The Creed

doi:10.1017/9781108613200.007

7 - The Creed

from Part III - Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2020

Mark J. Edwards

Edited by

Young Richard Kim

Show author details

Young Richard Kim: Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the evidence for the existence of creeds before Nicaea and the purpose for which they might have been employed. The rival accounts of the origin of the Nicene formula are compared, together with the variants in the wording and the different accounts of its origin. The biblical texts that lie behind each verse of the creed are examined, and Beatrice’s argument for a pagan origin of the term homoousios is weighed against other theories. The anathemas require particular study, since the anathema on the term ktiston (“created”) is not preserved in all sources, but is crucial to the argumentation of Athanasius, who claims that it has the authority of Eusebius. The chapter then asks how the Nicene Creed was regarded after the end of the council, and whether subsequent creedal formulations were meant to reinforce or supersede it, and how it attained the form that is now regularly employed in churches.

Keywords

creed anathema homoousios creature hypostasis Constantine Eusebius of Caesarea

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea , pp. 135 - 157

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108613200.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select References

Beatrice, Pier Franco. 2002. “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity.” CH 71(2): 243–72.Google Scholar

Bidez, J., ed. 1913. Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte. GCS 21. Leipzig: Hinrichs.Google Scholar

Bindley, Thomas Herbert. 1899. The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Dossetti, Giuseppe. 1967. Il simbolo di Nicea e di Constantinopoli: Edizione critica. Rome: Herder.Google Scholar

Edwards Mark, J. 2012. “Alexander of Alexandria and the Homoousion.” VC 66(5): 482–502.Google Scholar

Heurtley, Charles Able. 1911. De Fide et Symbolo. Oxford: Parker.Google Scholar

Hort, Fenton J. A. 1876. Two Dissertations. Cambridge: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kelly, J. N. D. 1972. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. London: Longmans.Google Scholar

Pietras, Henryk. 2016. Council of Nicaea (325): Religious and Political Context, Documents, Commentaries. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press.Google Scholar

Price, Richard, and Gaddis, Michael. 2005. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. TTH 45. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar

Siecienski, A. Edward. 2010. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Skarsaune, Oskar. 1987. “A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325).” VC 41(1): 34–54.Google Scholar

Stead, G. Christopher. 1961. “The Significance of the Homoousios.” StPatr 3: 397–412.Google Scholar

Stead, G. Christopher. 1998. “The Word ‘From Nothing’.” JTS, n.s., 49(2): 671–84.Google Scholar

Thomson, Robert, and Howard-Johnston, James, trans. 1999. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. TTH 31. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar

Wiles, Maurice F. 1993. “A Textual Variant in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea.” StPatr 26: 428–33.Google Scholar