502, 568
15a2 327, 527 70 568
15a3 527, 536 f., 540 74 181
15b 536 75 502, 526
16a1 52 76 526
16a2 52 81 86, 121
16c 53 82a 132
18 51 f., 193, 526 f., 537 82b 132
19 526 82c 126, 132
19a 51–3, 527, 537 82d 132
19b 51 f. 82e 132
19c 51 f. 83 121
20 53 84 133
21 52 85 52, 121
22 526 86 131
22a1 527 87a 116, 121
22a3 527, 536 87b 121
22b 52, 527, 537 88 121
22c 53, 527, 536 89 26, 174
22d 53, 527 89a1 149
22e1 51 89a2 149
22e2 527, 536 89b XVIII, 129, 150, 166
22f 527 89c XVIII, 129, 150, 240, 281, 369,
22f1 52 446 f.
22f2 536 89d 148, 446
22g 51, 527, 537 89e 148, 450, 460
23 51 f., 194 89f 148, 446
27a 51 89f1 448
27b 52 89f2 447
29 52 90 131, 353
30 51 f., 527 91 131
31 526 92 52, 187
32 527 92a 52, 115, 131 f., 173, 175, 182
33 52 92b 126, 132, 182
34 51 f. 93 89
35 52 f. 94a 90
37 527 94b 90

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-027
734 V Numbers in FaFo

94c 96 109b11 108

95a 96 109b12 108
96 102 f. 109b13 106–8, 126
97 88 109b14 106–8, 126
98b2a 97 109c1 98
98b2b 240 110 110
98c1 97, 134 110a 125, 127, 139
98e1 97, 134, 370 110b 125, 136, 141
98e2 370 110c 90, 111 f.
98g 103 111a 110
100 93 111b1 110–12, 127, 240
102 98 111b3 110
103a 90 111b4 110
103b 90, 174 f., 207 111b5 110, 128, 162
104a1 92 111b6 110
104a2 92, 98, 135 111c 98, 110, 127 f., 137 f., 141, 164,
104a3 98 f. 240
104a4 99 111d 110
104a5 98 f. 111e1 110–112, 137 f., 168, 206
104a6 98, 240 111e2 110, 279
104a7 98 111e3 110
104a8 75, 91 112 125, 142
104a9 91, 98, 136 116a 93, 269
104a10 91 116b 93, 269
104a11 92 116c 94, 269
104b1 98 117 95, 556
104b2 98 118 95
104b3 92, 98, 136 119a 114, 127, 205
104b4 98 119b 114, 127, 162
104b5 98 119c 115
105 80 120a 99
105a 79 120b 94
107 76, 92, 137, 240, 369 121 98 f.
108b 142 122b 182
109a1 103 f. 122c 370
109a2 105, 206 122d 95
109b1 108, 205, 236 124a 99, 232, 234
109b2 105, 106 126 118, 465
109b3 106–8, 205, 236 127 100, 206, 431, 439, 465
109b4 93, 106–8 128 95
109b5 108, 240 129 100
109b6 108, 206 130 96
109b7 98, 106–8, 135, 162, 206, 240, 131a 214–216, 225, 232, 257, 289, 465
279 131b 256
109b8 108 131c 172, 200, 205–7, 211, 217, 265,
109b9 108, 206 268, 353, 373, 497
109b10 108
 V Numbers in FaFo 735

132 172, 200, 206, 217 f., 225, 232, 141b XVII, 206, 271, 350, 370
353 141c XVII, 206, 271, 278
133 164, 172, 205 f., 220, 122, 246, 141d XVII, 206 f., 271, 280, 368
289, 353, 368 f., 466 142 206
134a XVII, 31, 33, 205 f., 235 f., 143 173, 284, 288
246–8, 311, 368 143a1 174, 206 f., 288
134b2 206, 311 143a2 201, 206 f., 288, 368
134b3 206 143b 206 f., 288, 341
135 206, 252 143c 206 f., 288, 368
135a1 246 144 284
135a2 246 144a 285, 326, 355
135b 235 144a2 207
135b1 241, 255, 258, 262 144b 284, 326 f.
135c XVII, 152, 167, 171–3, 206, 144c 284, 327
246–8, 330, 346–9, 145 173, 206 f., 260, 291, 298,
364–7, 393–5 368, 373
135d 160 146 19, 172, 206, 353, 447, 538
135d1 164, 300, 324 147 XVII, 31, 164, 172, 174, 202, 205,
135d2 164, 300, 324 240, 341, 364–7, 523
135d3 164, 324, 499 148 173, 260, 294, 296 f., 368
135d4 164, 327, 499 149 260, 297 f., 370, 429, 440
135d5 164, 499, 525 150 287, 298, 440
135d6 164, 499 151a 165
135d8 333, 499 151b1 325
135d10.2 499 151c1 169
135d11 526 151c3 168, 351
135d12 499 151c5 168, 169
135d23.1.3 621 151d1 156
135d25 341 151d2 325
135d26.1.4(3) 406 151e1 323
135d31 469 152 299, 325
135d32 412 153 300, 324
135d38 412 154 114, 368
135d40 172, 469 154a 301
135d42 403 154b 301
135d43 403 154c 119, 326
135d44 412 155 302, 475
135d45 172, 412 156 47, 306 f., 475
135d46 413 157 152, 307 f., 351
136a 547 158 173
136b 547 158a 240, 319, 368
136c 547 159 115
137 437 159a 165 f., 313, 369, 372
137a 206 159b 165, 317
138 468 160 152, 166, 320, 369, 372
141 173 162 115
141a XVII, 206 f., 271, 276, 372 163a 305
736 V Numbers in FaFo

163b 305 184f2 411, 569

163c 305 184f2.1 504
163c1 37 184f2.2 504
163c2 115, 350, 372 184f4 407, 504
164a2 174, 353, 373 184f5 569
164b 369 f. 184f6 504
165 166 184f7 560
166b 328 184f8 511, 513
168 538 184f9 560
170 358 184f10 560
171 114 f. 184f11 560
172b1 152 184f12 570
172b2 152 184f12.1 504
174a 330, 495 184f12.2 407, 560
174b 330, 495 184f7 560
174c 331 184f13 411, 553, 570
174e 336 184f14 407, 504
174f 114 f. 184f16 504
175 172, 174, 208, 240, 337, 353, 184f17.3 405
369, 373, 446, 450, 497 184f24 511, 553
176 174, 337, 353, 373, 433, 441, 446 184f24.3 406
177 166, 332 184f24.4 406
178 337 184f24.5–24.14 407
179 498, 524 184f25 407
180 182, 524 184f26 341
180a XVII, 166, 168, 172, 200, 346–9, 184f29 560, 604
364–7 184f30 172, 411, 553
180b1 330, 340, 345 184f31 553
180b2 340, 345 184g 600
181 373 185 174, 208, 240, 373, 436–8
182 497 186 114
182b 192 188a 201
182c 115, 152, 174, 201, 350, 353, 370, 189 524
497 189a 497
183 327, 359 189c 200, 497
184 543, 562 189d 497
184a1 361 189e 497
184a2 360 192 182, 588
184b 358 f., 363, 383 196 115, 372
184c 358 f., 363 197a–g XVII, 364–7
184d 359, 363 197g XVII, 364–7, 380
184e XVII, 152 198 XVII, 115, 152, 166, 168, 200,
184e1 164, 166–8, 171 f., 174, 182, 346, 420
364–7, 504 200 500
184e5 261 202b 500
184f 160 202c 500
184f1 569 203 XVII, 115, 166, 168, 200, 346, 420
 V Numbers in FaFo 737

204 379 266b 160, 166, 171, 176, 187

204a 174, 372 267 160, 318
204b 254 267a 160, 166
205 327, 380 267b2 160, 166, 174–6, 182, 187
205 119 268 160, 179, 187
207 380 269 160, 526, 554
208 XVII, 166, 168, 172, 174, 182, 270 160
346–9, 420, 424 f., 430 271 526
210b 376 271a 160, 171, 529
210c 434 271a1 158, 160, 164, 166, 169 f., 176,
213b 381 188, 492
215 391 271a2 158, 160, 164, 176, 188
216 399 271b 178
217 400, 501 271b1 160, 163
219 400 271b2 160, 187
222 400 272 160, 166, 188
227 166 273 160, 160, 188
232b 119 274 160, 166, 169
232c 174 275 527
235b 400 276c 157, 160, 178, 527
242c 403 276d 160
245c 557 277 169, 180, 187, 198
252 539 277d 160
253 XVII, 15, 29, 133, 145–7, 153, 278 178, 188
159, 161, 201, 252, 281, 287 280 158, 160, 178, 188, 533
254b XVII, 15, 146 f., 152, 157, 164, 282 160, 169, 188
168, 526 283 160, 178, 188
255 168, 404 285 160
255a 206, 404 287 160, 178
255c 119 288 160, 572, 595
255g XVII, 133, 146 f., 163 f., 172, 206, 290 160
353, 408, 503, 527 293 160
256 174 f., 526 294 160, 188
257 174 295 15, 147
259 168, 175 297 160 f., 166, 187
259a 163, 182, 526 298 157, 160, 164, 166, 169–71
259b 163, 182, 188, 526 299 160, 191, 572
259c 163, 182, 188, 526 300 174, 584
259d 182, 526 302 585
259e 163, 174, 526 303 291, 585
259f 163, 182, 188, 526 306 160, 191
260 174 f., 180 307 160, 166
262 187 308 160, 171, 174
263 163, 199, 531 309 169, 188
265 160, 166, 188, 318 311 170
266 170 f., 318, 527 312 170, 172, 187
266a 160, 166, 169 314a 172, 187
738 V Numbers in FaFo

314b 187 350b1 110, 192

314c 160 351 526
314d 187 351a 192, 527
314e 187 357 605
316e 168, 174 f., 185–7, 526 360 404
316f 526 360a 193
316g 133, 160, 167 f., 182, 184–7, 526 360b 193
316k 168, 172, 174, 184–6, 526 363 604
316l 160, 168, 182, 184–5, 526 364 152, 187, 196
316j 168 367 405
317a 152, 167 f., 182, 526 373 160, 195, 469
317b 187, 489, 526 375 160, 170 f., 174, 187, 194
317c 133, 175, 187, 526 376 157, 160, 164, 166, 169–71, 194 f.
317d 160, 167 f. 379 163
317e 167, 187 379a 188, 196
318a 168 379b 196
318a2 404, 486 383 178, 188, 196
319a1 167 385 160, 188, 199
319a2 133, 554 386 160, 179, 194
319b2 187, 553 387 160, 199, 531
320 133, 187 393 160, 195
321 168 400 160, 197
321b1 554 401 160, 197
322a 167 404 160, 195
324 160, 164, 167, 172, 176, 182, 187, 409 199
526 410 160, 195
325 172 418 160, 196, 531
326 160, 167, 179 419 160, 198, 587
327 15, 147 420 198
328 169 421 160, 169, 195
329 152, 169, 170 422 160, 169, 197, 581
330 165, 169 423 160, 169, 197, 574
332 178, 188, 531 424 160, 169, 196, 579
334 160, 169, 187 425 196, 581
336 160, 555 426 197, 581
337 188 427 152, 197, 571
338 178 428 160, 169, 199, 582
339 169, 188 429 588
342 160, 573 430 160, 169, 587
343 160 431 605
344 XVII, 157, 160 f., 409, 575 432 181, 587, 596
345 160, 169, 574 f. 433 166, 527
346 160, 169 434 39, 45, 554, 556, 562 f.
347 160 434a XVII
348 192 434b 571
349b 192 434c 585
350a 110 437 164
 V Numbers in FaFo 739

438 329 f., 335 506b 553

439a 334, 346 510 187, 526, 553
439b 333 517 179, 556, 558
439c 335, 346, 351 518 119
441 404 522b1 549
442 119, 404 522b2 555
444 404 523 554
445 405 525 168, 188, 553
446 407, 554 526 526, 556
447 407 527 160, 174, 177, 196, 526, 574
448 119 528 526, 602
449 119, 411 529a 568
450 554 531 474
451 119 532a 343, 475
452 114 532b 343, 477
453 115, 372 533 383, 477
455a2 234 534 383, 478
456 115 540 384
457 114 541 384
460 119 542 390
462 549 f. 543 398
467b 554 544 398
469 554 545 119, 398
472 554 546 166, 399, 478, 501
474 554 548 400, 478, 501
477 583 549 501
478 583 550 400, 478, 501
479 119, 554, 583 551 480
480 583 552 480
482 583 553 480
483a 554 554 401, 480
484 176 f. 555 480
486 115 556 45, 401, 480
486a 168 557 401
486b 551 558 402, 481
487 551 560 481
490 484, 552 561 481
491 119, 492, 553 562a 52, 495
493 169, 553, 556 562b 496, 527, 538
494 553, 587 562c 496, 527, 538
495 553 564a 312, 327
496 119, 511 564b 312
497 119 565b 34, 357
498 119 565c 34, 264, 357, 363
499 553 566a 13, 344, 357, 359, 370
504 553 566b 344 f.
505 119 568a 379
740 V Numbers in FaFo

568b 379 628 498, 524

568c 379 630 494, 524
568e 379, 469 631a 208, 494
568g 380 631b 495
569b 119 632a 487
570b 382 634a 487
570c 384–6 635b 53, 496
570d 119, 327, 388 636a 486
570e 389 636b 489
570f 389 636b2 527, 536
571 399 636c 119, 489
573 492, 535 f. 636d 489, 526
574a1 401, 500 636e 526 f.
574a2 401 636f 489, 526 f., 536
574b2 500 636g 119, 526 f., 536
574b3 500 636h 489
576b 541 636i 544
578 526 637 546
580 412 638 48, 487, 526 f.
581 45, 470 641b 504
582a 547 642a 500
584 470, 540, 584, 605 642b 500
586 119, 412 643a 487
587b 471, 492, 506, 584 645 500
588 412, 471, 506 647 500
595b 175 653 543
597 496, 498, 524 654 530
599a1 489 655 408, 488
599a2 489 656 45, 469, 535
599b 489 656a 526
599c 489 656b 540
599d1 489 656d 535
599d2 489 656e 541
599e 489 656f 503, 526, 530, 535 f.
606 450, 493 656h 535
608 170, 187, 491 659 119
609 160 659a 490 f.
610 157, 160, 164, 166, 169–71 659b 491
615 493 660 541
615a 415 661a 492
615b 447 661b 492
618 489 662 492
619 175 664 119, 492, 506
624a 494, 527 666 488
624b 494, 527 668 541
625 487, 527, 536 669a 542
625a 469 669b 541
 V Numbers in FaFo 741

675a 407 f., 503 f., 528, 600 702g3 188

675b 504, 600 702k 558, 564
675c XVII, 122, 163 f., 493 702l 602
675f 122, 164, 493 703a 559
676 160, 170 f. 703c 561
676a 164, 188 705 555
676b 160, 166, 188 706 560
676c 164, 188 707 554
677 403 708 526, 554
677a 499 709 160
677b 499 710 119
678a 187 711 169, 568
678a1 160, 171, 187, 527 713 568
679b 407 714 526, 568
680 505 716 526, 568
680a 492 719a 189
683a 407, 528, 601 722 564, 599
683b 601 725 471
684 407, 506 726 471
684a 187 727 190, 471
684c2 187 729 471
684c4 119, 165, 172, 187, 407, 506 730 471, 526
684d 160, 172, 187, 407 731 189, 470 f.
685a 399, 499, 508 732 471
685b 509 734 471
686 509 735 471
687a 406 736 471
687b 406, 510, 513, 599 737 470
688 119, 511 738 470
689 402, 510, 577 740 471
690 508 741 471
692 599 742a 471
693 403 744 190, 470
693a 599 745 470
694b 403, 508, 599 745b 190
695 600 745c 190
697 516 745d1 190
698 516 745d2 190
698b 166, 169 f., 172, 187 f. 746d1 507
699 517 747 190
700 555, 563 747a 471, 584
701a 558 747b 517
702c 601, 605 748 565
702f 601 749 190, 471
702g 513 750 471
702g1 601 750b 471
702g2 601 751 471
742 V Numbers in FaFo

754 471, 584 791 502, 533

756 190, 471 792 502
757 502, 601 793 502, 526
758 502 794 502, 526
759 501 f. 796a 407, 504, 528
760 502 797a 407, 504, 528, 601
761b 502, 583 797b 528, 601
762 502 797d 160
763 160, 502, 574 797e 160
764 160, 502, 574 798a 407
765 160, 502, 574 799a 407, 504, 528, 601
766 174 f., 502, 585 799b 601
767 174 f., 502, 585 806 164
768 502, 5585 808 409
769 190, 502 808a 407, 504, 528, 600
770 502 808b 407, 505, 600
771 502, 585 809a 407, 410, 601
772 502 809b 407, 601
773 180, 502 823 553
774 502 829 555
775 190, 502 831a 557
776 502, 555 832a 119, 557 f.
779 501 f. 832h 558
780a 528, 601 844a 562
781 190 844b 564
782a1 191 846 564
782a2 502, 605 848 514, 566
782b1 502 848d 568
782b2 502 850a 602
783 568 850b 602
783a 179, 502 851 513, 599, 602
783b 179, 568 852 569, 603
784b 502 854 515, 603
785 190, 568 855 517
787a 502 856 569
787b 502, 568 857–61 570
788 502, 568 861c 175
789 502 862 570
790 119, 502 863a 570
VI Ancient and Medieval Names
Abas (Albanian catholicos) 402 Alypius (friend of Augustine) 544
‛Abdīšō‛ bar Brīḵā (Ebedjesus of Nisibis) 425 Amalarius of Metz 180, 191, 502, 517, 602, 605
Abdiso(y) (Syrian monk/bishop) 439 Pseudo-Amalarius of Metz 412
Abgar of Edessa 100 Ambrose of Milan 41, 51, 124, 158, 174 f., 180,
Abraham (Armenian catholicos) 436, 438, 462 192 f., 234, 245, 261 f., 327, 382, 487 f.,
Abraham bar Lipeh 418 526 f., 536 f., 540, 557, 565
Abu’l-Barakāt 450, 452 Ambrosiaster 124
Acacius of Beroea 327, 358 Amphilochius of Iconium 181, 337, 356, 373
Acacius of Caesarea 270, 319 f. ‘Amr (Arab chronicler) 428
Acholius of Thessalonica 358 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 560
Adalbert I of Mainz 590 Anastasius I (emperor) 480, 483, 509
Adalhard of Corbie 565 Anastasius II (pope) 578
Adalwin of Regensburg 565 Anatolius (magister militum) 382 f.
Adamantius 95 Anatolius of Constantinople 386, 388, 390
Ademar of Chabanne 562 Angilbert of Saint-Riquier 190, 557, 602
Ado of Vienne 555, 565 Anselm of Havelberg 45
Ælfric of Eynsham 541, 585 f. Antony of Tarsus 243
Aeneas of Paris 568 f., 603 Apelles (pupil of Marcion) 110
Aetius (leader of the Anhomoians) 305, 320 Aphrahat 414 f.
Aetius (archdeacon) 385–7 Apolinarius of Laodicea 118, 174, 332, 338 f.,
Agapius (Maḥbūb) of Manbiǧ (Mabbūg, 353 f., 369 f., 373f., 381, 401, 417, 481, 611
Hierapolis) 220, 450, 452 Aqaq (Syrian catholicos) 424
Pseudo-Agathangelos 433, 464 Ardo Smaragdus 517
Agatho (pope) 119, 411, 613 Aristides 374
Alan of Lille 573 f., 577, 580 Arius 172, 200, 205–7, 210 f., 213–20, 222, 225,
Albertus Magnus 580 228 f., 232–4, 236, 241, 243–5, 250, 256 f.,
(Pseudo-)Albertus Magnus 580 261–3, 265–8, 271, 275, 278, 284, 288 f.,
Alcuin 188, 190, 501 f., 513, 558, 561, 573 f., 583, 296, 305, 333, 340, 353, 373, 440, 465, 473,
601, 605 477, 497, 524, 608
Pseudo-Alcuin 174, 177, 196, 568, 573, 583 Asterius of Cappadocia (the Sophist) 206, 213,
Alexander (Egyptian bishop, recipient of Basil of 243, 270, 274 f., 281, 286, 289, 293, 296, 304
Caesarea, Epistula 265) 335 Athanasius of Alexandria 39 f., 43–5, 144, 190,
Alexander (uncertain identity) 243 208, 211, 243, 245, 248, 251, 256, 259–61,
Alexander of Alexandria 172, 200, 206, 213–22, 269–71, 277, 279, 284 f., 287–91, 297,
225, 228 f., 232–4, 236, 239 f., 244, 249 f., 299–302, 307, 324–9, 355 f., 369 f., 374, 382,
256, 259–61, 269, 305, 353, 465–7, 608 440, 470, 490, 557, 563, 578 f., 588, 594, 611
Alexander of Byzantium (Constantinople) 172, Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria 174, 240, 260,
217, 220, 222, 466 287, 297 f., 327, 359, 373, 429, 436, 438, 588
Alexander the Great (king of Macedon) 385 Athanasius of Anzarbus 243
Alexander of Hales 169, 195, 581 Augustine 3, 5, 39, 41–4, 51–3, 119, 133, 157 f.,
Alexander of Jerusalem 126 160, 167 f., 172, 174–9, 182, 184, 186 f., 338,
Alexander of Thessaloniki 217, 220, 225 486, 488–90, 521 f., 526 f., 536 f., 541,
Al-S̲h̲ahrastānī 458 544–6, 549, 557, 560

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-028
744 VI Ancient and Medieval Names

Pseudo-Augustine 166, 178 f., 188, 194, 196 f., (Pseudo-)Chrodegang of Metz 583
527, 541 f., 554, 593 f. Chromatius of Aquileia 182 f.
Augustus (emperor) 5 Chrysostom see John Chrysostom
Auxentius of Milan 115, 328, 372 Clement of Alexandria 57, 77, 126
Cleomenes (pupil of Epigonus) 141
Babai the Great 429 Constans (emperor) 269 f., 279, 283
Babgēn 435 f., 438 Constantia (sister of Constantine I) 264
Bachiarius 551 Constantine I (emperor) 27 f., 172, 211 f., 219 f.,
Barsanuphius of Gaza 401 241, 243–5, 255 f., 258, 262–70, 379, 419,
Basil of Ancyra 302 f., 305–7, 310 f., 318 f., 356 473–6, 482, 485, 522, 548, 609
Basil of Caesarea (the Great) 80, 114 f., 181, 227, Constantine II (emperor) 269
260 f., 305, 322, 328–39, 344, 356, 371, 374, Constantine IV Pogonatos (emperor) 406,
376, 382, 415, 495, 557, 611 481, 547
Basilides 289 Constantius II (emperor) 269 f., 294, 299–301,
Basiliscus (emperor) 400, 478 f., 500 f. 306 f., 310–12, 322, 325, 355, 474–6,
Beatus of Liébana 171 f., 187, 553, 601 484, 609
Beda Venerabilis 470, 540, 584 f., 605 Cyprian of Carthage 26, 52, 80, 95, 114 f., 121,
Beleth, Jean 578 126, 131–3, 144, 155, 173, 175, 182, 187, 370
Benedetto di Bindo 596 Pseudo-Cyprian of Carthage 126, 131
Benedict VIII (pope) 603 Cyprian of Toulon 166, 188
Benedict of Aniane 517 Cyriacus of Nisibis 431
Bernard of Clairvaux 573, 581 Cyril of Alexandria 181, 327, 341, 352, 379–82,
Bernard of Porto 576 f. 385 f., 436, 446, 464, 500, 557
Bernhar of Worms 565 Cyril of Jerusalem 27, 31, 33 f., 201, 207–12, 318,
Berno of Reichenau 514 f., 603 341, 358, 368, 371, 373, 376, 493 f., 523 f.,
Bernold of Constance 576, 578 527, 536
Bonaventura 169, 197, 581 (Pseudo-)Cyril of Jerusalem 494 f.
Boniface 471, 488
(Pseudo-)Boniface 554 Damasus I (pope) 25, 35, 328 f., 331–5, 338 f.,
Bruno of Würzburg 574 341–3, 345, 351, 356, 378, 476, 577–9, 609
Burchard, Johann 580 Dativus (mentioned in De miraculis sancti
Burchard of Worms 542 Stephani) 546 f.
Denebeorht of Worcester 119, 554
Caecilius of Biltha 133 Deurechilda (nun in Vita Columbani) 516
Caesarius of Arles 42 f., 45, 117, 158, 164, 166, Dianius of Caesarea 270
169–71, 176 f., 183, 187 f., 469, 492, 503, Didymus the Blind 327, 359, 374
526, 529 f., 535 f., 540 f. (Pseudo-)Didymus the Blind 274
(Pseudo-)Caesarius of Arles 469, 526, 554 Diessen, Albert of 574
Calixtus I (pope) 125, 142 f., 276 Dinkelsbühl, Nikolaus of 574
Cassiodorus 552 Diodorus of Tarsus 358
Cecropius of Sebastopol 384 f. Diogenes of Cyzicus 363, 376, 381, 389, 397
Celestine I (pope) 379 Dionysius of Alexandria 99, 115 f., 121, 232, 234,
Charlemagne (emperor) 10, 145, 189–91, 379, 256, 262, 288
412, 470–2, 501, 511, 514, 554, 557–9, Dionysius the Areopagite 460
562–6, 568, 608, 613 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 181
Pseudo-Chrodegang of Metz 583 Dionysius Bar Ṣalibi 416, 419
 VI Ancient and Medieval Names 745

Dionysius of Milan 299, 325 Eupaterius (recipient of Basil of Caesarea,

Dionysius (pope) 144, 256, 262, 288, 297 Epistula 159) 331
Pseudo-Dionysius of Rome 206 Euphemius of Constantinople 480
Dioscorus (physician) 544–6 Eusebius of Caesarea 31–3, 47, 80, 100, 109, 116,
Dioscurus of Alexandria 381 f., 384, 388–90, 398 126, 152, 206, 212 f., 219, 222, 228, 232–46,
Dorotheus (Constantinopolitan 248–51, 255, 258–60, 262, 269, 276, 281,
archimandrite) 389 311, 324, 338, 374, 474, 482, 495, 547,
Dorotheus of Oxyrhynchus 358 557, 608 f.
Du Prier, Jean see Jean du Prier Eusebius of Dorylaeum 152, 346, 381, 383
Durandus of Saint-Pourçain 200 Eusebius of Emesa 166, 270, 527
Eusebius ‘Gallicanus’ ( = Pseudo-Eusebius of
Ebedjesus of Nisibis see ‛Abdīšō‛ bar Brīḵā Emesa) 527
Ebendorfer, Thomas 574 Eusebius of Nicomedia 213, 217, 234, 243, 245,
Egberht of York 470, 605 257 f., 261 f., 264 f., 267–70, 275, 279, 300
Egeria 212, 494, 524 Eusebius of Vercelli 299, 325 f., 328
Egica (Visigoth king) 538 Eustathius of Antioch 221, 245 f., 262 f., 277
Egidius (Bishop of Évreux) 573 Eustathius of Sebaste 261, 302 f., 306, 318, 330,
Einhard 511 f. 336, 358
Eleusius of Cyzicus 306, 319, 358 f. Euthymius Zigabenus 571
Pseudo-Eleutherius of Tournai 568 Eutyches (archimandrite) 380 f., 392, 479, 481
Elias ‛Alī ibn ‛Ubaid 454 Euzoius of Antioch 172, 200, 205–7, 210 f., 217,
Eligius of Noyon 160, 541 265, 268, 353, 373, 468, 497
Elijah of Nisibis 460 Evagrius Ponticus 433
Ełišē (Armenian historian) 432 Evagrius Scholasticus 480
Ephraem Syrus 80 Ezekiel (Syrian catholicos) 426
Epictetus of Corinth 329 Eznik of Kolb 433
Epigonus (in Tertullian, Aduersus Praxeam) 141
Epiphanius of Constantinople 401 Fabiano Fioghi 588
Epiphanius of Perge 500 Fabius (unknown arian from a fragment by
Epiphanius of Salamis 31 f., 133, 141 f., 145 f., Fulgentius of Ruspe) 553
172, 174, 208 f., 240, 243, 261, 295, 307, 311, Pseudo-Facundus of Hermiane 167, 527
336 f., 353, 369, 373, 437 f., 446, 450, Faustus of Riez 165–7, 174–7, 179, 182, 187, 604
475, 497 Pseudo-Faustus of Riez 51 f., 179, 181, 187
Erwig (Visigoth king) 493 Felix of Urgel 513, 558, 561 f., 601, 605
Etherius of Osma 171 f., 187 Ferrandus of Carthage 119, 168, 489–91, 554
Eucherius of Lyons 53 Filastrius (bishop of Brescia) 520 f.
Eudoxius (cleric mentioned by Firmilianus of Caesarea 121, 126
Philostorgius) 243 Firmilianus of Carthage 52
Eudoxius of Germanicia/Antioch/ Flavian of Antioch 360, 520
Constantinople 115, 243, 291, 294, 319 f., Flavian of Constantinople 382 f.
474 Florus of Lyons 512
Eulogius (Egyptian bishop, recipient of Basil of Fortunatianus of Aquileia 324
Caesarea, Epistula 265) Fridolin, Stephan 596 f.
Eulogius of Edessa 335, 358 Fructuosus of Braga 516
Eunomius of Cyzicus 115, 304 f., 311, 333, 350, Fulgentius of Ruspe 41, 52 f., 119, 133, 167, 187,
372, 402, 477 483, 490 f., 530, 550, 553 f.
Eunomius of Nicomedia 385, 387 Pseudo-Fulgentius of Ruspe 133, 187
746 VI Ancient and Medieval Names

Gabriel of Baṣra 430 Heracleon 76 f.

Gabriel of Qatar 418 Heraclides 95, 99
Gaius (bishop) 312 Heraclius (emperor) 429, 481
Galawdewos (emperor of Ethiopia) 448 Herard of Tours 471, 602
Gaudentius of Naissus 284, 287 Hermogenes 80, 260 f.
Gelasius I (pope) 122 Herod the Great 5
Gelasius of Caesarea 269, 358 Herz of Berching, Narcissus 574
Pseudo-Gelasius of Cyzicus 547 Hesse, Henry of 574
Gennadius of Marseille 181, 554 Hieracas of Leontopolis 232
George of Alexandria (of Cappadocia) 307, Hierotheus 460
319 f., 500 Hilary of Arles 40
George of Laodicea 270, 319 Hilary of Poitiers 156, 164–6, 168 f., 201, 275,
George of Ostia 471 286, 288, 297, 299–302, 307, 318 f., 322–5,
Gerbald of Liège 189 f., 470, 506 f. 351, 382, 557, 578
(Pseudo-)Gerbald of Liège 190 Pseudo-Hilary of Poitiers 286
Germanus of Paris 492 Hildegard of Bingen 580
Pseudo-Germanus of Paris 492 Hincmar of Reims 573
Germinius of Sirmium 114 f., 301, 305–7, 312 Hippolytus of Rome 26, 125 f., 129, 141 f., 144,
Geuss, Johannes 574 148, 153, 209, 289, 464
Gilbert of Poitiers 45 Honoratus of Lérins 41
Giotto di Bondone 591 Honorius Augustodunensis 412, 575–8
Gratian 475 Hormisdas (pope) 119, 404
Graz, Nicholas of 574 Hosius of Córdoba see Ossius of Córdoba
Gregory (Syrian catholicos) 429 Hrabanus Maurus 190 f., 541, 568
Gregory I (the Great, pope) 188, 405, 407, 410, Hugh of Amiens 573
557, 563, 605 Humbert of Silva Candida 549, 603
(Pseudo-)Gregory the Great 554 Pseudo-Hymenaeus of Jerusalem 118
Gregory II (pope) 488 Hypatian of Heraclea 307
Gregory of Alexandria 270
Gregory of Elvira 176 Ignatius of Antioch 71, 96 f., 134
Gregory the Illuminator 432 Pseudo-Ignatius of Antioch 97, 103, 127, 134,
Gregory of Nazianzus 358, 356, 360–2, 372, 382, 240, 370
498, 524, 557, 610 Ildefonsus of Toledo 119, 170–2, 187, 492, 506
Gregory of Nyssa 344, 356, 361, 495 Innocent III (pope) 577–80
Gregory Thaumaturgus 95, 556 Irenaeus of Lyons 27, 93, 98, 103–5, 108–10,
Gregory of Tours 483, 551 f., 554 112 f., 121, 124–6, 135 f., 162, 192, 205–7,
210, 236, 240, 279, 373
Hadrian I (pope) 191, 557 Isaac Scholasticus 417
Haito of Basel 169, 190, 471, 517, 568, 584 Isidore of Cyrus 358
Harpocration (Egyptian bishop, recipient of Basil Isidore of Seville 42, 52, 119, 406, 491 f., 511, 553
of Caesarea, Epistula 265) 335 Pseudo-Isidore of Seville 554
Helena (mother of Constantine I) 269 Išo‛yahb I (Syrian catholicos) 426, 428
Heliodorus (author) 621 Išo‛yahb II (Syrian catholicos) 429
Henana of Adiabene 431 Išo‛yahb III (Syrian catholicos) 429
Henry II (emperor) 514 f. Israel the Grammarian 147
Henry of Hesse see Hesse, Henry of Ivo of Chartres 575
 VI Ancient and Medieval Names 747

Jacob of Edessa 418, 432 Justinian I (emperor) 39, 263, 400–2, 406, 453,
Jacob of Serugh 415 473, 480–2, 484
Januarius (presbyter in Hippo Regius) 521 Juvenal of Jerusalem 382, 384, 398
Jean Beleth see Beleth, Jean
Jean de Joinville 574, 596 Kiwrion (Georgian catholicos) 436, 462
Jean du Prier 588 Komitas (Armenian catholicos) 438 f.
Jerome 114, 165, 176, 181, 269, 317 f., 483, 586
Pseudo-Jerome 51, 526 Langenstein, Henry of 574
Jesse of Amiens 528, 565, 601 Laurent d’Orléans 591
Joan of Navarre 594 Łazar P‛arpec‛i 432
Jocelin of Soissons 200, 575, 584 Leidrad of Lyons 190, 568
Johann Burchard see Burchard, Johann Leo (Frankish monk) 563 f.
John (monk at the Monastery of St Sabas) Leo I (the Great, pope) 119, 133, 146, 163 f., 168,
562 f., 565 172, 175, 193, 206, 209, 353, 382, 385, 390,
John (decurio silentiariorum) 398 404, 408, 410, 483 f., 487, 503 f., 527 f., 551,
John (abbot) 516 557, 562, 564
John VIII (pope) 603 Leo I (emperor) 500
John of Antioch 327, 379 Leo II (pope) 119, 411, 613
John of Avranches 576 Leo III (pope) 175, 399, 412, 514, 562, 565–70,
John XI Beccus 570 601 f., 613
John of Biclaro 402, 406, 510 f., 552, 577, 598 Leo IX (pope) 549
John Cassian 52, 152, 346, 497, 504 Leonas (comes) 319
John Chrysostom 80, 181, 496–8, 506, 519 f., Leontius of Antioch 243, 291
524, 612 Leontius of Byzantium 339
Pseudo-John Chrysostom 181, 372 Leontius of Caesarea 261
John II of Constantinople 500, 509 Leovigild (Visigoth king) 551 f., 612
John of Dalyatha 424 Liberius (pope) 297, 299, 306 f., 325, 358
(Pseudo-)John of Damascus 80 (Pseudo-)Liberius of Rome 166
John (Iwannis) of Dara 419 Licinius (emperor) 219, 244
John the Deacon 407 f., 488, 503 Lothair I (emperor) 541
John of Fécamp 573 Lucian of Antioch 243, 269, 275
John IV of Jerusalem 402 Lucian of Ipsus 389
John of Maron 431 Lucifer of Cagliari 124, 300, 324 f.
John of Metz 594 Ludolf, Hiob 448
John V Palaeologus (emperor) 570 Lullus of Mainz 555 f., 563
John of Tella 418 Luther, Martin 182
John of Waldby 574
Jonas of Bobbio 516 Macarius (abbot-bishop on Mount Sinai) 398
Jovian (emperor) 324 Macarius of Alexandria 201
(Ionius) Julianus (consul) 385 f. Macarius of Jerusalem 518 f.
Julius I (pope) 15, 28, 155, 212, 270 f., 282, 284 f., Macedonius I of Constantinople 302, 318 f., 357,
287, 326 f., 607 381, 401 f., 406, 417
Joseph (Syrian catholicos) 426 Macedonius II of Constantinople 400, 509
Justin I (emperor) 479, 509 Macedonius of Mopsuestia 291
Justin II (emperor) 402, 407, 481, 510, 599 Magnenianus (comes) 331
Justin Martyr 75, 78–80, 91 f., 98 f., 121, 123 f., Magnus (‘Apolinarian’) 401
135 f., 240 Magnus of Sens 179, 568
748 VI Ancient and Medieval Names

Maḥbūb see Agapius Nectarius of Constantinople 32, 34, 37, 362, 478
Mani 232, 257 Nersēs II (Armenian catholicos) 439
Mansuetus of Milan 405 f. Nestorius 38, 352, 357, 361, 363, 376, 380, 392,
Mar Aba 425, 428 432, 479, 481, 497–9, 525, 533, 610
Marcellus of Ancyra 15, 25, 27–9, 129, 133, 145 f., Nicephorus Callistus 361
154 f., 159, 161, 163, 182, 183, 201, 203, 207, Nicetas of Remesiana 52 f., 164, 167 f., 172, 176,
212, 244, 252, 260, 269–71, 275–8, 281–4, 178, 181–3, 187, 469, 487, 526 f., 535 f.
286–8, 291 f., 295–8, 302, 307, 312, 344, Nilus of Sinai 516
352, 356, 370, 607, 611, 622 Nino (female Apostle) 460 f.
Marcian (emperor) 166, 382, 384, 390, 392, Noetus 127, 141–3
398 f., 478, 483, 500 f. Notker Labeo 585
Marcian of Lampsacus 358 Novatian 113–6, 127, 131, 144, 162, 205, 207, 476
Marcianus (addressee of Irenaeus’ Epideixis) 109 Numenius (in Philostorgius, Historia
Marcion 110, 126 ecclesiastica) 243
Marcus I (pope) 579
Marienwerder, Johannes 574 Origen 92–5, 99, 121, 171, 181, 256, 262, 268 f.,
Marinus (priest in Cyprus) 411 274 f., 285, 306, 373 f.
Maris of Chalcedon 243, 264 f., 279 Ossius of Córdoba 212, 219–22, 243, 261–3,
Marius Victorinus 164, 486 f. 284 f., 287, 301 f., 307, 326 f.
Mārūtā of Maipherqaṭ 421, 423, 428
Mark of Arethusa 279, 307, 351 Palladius (praefectus praetorio Orientis) 399
Mark the Monk 500 Palladius of Amaseia 344 f.
Martin of Braga 42, 170, 187, 491, 541 Palladius of Hellenopolis 485
Martin of Leon 575 Palladius of Ratiaria 115
Martyrius (bishop, see unknown) 291 Pancratius of Pelusium 307
Martyrius of Jerusalem 400, 501 Papias of Hierapolis 104
Maurice (emperor) 428 Paschasinus of Lilybaeum 388
Maximinus of Trier 287 Pastor of Palencia 115, 551
Maximus the Confessor 402, 411, 508, 554 Patrophilus of Scythopolis 233, 270, 318
Maximus of Jerusalem 211, 270 Paul of Apameia 166
Maximus of Turin 193 Paul I of Constantinople 279
Pseudo-Maximus of Turin 51 f., 194 Paul of Samosata 100, 118, 206, 256, 277, 287,
Meginhard of Fulda 413 306, 431, 439, 454, 465
Meinhard of Bamberg 412 f. (Sextus Anicius) Paulinus (consul) 385 f.
Meletius of Antioch 35, 329, 332, 335, 341, 344, Paulinus of Antioch 328 f., 331–3, 335, 360, 438,
346, 355, 358, 360, 609 f. 610
Melito of Sardes 76, 92, 137, 240, 369 Paulinus II of Aquileia 41, 471, 558–62, 569, 604
Menophantus of Ephesus 243 Paulinus of Tyre 233, 257
Methodius of Moravia 603 Pecock, Reginald 200
Michael I Cerularius (patriarch) 549 Pelagius (heretic) 179, 556, 558
Mirean (Mirian) (Georgian King) 460 f. Pelagius I (pope) 405
Montanus 208, 373 Pelagius II (pope) 405
Moses bar Kepha 418 f. Pelagius of Laodicea 358
Pepin III (the Short, Frankish king) 554, 601
Narcissus of Irenopolis 279 Peregrinus (comes) 544
Narcissus of Neronias 222, 232, 243, 262 Peter Abelard 45, 175, 569, 573, 575
Narsai of Edessa 400, 424, 431, 508 Peter of Alexandria 338 f., 476
 VI Ancient and Medieval Names 749

Peter Chrysologus 51–3, 162 f., 168, 174 f., 182, Riculf of Mainz 470, 565
188, 526 f., 536 f. Rolle, Richard 197, 574
Peter Fuller 399, 508 f. Romanus of Myra 389
Peter Lombard 581 Rufinus 15, 25, 48, 51 f., 92, 95, 146, 152, 163 f.,
Philostorgius 243, 261, 264 f., 269, 483, 552 168–70, 175, 183, 192 f., 209, 211, 263, 265,
Philoxenus of Hierapolis (Mabbug) 397, 269, 338 f., 486 f., 499, 526 f., 537, 547, 556
401, 416 f. Rupert of Deutz 576
Philumenus (magister officiorum) 265 Rusticus, Quintus Iunius (praefectus urbi) 78 f.
Phoebadius of Agen 119, 301, 318, 326
Photinus of Sirmium 288, 292, 294–6, 302, Sabellius 143, 227, 232, 276 f., 287
306 f., 312, 335, 477 Sabinus of Heraclea 318
Pilate see Pontius Pilate Sabrīšō῾ (Syrian catholicos) 428
Pirmin 157, 164, 166, 169–71, 191, 194 f. Sahak the Great 434
Pius V (pope) 580 Secundus of Ptolemais 265 f.
Placetus (Flacillus) of Antioch 270 Seleucus of Amaseia 389
Pliny the Younger 73, 79, 80 Senarius (uir illustris) 407 f., 488
Plotinus 260 Sergius I (pope) 411
Polycarp of Smyrna 71, 98, 123, 127 Sergius of Constantinople 481
Polychronius (monk-priest) 547 f. Servatius (bishop of the Tungri) 318
Polychronius of Epiphaneia 389 Severian of Gabala 446
Pontius Pilate 5, 20, 60, 65, 67, 91 f., 96–9, 107, Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‛ 452, 454–8
111, 129, 134–7, 139, 146, 151 f., 159, 161, Severus of Antioch 397, 401, 415–17, 480
167 f., 186, 202, 205, 210, 282, 318, 348 f., Severus of Constantinople 554
352, 354, 367, 376, 389, 417, 422, 425, 427, Sicard of Cremona 578 f.
444 f., 447–9, 451, 453, 456–9, 461, 463, Silvanus of Tarsus 358
529, 532, 585, 595, 609, 611, 619 Silvester I (pope) 212
Porphyry (philosopher) 267 Simon of Tournai 575, 580
Potamius of Lisbon 301 Simplicianus (friend of Augustine) 486
Praxeas 90, 110, 112, 125, 127, 136 f., 139–42, 167 Simplicius (pope) 483 f.
Priscillian of Avila 52 f., 160, 171–4 Socrates (Church historian) 37, 211, 234 f., 265,
Proclus of Constantinople 208, 376, 434, 446, 269–71, 278 f., 291, 302, 307, 313, 318 f.,
498, 525 338, 358 f., 363, 368, 383, 483
Protogenes of Serdica 284 f., 287, 326 f. Sophronius (abbot) 516
Ptolemy (gnostic) 109 Sophronius of Jerusalem 400, 557
Pulcheria (empress) 193, 392, 398 Sophronius of Pompeiopolis 319
Sozomen 211 f., 233, 244 f., 270 f., 275 f., 279,
Quirinius, Publius Sulpicius 5 291, 302, 306 f., 313, 326, 338, 343, 350,
Quodvultdeus 133, 152, 160, 167 f., 175, 182, 187, 358 f., 362 f., 368, 474–8, 483, 547
489, 526 Stephen of Antioch 291
Stephen I (pope) 99
Radulph of Rivo 579 Sulpicius Severus 299 f., 318
Raimundus Martini 169, 197, 574 Svatopluk (Moravian ruler) 603
Ratherius of Verona 45, 573
Reccared I (Visigoth king) 43 f., 406, 484, 510, Tacitus 73
551 f., 612 Tarasius of Constantinople 556–8
Restutus/Restitutus of Carthage 312 Terentius (comes) 332
750 VI Ancient and Medieval Names

Tertullian 27, 51 f., 80, 90, 98, 110–14, 125–8, 132, Valla, Laurentius 200
136–44, 162, 164, 168, 192, 206 f., 240, 279 Valens (emperor) 322, 340
Theobaldus Brito 573 Valens of Mursa 285, 299, 301, 305–7, 310–12,
Theodore I (pope) 407, 411 317 f., 325
Theodore of Damascus 389 Valentinian I (emperor) 483
Theodore of Heraclea 243, 245, 270, 279 Valentinian III (emperor) 484
Theodore of Mopsuestia 36 f., 53, 324, 330, Valentinus (follower of Apolinarius) 381
338–49, 352–4, 364–7, 371, 420, 424 f., 429, Valentinus (gnostic) 76, 109 f., 227, 232
496, 499, 506, 524, 533, 552, 554, 609 Valerius Harpocration 335
Theodore of Tarsus (Canterbury) 148 Venantius Fortunatus 52, 152, 169 f.
Theodore the Reader 399 f., 402, 499, 508 f. Victorinus of Poetovio 116–18
Theodoret 238, 245 f., 291, 322, 338 f., 342, 344, Victricius of Rouen 549 f.
359, 363, 374, 475, 483, 500, 552 Vigilantius 181
Theodosius I (the Great, emperor) 34, 37, 39, Vigilius (pope) 168, 404 f.
176, 179, 305, 343, 356 f., 473–8, 481, 485, Vigilius of Thapsus 404, 486
578, 609 Vincent of Lérins 41 f.
Theodosius II (emperor) 384, 483 f. Vitalis of Antioch 166, 332, 369
Theodotus of Ancyra 525
Theodotus of Laodicea 222, 232, 243 Walahfrid Strabo 512 f., 599, 602
Theodulf of Orléans 471, 502, 534, 557 f., 565, Waltcaud of Liège 190, 471
568 Walter of Orléans 602
Theognis of Nicaea 243 f., 264 f. Wansleben, Michael 448
Theonas of Marmarica 265 f. William de Leicester 574
Theophilus (monk) 443 William Durand the Elder (of Mende) 169, 196,
Theophilus of Alexandria 126, 181 578–80
Theophilus of Castabala 358 Wulfila 114, 320
Theophronius of Tyana 270 f., 276–8, 280 Wulfstan 583, 586
Theophylact of Todi 417
Thomas Aquinas 44, 574, 578, 581 Yovhannēs II Gabełean (Armenian
(Pseudo-)Thomas Aquinas 574 catholicos) 438
Thomas of Jerusalem 564 Yovhannēs Mayragomec‛i (Armenian monk
Tiberius (emperor) 92, 135 f. theologian) 438
Timothy (follower of Apolinarius) 339
Timothy I of Alexandria 358, 360, 478 Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor 398, 501
Timothy II Aelurus of Alexandria 399, 416 f., 420 Zachary (pope) 471
Timothy of Berytus 369 Zeno (emperor) 400, 478–80, 483, 501
Timothy I of Constantinople 400, 499, 509, 612 Zeno of Verona 187
Timothy I (Syrian catholicos) 424, 432 Zephyrinus (pope) 125, 141–3
Trajan (emperor) 73, 79 Zosimus 475
Turribius of Astorga 551

Ulpian 482
Uranius of Tyre 319 f.
Ursacius of Singidunum 285, 299, 301, 305–7, 312
VII Modern Names
Abascal, Juan M. 541 Beatrice, Pier F. 255 f.
Abraham, Jibin Thomas 418 f., 430 Becker, Carl 3
Abramowski, Luise 35 f., 220, 222 f., 334, Becker, Karl J. 581
338, 341–4, 372, 414, 417, 420, 424–6, Becker, Matthias 260
428–31 Becker, Oswald 58
Akalin, Kutlu 418 Behr, John 103 f., 109, 250, 261, 360, 369 f.
Akinian, Nerses 437, 440 Bell, Harold I. 443
Alexopoulos, Theodoros 549 Belsheim, Johannes 15
Alikin, Valeriy A. 73 Benga, Daniel 99
Allen, Pauline 402 Benko, Stephen 177
Amidon, Philip R. 328 Bensly, Robert L. 431 f.
Anderson, Mary D. 582 Berger, David 588
Andrieu, Michel 409 f., 602 Berger, Jean-Denis 29, 328, 333, 345
Andrist, Patrick 336, 369 Berger, Klaus 11, 49, 73
Angenendt, Arnold 191, 409, 503, 584 Berndt, Guido M. 320
Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr 30 Bertram, Jerome 583
Assemani, Giuseppe L. 415 Berzon, Todd S. 527, 544
Athanassakis, Apostolos N. 490 Bethurum, Dorothy 585 f.
Atkinson, Charles M. 411, 600, 605 Betti, Maddalena 603
Aubineau, Michel 245 Bevan, George A. 384
Auf der Maur, Hansjörg 169, 522 Bidawid, Raphaël J. 424
Auffarth, Christoph 537 Bieler, Ludwig 466
Auksi, Peter 533 Bienert, Wolfgang A. 288
Aust, Hugo 233 Binchy, Daniel A. 466
Avagyan, Anahit 433, 440 f. Binggeli, André 430
Ayres, Lewis 102, 255, 312, 325 Bischoff, Bernhard 148
Black, Robert R. 587
Backes, Katharina 590, 595 Blair, John 584
Badcock, Francis J. 18, 23, 25, 29, 32, 41, 177 Blanchet, Marie-Hélène 571, 589
Barbet, Jeanne 178 Blatt, Franz 286
Barbian, Karl-Josef 585 Bleckmann, Bruno 243 f., 264, 297, 552
Barceló, Pedro 300, 302, 322 Blowers, Paul M. 411
Barnes, Timothy D. 219, 243, 268, 297, 300 f. Blumell, Lincoln H. 433
Barnes, W. Emery 417, 430 Bochinger, Christoph 57, 72, 79 f.
Barry, Jennifer 465 Boespflug, François 590
Bartelink, Gerard J.M. 490 Bonneau, Danielle 543
Barth, Gerhard 58 Bonnes, Jean-Paul 573
Bartl, Dominik 596 Bonwetsch, G. Nathanael 464
Batlle, Columba M. 405 Boockmann, Andrea 591 f.
Bauckham, Richard J. 87 Boodts, Shari 519
Baum, Wilhelm 420, 424–6, 428–30 Booth, Phil 402, 411
Baumer, Christoph 420 Bornkamm, Günther 11
Baumstark, Anton 148, 416, 430–2, 598 Botte, Bernard 28, 149, 153
Bausi, Alessandro 149–51, 153, 446 f. Böttrich, Christfried 11, 56 f., 72

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-029
752 VII Modern Names

Bradshaw, Paul F. 148–51, 153, 446, 460, Campos, Julio 406

497, 518 Capelle, Bernard 153, 507, 509–11, 513, 515,
Brakmann, Heinzgerd 74, 485, 488, 494, 496 561 f., 576, 580, 602 f.
Brandscheidt, Renate 56 Carlson, Stephen C. 104
Braun, Oskar 420 f., 423, 428 f., 432 Cartwright, Sophie 219, 262
Braun, René 110, 128 Casey, Robert P. 437, 440
Bréhier, Louis 482, 484 Caspari, Carl P. 13–17, 346, 413, 417, 425, 430,
Bremmer, Jan N. 80 452, 571, 573 f., 580
Brennecke, Hanns C. 29, 44, 207, 211, 219, 221, Castelberg, Marcus 594
244 f., 267 f., 270 f., 278–80, 283, 285, Catergian, Joseph 432
287 f., 294 f., 297, 299–304, 306–8, 310–13, Chabot, Jean-Baptiste 420, 424–9
317–20, 322, 325, 327–31, 334 f., 337 f., Chadwick, Henry 149, 221, 275, 388
344, 474 Chandler, Kegan A. 256
Brent, Allen 96, 103, 131 Chébli, P. 452
Brewer, Heinrich 41 Çiçek, Julius Y. 416
Breydy, Michael 431, 450 Clarke, Samuel 40
Brightman, Frank E. 403, 418, 430, 437 Clemoes, Peter 586
Brinktrine, Johannes 23–6 Coakley, James F. 430
Brock, Sebastian 415 f., 418, 420 f., 424–9 Cochlaeus, Johannes 598
Brooks, Ernest W. 417 Codrington, Humphrey W. 419
Brown, Peter 245, 485 Collins, Roger J.H. 39, 43, 552
Brox, Norbert 268, 467 Connolly, R. Hugh 174, 414 f., 417, 419, 424, 431
Brüggemann, Thomas 249, 371 Contino, Carlo 543
Bruns, Peter 36, 340–4, 352, 420 f., 424–6, Conzelmann, Hans 11
428–30, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460 Cook, John G. 165, 536
Buber, Martin 55 Cooper, Stephen A. 486
Buck, Sebastian 543 Cowdrey, Herbert E.J. 24
Bühler, Curt F. 199 Cowper, Benjamin H. 387, 416
Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève 233 f. Cramer, Peter 488, 503
Bultmann, Rudolf 58 Crawford, Peter 300
Burgess, Richard W. 220 Crawford, Samuel J. 585
Burkard, Dominik 589 Crocker, Richard L. 598
Burkitt, F. Crawford 431 f. Cross, Frank L. 220
Burn, Andrew E. 14, 22, 31, 40 f., 164, 167 f., 176, Crouzel, Henri 373
178, 406, 534, 549, 580 Crum, Walter E. 443, 445
Burney, Charles 604 Cullmann, Oscar 72
Busch, Anja 507 Cuntz, Otto 261
Bynum, Caroline Walker 127 Cureton, William 458
Cvetković, Carmen A. 172, 176
Cabié, Robert 316, 520
Calcaterra, Mannes 574 d’Alès, Adhémar 116
Calhoun, Robert M. 541 Daley, Brian E. 339, 476
Callahan, Daniel F. 562 Dalmais, Irénée-Henry 414
Cameron, Alan 475, 481, 483 d’Alverny, Marie-Thérèse 574, 577, 580
Campenhausen, Hans von 11, 26–8, 33, 70–2, Daoud, Marcos 450
75, 89, 120, 235, 241 Day, Juliette 201, 494, 498
Camplani, Alberto 150, 153, 228 De Aldama, José A. 549
 VII Modern Names 753

De Boer, Martinus C. 61 Dujarier, Michel 506

De Bruyn, Theodore 543 Dunn, James D. 116
De Clercq, Victor C. 302 Dunn, James D.G. 72, 83
De Halleux, André 328–32, 344, 352, 372, 381, Durst, Michael 270
417, 420 f. Dutton, Paul E. 512
Delamare, René 576 Dvornik, Francis 482, 484
Delattre, Alain 443 f., 539 Dyer, Joseph 601
DelCogliano, Mark 275, 283, 302
Delen, Karijn M. 583 Eberhardt, Johannes 598
Delling, Gerhard 598 Ebied, Rifaat Y. 399
Dell’Omo, Mariano 199 Edwards, Mark 248, 255
Demeulenaere, Roland 42, 550 Edwards, Robert G.T. 518
Den Boeft, Jan 313 Ehrensperger, Alfred 191
Denzinger, Heinrich 415, 418 Eichele, Hermann 109
Dib, Pierre 415 Eichenseer, Caelestin 53, 186
Dick, Ernst 506 Eizenhöfer, Leo 529
Dickens, Mark 417 Ekonomou, Andrew J. 411
Didier, Jean-Charles 503 Elert, Werner 177, 179 f.
Diefenbach, Steffen 474 Elliott, John H. 88
Diesenberger, Maximilian 584 Engberg, Gudrun 599
Diettrich, Gustav 429 Errington, R. Malcolm 475, 477 f.
Digeser, Elizabeth D. 256 Esterson, Zachary C. 116
Dindorf, Ludwig 480 Étaix, Raymond 183
Dingel, Irene 13 f. Evans, Christopher P. 572, 580
Dinkler-von Schubert, Erika 583, 592 Evans, Gillian R. 581
Dinsen, Frauke 255 Evelyn-White, Hugh G. 445
Dix, Gregory 28, 149, 153 Everist, Mark 598
Dobbie, Elliott V.K. 587
Dondeyne, Albert 488 Fairbairn, Donald 2, 26, 46, 328, 589
Dorfbauer, Lukas R. 325 Fassler, Margot 601
Dormeyer, Detlev 49 Fedwick, Paul J. 330 f., 335–7
Dörrie, Heinrich 260 Feeney, Denis 4
Dörries, Hermann 330 f., 335 f. Feldmeier, Reinhard 88
Doskocil, Walter 233 Felsen, Liam 574
Dossetti, Giuseppe L. 248, 333, 387, 410, 416 f., Ferguson, Everett 89, 209, 408, 410, 503
420, 428, 433 f., 436, 441 f., 450, 452, 454 f., Fernández Nieto, Francisco J. 541
458, 464, 499 Fernández, Samuel 219
Doval, Alexis J. 201 Ffoulkes, Edmund S. 40 f.
Dovere, Elio 479, 483 Field, Lester L. 328 f., 333, 338, 345
Drake, Harold A. 244 f., 268 Filotas, Bernadette 540–2
Draper, Richard D. 481 Fioghi, Fabiano 588
Drecoll, Volker H. 36, 41, 43 f., 101, 329–31, Firey, Abigail 233
335–7, 396 Fischer, Ludwig 577
Drews, Wolfram 74, 485, 488, 494, 496 Flemming, Johannes 431
Drijvers, Jan W. 211, 421 Flint, Valerie I.J. 540, 542
Duc, Paul 512 Fogleman, Alex 101
Duffy, John 270 Folda, Jaroslav 596
754 VII Modern Names

Fontaine, Jacques 29, 328, 333, 345 Gismondi, Henry 428 f.

Foreville, Raymonde 571 Glauch, Sonja 585
Förster, Hans 518 Gneuss, Helmut 148, 572
Förster, Max 585 Goar, Jacques 598 f.
Fowler, Roger 586 Göbl, Peter 589
Foxhall Forbes, Helen 541 Godden, Malcolm 586
Fraas, Hans-Jürgen 589 Goodman, Alan E. 429, 431
Frank, Günter 581 Gössmann, Elisabeth 581
Frantzen, Allen J. 583, 586 Gounelle, Rémi 170
Franz, Adolph 542 Graf, Georg 450, 452, 454, 460
Franz, Ansgar 598 Gräßer, Erich 67, 69
Freeman, Ann 557 f. Graumann, Thomas 234, 312, 327, 376, 379, 386
Frend, William H.C. 220, 242 Grdzelidze, Tamara 461
Frenschkowski, Marco 540 Grébaut, Sylvain 448, 452, 454, 456 f.
Fridolin, Stephan 596 f. Grelier, Hélène 369
Friedberg, Emil 542 Gretsch, Mechthild 148, 585
Friedman, Lionel J. 574, 596 Gribomont, Jean 417, 420
Frivold, Leif 433, 435, 438 f. Griffith, Francis L. 443
Fuchs, Rüdiger 590 Griggs, C. Wilfred 338
Fürst, Alfons 54, 73, 317 Grillmeier, Aloys 249, 369, 398, 479 f.
Fürst, Dieter 64, 67 Grohe, Johannes 550, 576, 603
Grossman, Joan D. 590
Gabriel, Frédéric 6, 571, 589 Grumel, Venance 571
Gaddis, Michael 468 Guerrier, Louis 571
Gaffino-Mœri, Sarah 539 Guidi, Ignazio 450
Galvão-Sobrinho, Carlos R. 220, 234, 266, 268 Gwynn, David M. 33, 219, 243–6, 261, 291
Gamer, Helena M. 583
Garitte, Gérard 464 Haacker, Klaus 58
Garsoïan, Nina 420, 435 f., 439, 462 Haarbrücker, Theodor 458
Gassó, Pius M. 405 Haase, Felix 441
Gatch, Milton McC. 585 Haensch, Rudolf 545
Gebhard, Rudolf 14, 589 Hahn, August 16, 46, 181, 437, 571, 575, 585
Geerlings, Wilhelm 149 Hahn, Ferdinand 27, 61
Gelzer, Heinrich 261 Hahn, G. Ludwig 16, 46, 181, 437, 571, 575, 585
Gemayel, Pierre-Edmond 419, 431 Hainthaler, Theresia 143, 414, 420, 424–6,
Gemeinhardt, Peter 30, 37, 172, 176 f., 183 f., 428–30, 480
189, 405, 408, 411 f., 485, 511, 513, 515, Hall, Stuart G. 24, 219
549–52, 554–7, 562, 564 f., 570, 576, 603 Hamlyn, Timothy 481
Gepp-Labusiak, Miriam 596 Hammerstaedt, Jürgen 54, 256
Gerber, Simon 36 f., 48, 340–2, 344, 353, 368, Hammond Bammel, Caroline P. 181
370 f., 376 Handl, András 139, 142
Gerlitz, Peter 488, 503 Hansen, Dirk U. 300 f.
Geuenich, Dieter 584 f. Hansen, Günther C. 238, 480
Gillman, Ian 420, 430 Hansen, Joseph 542
Gimeno, Helena 541 Hanson, Richard P.C. 234, 255 f., 262, 265, 284,
Gioanni, Stéphane 233 290 f., 297, 300–3, 312, 319, 322, 325, 329 f.,
Girardet, Klaus M. 245, 475 f. 334, 344
 VII Modern Names 755

Hanssens, Jean M. 149 Hopkins, Keith 485

Haring, Nicholas M. 43, 45, 572, 575, 578, 580 Horak, Ulrike 543
Harmening, Dieter 540, 542 Horn, Friedrich W. 58, 61
Harnack, Adolf (von) 16–19, 21, 23, 31–4, 211, Hornung, Christian 79
240, 623 Hornung, Christoph 506
Harries, Jill 245, 473 Hort, Fenton J.A. 31, 34, 346, 425
Harris, J. Rendel 431 f. Hotchkiss, Valerie 589
Harrisson, Juliette 4, 6 Houghton, Hugh A.G. 147, 325
Hartman, Lars 89 Hoyland, Robert G. 450
Hasenohr, Geneviève 574 Hübner, Reinhard M. 128, 144, 295, 369
Haubrichs, Wolfgang 585 Huebner, Dietmar von 598
Haucap, Anette 580 Hughes, Andrew 572
Haug, Andreas 601 Huglo, Michel 604
Hauler, Edmund 149 Humfress, Caroline 467
Hausammann, Susanne 344 Hunt, Arthur S. 543
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter 36, 331, 359 f. Hunt, David 483
Hauschildt, Karl 488 Hunter, David G. 181
Haußleiter, Johannes 21–3, 144 Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno 233
Hauswald, Eckhard 157, 191, 195 Hutter, Manfred 165, 257
Hazen, Marsie 450
Heather, Peter 406 Iacobone, Pasquale 39, 43, 590
Hebblewhite, Mark 475 Ingram, Robert G. 40
Hedtke, Britta 590 Izbicki, Thomas M. 580
Heil, Günter 181, 507
Heil, Uta 29, 37, 44, 48, 257, 297, 320, 406, 467, Jackson, John 40
484, 552 f., 599 Jacobs, Ine 244
Heimgartner, Martin 432 Jacobsen, Anders-Christian 201
Hellgardt, Ernst 585 Jaeger, Werner 495
Hen, Yitzhak 601 Jakobs, Dörthe 591
Hennecke, Edgar 102 Jankowiak, Marek 402, 411
Hensel, Roman 469 Jaser, Christian 233
Hermansen, Marcia 7 Jilek, August 132
Heyworth, Melanie 586 Joest, Wilfried 581
Hiley, David 598, 604 f. Johnson, Maxwell E. 148 f., 151, 153, 418, 446,
Hilgenfeld, Heinrich 261 460, 494, 503
Hillner, Julia 243, 268 f., 465 Jolly, Karen L. 542, 584
Hills, Julian 90 f. Jungck, Christoph 360
Hödl, Ludwig 581 Jungmann, Josef A. 508, 515, 572, 589,
Hoffmann, Thomas 7 598 f., 604
Hofius, Otfried 64 Just, Patricia 302
Hofmann, Karl 233
Hoheisel, Karl 545 Kaczynski, Bernice M. 411 f.
Holl, Karl 19–21, 23 Kaiser, B. 545
Holland, David L. 32, 131, 153 Kamesar, Adam 260
Holthausen, Ferdinand 585 Karmann, Thomas R. 328, 344
Hommel, Hildebrecht 124 Kaser, Max 234, 506
Honoré, Tony 473 Kasparick, Hanna 14, 589
756 VII Modern Names

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand 8, 16 f., 41, 162, 176 f., Klöckener, Martin 191
181, 211, 571, 574, 577, 580 Knecht, Johannes J. 558
Kaufhold, Hubert 221, 387, 416 f., 422 f., 425, Knoben, Ursula 590
430, 469, 550 Knupp, Josef 496
Keefe, Susan A. 15, 30, 46, 167, 176, 178–80, 187, Koberger, Anton 596
191, 408, 412, 488, 501–3, 526 f., 533 f., 537, Koch, Klaus 49
556, 601 f. Koeckert, Charlotte 124
Keener, Craig S. 86 Koester, Craig R. 67 f.
Keller, Rebecca J. 176 f., 181 Kohlbacher, Michael 6, 43, 433 f., 437 f.,
Kelly, John N.D. 1, 21, 24, 26, 32 f., 34, 35, 38–40, 462, 571
42 f., 45, 97, 102, 124, 128, 131, 134, 144, 149, Kolbaba, Tia M. 549
153, 162, 173, 177, 180, 184, 191, 200 f., 205, Kolditz, Sebastian 479
208, 210 f., 241, 248, 250, 276, 279, 303, Kollautz, Arnulf 406
323 f., 329, 331, 338, 359, 369 f., 372 f., 375, Konradt, Matthias 58, 233
388, 397, 401, 403 f., 406, 494, 508, 511, Körting, Corinna 73
513, 520, 549, 551, 571 f., 575 Körtner, Ulrich H.J. 104
Kelly, Thomas F. 598 Köster, Helmut 86
Kendrick, Laura 590 Kösters, Oliver 336 f., 446
Kern, Susanne 590 Kötter, Jan-Markus 476, 482
Kéry, Lotte 469, 600 Kötting, Bernhard 545
Khoperia, Lela 461 Kraatz, Wilhelm 442
Khouri-Sarkis, Gabriel 430 Krebs, Johann Ph. 598
Kidane, Habtemichael 516 Kreis, Oliver 212, 220
Kim, Young R. 337 Kretschmar, Georg 121, 488 f., 503, 518
King, John R. 40 Kritikou, Flora 598 f.
Kinzig, Wolfram XVII, 5 f., 22, 27–9, 31, 35, 38 f., Kropp, Manfred 7
46, 50, 52–4, 70, 73–5, 78 f., 81 f., 89, 91, 99, Krueger, Derek 508
109, 113, 122, 125, 128–33, 139, 144 f., 148 f., Kühne, Udo 580
151, 153–5, 169 f., 179, 200, 205, 207 f., 211, Künstle, Karl 41, 551
213 f., 242, 254, 270, 275, 305, 316, 326, Kunze, Johannes 18, 32, 34
333 f., 338, 343 f., 346, 350, 357, 361, 363 f.,
367, 369, 374–6, 379, 384, 386, 388, 391, Labahn, Michael 89
396 f., 402, 447, 469, 472, 476, 481 f., 485, Labourt, Jérôme 418 f.
488, 493, 498, 500, 506 f., 518–20, 522, Ladaria, Luis F. 165
525–9, 531, 533–5, 537 f., 540–3, 546 f., Lai, Andrea 147
553, 584, 587, 591, 605, 624 Łajtar, Adam 539
Kirby, Peter 77 Lambot, Cyrille 178
Kirsch, Johann P. 177 Lampe, Geoffrey W.H. 50, 621
Kirsten, Hans 121 Lampe, Jörg H. 592
Kitchen, Robert A. 424 Lampe, Peter 131
Klauck, Hans-Josef 65 f. Lang, Uwe M. 411, 514 f., 579
Klein, Anja 5, 7, 56 Lange, Christian 480
Klein, Richard 300, 302 Lange-Sonntag, Ralf 460
Klijn, Albertus F.J. 102 Lapidge, Michael 148, 572
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim 420, 430 Larchet, Jean-Claude 411
Klingshirn, William E. 492, 535, 540, 542 Lasker, Daniel J. 588
Klippel, Diethelm 469 Latte, Kurt 545
 VII Modern Names 757

Lattke, Michael 73, 89 f. Luz, Ulrich 88

Laurent, Vitalien 571, 591 Lynch, Joseph H. 505
Lavarra, Caterina 540
Lebon, Joseph 417, 420, 439 Macé, Caroline 150
Leclercq, Jean 573 MacLean, Arthur J. 430
Legg, John W. 580 MacMullen, Ramsay 485
Lehtipuu, Outi 127 Macomber, William F. 508
Lehto, Adam 414 Madoz, José 42
Leipoldt, Walter 446 Mai, Angelo 418
Lemarié, Joseph 183 Maisonneuve, Henri 467
Lenski, Noel 268, 322 Makula, Tibor 414
Leppin, Hartmut 475, 482–5 Mâle, Émile 594
Leppin, Volker 13, 233 Maraval, Pierre 398
Leroquais, Victor 572 March, Joseph M. 574
Leroy, François J. 498, 525 Mardirossian, Aram 387, 468
Leroy, Lucien 452, 454, 456 f. Margoliouth, George 432
Leuenberger-Wenger, Sandra 399 Markschies, Christoph 11, 28 f., 101, 134, 148 f.,
Levin, Christoph 56, 58 151, 214, 262, 333 f., 352, 373
Levison, Wilhelm 555, 601 f., 605 Markus, Robert A. 410
Levy, Kenneth 598 Marrone, Steven P. 540, 542
L’Huillier, Peter 387 Martimbos, Nicolas 200
Liesel, Nikolaus 414 Martínez Díez, Gonzalo 467, 552 f., 599 f.
Lietzmann, Hans 15, 19–21, 23, 25, 32 f., 131, 210, Martin-Hisard, Bernadette 461
241, 248, 338 f., 369, 386, 425, 431 Martini, Aldo 169, 197, 504
Lindemann, Andreas 89 Masser, Achim 585
Linder, Amon 493, 538 May, Gerhard 233
Lionarons, Joyce T. 586 Mayser, Edwin 221
Lippold, Adolf 483 McCarthy, Daniel P. 219
Lipton, Sara 591 McGowan, Andrew B. 73
Löfstedt, Bengt 188 McGuckin, John 476
Löhr, Hermut 73, 82 McKenna, Stephen 540, 542
Löhr, Winrich A. 260, 289, 291 McKitterick, Rosamond 573
Longère, Jean 573, 581 McNeill, John T. 583
Longo, Augusta 516 Mearns, James 417, 446, 572
Loofs, Friedrich 41 Meens, Rob 466, 583
Lorenz, Rudolf 262 Meier, Mischa 483 f.
Lotter, Friedrich 471 Menze, Volker 418
Lougovaya, Julia 539 Mériaux, Charles 573
Lüddecke, Kathrin 298 Metzger, Bruce M. 431
Ludolf, Hiob 448 Metzger, Marcel 74, 191, 485, 488, 494, 496 f.
Lührmann, Dieter 58 Metzger, Paul 537
Luibhéid, Colm 243 Metzler, Karin 290, 300 f.
Lumby, J. Rawson 22, 40 f. Meunier, Bernard 327
Lumma, Liborius O. 508, 515 Mews, Constant J. 410
Luttikhuizen, Gerard 102 Meyer, Hans B. 511, 514
Luykx, Bonifaas 514 Miazga, Tadeusz 598, 603
758 VII Modern Names

Michaelis, Wilhelm 123 Opitz, Hans-Georg 172, 205–7, 214–22, 225, 228,
Michel, Anton 603 232–6, 238, 242–5, 248, 256–60, 262 f.,
Michel, Charles 233 265–8, 329, 353, 368, 373, 465–7, 474
Michel, Otto 58, 64, 67, 78 Ostheim, Martin von 255
Mihálykó, Ágnes T. 443, 445, 508 O’Donnell, James J. 101
Milne, Herbert J.M. 543 O’Leary, Joseph S. 256
Mingana, Alphonse 341, 354, 424
Mitalaité, Kristina 471, 534 Packer, James I. 2
Mocquereau, André 604 Padwick, Constance E. 6
Mohlberg, Leo C. 529, 579, 605 Page, Christopher 598, 601
Molland, Einar 34, 370 Palazzo, Éric 122
Mommsen, Theodor 556 Papandrea, James L. 116
Mone, Franz Joseph 582 Parisot, Jean 414
Monnot, Guy 458 Parker, David C. 147
Montanari, Franco 109 Parker, John 270
Morard, Martin 579 Parmentier, Leon 238
Mordek, Hubert 469 Parmentier, Martien 29
Morgan, Teresa 5, 58, 63, 420, 443, 507 Parvis, Paul 219
Morin, Germain 42, 186, 489, 560 Parvis, Sara 262, 265, 276 f., 284 f., 287–9, 297
Morison, Ernest F. 175, 209 Pasquato, Ottorino 74, 488
Mühl, Max 260 Pass, H. Leonard 414 f.
Mühlenberg, Ekkehard 369, 374 Patzold, Steffen 534, 537 f.
Mühlsteiger, Johannes 460 Pecock (Pavo), Reginald 200
Mulders, Jacques 550 Peitz, Wilhelm M. 14, 21
Müller, Christian 43 f. Pelikan, Jaroslav 26, 46, 589
Müller, Dieter 233 Pennington, Kenneth 233
Munkholt Christensen, Maria 239, 352, 596 Perrone, Lorenzo 269, 401
Muyldermans, Joseph 433 Peters, Albrecht 181
Petersen, Nils H. 598
Napier, Arthur S. 583 Pettit, Edward 542
Neil, Bronwen 402 Pfisterer, Andreas 601
Neri, Valerio 540 Phelan, Owen M. 502
Neumann, Bernd 582 Phillips, Edward 148 f., 151, 153, 446, 460
Nicol, Donald M. 483 Phrantzolas, Konstantinos G. 80
Nicols, John 507 Piédnagel, Auguste 485, 496
Nissel, Johann G. 449 Pietras, Henryk 32
Noethlichs, Karl L. 268, 467, 475, 480–2 Pietri, Charles 211, 262, 329–31, 333 f.,
Nutton, Vivian 544 338, 344
Pignot, Matthieu 485, 488–90, 544
Oberdorfer, Bernd 37, 549 Pigott, Justin 388
Odenthal, Andreas 514 Pintaudi, Rosario 543
Oefele, Christine 598 Pittard, William J. 430
Ohme, Heinz 101, 221, 363 Planchart, Alejandro E. 601
Olivar, Alexandre 524 Pogatscher, Alois 3
Ommanney, George D.W. 40 f., 45, 534, 585, 587 Pohlsander, Hans A. 243
 VII Modern Names 759

Ponsoye, Emmanuel 411 Romano, John F. 410–12, 505

Pope, John C. 585 Römer, Cornelia E. 539
Price, Richard 379, 399, 468 Rordorf, Willy 102
Probst, Manfred 598 Rösch, Gerhard 475, 483
Pruche, Benoît 331 Rose, Eugen 257
Rossi, Francesco 441
Quecke, Hans 441, 443–5 Rouwhorst, Gerard A.M. 29, 89, 120, 518
Rubellin, Michel 488, 503
Rabe, Susan A. 602 Rucker, Ignaz 436, 464
Rabin, Andrew 574, 586 Ruiz Asencio, José M. 538
Rabo, Gabriel 416 Rüpke, Jörg 476, 481, 545
Rad, Gerhard von 56 Rupp, Joseph 210, 523
Raḥmani, Ignatius Ephrem II 430 Russin, Harrison B. 598 f., 603 f.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. 95, 414
Rapp Jr., Stephen H. 461 Sachot, Maurice 519
Ratzinger, Joseph 260 Sader, Jean 419
Rauer, Max 374 Sághy, Marianne 297
Raven, Charles E. 369 Sako, Louis R. 428 f.
Raw, Barbara C. 584, 586 Salamito, Jean-Marie 485
Raynaud de Lage, Guy 573 Salisbury, Joyce E. 542
Reeves, Andrew 573, 587 Sallmann, Klaus 131
Reeves, Ryan M. 2, 26, 46, 589 Salzmann, Jorg C. 73 f.
Reischl, Wilhelm K. 210, 523 Samir, Samir K. 460
Reiter, Fabian 543 Sandler, Lucy F. 593 f.
Renaudot, Eusèbe 452 Santer, Mark 369
Renkin, Claire 410 Sanzo, Joseph E. 443, 543
Reu, Johann M. 589 Sarot, Marcel 170
Reumann, John 57, 72 Sartori, Paul 540
Reutter, Ursula 328–35, 338 f., 341 f., 345 f. Satlow, Michael 7, 58
Rexer, Jochen 522 Savvidis, Kyriakos 290, 300 f.
Reynolds, Gabriel S. 7 Saxer, Victor 486, 488, 503, 506, 535, 546
Ridley, Ronald T. 475 Schäferdiek, Knut 320, 510
Riedel, Wilhelm 460 Schaff, Philip 22 f.
Riedinger, Rudolf 403, 441, 547 Scheerer, Christoph 44, 406, 467, 484,
Riedl, Gerda 11, 30, 49, 245, 388, 404 552 f., 599
Riedlberger, Peter 268, 356, 467, 473, Scheibelreiter, Philipp 234
477, 479 Schermann, Theodor 199
Rist, Josef 283 Scherrer, Gustav 580
Ristow, Sebastian 488, 494 Schindler, Alfred 173
Ritter, Adolf Martin 26–8, 33, 35–7, 44, Schlager, Karlheinz 598, 604
71 f., 79 f., 181, 245, 305, 334, 341, Schlier, Heinrich 598
344 f., 350, 355, 357–60, 363, 369 f., Schmalz, Joseph H. 598
387 f., 507 Schmidt, Gleb 519
Rodríguez, Félix 467, 552 f., 599 f. Schmidt, Peter L. 29, 328, 333, 345
Rodwell, John M. 447–9 Schmitz, Hermann J. 583
Roldanus, Johannes 32 Schmitz, Josef 487 f.
Rolle, Richard 197, 574 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 102, 277
760 VII Modern Names

Schneider, Carl 507 Steimer, Bruno 148 f.

Schöllgen, Georg 149 Stein, Evina 538
Schönbach, Anton E. 542 Stein, Markus 243 f., 264, 297, 552
Schubert, Paul 539 Steinacher, Roland 320
Schulthess, Friedrich 387, 416 Steinacker, Harold 468
Schwab, Moïse 588 Stenzel, Alois 488, 503
Schwartz, Eduard 14, 31 f., 34, 220–3, 263, 338, Stephens, Christopher 221
344 f., 376, 384, 387, 392 f., 396, 399, 417, Stephenson, Anthony A. 523
442, 453, 466, 468 f., 511, 556 Stępień, Tomasz 255
Schwartz, Martin 430 Stepper, Ruth 475, 481, 483
Schwarz, Hans 589 Stevenson, James 220, 242
Schwertner, Siegfried M. XVII Stewart(-Sykes), Alistair C. 99, 122, 148 f., 151–4,
Seebaß, Gottfried 13 450, 519
Seeberg, Reinhold 21 Stiglmayr, Josef 41
Sehrt, Edward H. 585 St-Jacques, Raymond 587
Seibt, Klaus 207, 297 Stockhausen, Annette von 328–31, 334 f.,
Seidler, Martin 591 337 f., 344
Selb, Walter 387 Stopka, Krysztof 434 f.
Sieben, Hermann-Josef 142, 328 f., 332–4, 338 f. Storms, Godfrid 542
Siebigs, Gereon 399 Stow, Kenneth R. 588
Siecienski, A. Edward 37, 411, 549 Strutwolf, Holger 32, 228, 232
Siffrin, Petrus 529 Stuiber, Alfred 73
Simonetti, Manlio 32, 318, 344 Stutz, Jonathan 421, 424, 450
Simperl, Matthias 220–4, 232, 236 Suermann, Harald 414
Sims-Williams, Nicholas 430 Suolahti, Jaakko 234
Skeat, Walter W. 541 Swainson, Charles A. 22, 40 f.
Smith, Joseph P. 109 Swanson, Dwight D. 58
Smith, Mark S. 38, 328, 336 f., 341, 359, 376, Sweeney, Marvin A. 49
381 f., 384, 398 f., 404
Smith, Shawn C. 553 Taft, Robert F. 430 f., 507 f., 511, 516, 598 f.
Smulders, Pieter 28, 149, 155 Tarchnišvili, Michael 461
Smyth, Marina 554 Tax, Petrus W. 585
Sode, Claudia 411, 554, 556, 562, 564 Taylor, Justin 194
Speyer, Wolfgang 233 Terbuyken, Peri 54
Spiazzi, Raimondo M. 574 Terian, Abraham 402, 438, 440, 519
Spinks, Bryan D. 406, 414, 416, 430, 494, 499, Ter-Mikelian, Aršak 437
505, 586 f. TeSelle, Eugene 3
Spoerl, Kelly McC. 295 Tetz, Martin 246, 271, 276 f., 328
Staats, Reinhart 11, 14, 27–9, 32, 35 f., 72, 79 f., Thomas, Kate 542
98, 208, 210, 341, 344, 352, 354, 359 f., Thompson, Augustine 578
368 f., 372 f., 388 Thomson, Robert W. 461
Stäblein, Bruno 598 Thorpe, Benjamin 585 f.
Stammler, Wolfgang 585 Thraede, Klaus 73, 598
Stark, Rodney 485 Thrams, Peter 485
Stead, Christopher 255 f., 258, 260, 262 Thurn, Hans 441
Steenson, Jeffrey 302 Tidner, Erik 149
Steer, Georg 585 Till, Walter 446
 VII Modern Names 761

Tisserant, Eugène 452 Vivian, Tim 490

Tixeront, Jospeh 42 Vodola, Elizabeth 233
Tönnies, Bernhard 580 Vogel, Cyrille 122, 131, 153, 191, 409, 411, 505,
Toom, Tarmo 27, 524 570, 602
Torrell, Jean-Piere 574 Vokes, Frederick E. 177, 184, 571
Treitinger, Otto 484 Vollenweider, Samuel 11, 61
Troianos, Spyros 387 Vona, Constantino 374
Trostyanskiy, Sergey 479 Vonach, Andreas 508, 515
Turner, Cuthbert H. 14, 23 f., 26, 42, 44 f., 149, Vööbus, Arthur 387, 420–4, 431
264, 285, 469, 525 f. Voss, Gerhard J. 198
Tydeman, William 582
Wagner, Peter 599, 604 f.
Ubl, Karl 471 Wagschal, David 387, 468
Uhalde, Kevin 233 Walch, Christian W.F. 11
Ullmann, Lisa 539 Wallace-Hadrill, David S. 235
Ullmann, Walter 479, 482–4 Wallraff, Martin 74, 89, 475, 506
Ulrich, Jörg 255, 300, 325 Walther, Otto K. 147
Ure, James M. 587 Wanek, Nina-Maria 411, 600
Ussher, James 15 Wansleben, Johann M. 448
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz 118, 295, 480, 484 Warner, George F. 511
Wasserschleben, Friedrich W. 542
Vaggione, Richard P. 291, 311, 351, 552 Waterland, Daniel 40 f., 43
Valla, Laurentius 200 Weckwerth, Andreas 219, 234, 386, 467 f., 551 f.
Van den Eynde, Damien 573 Weidenhiller, Egino 571, 589
Van der Speeten, Joseph 469 Weischer, Bernd M. 32, 446, 450
Van der Vliet, Jacques 443 Weiser, Artur 58
Van Egmond, Peter J. 556 Wengst, Klaus 57
Van Ginkel, Jan J. 418 Wensinck, Arent J. 6
Van Os, Hendrik W. 590, 595 Wernicke, Ernst 200, 591, 595
Van Rhijn, Carine 528, 534, 538, 573 Westra, Liuwe H. 29, 46 f., 148, 151, 153, 155,
Van Rompay, Lucas 420 158, 164, 166, 173 f., 176, 178–80, 183 f.,
Van Unnik, Willem C. 327 187 f., 373, 527, 533
Van Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M. 170 Westwell, Arthur 411, 504
Vanthieghem, Naïm 444 Wharton, Annabel J. 494
Varghese, Baby 418 f. Wheaton, Benjamin 526
Vaschalde, Arthur 429 Whitaker, Edward C. 132, 418
Vasiliev, Alexandre 220, 450, 452 White, Henry J. 195
Velázquez Soriano, Isabel 541 Wickham, Lionel R. 283, 287, 297, 399, 468
Verardo, Raimondo 574 Wieacker, Franz 473, 479
Veyne, Paul 4 Wiegand, Friedrich 199, 502, 533, 571, 574 f., 581
Viciano, Alberto 141 Wiet, Gaston 452
Vielhauer, Philipp 11, 61 Wilcox, Miranda 583–5, 587
Villecourt, Louis 452 Wiles, Maurice F. 29, 40, 248
Vinzent, Markus 6, 15–19, 21–3, 25, 27–9, 80 f., Williams, Daniel H. 288, 295, 302, 312, 325, 377,
96, 126, 128, 133, 151, 153 f., 184, 199 f., 207, 417, 420
222, 236, 238, 240, 270, 274 f., 281 f., 285 f., Williams, Rowan 267
288 f., 295 f., 302, 304, 329 f., 334, 497, 589 Willis, Geoffrey G. 410
762 VII Modern Names

Willjung, Harald 555, 562 f., 565 f. Wood, Michael 148

Winkelmann, Friedhelm 245 Woolf, Rosemary 582
Winkler, Dietmar W. 420, 424–6, 428–30, Wordsworth, John 195
433, 435 Wulf, Christine 592
Winkler, Gabriele 420 f., 432–40, 442, 445, Wyrwa, Dietmar 109
449 f., 457, 459–61
Winkler, Lorenz 476 Yarnold, Edward J. 488
Winnebeck, Julia 14, 516, 589 Young, Frances M. 30
Wischmeyer, Oda 89 Yousif, Pierre 430
Witkamp, Nathan 340, 424, 496
Wlosok, Antonie 131 Zachhuber, Johannes 258
Wochnik, Fritz 590 Zanella, Francesco 507
Wolff, Hans Julius 468 Zawadzki, Konrad 233
Wolter, Michael 59 f., 83 Zelzer, Michaela 29, 328, 333, 345
Wood, D.T. Baird 596 Zwierlein, Otto 102
VIII Credal Content
Relevant Greek and Latin terms are referenced under their respective English entries, even where not
explicitly cited.

The entries are not alphabetically organized, but according to the sequence of clauses in the major creeds.

I. Faith
belief, faith 7 f., 56, 58–63, 480, 618 and passim
confession 3, 56, 64–9, 76–8, 115, 155, 306, 331, 357, 480, 495 and passim see also homology
creed (definition) 1–12
creed, symbolum, pístis, etc. (terminology) 3 f., 10–13
homology, homological text 10 f., 28, 54, 69 f., 72, 76, 80–101, 119 f., 606 see also confession
rule of faith/truth, regula fidei/ueritatis, κανὼν τῆς πίστεως/τῆς ἀληθείας, etc. 8, 27 f., 42, 66, 71, 81,
90 f., 100–20, 126, 135–7, 141, 144, 193, 209, 216 f., 239, 251–3, 324, 326, 384, 415, 493, 495, 550,
557 f., 606, 609, 618
baptismal/credal interrogations/questions, interrogatory creed 6, 11, 23–9, 52, 54, 74 f., 88, 116, 118,
120–34, 136, 140–5, 148, 150, 153–7, 163 f., 173, 175, 177, 180, 182 f., 187, 212, 239, 253, 407, 415,
438, 445 f., 450, 460, 486, 489–93, 498, 501 f., 505 f., 526, 554 f., 568, 574, 582 f., 585, 601,
606 f., 618

II. Trinity
divine ousía/substantia, substance, essence 142, 188, 214, 216, 247 f., 250, 252–60, 262 f., 269, 272,
274, 281, 283, 285, 289 f., 292 f., 298 f., 303–10, 312, 314 f., 317, 319, 321, 323, 328 f., 333–5,
343–7, 350, 355 f., 364, 392 f., 421, 425, 427, 431–6, 440, 442, 445, 449, 451–3, 455–8, 462, 474,
550–2, 564, 567, 608 f., 616, 621 f., 625 see also (Son) homooúsios etc. with the Father
one hypóstasis – three hypostáseis 86, 140, 214–16, 224, 226 f., 229, 231–2, 248, 256, 259 f., 262 f.,
273–7, 281, 283, 285 f., 288–90, 292–4, 296, 298 f., 305, 310–12, 315, 317, 321 f., 355 f., 373, 424,
427, 437, 442, 462, 525, 611, 622 f. see also divine persons
divine persons (prósopa, personae) 7, 11, 24, 58, 63, 82, 86, 90, 110, 142, 209, 214, 224, 229, 238–40,
275, 290, 292 f., 295, 299, 301, 315, 317, 322, 343, 353, 355, 424, 432, 440, 453, 478, 529–31, 551,
583, 601, 611, 618, 622 f. see also one hypóstasis – three hypostáseis
modalist monarchianism 90, 94, 110, 114, 128, 139, 143 f., 356, 607
adoptionism 9, 118, 144, 295, 454, 471, 513, 558–61, 564, 601 f., 613

III. God Father

Father passim
Father’s will, good pleasure, choice (βούλησις, βούλημα, θέλησις, θέλημα, εὐδοκία) 98, 214–16,
223 f., 226, 229, 231 f., 278 f., 288–90, 293 f., 296, 308, 311, 314, 321, 416
Power 97, 272, 433, 586
Almighty, omnipotence (παντοκράτωρ, omnipotens) 19 f., 81, 90, 94, 102–6, 108, 111, 114, 116 f., 119,
122–5, 127–9, 136 f., 139–41, 146, 148, 151, 153, 159–64, 171 f., 184, 186, 190, 202, 204, 210, 222,
225, 230, 236 f., 239, 246, 252–4, 261, 269, 271, 274, 280, 308, 313, 320, 347–9, 364, 366 f., 393,
404, 420, 422, 426, 433, 435, 437, 440–2, 444 f., 447–9, 451, 453, 456 f., 462 f., 487, 498 f., 530 f.,
560, 569, 575, 582 f., 606, 616–18, 620, 623

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318531-030
764 VIII Credal Content

Creator, Demiurge, Maker (δημιουργός, κτίστης, ποιητής, conditor, creator, etc.) 20, 74, 76, 79–83, 86,
88–90, 92–5, 102–8, 111 f., 114 f., 119 f., 124, 127 f., 133, 135, 137, 139–43, 161, 163–5, 174 f., 184,
186, 202, 206, 214–16, 222, 225, 230, 236, 239 f., 247, 249, 252, 254, 257–9, 261, 263, 271, 274, 278,
280, 286, 289, 293, 295, 304 f., 308, 315, 347–9, 354, 364, 366–8, 375, 393, 417, 420–4, 426, 433,
435–7, 440, 442–4, 448 f., 451, 453 f., 456 f., 459, 462 f., 530, 551, 562, 582 f., 606, 616, 618,
620–2
Administrator, Governor, Overseer (διοικητής, οἰκονόμος, προνοητής), government 106, 215, 222,
225, 229 f., 271, 278, 432
Saviour 87
Judge 74, 215, 225

IV. Jesus Christ, Son, Word

Lord 25, 58, 62, 64–6, 81, 89, 102 f., 108, 114 f., 120, 127, 132, 136, 167, 180, 193, 207, 223, 226 f., 231,
254, 257, 277, 287, 314, 316 f., 321 f., 370, 391 f., 498, 519, 521, 537, 543, 563, 576–8 see also one
Lord, our Lord
one Lord 19 f., 61, 82, 84, 202, 206, 210, 223, 225, 227, 230, 236, 247, 252, 254, 272, 347, 349, 364,
366 f., 393, 417, 422, 424, 426, 433, 435, 437, 442–4, 449, 451, 453 f., 456 f., 462 f., 499 f., 560,
569, 616
our Lord 19 f., 65, 83, 87, 97 f., 105, 114, 116 f., 122, 127, 146, 153, 155, 159, 161, 185–8, 197, 202, 205,
210, 217, 227, 237, 252, 273, 280, 321, 335, 342, 347 f., 354, 399, 404, 409, 418, 422, 445, 447 f.,
499, 500, 504, 532, 582, 617 f., 623
our God and Lord 187
Son (of God) passim
Logos/Word (of God) 81, 85 f., 90, 92, 94 f., 98, 105 f., 111 f., 115, 117, 119, 135, 137, 142, 207, 223 f.,
226 f., 231, 236, 239, 247–9, 254, 260, 268 f., 272, 275, 280, 285–8, 290, 292, 294 f., 297 f., 310,
332, 351, 369, 370, 401, 448, 519
Saviour 66, 76, 80, 90 f., 123, 135, 155, 217, 222, 224–7, 231, 268 f., 351, 389, 399, 445
Wisdom 272, 280, 286, 290, 311, 332, 448
Power 83, 100, 103, 112, 272, 274, 280, 286, 295, 448, 461
(God’s) Will 272, 274
radiance (ἀπαύγασμα; Heb 1:3) 86, 218, 227, 260, 269
express image (χαρακτήρ; Heb 1:3) 86, 218, 223–7, 229 f., 251, 283
image (εἰκών; Col 1:15) 83, 218, 224, 226 f., 229, 231 f., 260, 269, 272, 274 f., 283, 298, 303 f., 306
first-born of all creation (Col 1:15) 83, 94, 236, 247, 274–6, 286, 343, 347–50, 364, 368, 375, 424, 426,
428, 457, 459, 500, 610
begotten/born by/from/of the Father 20, 116, 125, 136, 142, 202, 206, 215 f., 218, 223–7, 229–32, 237,
239 f., 247 f., 250, 252 f., 257, 259, 272 f., 276, 278, 280, 283, 286, 288–90, 292 f., 295 f., 301–5,
308, 310, 313–15, 320, 347, 349–51, 354, 364, 366–9, 376, 393, 421, 423 f., 426 f., 433–5, 440, 442,
444, 449, 451, 453–7, 459, 462 f., 529, 551, 560, 562, 569, 616, 619, 621 f.
only-begotten/only-born, μονογενής, unigenitus, unicus 19 f., 62, 85, 127 f., 139, 141, 146, 148, 150, 153,
159, 161, 185 f., 188, 202, 204, 210, 215, 223, 225, 227, 230, 236, 247 f., 252 f., 272, 274 f., 278, 280,
286 f., 304, 308 f., 313–15, 320 f., 347–50, 364, 366 f., 393, 399, 404, 422, 424, 426, 433, 435,
441 f., 444 f., 448 f., 451, 453 f., 456 f., 459, 462 f., 495, 500, 520, 524, 529, 532, 560, 569, 575,
582, 616, 621, 623
before all/the ages, before every beginning, etc. 20, 202, 206, 210, 215 f., 236 f., 240, 247, 272 f., 278,
280, 288, 296, 301, 305, 308, 313, 315, 320, 347–50, 354, 364, 366 f., 370, 393, 416, 422 f., 426,
444, 451, 453 f., 456 f., 462 f., 560, 569, 616
 VIII Credal Content 765

(not) co-eternal with the Father 95, 216, 239 f., 276, 286, 288 f., 292, 310 f., 399, 440, 552, 622
homooúsios/consubstantial/of like/identical/one/the same substance/nature with the Father 33, 95,
142, 201, 214–16, 221, 241 f., 247 f., 250, 252–64, 268, 271, 274, 276, 281, 283, 285 f., 289–91, 296,
298 f., 301–7, 309–12, 314 f., 319, 321, 323 f., 326, 328 f., 335, 343–5, 347–50, 352 f., 355 f., 358 f.,
364, 366 f., 369, 372, 393, 399, 408, 421 f., 426 f., 431, 433–7, 440, 442, 444 f., 449, 451–3, 455–7,
459, 462 f., 473, 478, 500, 551, 560, 564, 567, 569, 608 f., 611, 616, 621 f.
similar (hómoios) to the Father, Homoians 223, 226, 229, 231, 257, 260, 292 f., 298, 303, 305 f.,
308–11, 313, 315, 319 f., 321, 323, 462 f., 609, 622
dissimilar (anhómoios) to the Father, Anhomoians, Eunomians, Neo-Arians 118, 183, 214, 260, 264,
304–8, 311, 319 f., 350 f., 353, 356, 368, 372, 474, 476, 621
homoioúsios with the Father, Homoiousians 264, 301–7, 310 f., 317, 319 f., 326, 350, 353 f., 357 f., 356,
368, 474, 476
God from God 236, 239, 247, 252, 272, 275, 280, 283, 308, 310 f., 313, 320, 347, 351, 364, 393, 421, 433,
435, 437, 442, 462, 560, 616, 621
Light (from Light) 223 f., 226, 231 f., 236, 239, 247, 252, 272, 280, 295, 311, 347, 351, 364, 367 f., 393,
396, 421–3, 426, 433, 435, 437, 440, 442, 444, 449, 451, 453, 455–7, 462 f., 550, 560, 569, 616
true God from true God 206, 247, 252, 347–9, 351, 364, 366 f., 393, 421–3, 426, 435, 437, 442, 444,
449, 451, 453, 455–7, 459, 463, 550, 560, 569, 616
collaboration, cooperation, participation in creation 20, 76, 82 f., 85 f., 88, 92, 94 f., 105–7, 111, 115,
117, 119, 133, 137, 140, 202, 206 f., 215, 223, 229, 237, 240, 247, 249, 252, 254, 272, 274, 278, 280,
286, 293, 295, 308, 310, 313, 320, 347–9, 351, 354, 364 f., 367, 393, 420, 422, 426, 428, 433–7,
440, 442, 444, 449, 451, 453, 455–7, 459, 462 f., 551, 616, 621
himself (not) created 128, 214–16, 223 f., 226, 228–30, 232, 239, 248, 257–9, 261, 263, 273, 275 f., 287,
293, 296, 298, 302, 304–6, 318, 333, 350, 356, 417, 420–3, 434–7, 441, 443, 453, 457, 459, 462,
500, 565
because of us (humans), because of our salvation (δι᾿ ἡμᾶς (τοὺς ἀνθρώπους), διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν, propter nos (homines), propter nostram salutem) 20, 39, 237, 247, 249, 252 f., 280, 347,
349, 365, 367, 394, 399, 419, 421 f., 426 f., 435, 442–4, 449, 451, 453, 455–7, 459, 461–3, 521, 550,
560 f., 569, 616
descent (from the heaven/the heavens) 39, 82, 85, 88, 125, 139, 247, 249, 252, 254, 272, 278, 308, 318,
347, 351, 365–7, 370, 381, 389, 394–6, 420–2, 424, 427, 433, 435, 437, 441, 443–5, 449, 451, 453,
455–7, 459, 462 f., 550, 561, 569, 616, 621
assumed/became/took flesh, came in the flesh, was born in the flesh, became incarnate (from the
Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary) 5, 63–6, 69, 76, 84 f., 88, 90, 94 f., 99 f., 102, 104, 107, 111 f., 120,
127, 142, 166, 189, 205, 224, 227, 231, 237, 247, 249, 252, 278, 314, 316, 320, 348 f., 365–71, 381 f.,
389, 394, 400 f., 417, 419, 422, 427–9, 433, 435, 437, 440, 442, 444, 451, 453–7, 459, 462 f., 520,
550, 561, 569, 617, 621 f.
became human (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, (in)humanatum, etc.) 20, 94, 105, 116 f.,
205, 247, 249, 252 f., 272, 280, 286, 348 f., 352, 365–8, 370, 389, 392, 394, 399, 421–3, 425, 427,
429, 434–7, 441 f., 444 f., 448 f., 451, 453, 455, 457, 459, 461–3, 550, 561, 569, 617, 621
docetic view of incarnation, docetism 71, 95, 97, 108, 112, 120, 125 f., 134 f., 140, 143, 169, 215, 227,
351 f., 369, 607
patripassian view of incarnation, patripassianism 110, 125, 139–43, 167, 276, 293, 304, 352
was conceived of the Holy Spirit 161, 165–7, 318, 349, 457, 529, 532, 617, 620
was begotten/born (from (the Holy Spirit and) the virgin Mary) 20, 82, 92, 94 f., 97–9, 102 f., 107 f.,
111 f., 116, 122–5, 127–9, 134–9, 141–3, 146, 150 f., 153, 159–61, 163, 165–7, 169, 185 f., 202, 205,
224, 227, 229, 231, 252, 272, 274, 280, 283, 288, 295 f., 308, 314, 316, 318, 320, 328, 348 f., 351 f.,
766 VIII Credal Content

354, 365, 368 f., 399, 404, 425, 437, 447, 454 f., 457, 459, 518–21, 530, 532, 536, 582, 595, 609,
611, 617, 619–22
Mary Mother of God (θεοτόκος) 217 f., 224, 227, 231, 343, 369, 390, 399–401, 416
sojourn on earth, preaching/teaching, miracles 100, 111 f., 120, 133, 143, 227, 237, 247, 308, 314, 321,
425, 521, 619, 623 f.
suffered, suffering 20, 87, 97, 107, 111 f., 117, 122–5, 127, 134–8, 140, 142, 160 f., 163, 167–9, 183, 185 f.,
189, 224, 227, 229, 231, 237, 247, 252 f., 272 f., 286, 342, 348 f., 352, 365, 367, 370, 394–6, 404,
421, 423, 425, 427, 433, 435, 437, 441, 443 f., 448 f., 451, 453, 455–9, 462 f., 519, 521, 550, 561,
569, 582, 585, 611, 617, 620 f. see also patripassian view of incarnation
crucifixion 7, 20, 39, 60, 85, 88, 91 f., 94 f., 97 f., 100, 111, 125, 129, 134–8, 140, 146, 150 f., 154, 159–61,
167 f., 185 f., 202, 205, 227, 252, 280–2, 285, 287, 308, 314, 318, 321, 342 f., 348 f., 352, 354,
365–7, 370, 389, 394 f., 404, 417, 422 f., 425, 427, 437, 444 f., 447, 449, 451, 453, 455–9, 461, 463,
500, 520, 530, 532, 536, 547, 550, 561, 569, 575, 577, 582, 585, 592, 595, 609, 617 see also
patripassian view of incarnation
Pontius Pilate (ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, sub Pontio Pilato, etc.) 5, 20, 60, 65, 91 f., 96–99, 107, 111, 129,
134–9, 146, 151 f., 154, 159, 161, 167 f., 186, 202, 205, 210, 252, 281 f., 318, 348 f., 352, 354, 365,
367, 370, 376, 389, 394 f., 417, 422, 425, 427, 444 f., 447–9, 451, 453, 455–9, 461, 463, 529, 532,
585, 595, 609, 611, 617, 619
death 5, 60, 62 f., 69, 74, 82, 87, 94–98, 100, 104 f., 111, 117, 129 f., 136 f., 140, 142, 146, 151, 154, 161,
168 f., 171, 217 f., 224, 227, 229, 231, 240, 254, 280, 282, 285, 308, 314, 321, 405, 416, 417, 419,
422 f., 425, 427 f., 435 f., 441–5, 447–9, 451, 453, 455, 462, 519 f., 529, 532, 606, 617, 619
burial 20, 60, 76, 82, 92, 111, 129, 137 f., 146, 150 f., 154, 159–61, 168 f., 185 f., 202, 205, 252, 254,
280–2, 314, 316 f., 321, 343, 348 f., 352, 365–7, 394 f., 422, 427, 437, 444, 448 f., 451, 453, 455–9,
461, 463, 530, 532, 550, 561, 569, 582, 617
descent to the underworld/hell 14, 30, 100, 160 f., 163, 169–71, 184, 308, 310, 314, 321, 349, 499, 532,
575, 582, 592, 617, 620
(on the third day) rose (again) (from the dead), (bodily) resurrection 5, 7, 14, 19–21, 59 f., 62–4, 69,
73 f., 76, 81–4, 87 f., 92, 94–100, 102–5, 107 f., 111 f., 114, 116 f., 120 f., 124, 126 f., 129 f., 134,
136–8, 141, 146, 150–2, 154, 157–62, 171, 185–7, 189, 202, 204, 217 f., 224, 227, 229, 237, 240, 247,
249, 252–4, 272, 278, 280–2, 285 f., 308, 314, 317 f., 321, 337, 348 f., 352, 365–7, 394, 404 f.,
421 f., 425, 427, 433, 435, 437, 442, 444–9, 451, 453, 455–9, 461–3, 519, 521 f., 529 f., 532, 536,
550, 561, 563, 569, 582, 592, 595, 606, 617, 619, 622, 625
rose again alive from the dead 129 f., 150 f., 154, 187, 282, 447
dwelt with his disciples for forty/fifty days (Acts 1:3) 308 f., 314, 321
ascended/went (up)/was assumed/was received/taken up into/to (the) heaven(s)/to the Father 5,
20 f., 87, 96, 98 f., 116 f., 129, 136–8, 141, 146, 150 f., 154, 159 f., 162 f., 185 f., 189, 197, 202, 204,
217, 224, 227, 231, 240, 248 f., 252 f., 272, 278, 280–2, 286, 309, 314, 316, 318, 321, 348 f., 365–7,
394, 421 f., 425, 427, 433, 435, 437, 442, 444, 446–9, 451, 453, 455–9, 461–3, 521, 532, 550, 561,
569, 582, 617, 619
ascended victorious (ascendit uictor/uictor ascendit) 160, 187
is sitting/is seated/sits/sat down at/to the right hand of (God,) the Father (Almighty) 20, 76, 82,
86–8, 92, 98 f., 112, 116, 120, 129, 134, 137–9, 141, 147, 150–2, 154, 159 f., 162 f., 185 f., 203 f., 210,
217 f., 224, 227, 229, 231, 240, 252, 272, 278, 280, 282, 309, 314, 316, 318, 321 f., 348 f., 352, 365,
367, 376, 394–6, 421 f., 425, 427, 435–7, 441–4, 446, 448 f., 451, 453, 455–9, 461, 463, 529, 532,
550, 561, 569, 575, 582, 588, 611, 617, 619–22
will come/(is) coming (again), return, parousia 20 f., 82, 88, 98–100, 120, 129, 133–5, 137 f., 147,
150–2, 154, 157–9, 162 f., 185 f., 197, 203 f., 210, 224, 227, 231, 237, 240, 248 f., 252–4, 272, 278,
 VIII Credal Content 767

280, 282, 309, 314, 316–18, 321 f., 348 f., 365–7, 394 f., 421–3, 427, 433–5, 437, 442, 447–9, 451,
453, 455–9, 461–3, 543, 550, 561, 569, 582, 594, 617, 619
in/with (his Father’s) glory 107, 112, 135, 203, 206, 210, 237, 240, 248 f., 272, 309, 314, 316 f., 321, 365,
367, 370, 394 f., 416, 423, 425, 427 f., 437, 441, 443, 445, 448 f., 451, 453, 455–8, 461, 543, 561,
569, 617, 622
Final/Last Judgement 20 f., 82, 84 f., 88, 98–100, 107, 112, 127, 129 f., 133–5, 137 f., 147, 150 f., 154, 159,
162, 185 f., 203 f., 207, 224, 227, 229, 231 f., 237, 240, 248 f., 252–4, 272, 278, 280, 282, 292, 314,
316, 318, 322, 348 f., 365–7, 394, 419, 421 f., 425, 427, 433, 435, 437, 442, 446–9, 451, 453, 455–9,
461–3, 530, 532, 543, 550, 561, 569, 582, 595, 617, 619
of whose kingdom there will be no end, whose/his kingdom has no end/will have no end, etc. 203,
206 f., 287, 366 f., 370, 394 f., 422, 427 f., 437, 448 f., 451, 453, 455 f., 458, 463, 497, 561, 569,
617, 622

V. Holy Spirit
in one Holy Spirit/Spirit of Holiness, his oneness 37, 203, 224, 237, 248 f., 341, 345, 348 f., 352–4, 366,
370 f., 422 f., 426 f., 456, 458 f.
Paraclete 90, 112 f., 136 f., 203, 210, 277, 281, 286, 296, 314, 321, 421, 437, 442 f., 550 f.
Lord 366 f., 395, 422, 427, 448, 451, 456, 458, 463, 559, 561, 569
life-giver 349, 352, 366 f., 372, 395, 416, 419, 422 f., 427, 434, 436, 446, 448 f., 451 f., 456, 458 f., 463, 519,
559, 561, 569, 611, 617, 620, 622
power 84, 111, 269, 286, 425, 453–5, 457
procession from (the substance of) the Father 298, 334, 349, 352, 366 f., 372, 374, 395, 411, 422,
425–7, 436, 448, 451 f., 456, 458 f., 463, 549–70, 611, 617, 622
procession from the Father and the Son (filioque) 37, 188, 407, 411 f., 421, 430, 432, 449, 452, 456,
514, 549–71, 579, 585, 603, 611–13
(not) consubstantial with the Father (and the Son) 35 f., 188, 326, 328 f., 333–6, 343–5, 353–6,
359, 372, 392, 421, 431 f., 437 f., 440, 445, 458, 550–2, 554, 564 f., 611, 622 see also not (fully)
divine, Pneumatomachians, Macedonians
(not) co-eternal with the Father and the Son 95, 552, 554, 556, 565
not (fully) divine, Pneumatomachians, Macedonians 35 f., 264, 330, 336 f., 344 f., 352, 354,
356–9, 361 f., 371, 381, 392, 400–2, 406, 417, 610 see also (not) consubstantial with the Father
(and the Son)
(not) created 328, 333–5, 356, 435 f., 556, 565
jointly worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son 92, 328, 331, 337, 366 f., 371, 375 f.,
395 f., 422, 427, 456, 458, 463, 559, 561, 569, 611, 617, 622
spoke/proclaimed through the prophets (and the apostles) 91 f., 107, 116, 136, 203, 207 f., 366 f.,
372 f., 395, 416 f., 419, 422, 427, 449, 456, 458, 463, 561, 569, 617, 622
Church 19, 58, 83, 90, 92, 118, 122 f., 125 f., 129–33, 147, 150, 152, 154 f., 159, 162, 172–80, 182, 185–7,
201, 203 f., 207, 209 f., 217 f., 224, 229, 231, 253, 349, 353 f., 366 f., 372–4, 395, 418 f., 423, 425,
427, 437, 441, 445–8, 456–60, 463, 530, 532, 561, 569, 582, 618–20, 623
– one 176, 180, 203, 207, 209 f., 217 f., 224, 229, 231, 349, 353, 366 f., 372, 374, 395, 419, 423, 425,
427, 437, 447 f., 456–9, 463, 561, 569, 618, 623
– holy 19, 90, 118, 122 f., 129–33, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 162, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185–7, 201, 203 f.,
207, 209, 253, 349, 353, 366 f., 372, 374, 395, 418, 427, 441, 445–9, 460, 530, 532, 561, 569, 582,
618 f.
– catholic 118, 147, 152, 155, 162, 172–7, 182, 186, 203, 207, 209, 217 f., 224, 229, 231, 349, 353, 366 f.,
372, 374, 395, 423, 425, 427, 437, 441, 445, 447, 456–8, 460, 463, 530, 532, 561, 569, 582, 618–20
768 VIII Credal Content

– Christian 448, 459 f.

– glorious 418, 423
– patristic 425
– apostolic 218, 349, 353, 366 f., 372, 374, 395, 419, 423, 425, 427, 437, 445, 447 f., 456–8, 463, 561,
569, 618, 623
communion of saints 162 f., 176–82, 184, 439, 530, 582, 618, 620
baptism 61, 84, 104 f., 113, 173, 201, 203, 207–10, 349, 353 f., 367, 373 f., 395, 414, 419, 423, 425, 427,
437, 444 f., 448 f., 456–9, 464, 494, 610, 618, 620, 623
forgiveness/remission of sins 90, 92, 104, 117, 122, 131 f., 147, 154–6, 159, 162, 174 f., 177, 180, 185–7,
201, 203 f., 207–9, 227, 253, 349, 353 f., 367, 372–4, 376, 395, 423, 427, 437, 439, 444, 448 f.,
456–9, 464, 489, 497, 532, 561, 569, 582 f., 618–20, 623
resurrection of the flesh/of the dead/of the bodies/from the dead 19, 60, 69, 74, 82 f., 94, 100, 107,
112, 122 f., 125–30, 137 f., 147, 150, 152, 154, 157, 159, 162, 171, 174 f., 177, 180, 183, 186, 188, 201,
203 f., 217 f., 224, 227, 229, 231, 253, 279, 309, 314, 316, 321, 349, 353 f., 367, 372–4, 376, 395, 414,
419, 423, 425, 427, 437 f., 441, 444, 447–9, 456–8, 460, 464, 497, 530, 532, 561, 569, 582 f., 595,
610, 618–20, 623
Final/Last Judgement 423, 437
life of the world to come, eternal life, future aeon, etc. 62, 64 f., 86, 103 f., 131 f., 147, 154, 159, 162 f.,
175–7, 179, 182–4, 186, 197, 201, 203 f., 253, 279, 349, 353 f., 367, 373 f., 376, 395, 423, 427, 441,
444 f., 448 f., 456–8, 460, 464, 497, 529–32, 561, 569, 582, 610, 618–20, 623