1. E.g., the monumental work of Ferdin, and Kattenbusch, , Das Apostolisehe Symbol, Seine Entstehung, sein geschichtticher Sinn, seine ursprüngliche Stellung im Kultus und in des Theologie der Kirehe, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1894 and 1900 reprinted Darmstadt, 1962),Google Scholar and MeGiffert, A. C., The Apostles' Creed (New York, 1902).Google Scholar

2. For an excellent discussion of this development and a fine history of research on the Apostles' Creed, see Ghellinek, J. de, S. J., Patristique et Moyen Age, v. I, Les recherches sue les oriqines du symbole des Apôtres, rev. ed. (Bruxelles and Paris, 1949).Google Scholar

3. Holl, , Karl, , Gesammelte Aufsätze, v. II (Tübingen, 1928), pp. 115–122.Google Scholar Holl's thesis is discussed infra, n. 23.

4. The major results of this scholarly investigation are perhaps most dramatically seen in Lietzmann's work. Cf. his “Die Urform des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1919), pp. 269–274Google Scholar; “Die Anfänge des Glaubensbekenntnisses,” in Festgabe für A. von Harnack (Tübingen, 1921), pp. 226–242Google Scholar; and his Symbolstudien I-XIV in ZNW vols. 21–26 (1922–1927).Google Scholar All of these studies are reprinted in Lietzmann, Hans, Kleine Schriften, v. III, Studien zur Liturgieund Symbolgeschichte (Berlin, 1962).Google Scholar Cf. also especially Lietzmann's Symbole der alten Kirche (Kleine Texte 17/18) (Berlin, 1935),Google Scholar which brings together all of the relevant texts and supplements August and Hahn's, G. LudwigBibliothek der Symbole und Glaubenaregeln der alten Kirche, 3rd rev. ed. (Breslau, 1897)Google Scholar and reprinted recently (Hildesheim, 1962).

5. One of the most important books to have come abreast of this material is that of Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (London, 1950; rev. 1960)Google Scholar. Representative of other works which should be mentioned here are such widely diverse studies as those of Cullmann, Oscar, The Earliest Christian Confessions (London, 1949)Google Scholar; Lichtenstein, Ernst, “Die älteste christliche Glaubensformel,” in ZKG, v. 63 (1950–1951), pp. 1–74Google Scholar; and Feine, Paul, Die Gestalt des apostolischen Glaubensbekenninisses in der Zeit des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar.

6. Ueber die pseudo-apostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Schriften der Wissensehaftlichen Gesellsehaft in Strassburg, vi (Strassburg, 1910).Google Scholar

7. The So-Called Egyptian Church Order and Derived Documents, Texts and Studies, vol. 8, no. 4 (Cambridge, 1916).Google Scholar The two main demurers from this identification of which I am aware are those of Lorentz, B. and Hamel, A.. Lorentz contends in his De Egyptische Kerkordening en Hippolytus van Rome (Haarlem, n.d. [1929 (doubt)]), pp. 139 ff.Google Scholar, that the Apostolic Tradition is largely a work by another author appended to the peri charismatōn of Hippolytus, , and goes on to conclude “… dat Hippolytus onmogelijk de schrijver van deze kerkordening kan zijn.” (p. 157)Google Scholar Lorentz has acquired no support for his position. Hamel, , in his Kirche bei Hippolyt von Rom (Gütersloh, 1951), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar, and in an article in ZNW, v. 36 (1937), pp. 238 ff.Google Scholar, entitled “Ueber das kirchenrechtliche Schrifttum Hippolyts,” has raised important theological critical questions against Hippolytan authorship. arguments are based on inconsistencies between the Apostolic Tradition and the clearly genuine writings of Hippolytus. It would seem to me, however, that the weight of his argument rests upon a failure to distinguish between the tasks of authorship and compilation. The Apostolic Tradition is a work of compilation, and one must not, despite the fluid state of liturgical forms in Hippolytus' time, expect to find him making the Church's formulae all sound as if he himself had composed them. Among the students of the creeds, there is, with the exception of Badcock, F. J., The History of the Creeds (New York and London, 1930; 2nd rev. ed., 1938), pp. 149–155,Google Scholar unanimity in support of the Hippolytan authorship.

8. The text of the interrogations is probably most accurately preserved in the Latin of the fifth-century MS, the Verona Fragment or Palimpsest. It is reproduced in Hauler, Edmund, Didascaliae apostolorum fragmenta latina (Leipzig, 1910)Google Scholar and in Botte, Dom Bernard, O.S.B., La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte, Essai de Reconstitution Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forsehungen Heft 39 (Münster, Westfalen, 1963).Google Scholar The best treatment of Hippolytus' work in English is that of Dix, Dom Gregory, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus of Rome (London, 1937)Google Scholar, which includes the Latin text of the Verona Palimpsest, translation, apparatus and notes (pp. 36 f.). Additional discussions of the text may be found in the following studies: in addition to his recent study mentioned above, see also Botte's, B. “Note sur le symbole baptismal de saint Hippolyte,” in Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, S.J., v. I (Gembloux, 1951), pp. 189–200Google Scholar; Capelle, Bernard, “Le symbole romain au second siècle,” in Rev. Bénéd., v. 39 (1927), pp. 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conablly, R. Hugh, “On the Text of the Baptismal Creed of Hippolytus,” in JTS, v. 25 (1924), pp. 131–139Google Scholar; Crehan, Joseph, S. J., Early Christian Baptism and the Creed (London, 1950), pp. 111–120, 140 ff., and 159–170Google Scholar; Easton, B. S., The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (New York, 1934), pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (London, 1950; rev. ed. 1960), pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar; Lietzmann, Hans, Symbolstudie XIV, ZNW, v. 26 (1927), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar; and Nautin, Pierre, Je cress a l'Esprit Saint dans la Bainte Eglise pour la résurrection de la chair (Paris, 1947).Google Scholar

The text of the baptismal interrogations, with major variants indicated in parentheses, is as follows (cf. Hauler, p. 110, and Botte, pp. 48 and 50; the Greek text, introduced here for reasons to be suggested later, is the author's reconstruction from the Latin): Credis in deum patrem omnipotentem(doubt) Credis in Christum Iesum, filium dei, qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex (et) Maria virgine, et (quit) crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et mortuus est (et sepultus), et resurrexit die tertia vivus a mortuis, et ascendit in caelis et sedit ad dexteram patris, venturus iudicare vivos et mortuos(doubt) Credis in Spiritu saucto et (in) sanctnam ecclesiam et carnis resurrectionem(doubt) Pisteueis eis theon patera pantokratora(doubt) Pisteueis eis Christen Iēsoun, ton huioin ton theou, ten gennēthenta dia (ek) pneumatos hagiou ek (kai) Marias tēs parthenon, kai (ton) staurōthenta epi Pontiou Pilatou kai apothanonta (kai taphenta), kai anastanta tēi tritēi hēmerāi zōnta ek [tōn(doubt)] nekrōn, kai anabanta [anelthonta(doubt)] eis tons ouranous, kai kathisan, ta [kathēmenon(doubt)] en dexiāi tou patros, erchomenon krinai zōntas kai nekrous(doubt) Pisteueis eis [to(doubt)] hagion pneuma, kai (eis) hagian ekklēsian [en hagiāi ekklēsiāi(doubt)] kai sarkos anastasin(doubt)

9. E.g. Lietzmann, , Symbolstudie XIV, passim, and esp. p. 81,Google Scholar where he declares, “Die Aehnlichkeit zwischen heiden Formeln ist unverkennbar …” Cf. also Kelly, , Creeds, pp. 91–98 and 113–119Google Scholar; Capelle, , “Le symbole romain,” pp. 33–45.Google Scholar The text of R is recorded in Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia in his Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum (Migne, PL xxi, cols. 335–386)Google Scholar which was written about 408 A.D. and in Greek by Marcellus of Ancyra in his letter to Pope Julius I, written about 340 A.D., and recorded in Epiphanius' Panarion Haereticorum 72, 2–3 (GCS, Epiphanius Bd. III, p. 258); it appears below in forms slightly modified by certain corroborating eodices (cf. Kelly, , Creeds, pp. 100–104,Google Scholar for a standard discussion of the textual problems). Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem. Et in Christum Iesum, fillum eius unicum, dominum nostrum, qui uatus est de Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine, qni sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad (in) caclos, sedet ad dexteram patris, inde (unde) venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Spirituzn sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem. Pisteuō eis theon patera pantokratora. eis Christon lbsoun, ton huion autou ton monogenē, ton kurion hēmon, ton gennothenta ek pneusnatos hagiou kai Marias tēs parthenon, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou staurōthenta kai taphenta, kai tēi tritēi hēmerki anastanta ek tōn nekrōn, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathēmenon en dexiai ton patros. hothen erchetai krinai zōntas kai nekrous. kai eis to hagion pneuma, hagian ekklēsian, aphesin hamartiōn, sarkos anastasin. Nota Bene: The unmodified reading of R offered by Rufinus has the following peculiarities in its rendering of the text: Qui natus est de Spiritu saneto ex Maria virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilate, et sepultus. The preposition ex and the altered word order will engage our attention later. Note also that though H and B are obviously closely related they have differences which may be summarized as follows: (1) H is interrogatory in mood; B is declarative. (2) to filium, B adds eius unicum, dominum nostrum, whereas H has the simpler dei. (3) There is a textual question whether the birth is de Spiritu sancto ex or et. The strongest H reading is for ex, but important variants support the reading of et. The overwhelming majority of B codices, on the other hand, read et/kai, but it should not he overlooked that Rufinus uses ex without calling attention to it as different from the usual Roman reading. (4) Though not of great importance, it is a fact thnt Rufinus also supports the strongest H reading crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato against th better attested sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus of other MSS containing R. (5) H adds the phrase et mortuus to the crucifixion statement. Though this phrase is not unknown in fifth century creeds, it is unique to H in Hippolytus' time. (6) Only the Verona Palimpsest supports the reading et sepultus in H, and, despite the fact that that is our best single MS for the Apostolic Tradition, the phrase appears to be a later interpolation. (7) H adds virus to the statement of the resurrection on the third day. (8) H reads venturus instead of R's inde venturus est. (9) The alternate reading of H, in sanctam ecclesiam, would be important if correct. (10) R's reading of remissionem peccatorum has no parallel in any of the evidence for H, nnd must be assumed not to have been in H at all.

10. There is a further possibility, namely, that Hippolytus knew R and that his statement of H was influenced by R. Such a position was that of Kattanbusch, , Das Apostolische Symbol, v.11, pp. 360Google Scholar f., n. 12. In this he is followed by Hamel, , Kirche bei Hippolyt, pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar Kattenbusch did not know the Apostolic Traditioa of Hippolytus, however, and was dealing with other works. Hamel, on the other hand, acquainted with that work, would seem to be on very shaky premises. Even supposhig one could demonstrate the existence of R in the year 200 (which we shall dispute later), it would be difficult to have to demonstrate why Hippolytus, traditionalist that he was and writing of traditional practices, would quote the Roman baptismal statement of faith, know it to be a text of the fullness of R, and then omit the sections he did. It seems thnt the usual view regarding H as independent of R is to be accepted.

11. Lietzmann, , Symbolstudie XIV, pp. 84 f.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., p. 85. Cf. also pp. 86, 89, 90 and 94 f., for similar statements. For exhibiting the “types”-theory, Lietzmann's Symbolstudie XIV is an ideal discussion. Not only does he reiterate there the types theory which he also expounds elsewhere among the Symbolstudien, but be applies it specifically to H in its relationship to R and contrasts it with Dom B. Capelle's study, “Le symbole romain au second siècle,” which holds to a theory of the chronological primacy of H to R in a theory of creedal development through successive stages.

13. Ibid., p. 95.

14. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 92.Google Scholar Cf. also pp. 91–98 and 113–119.

15. Ibid., p. 119.

16. E.g., Dix, Dom Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1945), pp. 6 and 209 ff.Google Scholar, and chapter 8; Srawley, J. H., The Early History of the Liturgy (Cambridge, 1949), pp. xi.Google Scholar f. The Fathers themselves upon occasion acknowledge the presence of this freedom: e.g., Justin, , Apologia I 67Google Scholar; Hippolytus, , Apostolic Tradition X, 4–5.Google Scholar Liturgical freedom as it applies to creeds is illustrated in the Comm. in symb. apost. of Rufinus: e.g., in chapter 4 Bufinus says, “Orientales eeclesiae pene ita tradunt: Credo in uno Dee Patre omnipotente” (Migne, , PL XXI, Col. 341)Google Scholar, but even a cursory perusal of the forms of the Eastern creeds in Hahn or Lietzmann reveals the catholicity of the accusative. A further example is Rufinus' reporting most of the text of R in the ablative rather than in the accusative.

17. Lietzmann is even willing to label two terms of H “bedeutungslose Wucherungen.” Symbolstudie XIV, p. 91.Google Scholar

18. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 119.Google Scholar

19. Lietzmann, , Symboistudie XIV, pp. 84. f.Google Scholar

20. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 118.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 119.

22. Lietzmann, , Symbolstudie XIV, p. 95.Google Scholar Cf. statements about Hippolytus, Tertullian, and R on p. 90.

23. In his lecture, “Zur Auslegung des 2. Artikels des sogennnnten apostolisehen Glaubensbekenutnisses” (mentioned above, in. 3), Karl Holl observed that the two definite articles which respectively introduce the birth and crucifixion clauses of R actually divide the christological section into two separable parts. He also noticed that there are two titles attached to the name of Christ at the beginning of the second article, “his only Son” and “our Lord.” By means of biblical passages he contended that each of the two titles was connected with one of the separable portions of the christological affirmation. Thus “him born of the Holy Spirit from Mary the Virgin” was regarded by Holl as a theological explication of “his only Son” by means of Luke 1:35. Similarly, “him crucified under Pontius Pilate… to judge the living and the dead” is related through Philippians 2:6 ff. to “our Lord.” Holl reasoned that the connections were not accidental and that the author of R had in fact composed his text with them in mind. The bifurcate christological section was intended as theological commentary on the two titles.

24. Lietzmann, , “Die Anfänge des Glaubeasbekenntnisses,” p. 227.Google Scholar For Harnaek's contribution to this phase of the discussion, see his “Zur Abhandlung des Hrn. Holl: ‘Zur Auslegung des 2. Artikels des 50g. apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,’” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie VII (Berlin, 1919), pp. 112 ff.Google Scholar

25. E.g, Seeberg, B., “Zur Geschichte der Entstehung des apostolischen Symbols,” ZKG 40 (1922), pp. 1–40Google Scholar; Capelle, B., “Le symbole romain au second siècle”; “Los origines du symbole romain,” Rech. théol. anc. méidiév. 2 (1930), pp. 5–20Google Scholar; Lebreton, J., “Les origines du symbole baptismal,” RSR XX (1930), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar; Dobschütz, E. von, Das Apostolikum in biblisch - theologischer Beleuchtung (Giessen, 1932), esp. pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar; J. de Ghellinck, Patristique et moyen âge, v. I; et al.

26. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 124.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 125.

28. “Les origines du symbole romain,” p. 14.

29. Symbolstudie XIV, p. 95.Google Scholar The passage here quoted is a modification of the view Lietzmann had earlier espoused. Throughout most of his creedal studies he had teuded to regard R as a sort of Muttersymbol from which all others of its type were derived. It should also be noted here that from Capelle's position, the argument is still largely valid despite the modification, but not so from Kelly's.

30. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 95.Google Scholar

31. Symbolstudie XIV, p. 89.Google Scholar

32. De praescriptine haereticorum 13, 36Google Scholar; de virginibus velandis 1.3Google Scholar; and adversits Praxean II.1.Google Scholar An excellent examination of these passages is that of Restrepo-Jaramillo, J. M., S.J., “Tertuliano y la doble fórmula en el símbolo apostollco,” Gregorianum, v. XV (1934), pp. 3–58.Google Scholar Restrepo-Jaramillo effectively demonstrates that Tertulian does not report the text of R, and, moreover, suggests that Tertullian does not report a trinitarian formula at all.

33. Creeds, pp. 87 f.

34. Adv. Haer. I 3:6,Google Scholar 10:1, 22:1; II 32:3–4; III 1:2, 4:1–2, 3:3, 11:1, 16:5–6, 18:3; IV 9:2, 33:7; V 20:1.

35. Translation (from the Armenian) from Smith, Joseph P., S.J., St. Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, Ancient Christian Writers 16 (Westminster, Md., 1952), p. 49.Google Scholar

36. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 73,Google Scholar attempts to reconstruct the text of Justin's interrogations. It may be that Justin was acquainted with a creed simliar in form to that which Kelly has reconstructed. On the other hand, nowhere does that precise formula appear in his writings, and, given the weakness of support for it, one must be very cautious in using it. Judiciousness is especially appropriate here when we remember that Justin's Apologia—from which Kelly derives his text—is not a church manual giving full presentation of ritual forms, but rather a defensive work in which such forms might not be fully rendered. We simply cannot say how adequately such a creed as Kelly's reflects the form Justin might have known.

37. In addition to his reasoning described above, cf. Lietzmann's, discussion in Symbolstudie XIV, pp. 94 f.Google Scholar

38. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 127.Google Scholar

39. Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Ancient Christian Writers 20 (Westminster, Md., 1955), pp. 17 ff.Google Scholar

40. Loc. cit.

41. Kelly, , Creeds, p. 119.Google Scholar

42. La Question des Langues dans l'Eglise ancienne (Paris, 1948), v.1, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar

43. Patrology, v. II (Westminster, Md., 1953), pp. 153 f.Google Scholar

44. Dom Bernard Capelle, in his two articles, “Le symbole romain an second siècle” and “Les origines du symbole romain,” came to a similar conclusion. He too felt that H was an early step in the development of the Old Roman Symbol. However, he differed from our conclusions in thinking he could isolate the creed of Tertullian out of his regula fidei passages, and he felt this creed of Tertullian to be an even earlier step in that same history of R. Capelle then went on to attempt historically, theologically, and ecclesiologically to account for the alterations and additions which had to take place between T, H, and R. In all of this, however, his discussion is greatly weakened by his insensitivity to the phenomenon of liturgical freedom. Each text was regarded as set, and hence each variation had to find tortured explanation. That fact unnecessarily complicated his task and ensured that his otherwise basically sound concepts would find rejectioa at the hands of Kelly, (Creeds, pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar) and others.

45. The objections raised by Kelly, , Creeds, pp. 119–126,Google Scholar against the portions of the christology being regarded as theological glosses on the christological titles in the creed by means of Luke 1:35 and Philippians 2:6 ff. seem to me decisive. Holl's suggestions spring the bounds of responsible exegesis.

46. Creeds, pp. 63 f.

47. Two minor problems ought perhaps to be mentioned which center around attributing to H a monopolistic status at Rome. First, it would be easy to misinterpret that term “monopoly.” We must be careful not to impute to it too great an importance. H does not seem to have been involved in a competitive situation wherein it is to be regarded as somehow the victor over other creedal forms. Moreover, H was only a baptismal creed in the form of interrogations, and not the only state- mont of faith at Rome. Various forms of the regula fidei aut veritatis were also known. To impute to the Roman formula used at baptism too much importance would also extravagantly antedate the dominance of that See, even given the loyalty to her as an Apostolic church suggested by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Secondly, we need not be overly concerned when we do not find this “monopolistic” baptismal formula quoted everywhere by everyone who might have known it. Hippolytus knew it; he reports it only once. Why then should we demand others quote it verbatim just because they were acqnalnted with Roman baptismal practice(doubt) We have noted, further, that liturgical statements were still fluid in form at this period. Precise quotations are not to be demanded too strictly. And finally, when closely examined, H is not a satisfactory compendium of second- and third-century theology! Its contents are too unusual, both with respect to what is included and what is excluded, for it to be so considered. Hence it would not necessarily find frequent citation as regula fidei.

48. Kelly, , Creeds, pp. 111–113,Google Scholar discusses this problem, and on p. 112, suggests these as the maim Greek features. Cf. Lietzmann, , Symbolstudie II, ZNW 21 (1922), pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar, for his discussion of the matter.

49. The Latin text and the author's reconstruction of the Greek of H are found above, n. 9.

50. Catalogued above, n. 9.

51. See the discussion below.

52. The pro nobis concern so permeates the theology of the second and third centuries that one scarcely needs documentation for it. The following references show its prominence in statements of the regula fidei (the examples are merely a sampling): Ignatius, , Eph. xviii.2Google Scholar; Smyrn. i. 1–2Google Scholar; Epistula Apostolorum 5; Justin, , Apol. I 21, 31, 61Google Scholar; Irenaeus, , Adv. Haer. I 10Google Scholar:1; II 1:2; III 16:6, Origen, , De princpiis I.4Google Scholar; Comm. in Joan. 32: 16.Google Scholar

53. Even Luther, that venerable defender of the creeds, expounding the second article of the more expanded Apostles' Creed, which suffers from less of this particular defect than H does, had to pour his whole pro nobis discussion into the phrase dominum nostrum. (Katechismus, Der Grosse, deutsch, , Luther, Martin, Die Bekenntnisschriften der evaagetisch-lutherischen Kirche, 3rd ed. [Gottingen, 1956], pp. 651 ff.Google Scholar) Perhaps most recently Brunner, Emil, in his Dogmatik, v. III (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1960) pp. 262 f.Google Scholar, has complained of the lack in the Apostles' Creed of any für uns perspective.

54. Kelly, , Creeds, pp. 118 f.Google Scholar

55. A curious interpretive twist has been applied to the mention of the Holy Spirit in the birth clause by Connolly, Dom R. H., “On the Text of the Baptismal Creed of Hippolytus,” JTS 25 (1924), pp. 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Connolly notes that the birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin is a prominent feature in the writings of Hippolytus, and is used to vindicate that Father's view that the birth in the flesh vindicated the title Son in its full sense for the divine Logos. He then wonders about the creed in this regard: “…but are similar expressions [to mention of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin] to be met with before the third century(doubt) Irenaeus and Tertullian. would seem to have known as a formula no more than ‘of the Virgin Mary.’ Is it not conceivable that Hippolytus himself was responsible for the introduction into western Creeds of the form of words ‘de Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine’(doubt)” (p. 137) It seems to me that one must be skeptical about most of this proposition. it is true, certainly, that mention of the Spirit in this fashion is new in creedal history with H, but that Hippolytus, the traditionalist, would so alter the text seems unlikely. This change would constitute not merely a substitution of terms with the same function, but the addition of a totally new concept to the creed. It is possible, though. Hippolytus did regard himself as a capable theologian, and he might, for theological reasons, have introduced this feature into the creed. We have no way of knowing this, however, despite the fact that Irenaeus and Tertullian, who may have been acquainted with the Roman baptismal interrogations, do not report the birth of Christ with mention of the Spirit.

56. The wording of the third interrogation of H has evoked some of the most intense discussion among scholars of any portion of the Apostolic Tradition. The debate has its roots in the MSS evidence, but it has often followed partisan lines from there on. The question is whether the text is to be assumed to read “Believest thou in (the) Holy Spirit and (the) Holy Church…” or ““ in (the) holy Church.” Dix, Dom (Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, p. 37)Google Scholar felt the evidence stronger for the reading“in the holy Church.” In this he is strongly supported by Nautin, P., who in his study, Je cress à l'Esprit Saint dans la Sainte Eglise pour ta résurrection de la chair (pp. 13 ff.)Google Scholar, joins Dix also in making the “and in” of the Ethiopic version [for discussion of the general textual materials, cf. Dix, , Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, pp. lii ff.Google Scholar and Botte, , La Tradition Apostolique, pp. xvii ffGoogle Scholar.] read “in” as do Test amen- turn Domini, the Arabic version and, perhaps, the Sahidic version. Connolly, (“On the Text of the Baptismal Creed of Hippolytus,” pp. 133 if.Google Scholar), however, has chosen to read et sanctam ecclesiam with the Latin version of the Verona Palimpsest and the Ethiopic version to support his case. It is admitted on all sides that the arithmetical majority of MS witnesses supports the reading “in the Holy Church,” but other factors entitle us to be dubious about regarding that reading as original. In the first place, the Ethiopic version is a fuller text than either the Arabic or Sahidic versions. It is certainly possible that the and in of its rendering of this interrogation may have stood in the text it translates and which is less fully rendered by the Arabic and Sahidic versions. Secondly, the very argument Nautin uses to buttress his reasoning would seem quite susceptible of the opposite interpretation (Je crois, pp. 17 ff.). Nautin notes that the phrase“in the holy Church” occurs elsewhere in the Apostolic Tradition four times (IV.- 13; VI.4; VIII.5; and XII.1 [possibly also in XIII.10, a reference which Nautin omits]), even in the Latin version. It is, Nautin contends, when this evidence is added to the solitary witness of the Latin for et, therefore clear that the Latin has been unfaithful to the original. He suggests a renson for this infidelity: La traducteur latin s'eat done trompé, et l'on voit aisément pourquoi: il a cru que en devant la sainte Eglise avait le même que devant Dieu le Père et le Seigneur Jésus-Christ et l'Esprit- Saint, (en theōi…), et il l'a remplacé par une coordination, tandis qu 'en fait en signifie, en tête de la formule, PAR Dieu Père … et le Seigneur Jésus-Christ et 1'Esprit-Saint, et, la denxieme fois, DANS la sai ate Eglise, rattachant 1'Eglise an Saint-Esprit comme un complément de lieu. Le tradnctenr n'a pas cherché a altérer le texte, mais il l'a mal compris. (pp. 18 f.) While one may grant the feasibifity of such reasoning, it is not compelling. Nor, for that matter, would the argument that the Latin version has been altered to bring it into consistency with later Roman creedal usage be necessarily compelling. It is not, in the first instance, legitimate to bring against the reading of one passage the readings of other passages—even those of the same work—when one is dealing with a compilation such as the Apostolic Tradition. This attributes to the compiler an unjustifiable and unwarranted degree of manipulation of the materials for consistency. Consistency of phraseology is not a criterion of such a work. If it were, then the word order Iesus Christus would certainly have to replace the more probable Christus Iesus of our text because the Apostolic Tradition, while not wholly consistent in the matter, has more examples of the former than of the latter! And Nauuti and others do not propose such an alteration as that. More importantly, however, one would have expected scholars at least to have raised a question of the possible significance of the et-reading of the third interrogation over against the normal in-reading of Hippolytus before demanding it submit to the alterations of consistency. When one encounters a peculiar reading in a creedal form, especially in as good a MS as the Verona Palimpsest, surely it must not be simply changed without a hearing! It is at least equally possible that Testamentum Domini and the Arabic and, perhaps, the Sabidic versioas have altered the passage in question to make it coasistent with the rest of the Apostolic Tradition's usage. Consequently, my option is for the Latin reading et sanctam ecclesiam, but in so choosing, I recognize that the other case is a strong one and that there is probably no absolutely certain way, given the present state of our MSS, to clarify the issue. See further the discussion in Botte, , La Tradition Apostolique, p. 51, n.1.Google Scholar

57. The development of the traditio et redditio symboli can be viewed in two ways: it can be seen. as a change from a prior alternate practice, or it can be regarded as a simple development from earlier catechetical practice. At Rome, in any case, the traditio and redditio seem to signal a change from earlier practice, although our information is scanty and much must of necessity rest upon surmise. Liturgical experts agree that there was a catechetical practice, at least in incipient form, accompanying baptism from the earliest days of the church of which we have record. It is in conjunction with catechism that declaratory creeds first appear, but, as Kelly notes, such creeds appear to be “a by-product of the Church's fully developed catechctical system.” (Creeds, p. 51) And the ascendency of declarative creeds seems te coincide with the decline in import- anne of the interrogations.

58. A competent study of this problem is that of Carpenter, H. J., “Creeds and Baptismal Rites in the First Four Centuries,” JTS 44 (1943), pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. History of the Early Church, v. II, The Founding of the Church Universal, 3rd ed., (London, 1958), p. 132Google Scholar

60. Cf. Epistle LXXV (Migne, , FL III, col. 1190 f.)Google Scholar and Epistle LXIX (Migne, PL III, col. 1078).

61. Cf. esp. De corona III. 3,Google Scholar and de resurrection mortuorum XLVIII.11.Google Scholar See also de spectaculis IV.1, and de baptismo II.1.

62. Apostolic Tradition XVII-XXII.

63. E.g., Kelly, , Creeds, p. 52.Google Scholar