IV THE PLACE OF COMPOSITION OF THE OLD THAT Rome was the centre from which R made its way throughout the western church is admitted by all. Tertullian testifies that his creed came from Rome (see above, p. 47) and an examination of the various western creeds given by Hahn, p. 22 seq., shows that R is the basis of them all and that the closer the connection between any church and Rome the closer the identity between its creed and R, and on the other hand the less intimate the relation the greater the divergence from R (cf. Kattenbusch, I. p. 78 seq.). But there is a marked difference of opinion among scholars as to whether R originated in Rome itself or in the east. The former view is maintained by Harnack and Kattenbusch (see Harnack's article in the third edition of Herzog and his Chronologie der alt-christlichen Litteratur I. p. 524, and see Kattenbusch, II. p. 321 seq. and 960); the latter among others by Caspari (cf. his Quellen, Bd. III. p. 161), Zahn (Das apostolische Symbolum, p. 37 seq.), and most recently Sanday (Journal of Theological Studies, October, 1899, p. 3 seq.). Caspari seems to have made no special investigation of the question, but apparently took it for granted that R originated in the east, and because of the occurrence of μovoyevns assigned it to the Johannine circle. Zahn's view is wrapped up with his contention that a symbol of which R is an outgrowth existed even in the time of the apostles. But this is utterly irreconcilable with the testimony of primitive Christian literature (see above, p. 78 seq.). Sanday's article is chiefly devoted to showing that the eastern type of creed, which in agreement with many others he regards not as a development of R itself, but as a parallel recension of an earlier eastern original, existed already before the latter part of the third century, and that therefore the suggestion of Kattenbusch that R may have found official entrance into the east in connection with the condemnation of Paul of Samosata is unsound. But to show that that suggestion is of doubtful value, or even to show that the eastern type of creed was in existence before the time in question is not to disprove the thesis that R originated in the west and was the parent of the eastern symbols as Harnack and Kattenbusch maintain, for it may easily have found its way to the east long before. However that may be whether it is true that the eastern type was developed before the time of Paul of Samosata or not - many indications point in the direction of a western original for R. There is in the first place no trace of R or of any similar symbol in the east until at any rate well on in the third century, except in a doubtful fragment of Melito's writings (see above, p. 77), which proves nothing.1 In the west, on the other hand, we have clear and definite testimony to the existence of R before the end of the second century. Again, the symbol in use in Syria and Palestine at the end of the third century, which can be reconstructed in its main lines from the symbols of Cyril of Jerusalem, of Lucian and of the churches of Laodicea and Antioch (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 192 seq.), is evidently, as admitted by all, an enlargement either of R itself or of an older creed upon which R too is based, and it is noticeable that the additions to the stock in the east are of an entirely different character from the original text, while the additions in the west whether in R or in our present Apostles' Creed are of the same nature as the original to which they are added. The western character of the parent symbol is thus strikingly shown. On the other hand, aside from the presumption that all Christian institutions of the earliest days 1 If Origen knew R, as maintained by Kattenbusch (see his careful discussion in Vol. II. p. 134 seq.), the fact proves no more, as Kattenbusch shows, than that he may have become acquainted with it during his visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus. originated in the east and were carried thence to Rome a presumption which should be allowed no weight in the present case- the only argument which can be urged in favor of an eastern origin for R is the occurrence in the oriental creeds of the fourth century of certain words and phrases which are wanting in R, but are found in Irenæus' reproductions of the symbol. Thus eva with fcóv and with Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ; ποιητής κ.τ.λ. after θεόν ; παθόντα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας, and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (or διὰ ἡμάς) in the article on Christ ; év Sóŋ K.T.λ. in connection with the Second Coming. The assumption is that Irenæus brought the Icreed with him from the east and that his statements of it represent its eastern and original form (cf. Sanday, p. 21). But it is to be said in reply, that the phrases referred to are of such a character as to betray their later origin. They are certainly additions to R and not a part of its original text, as the theological character at any rate of most of them plainly shows. Moreover, if they belonged originally to R, their subsequent omission is very difficult to explain. It is quite possible that the phrases which Irenæus has in common with the eastern symbols of a later day were already current in the east and were brought thence by him without yet having been incorporated into a creed. Or it is equally possible that they took their rise with him and found their way into the eastern creed under his influence. All of them have their explanation in Irenæus' own theology or in his polemics, and it is easier to understand them as originating with him than with anybody else. In the light of these considerations, it may fairly be concluded, in agreement with Harnack and Kattenbusch, that R originated in Rome, not in the orient. |