Footnote 180:[ (return) ]
See above § 5, p. 114 f.
Footnote 181:[ (return) ]
See my edition of the Didache. Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, "De disciplina arcani origine," 1841.
Footnote 182:[ (return) ]
The earliest example is 1 Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16, where already the question is about το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον. See Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p. 134.
Footnote 183:[ (return) ]
Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9. 1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. 1. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, Justin passim; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul, or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula. Ignat. ad Magn. 15; κεκτημενοι αδιακριτον πνευμα, 'ος εστιν Ιησους Χριστος..
Footnote 184:[ (return) ]
The formulæ run: "God who has spoken through the Prophets," or the "Prophetic Spirit," etc.
Footnote 185:[ (return) ]
That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of Alexandria presupposes a symbol.
Footnote 186:[ (return) ]
Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the παραδοθεις λογος must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.
Footnote 187:[ (return) ]
See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3 ff. and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads: Πιστευω εις θεον πατερα παντοκρατορα, και εις Χριστον Ιησουν (τον) 'υιον αυτου τον μονογενη, (on this word see Westcott's Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) τον κυριον 'ημων τον γεννηθεντα εκ πνευματος 'αγιου και Μαριας της παρθενου, τον επι Ποντιου Πιλατου σταυρωθεντα και ταφεντα; τη τριτη 'ημεραι ανασταντα εκ νεκρων, αναβαντα εις τους ουρανους, καθημενον εν δεξια του πατρος, 'οθεν ερχεται κριναι ζωντας και νεκρους. και εις πνευμα 'αγιον, 'αγιαν εκκλησιαν, αφεσιν 'αμαρτιων σαρκος αναστασιν, αμην. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of γνωσις (αληθεια) και ζωη αιωνος, is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, "That in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120." In some "unpretending notes" (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period ("it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, "of the house of David", with reference to Christ. "The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the Gentiles.... This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220." While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read πιστευω εις 'ενα θεον παντοκρατορα, it was now changed in πιστευω εις θεον πατερα παντοκρατορα. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome.) Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression "more or less stereotyped form;" for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering regulæ fidei of Irenæus and Tertullian which contain the "unum"; further, the "unum" is not found in the western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula θεον πατερα παντοκρατορα beside the more frequent θεον παντοκρατορα is attested by Irenæus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate Kerygmata about God and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The Kerygma about God was the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty God. (3) The Kerygma about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form κατα σαρκα, κατα πνευμα, (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, καταβασ-αναβας; these forms were also partly combined. (4) The designations "Christ", "Son of God" and "Lord"; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or κατα πνευμα, the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula "crucified under Pontius Pilate"), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the Kerygma about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The σαρκα λαβον, and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the Kerygma about God and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological theories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western regulæ fidei do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer Kerygmata about God and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the regulæ fidei of Irenæus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the regula. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial Kerygmata, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135.
Footnote 188:[ (return) ]
See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias.
Footnote 189:[ (return) ]
διδαχη κυριον δια των ιβ' αποστολων (Did. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might be said simply 'ο κυριος (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22. 3; See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: 'ως 'ο νομος κηρυσσει και 'οι προφηται και 'ο κυριος, just as even Pseudo Clem de Virg. I. 2: "Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus." Polycarp (6.3) says: καθως αυτος ενετειλατο και 'οι ευαγγελισαμενοι 'ημας αποστολοι και 'οι προφηται 'οι προκηρυξαντες την ελευσιν του κυριου 'ημων. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read: τα βιβλια (O.T.) και 'οι αποστολοι, το ευαγγελιον may also stand for 'ο κυριος; (Ignat., Didache. 2 Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as τα απομνημονευματα τ. αποστολων (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand, as 'αι κυριακαι γραφαι, (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply τα λογια (κυριακα). The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): 'ημεις και Πετρον και τους αλλους αποστολους αποδεχομεθα 'ως Χριστον, is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1.4; 'ινα επιγνως περι 'ων κατηχηθης λογων την ασφαλειαν), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss, Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.). Further there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized. But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the απ' αρχης αυτοπταις και 'υπηρεταις του λογου, so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the Kerygma of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures.