A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325)

Author(s): Oskar Skarsaune

Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 34-54
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583685 .
Accessed: 25/06/2013 06:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VigiliaeChristianae41 (1987), 34-54, E. J. Brill, Leiden

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

BY

OSKAR SKARSAUNE
In the study that follows, I am going to make some detailed comments on the syntax of the opening statements of the second article of
the Creed of Nicaea (henceforward: N). It may therefore be convenient
to begin with a quote of the relevant part of the creed. In the text which
follows, capitals are used for those clauses which-by universal
consent-represent the anti-Arian insertions into an otherwise typically
Eastern baptismal creed.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Koale iEvaxuptov'IraouvXpLra6v
TOV
ui6v Too 60OU
yevvw0ieva EixTOUnoa:poS!OVOYTEVI

TOYTEETIN EK THE OYEIAZ TOY IATPOE

906vix xOo6
qcp7aix cPoTO60
OEON AAHOINON EK OEOY AAH0INOY
rENNHOENTA OY IIOIHOENTA
OMOOYEION TO IATPI

10 Ot' ou T& t.wavTa

EyTveTo
11 TaT' rv'V ( oupa(vc)xalt Ta v Tr:Tyi...

Scholarly consensus regarding the redaction of these lines of the creed

is represented by J. N. D. Kelly: "... we have a complete creed of the
familiar Eastern type with the anti-Arian clauses added, to all seeming,
almost as an afterthought. They have been interpolated with ...
gaucherie and disregard for stylistic grace ... The rest of the creed, these
clauses removed, runs smoothly enough."2
It was while preparing a Norwegian translation of the creed for
teaching purposes that I came to question this view. To be more
specific: I stumbled on what seemed to be a rather unelegant positioning
of the monogenes predicate. Kelly's translation only strengthened this
impression: "begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

35

substance of the Father". The word !LovoyTsvseemed rather misplaced

- it intruded between the sentence "begotten from the Father", and
the following precision of that sentence: "that is, from the substance of
the Father". This made me curious to find out how this might be in
other Eastern Creeds. I first turned to the examples given in Kelly, pp.
182-188. They may be tabulated as follows:
Parallels to lines 1-3 in other Eastern creeds:
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA:
Xpta6ov...
Kai et EIvaxupLov'IbaoOV
A ui6v p.ovoyeVi,
B 7tpor6)Txov o'qaa5
xTtiaox,
C

TC)V TV
7tpO c&VTOv

avco(v

ix TrO 7raXp6o TEtEVVrLEiVOv

ANTIOCH:
Et in dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,
filium eius unigenitum
et primogenitum totius creaturae,
ex eo natum ante omnia saecula [et non factum]...
MOPSUESTIA:
Kat el va xupLov'IIaoUvXptao6v,
TOV
uitv
TOvO9Oto lOVO6Vfo
,
r6v7tporT6ox
ovx7oran xtiaecX,
TcOv
r6v ix TO5WaTp6*aTro0yTvvre9ivatrpo:&avToov
alcoovv
JERUSALEM:
xat Ed EivaxupLov'Ivaoiv Xptr6v,
T6vu6ovToUOeoUTOvptovoyeiV,

TOVLx TO5tarTp6 yewVV1ivt9ea[0EOva&X7ltv6v]7:po 7C(avTrv TWV alGcvxv

A
B
C

A
B
C

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS:
rTOXplt6TV,
Kat EL6 OVxuptov'ITnOOUV
A
B

TOyI.OVOTevovaOTo0 ul6v,
6OvipcoTOTOxov:&ars XtiaeoS,

TOv tcpo

alWvovv Ei8oxia

TOU rarTp6OYTVVTW10Ta...

CONSTANTINOPLE 381 ('NICENE CREED'):

A

Kal eic iva xupLOv 'Ilao5v Xptor6v,

:Tv ui6v TOU9eoO T6v tOVOTeVi7,

TOvix Toi 7taQrpo6

Ip6o navTxOvT&v alcovciv.
YtVVi0iVTa

To A, cf. John 3:16, ....rTE TOvutovTyOV

povoyevnrl coxxev...,cf. also John 1:14; 3:18; 1 John
4:9.
To B, cf. Col 1:15: .../O I=TLv ... 7pCOTOTxoxo5;-cqS xti(taEO...

To C, cf. Ps 110:3: ix yratTp6;ipo aoo6pou itiytvvrx

(E.
yEvvca
pouvCOV

aE;and Prov 8:25, npo

BE navtov

The evidence displayed in this synopsis was surprising: absolutely no

parallel to the strange syntax of Nicaea! On the contrary I found that
all other Eastern creeds in the relevant part of the second article ex-

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

OSKARSKARSAUNE

hibited a common and quite stable pattern. One can easily recognize
three distinctive phrases or word-fields, which I have labelled A, B and
C. As is easily seen, the core of A is "God's only-begotten Son", u6ts
and ,ovoyevlS belong together. B reads "The first-born of all creation",
and is present in most of the Eastern creeds. Element C reads: "Born
from the Father before all the ages". The distinctiveness of these three
word-fields is made evident when one realizes that they are scriptural
allusions-B is really a verbatim quotation.
If one turns to the fuller synopsis of Eastern creeds given in Lietzmanns Symbol-Studien,3 this result is confirmed: No parallel whatsoever to the strange formulation of the creed of Nicaea-just more
examples of the ABC-pattern. The extreme tenacity of this pattern is
perhaps best illustrated in the so-called Nicene Creed, The Creed of
Constantinople 381. Here the ,Lovoyeviis back where it belongs: with utov
x x TounXoposhas regained its traditional preciToU0ou,, while yTEvvjOvra
sion: tp6oia&vxvrxcv
The initial impression is thus confirmed:
atV lvv.
In N, the monogenes really is out of place. But then one realizes why.
Just try to read line 3 in its "normal" version, together with line 4:
TOUT~vTlV
yevv710rvxa 'x TxoUiaTp6oS
aOxLVO)V,
7tpo 7rOVTCxV
T:V

TOU
iX T7v OoutaOC

'xrv aiCOvwis only

7aTrp6o.Obviously, that doesn't work. The po 7tr&v'xtrv

disturbing and must be left out. On the other hand, if one takes
monogenes-as it now stands in the creed-not as an asyndetic apposition to the foregoing phrase, but as a precision to yFvv1eOvxoa:
"begotten
as only-begotten", one gets a sentence which seems perfectly adapted to
the following precision: "that is, from the substance of the Father".4
In other words: Lines 2 and 3 seem to have been deliberately modified
so as to prepare the first obvious anti-Arian interpolation in line 4.
It is surprising that neither Lietzmann nor Kelly seems to have noticed
this.5 Kelly says that when the anti-Arian interpolations are removed (in
my text, lines 4, 7-9), we are left with an ordinary Eastern symbol with
nothing peculiar about it. Following Lietzmann, Kelly claims that this
creed is of the Antioch-Jerusalem type, but like Lietzmann he has no
comments on the peculiar position of the monogenes.6
When you find no help in recent scholarship, you turn to the classic
studies of N, those of Hort and Harnack.7 And here one finds an
awareness of the problem, but, I believe, a wrong solution. Hort
believes that monogenes belong to the first 0o6vin line 5, echoing John
1:18: Lovo-Yvfi
0E66v
Ix 0eo5. Harnack says the same thing. But this is quite
unlikely. Line 4 is then a very violent interpolation, destroying the syn-

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

37

tax and meaning of the supposed original creed-and no evidence for

such a formulation in an Eastern Creed exists. I cannot but agree with
Friedrich Loofs who objects against Hort: the IovoyEvf belongs to yevAnd that is all Loofs has to say on the question. So I was left
v09iv<xa.8
with my puzzlement. It began to dawn on me that if I could get a clearer
grasp of the intention of the creedmakers in their re-writing of lines 2
and 3, together with the insertion of line 4, I might have a clue as to who
these creedmakers were. To put it in modern terms: Who were sitting
in the drafting committee? Where was the background for this
remodelling of the creed to be sought?
II
As is well known, the immediate cause of the Council of Nicaea was
a christological controversy between Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,
and the presbyter Arius of the same town.9 At the time of the Council,
this controversy had raged for about seven years, and the Emperor Constantine had been increasingly annoyed by it. In 324 he sent his
theological adviser and confident, the Western bishop Ossius of Cordova, on a mediating mission to Alexandria. Ossius brought with him
a letter from the Emperor in which Constantine reproached Alexander
and Arius for having made much unnecessary fuss about theological
subtleties beyond the reach of most men. The Emperor commanded
both parties to end the strife and be reconciled, so that he could again
enjoy happy days and nights free from worry.10
But the mission of Ossius proved futile, the quarrel went on with
escalating vehemence. The Emperor could of course not tolerate that his
intervention in this way had proved ineffective, and he therefore summoned all Eastern and some Western bishops to a great council, first
planned to occur in Ancyra, then moved to Nicaea. The Emperor must
have been determined not to let the bishops leave Nicaea before some
sort of agreement had been reached.
I have now-in
very rough outline-presented the historical
for
the
christological formula we are studying. I have also
background
the
main
dramatis personae: Alexander, Arius, Ossius and
presented
Constantine. The question is: Which party won at the council? Which
party stands behind the formulation of the creed?
The losers were no doubt Arius and his supporters. The creed of
Nicaea is anti-Arian through and through. So it would seem an obvious

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

inferencethat the oppositeparty,Alexanderand his men, werethe winners. And this was the dominanttheory among scholarsat the turn of
the century.ReinholdSeebergand Adolf von Harnackin their respective Dogmengeschichtenheld the creedof Nicaeato be mainlyan Alexandriandocument, and continuedto do so in later editions of their
works." In 1913 Erich Seebergarguedthat N in its entiretyis to be
understoodas a formuladrawnup by Alexanderand his Alexandrian
supporters.

But not everyonewas satisfiedwiththis. In 1905FriedrichLoofs published a short articleentitled "Der authentischeSinn des nicanischen
Symbols",'3in whichhe arguedthat not Alexander,but Ossiuswas the
mastermind behind the creed. The creed is an expressionof Western
theology,not Alexandrian,and no one in the East had reasonto be very
happy about it. The creed of Nicaea was a creed forced upon the
EasternChurchby an imperialfiat. In this, Loofs was supportedby
EduardSchwarz,althoughSchwarzdid not believethat the creed was
Western.He ratherthought that it was a concessionto Eastern"GeBut he agreed with
meindetheologie",which was anti-Origenistic.14
Loofs that Alexanderand the Alexandrianshad no reasonto be happy
with it, andthat it was forceduponthe bishopsby the Emperor.In 1922
Loofs returnedto the issue in a carefullyarguedarticle."5He dismissed
Schwarz'idea of "Gemeindetheologie"as beingwithoutsupportin the
sources, and re-statedhis theoryabout Westernorigin for the creedin
an impressiveway. Since that time, the theory of Loofs has made its
way into many textbooks on Churchhistory. He has not convinced
everybodythat he is right, but he has succeededin questioningthe selfexplanatorynatureof the earlier'Alexandrian'theory. If the Alexandrianthesisis to be maintained,it requiresfreshargumentand a cogent
refutationof Loofs' arguments.I have found recentdiscussionof the
issue wantingin both respects.In the rest of this paper I am going to
plead the 'Alexandrian'thesis de novo, becausethat is the directionin
which my analysisof the text of the creed has led me.

III
Before I returnto the text, however,I shall inserta short paragraph
on method.It seemsto me that all scholarstake the homoousiosas their
main clue in their searchfor the identityof the creed-makers.This is

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

39

valid for Loofs and Schwarz.It is also valid for their main opponents.
I believe this is a wrong point of departure.
Let us take a closer look at Eusebius'reporton how the creed came
to be made.'6Eusebiusreportsthat duringthe council he read a paper
containinghis creedand some explanationsas to its meaning.After he
had read his paper,the Emperorhimself said that it was orthodoxand
in accordancewith his own opinion. One should only add the word
homoousios, and the Emperoradded some cautions against possible
misunderstandingsof this term. Then Eusebiuscontinues:"But they,
on the pretext of adding homoousiQs,producedthis formula"-and
then he goes on to quote the creedof Nicaea. The obvious implication
of this wouldseemto be two-fold. First:the draftingcommitteeresponsible for the creedwas boundby the Emperor'sdeclarationto insertthe
homoousios into the creed, whetherthey did so with enthusiasmor
reluctance.And since we cannot know their feelings about this word,
we cannot use it as a clue to theiridentity.But, secondly:The drafting
committeeused the addition of the homoousios as an excuse for introducingotheradditionsinto the creed.The Emperorwas not responsible for these other changes, they were introduced by the drafting
committee on its own initiative. In other words: It is in these other
modificationsof the creedthat the draftingcommitteehas betrayedits
theologicalconcerns.Whenaskingwho these men were, we should use
these other modifications,not the homoousios, as our clue.
This granted,we must face the next questionwhich naturallyposes
itself: Exactly which features of the creed are due to the drafting
committee-apart from the homoousios? In the classic studies of the
Creed of Nicaea-by Hort, Harnack, Burn, Schwarzand others-an
answerwas found by comparingN with the creed of Eusebius,which
was thought to be the Vorlagefrom which the drafting committee
started.On this assumptionmanyminutedetailsin the text of the creed
were thought to be deliberatemodificationsof the Vorlage,and more
or less ingeniousreasonswerefound for each of them. But Hans Lietzmann managedto convincemost scholarsthat this way of reasoningis
futile, sincethe Vorlageof the creed-makerscannothavebeenthe creed
of Eusebius,but rathera similarcreed, closely relatedto the creedsof
Antiochor Jerusalem.7 Kellyhas bolsteredthis conclusionby a new exegesis of the letter of Eusebius.Accordingto Kelly, Eusebiusdoes not
claim that the Emperorrecommendedthe wordingof Eusebius'creed
as a basis of the conciliarcreed, but only the doctrinecontainedin the

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

creed.'8 I believe Lietzmann and Kelly have established a great probability for the conclusion that the Vorlage was not the creed of Eusebius,
and this drastically reduces the amount of redactional work carried out
by the drafting committee. According to Lietzmann and Kelly, we are
only left with the anathemas at the end of the creed, and the following
interpolations in the core of the second article: "that is, from the
substance of the Father", "true God from true God, begotten not
made, of one substance with the Father". Following Lietzmann, Kelly
claims that when these clauses are removed, we are left with a creed of
the "Jerusalem-Antioch type", with nothing peculiar about it.
As the reader will know by now, I hold that to be less than true. There
has been done significant redactional work already in lines 2 and 3,
preparing the interpolation of line 4. And it is with this unit of the text,
lines 2-4, I propose to start my study of the creed. I shall ask in which
quarter and by whom we find the kind of thinking which makes the reshaping of the Vorlage understandable.

IV
Let us take a look at the creeds of the main antagonists: Arius and
Alexander. Arius and his friends have left us a long creed addressed to
Alexander in the heat of the controversy.'9 It was perhaps meant as a
step towards reconciliation, because many of Alexander's favourite
creed-formulas are quoted in it. We have excellent opportunity to check
this, because Alexander also has paraphrazed his creed in one of his Letters,20and it would be a rewarding task to make a fullscale comparative
analysis of the two documents. Here I must restrict myself to some few
comments on the most relevant parts of the creeds.
Let us first take a look at the creed of Arius.2'
Iva 06v ...
Ot%a,sav
uiov ,uovoyTtvTCpo
XPO6vvaOxvi.ov...
Tyvvinoavat
A

Tyvvwiava o1 ou ooxniaT, aXXa dXTia,

iSOjTToasnavTa
lo,ib 9EXjtiaTi...
6texraTi

-CoG ocPp
TOU

Xp6vwv

B xai cpoat{vo~vxrtaivtao...
6 oi u{6? &Xp6vcaO
ywvrv0Ei?6od To7tOLap6o
c

xai Tcpo
aitvx))WV XTloOei? xai 0e.E?Xto0EiS
OUXfV Tp6 'o
yTUvfWrVWL,
t
&X\' aXp6vo) Ctpo n7aivxv
,
ewrl0eij

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

41

&
D ,i6voc 66utOU aTrp6c urrri...
xatitO <<x yaTp6(?...
Eto6i O otg atrXou>>
xCPiPo ocauriou
6oiooua(ouxai co nxpopoXrS
VLc6
TiVa votrtat,

u'v9ItVOtZat 6 Iart?jp

E xati8tatpertoxatitpewt6 xati<O(oaxar' a6irouC

xat TO
soov

Itc' auootta ar x6XouOaaoCJfLat

6 &ajcbaTro<;
acC&Xov
06C.

We know one God...

who broughtforth the only-begottenSon before eternaltimes...
He did not bring him forth in appearanceonly, but in truth,
establishinghim by his own will... createdby the will of God before
times and before the ages...
the Son wasbroughtforthby the Fathertimelessly,beforethe ageshe
wascreatedandfounded,he wasnot beforehe wasbroughtforth,but
he wasbroughtforthtimelesslybeforeall things,he alonereceivedexistencefrom the Father...
But if 'from Him' [ICor. 8:6] and 'from the womb' [Ps 110:3]...are
takenby some to meanthat (the Son) is a partof the consubstantial
Father,andan emanationfromhim, thenthe Fatheris compositeand
divisibleand changeableand corporeal,and accordingto their view
the incorporealGod is sufferingthingsthat belongto a body.

Arius' paraphrase of the first part of the second article begins with
a line which claims our attention: "Bringing forth the only-begotten
Son before eternal times". Most of the following remarks in Arius' letter are concerned with the right interpretation of this phrase and they
are easily summarized: (1) yvvaco here means the same as xtfiCo(= comment B); (2) this,granted, y?vvaioavxrshould be taken literally, that is,
it should be taken to imply that the Son really had a beginning (comments A and C); and (3) the monogenes has no other meaning than that
God's Son was brought forth directly by the Father without any
mediator-unlike the rest of God's creation, in which the Son was the
Mediator.22 In the light of this, one notices that Arius has moved the
verb Tyvv&oto the beginning of the second article, and has left out the
traditional precision of yevvw0tvxain the creed, viz. the words ix tou
narpos, "from the Father". The reason for this omission is clearly seen
in comment E: The whole idea of begetting from the Father was inconvenient to Arius, it entailed two consequences which he was eager
to avoid: (1) that the Son somehow derived his being from (ix) the
Father's being, and (2) that the verb yevv&aoin the creed really meant
beget (cf. the ix yaTp6o in Arius' comment).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

42

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

Now let us take a look at Alexander'screed. (Sectionscorresponding

to Arius' are markedaccordingly).
Kal ei5 vaxxuptov'Iirjo5vXptr6v,
TOVulbV TO: OtiEOU
lOVOYVfi,

oux Ix TOU
r*Yvevv7ivrao
(vA Ov
005,
BLalX' x ToU5vToS
7aTp6q,
6p,otL06)Tq
E [ ou xoara
ra& Tv coEiaT&rzv
7 ZaLt
L
TaT TiLeatL
hxotaLtpiE3av
aCMoppOEaOL...
A &XX'&ppTX';xal avtxasxLyo...
C xal xar&ToiSoxOd
to &sievat Ovy
ui6v ixXlrou
7it6EUoEV...
a:Op6S

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only-begottenSon of God,
not begottenfrom the non-existent,
but from the Fatherwho trulyexists,
not in a corporealmanner,
by excisionor division...
but in an unspeakableand inexplicableway...
And accordingto this we believethat the Son
is alwaysbeing from the Father...

This creed no doubt comes closer to the traditionalwordingthan

Arius', but Alexanderalso makessome significantmodificationsof the
traditionalformulas.He leavesout the rp6o
Viv aovo&v,which in
rtXVtCV
this contextis inconvenientto him. On the other hand, he keepsthe lx
ToU7acp6oS
which Arius omitted. Indeed, he buildsthis phraseout to a
voS, aXX'ix -zo O6vTo
directly anti-Arian clause: ytevw0vVatoux ix TouT OVT1

naTp6o.Both these featurescan be seen as preparingthe text of N. In

N also, the TrpoT&vvwOvov(
atxbvov has been left out, and the ix ToUoarpos
has been furtherexplicated.
One may further observe that by the omission of rp6oiar&vxvTxov
immediately
aiobvovand of the paraphraseof Col 1:15, the verb TYvvdio
follows upon the termmonogenes.A look in the contextof Alexander's
letteris sufficientto be convincedthat this is not accidental.As I have
said, the Arians were not very happy about the idea of God begetting
a Son. But they had found an Old Testamentpassagewhichsomewhow
had set their minds at ease, viz. Is 1:2: utousiyivvrla xat ui'4c)ao.This

proved,they found, that beget meantthe same as create,and that God

had more sons than one.23In other words:The traditionallanguageof
the creedwas not incompatiblewiththe notionthat Christ'ssonshipwas
adoptive. The main thrust of Alexander's letter of 324 is directed
againstthis kind of argument.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

43

Alexander'spoint is that Christ'ssonship is not adoptive, but real,

"physical"-and

the terms evvacoand tLOVOyEMVt

are employed fre-

quentlyin Alexander'sletterto bringthis out, especiallywhen the two

terms are used in juxtapposition,as in the following quotes:
"His proper(Tyvaiav)andpeculiar,natural(puartxlv)andexcellentsonship(ul[6tora)
has Pauldeclaredin thisway... Moreover,in the Psalmsthe Savioursays:'TheLord
hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son'. Stressingthe genuineness(of his sonship)
(ytvrnl6ta), he signifiesthatthereareno othergenuinesons besideshim. And what
is the meaningof 'Fromthe wombbeforethe morningstarI begatThee'?Does he
not plainlyindicatethe naturalsonship((puatxvut6lnTa)
of fatherlybegetting,which
he obtainednot by the carefulframingof his manners,not by the exerciseof and
increasein virtue,but by the propertyof his nature (6pujwtox
Wherefore
8tLoJarLt)?
the only-begottenSon of the Fatherpossessesan indefectablesonship(&ETd&ctronTov
6 POVOTEvh;
0aTp6;).Buttheadoptionof rationalbeingsas sons
TIvui6T-Tar
ui{6TOU
eXEIt
belongsto them not by nature (ouxatr&
6putv)".24
"Theseignorantmen do not knowhow greatis the differencebetweenthe unbegotten Father,andthe thingswhichwerecreatedby him fromnothing,rationalas well
as irrationalbeings. Betweenthese two, as a mediator,the only-begottennature
e
whom the Father of God's Logos made all things from
(pG6L LOVOTEVnil)-by
nothing-was

VTO tcazrpO5tiTEEVVTat).
born from him who is truly Father (Et... zTOU

As in a certainplace the Lord Himselftestified,saying, 'Everyonewho loveth the

t aOUTOU
Father also loveth the Son begotten by him (T6vut6vbTOV
TEyvvrevov)".25

"Sinceit appearsthatthishypothesisof a creation(of the Son) fromnothingis most

impious,it is necessaryto say that the Fatheris alwaysFather.But he is the Father,
sincethe Son is alwayswithhim, on accountof whomhe is calledthe Father.Since
the Son is always with him, the Father is always perfect, lacking nothing in
goodness.Who, not in time, nor afteran interval,nor from nothing,has begotten
his only-begotten Son (ouOit oux vov

TtVV7iaaS r6v

LovoT-svut6v)."26

These passagesclearlyimply a specific exegesisof monogenes,viz.

that the word means the only one who has been born, begotten-as
distinct from adoptive sons. Alexander had made use of the term
monogenesalreadyin the earlieststagesof his quarrelwithArius. In the
and &ayvvrsWoeviS
can be seen as attempts
following quotes, the &aLyeVViS

to make the monogenesidea more precise.

From the Encyclicalletter of 319:27
'v'
"H Ti a&xo6ovlv
auo
ou .
EVTo tTavytYXic
ui6:', xaotltiaEloto
yivero
'OVOYEVfi
r&avraT',
ET iotv T&oV
7ZOLT7l'raTco; i: T;UyapouvaTaxL c; EtLva( T v 8t
TOUTOU; p0OETTOOivou;,OTTL
aUTOU YeVOELV()o, 1 ~i:C
6
xaTr'
ouvoapL09JOU'LEvo0;
xetvOU;
.AOVOyTevV71
oT~O:7iatl

Who that hearsthese wordsof the Gospel, 'the only-begottenSon', and, 'by Him
wereall thingsmade',will not hatethose who declareHe is one of the thingsmade?

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

44

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

How can He be one of the things made by Him? Or how shall He be the Onlybegotten,who, as they say, is reckonedamongthe other (created)things?
Arius(in a letterto Eusebiusof Nicomediaca 318)reportingon the sayingsof Alexander
whichmade Arius protest:28
... XyOVtI,a&i906s &Fd
ui6o, &apa7tarp a&.aui6;, auvu7apXe 6oui6; &yAfvv%ri;T(COE&,
&atyTwvi?, aOvtwltoyTv?l?,

OUT' &mvotaoUr' &XTOr6u

Ttvi poaytt 6Oeb6STo uoit, &ei 0e6c a&d

Tsou
6Eoj6 ui60.
IS
ui6;O&erO
... sayingthat God is always,and the Son always;the Son being alwayscontemporarywiththe Father;the Son beingalwayswith God withoutgeneration,alwaysGod not precedingthe Son in thoughtor in a mobegotten,unbegotten-begotten;
mentof time;God beingalwaysand the Son beingalways,the Son beingfromGod
Himself.

As is well-known, the term monogenes in itself is capable of two

meanings, according to the two possible meanings of the element
genes.29It may mean: kind, category, monogenes thus having the meaning: The only one of its kind. This seems to be the original meaning of
the word-probably also the Johannine meaning. But genes could also
be taken to mean begotten, and Alexander was not the first to make this
connection between monogenes and gennao. The great master of Alexandrian theology, Origen himself, had done so in a way which strikingly
anticipates Alexander's line of argument.30 The Son being born
monogenes means that he derives his existence ix vts ouaiaStoviTarp6o!
I thus conclude that for Alexander the term monogenes was thought
to be a strong weapon against the Arians, because he read the
Origenistic concept of eternal begetting into it.
As I take it, that is precisely the meaning of the transposition of the
Lovoy-viSin N. In its present position, the word serves as a first precision
xtoU7xrp6o, closely followed by the furof the meaning of yevvnOvF'xca
ther precision: 'x Oitq
oua(? TUo natp6o.
Before I conclude this part of my argument, I shall only add that
Alexander was not unfamiliar with the term ouiaiain similar contexts. He
says in his encyclical letter of 319 against the Arians: ' c;irSav6Lotoo it
'
TOu
6 wv t'dx x TX
Tou
ouata

xcaTpog;

xal &dC(TO(ay0a(7xtp6...

To conclude: The least one can say is that lines 2-4 in N make excellent sense on the background of Alexander's anti-Arian polemics.
V

It may now be appropriate to take a look at the Wirkungsgeschichte

of those clauses in the creed. In 327 Arius and Euzoius sent a letter to

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

45

Constantine containing a creed which was meant to be entirely inoffensive, and which was meant to secure their re-admission into the
Church.32If we can trust the best authorities for the text, Arius now left
out the monogenes entirely. It would seem a reasonable inference that
after the interpretation of it which Nicaea had canonized, Arius
deliberately avoided the term.
Another course was taken by some later synods with an Arian inclination. The first is the one in Sirmium 359. The long formula which the
synod set up-the so-called "dated creed"-often reads like a word-forword commentary of the creed of Nicaea. The passage paralleling lines
2-4 in N is phrased as follows:33
KatiEt;[va iovoys6v, u[6vToi 0EoU,
xTVaXlvcovxa C6 x&oiS
so6vnp6 I&vTo)v
6; x7LvooOiufvou Xp6vou
&pXt; xat icp6 CaWv

xal xnp6X&arTxa7TaXr7ltf;
oi0<(as
d&Ca0?o
, Ix 'oC 0co6, tL'ou
T6yevywrAivov

xa
altvE xa pT(a07rvav
orYtOx

iTa
x&ra

ITiybVo
yEyTi(Jiivov

i Rovooytvev,

Toi warp6;,
!,6vov&x1u6vou
Oe6vlx 90ou,
8bLOLov
CPyEwiVvavrar6uv nraXpi
xaTOt
tas ypaOCa0

And in one only-begottenSon of God,

Who was begottenimpassiblyfrom God before all ages
and before all beginningand before all conceivabletime
and before all comprehensibleessence,
throughWhomthe ages were fashioned
and all thingscame into existence,
begottenonly-begotten,
alone from the Fatheralone,
God from God,
like the FatherWho begat Him
accordingto the Scriptures...

Here we notice the same combination of the terms gennao and

monogenes as in N, but the exegesis of monogenes is not the Nicene, it
is the one of Arius. Monogenes does not mean only-begotten, it means
the only one who has been brought forth from the Father alone, cf.
Arius in his comments to the creed (above). The monos does not apply
to the Son, but to the Father.34

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

The interesting thing to notice here is that these creed-makers obviously had seen the implications in the Nicene transposition of

monogenes.They repeatedit in theirown creed,but triedto give it afor them-acceptable interpretation. The same procedure was repeated
time and again on different councils in the following decade. Of course,
the defenders of N noticed this.35
I take this as a further confirmation that my interpretation of the
meaning of the changes in lines 2f in Njis correct. The Arian reaction
proves that they got the message of N on this point.
VI
So far, I have based myself on three lines in the creed of N. Can the
'Alexandrian' theory be supported on a broader basis? I think so.
Let us return to Alexander's polemics against Arius. We have two
main sources for this: his encyclical letter from 319, and his letter to
Alexander of Constantinople from 324. In the first of these, Alexander
refers a great number of Arian formulas, against which he directs his

fire.36
1) 'v no-re 'jZ? ou'x 7'iV(8:19)
lo-a-rvtCovnot?iML&rCLv
(8:21)

2)

3) t o'x 6vt&v (9:1)

4) &v60.wto rOtYCi tOU7QrP6S (9:3)
5) rpentr6"xoxi otXoLw.toq (9:7)
6) 8t' 410jO TiTOVW(9:12)

-t6v narlpa (9:14)

7) oi'x or1ev -tXe('coc6ou't6oq

But in the second letter, four or five years afterwards, one can
perceive a distinct development. Alexander has drastically reduced the
number of targets, and concentrates his fire on four selected Arian
slogans. They are all contained in the following passage,37 which may
conveniently be compared with N:
A0y6vtcv 6rtL
1.

2.

7v Ior-TEOE OUjX1v 6 UiA6 TO OE05,

TxYOVEV

UkaPOV
ttpo

Il
T
6 i Op6rppov

tPXc)v,

TOLOOTOq
TEVO'.LIVOq &-ICEXX( n1tToTWv,
xav
otoq xai nsd nqUM

3.

'7(vt

vOp&ntOq.

yT&p'%5)aCv, '6 OEiO'It oUix 5vvWv kso(yaeL'

XOTLXbV ri XOd
auvavXotx4&Lpvovte; -rj TC*)
&7otC,)V7
'r6
XtLGIL
Ui6v
TO6
Owi0.
XOd'
&X6yTv

4.

o't &xoXoiicoqxaz((oatv o'r6ov rperni-Tgevoct

(f UaF-W...

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

47

They say that

there was a time whenthe Son of God was not;
and that He who was not before, came into existence
afterwards,becomingsuch, when at lengthHe was
made, as everyman is wont to be born.
For they say, 'God madeall things from nothing',
comprehendingeven the Son of God in the creation
of all things, rationaland irrational.
To whichthingsthey add as a consequence,that
He is of a mutablenature...
Cf. the Arian formulasanathematizedin the Creedof Nicaea:
Tou; 8. XyOVTora
1.

O8T oUX jV,

OnE
OTE

2. xal irpivTyvvWlivaL
oux jv,
C
3. xa.l o&t t oux ovytr
yve:o,
? outoia;SqaaxovTaS etvat,
d.i &tipoP 65TC&oarao&;

xor6v utobv
4. f tpETb6v
qT a&XXotV
TOU OeoU,
T
i xaooxL xaoxao&ro7otXLX1
i
ava9e(Ara.E:t

xxXqoia.

But as for those who say,

Therewas when He was not,
and, Beforebeing born He was not,
and that He came into existenceout of nothing,
or who assertthat He is from a different
hypostasisor substance,
or that the Son of God is subjectto alterationor change;
these the Catholicand apostolicChurchanathematizes.

My pointis verysimple:The selectionof AriandictawhichAlexander

has madethe targetof his polemics,correspondsexactlyto the selection
of Arian slogansin the anathemasof N. Thereis only one apparentexception, on which we must spend some comment,viz. the second line
of the thirdsayingin the anathemasof N: "or of anotherhypostasisor
substance".This has no directparallelin Alexander,and besides,there
is a specialprobleminvolved.Loofs arguesthat this sayingimpliedthat
to mean the same as ouata,and
the makers of the creed (1) held Uto6a:tatc

Loofs regardedthis
(2) held the Fatherand the Son to be one Ui66a:roats.
as an undeniablyWesternfeatureof the creed, unacceptableto Eastern
theologianswho had learntfrom Origento speakof one ousia but three
hypostases.38Now, my first remarkis that by this time the trinitarian
terminology,especiallythe use of the termhypostasis,was by no means
as fixed and unambiguousas Loofs will make us believe. But there is
a second remarkto be made, whichis of more substance.As I take it,

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

the sayingof the creeddoes not implythat the creed-makerswantedto

say that the Fatherand the Son are one hypostasis.I believethat this
is a misunderstanding
of the meaningof the text. The creedis hereconcerned with the Son's origin: From which source does he derive his
being? There seems to be three possibilities:(1) from the Father; (2)
from nothing, being createdex nihilo; and (3) from anotherouaiaor
u7t6oaataoutside the Father.The creed wants to rule out the two lastmentionedpossibilities,and does so in saying 3. It has no intentionof
sayingthat the Son is the same hypostasisas the Father,it only wants
to excludethe sayingthat he comesfrom (Ri!) anotherhypostasis.
If the interpretationof Loofs was correct,we should expect violent
protests from the Origenistsin all camps, not only the full-fledged
Arians. One of the most conservativeand faithful disciplesof Origen
presentat the Councilwas Eusebiusof Caesarea.He was perhapsthe
most reflectedthree-hypostasestheologian of his time. He has many
commentsto make on N in his letter from the council, but he has no
complaint whatever to make concerning the 3rd saying in the
anathemas.On the contrary,in his explanationof how the homoousios
can be given an acceptablemeaning, he has the following to say:
"Homoousiossuggeststhat the Son of God bearsno resemblanceto the
originatedcreatures,but that to his Fatheralone who begat him is he
in everyway assimilated,and that he is not of any otherhypostasisand
ousia, but from the Father "(xati Lj ivatl 6Tpa-por 'wLVOiUtoTas&cos T xai
ouoia;, aXX'Ix Tro 7raxp6)39--an almost exact quotation of the very

languageof the creed! Did Eusebiustherebydeny his three-hypostases

theology?Of coursenot-nor did the creed. In fact, the denialthat the
Son derivedhis being from a creationex nihilo, or from anotherbeing
outside the Father, was traditionalpreciselywithin the Alexandrian
tradition.40

So, havingdispensedwith this often repeatedargumentby Loofs, we

have clearedthe way for claimingthat the anathemasof N-in their
selectionof Arian dicta-show every sign of Alexandrianinfluence.

VII
Before I concludewith a brief discussionof the homoousios, I want
to bringinto the discussionan often neglectedpiece of evidencewhich
has an importantbearingon the creed-makingprocess.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

49

Athanasiusclaims in his reportsabout the makingof the creed that

"the bishops" in an earlierstage of the proceedingspresenteda draft
to the council which only contained Scriptural terminology. Athanasius
gives us a list of terms employed in this drafted creed-let us call it the
"proto-Nicaenum". It is interesting to compare this with corresponding
sayings in Alexander:
'Proto-N' accordingto Athanasius,De Decr. 19f:
A rui6titV

lx 'TOU
OoE,
Loxx oxOx vov, &XX'
B xaoiX6yo a'trixai aopoa,
cr &XXou xTiargaoU8OcoiTFJa,
Ltlov
8t tOxTOU
warpo; TYvvfilra...,

...
TOU
xatidx6vwa
Xrapo6
&Xi90tivv
D [r6uva!Lv

xarair
56L
oo6v tE xai &rnap&Xaxx.ov...
E xaciarpetov
F xait&d
G xatiiv aux,t ewvat&8tatpCipios.

ora
&rctcaTp

Alexander(referencesto page and line in Opitz):

T uE6v
TOOeO
LOU
FovoTYei,
Ar

&XX'ix TOU
5ovt; XaOp6o..(27:40
oxx Tx OUM OVTO(;,
yETvvTr1ivTa
... XTyetai X6yoS xai

Rejecting the Arian saying:

B
B
ao9ta...(7:23-8:1)

xaTacXp1=Ctx&?

xatiytvtlxTvI=t ... (7:23)

C Rejecting the Arian saying: eit; LivTiv notLt&xt)Tov
-..."tv xaxra &vora
;
6JLor6tnTlaC
aiutouExcp6auio&o.oat&.
Ievo; xai &nap&XXoaxto
eLxcovTou iartp6d yXrX&vov...
(25:24f)
xai &rwcap&XXaxto
TroU
.etXCiVyap I.trv &arlxptpco4.v1.
xcatp6;... (27:15)
< tov atsipaO...
TOUTOV
xatiavaLxXXo(ixov
E ... &apecTov
(27:13f)
F ... xaciTo a&eiTlvat 6ovui6v ix ToUIcarpo6
7xtorOev...
(27:17f)

My point here is again very simple: In the proto-Nicaenumthere is

a massive take-over of Alexander's characteristiccatchwordsin his
polemics againstArius.
There is also another interesting parallel. Comparing protoNicaenum with the creed drawn up by the council of Antioch some
months earlier,we again notice strikingparallelsin formulation.The
council of Antioch sided with Alexander against Arius, and many
characteristicformulas in Alexander'sletter of 324 recur in it.4' We
know that most of the bishops presentin Antioch were also presentin
Nicaea.42Were some of the membersof the drafting committeesthe
same on both occasions? I am here satisfied just to suggest this
possibility.43

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

50

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

The reasonwhy this proto-Nicaenumprovedineffective,was that the

Ariansagreedto it. Thereforethe creed-makershad to try once more,
and now-according to Athanasius-they introducedthe non-Biblical
conceptsof ousiaand homoousios.I am now goingto finishwheremost
scholarsbegin: By commentingbriefly on the homoousios.
VIII
Eusebiusreportsthat the Emperorafter introducingthe term, made
some remarksas to what it should mean. Here again Alexanderhas a
very close parallel.4 Hearingthe Emperorexplainthe homoousiosof
the creed is much the same as hearing Alexander explain the ywvv0iOvat

ix Itot aoTp6S
of his Alexandriancreed. One shouldalso notice Origen's
cautionson the idea of begetting.45This makesme notice that in N the
sayingof the begettingof the Son is repeatedimmediatelybeforethe introduction of the homoousios. It seems as if the y&vvw0ivjoa
and the 'x
of the precedinglinesareonce morebeingexplained:Thewyevvir0vTa
Oeou

should not, as in Arius, be taken as synonym with "created" or

"made", but should be read in the light of the homoousios and vice
versa. In this way the lines 8 and 9 do little more than repeatwhat has
been said already, with other concepts, in lines 3 and 4. The term
homoousiosis then relatedto the conceptof begettingin such a way as
to exclude a Sabellianmisunderstandingof homoousios. One should
noticethat the homoousiosis the last of all the insertionsand modifications madeby the redactionalcommittee.I get the impressionthat they
havehandledthis conceptwithgreatcircumspectionand care.As it now
stands in the creed, it is meant to be read in the light of all the
preceedingstatements.
All this, I think, betraythe careful hands of the Alexandrians,and
the fact that the Emperorhimself introducedthe concept with some
typicallyAlexandriancautionsis really a good indicationthat the ancienthistorianPhilostorgiuswas afterall right,whenhe claimedthat an
agreementabout the homoousios between Ossius and Alexanderhad
been reachedalreadybefore the Council.46Probablyalso Ambroseis
right in indicatingthat preciselythe vehementopposition against this
wordamongthe Ariansmay havemadethe Alexanderpartyinclinedto
acceptit.47In any case:The very carefulway this conceptis handledin
the creed,the implicitcautionsagainstSabellianmisunderstanding-all
this pointsto Alexanderand his men, not to the muchless sophisticated
theology of the West.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

51

And so, alongindependentlinesof argument,I cometo the sameconclusionas Kelly:The creedof Nicaeais not a pieceof Westerntheology
forced upon the Eastern Church by Ossius and Constantine.It is a
product of the Alexanderparty, probably in close cooperationwith
Ossius, and-to quote Kelly-"the Emperorhad been won over to be
their mouthpiece".48
NOTES
Text as in J. N. D. Kelly,Early ChristianCreeds(London31972)215f.
2

Kelly, op.cit., 229.

H. Lietzmann,SymbolstudienI-XIV, (repr.Darmstadt1966) 12f.

Here I find myselfin agreementwith E. Boularand,L'Heresied'Ariuset la "foi" de
Nicee, Vol II: La "foi" de Nicee (Paris 1972),who translateslines 3f: uniqueengendre
du Pere, c'est-a-direde la substancedu P6re. Cf. also his perceptivecomment,p. 295:
But Boularandseemsnot to have observed
"Ces deux formulessont complementaires."
the singularityof the first phrase(line 3).
5 Nor Boularandin his extensivecommenton the New Testament
backgroundfor line
3, op.cit., 296-302.
6 Kelly, op.cit., 227-230.
7 A.
Hort, Two Dissertations(Cambridgeand London 1876) 54-72 ("Note E: On
MONOFENHE: EOS in the Nicene Creed"). A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der
Dogmengeschichte,Vol. I (Tubingen51931)227-236.
8 F. Loofs, 'Das Nicanum',Festgabefir KarlMuller,1852-1940
(Ttibingen1922)68-82,
esp. 81.
9 For generalinformationon the Ariancontroversypriorto the councilof Nicaea, one
shouldconsultthe worksby Harnack,Kelly,and Boularandalreadyquoted.The following also containdetaileddiscussionof the sourcesand the course of events:0. Seeck,
'Untersuchungenzur Geschichte des Nicanischen Konzils', Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte17 (Gotha 1897) 1-72/319-363;H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism
(Cambridge21900);E. Schwarz,GesammelteSchriften, Vol III: Zur Geschichtedes
Athanasius(Berlin1959);A. E. Burn, The Councilof Nicaea. A MemorialCentenary
(London 1925);V. C. de Clercq,Ossiusof Cordova.A Contributionto the Historyof
the ConstantinianPeriod. The CatholicUniversityof AmericaStudiesin Antiquity,13
(WashingtonDC 1954);I. Ortizde Urbina,Niceeet Constantinople,Histoiredes Conciles
OecumeniquesI (Paris 1963).
10 Concerningthe authenticityof the letter, cf. H. Kraft,KaiserKonstantinsreligiose
Entwicklung.Beitragezur historischenTheologie,Band 20 (Tibingen 1955)91-96 and
217. Here also extensiveinterpretativecomments.
" Harnack,op.cit., esp. 230ff; R. Seeberg,Lehrbuchder Dogmengeschichte,Vol. II
(repr.Darmstadt1965)20-51, esp. 42ff.
12 Die Synodevon Antiochienim Jahre324/25. Ein Beitragzur Geschichtedes Konzils
von Nicaa. Neue Studienzur GeschichtederTheologieund der Kirche,16 (Berlin1913).
One shouldnoticethat the few relevantancientreportson the issueareambiguous.They
tendto saythatOssiusandAlexanderwerethe promptersof the creed(e.g. Philostorgius,
History, I:9a: "those aroundOssiusof Cordobaand Alexander"(GCS21, p. 9)). This
3

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

52

OSKARSKARSAUNE

may well be true, but which of the two was the decisive master mind? Cf. the good review
of the ancient evidence in Boularand, op.cit., 235-38.
3
Published in Leipzig 1905 as 'Separatdruck aus dem "Neuen sachsischen Kirchenblatt" '.
4
E. Schwarz, Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche (Leipzig-Berlin 1913) 139f.
15 Cf. note 8.
16 Eusebius' letter to his diocese about the council is preserved i.a. in Athanasius, De
Decretis Nicaenae Synodi, and may conveniently be found in H.-G. Opitz, Urkunden zur
Geschichte des Arianischen Streites 318-328. Athanasius Werke, Dritter Band (BerlinLeipzig 1934), Urkunde 22, pp. 42-47.
17
Lietzmann, op.cit., 60-71.
8
Kelly, op.cit., 220-226. The now wide-spread acceptance of the historicity of the
Council of Antioch a few months prior to Nicaea also has implications pointing in the
same direction: Eusebius' paper presented at the council of Nicaea was probably intended
as a document securing his own rehabilitation. He had been suspended from his see during
the council at Antioch; his orthodoxy was questioned-this seems to provide excellent
background for the quite apologetic tenor of Eusebius' paper at Nicaea, and it indicates
that Eusebius' creed may not at all have been intended as a first draft of the synod's
creed-nor used as such.-On the council of Antioch, the fundamental study remains E.
Schwarz' (cf. note 9; first published in Nachrichten von der k. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1905, 257-299; reprinted in Ges. Schr.
III, 117-168), in which he published the Syriac Synodal Letter from the council. Subsequent studies include E. Seeberg's (note 12); H. Kraft, 'OMOOY0IOS', Zeitschrift fur
Kirchengeschichte 66 (1954/55) 1-24, esp. 10-13; de Clercq, op.cit., 206-217; H. Chadwick, 'Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325', The Journal
of Theological Studies (New Series) 9 (1958) 292-304; 0. Skarsaune, 'Nikeamotets
kristologiske formel-politikk og teologi', Patristica Nordica 1 (Lund 1982) 66-84. Some
reservations are voiced by D. L. Holland, 'Die Synode von Antiochien (324/25) und ihre
Bedeutung fur Eusebius von Caesarea und das Konzil von Nizaa', Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 81 (1970) 163-181.
19 Urkunde 6 in
Opitz, op.cit., 12f. The most relevant clauses are quoted below. Opitz
gives ca 320 as the date of the letter.
20
Urkunde 14 in Opitz, op.cit. 27. Written ca 324.
21
For a useful comment on the letter in its entirety, cf. Boularand I, 47-54. He does not,
however, pay attention to the details with which we are concerned here.
22
Arius here heralds what was later to become the standard Arian exegesis of
monogenes: the monos applies primarily to the Father as sole begetter-creator of the Son:
The Son alone was brought forth from the Father alone, without any mediator. For texts
and comments, cf. section V below.
23
24
25
26
27

28

Athanasius,De Decr. 10.

Opitz, Urk. 14, pp. 24f.
Ibid., 26.
Ibid., 23.
Urk. 4b, pp. 8f.
Urk. 1, p. 2.

29

On the term monogenes, cf. esp. E. Boklen, 'MONOrENHE', Theologische Studien

und Kritiken 101 (1929) 55-90; D. Moody, 'God's only Son: The translation of John 3:16

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEGLECTED DETAIL IN THE CREED OF NICAEA (325)

53

in the Revised Standard Version', Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953) 213-19; P.

Hofrichter, Nicht aus Blut sondern monogen aus Gott geboren. Textkritische,
dogmengeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zu Joh 1,13-14. Forschung zur Bibel,
31 (Wirzburg 1978), pp. 139-154.
30
Infandum est et inlicitum deum patrem in generatione unigeniti filii sui atque in subsistentia eius exaequare alicui vel hominum vel aliorum animantium generanti; sed necesse
est exceptum aliquid esse et deo dignum, cuius nulla prorsus comparatio non in rebus
solum sed ne in cogitatione quidem vel sensu inveniri potest, ut humana cogitatio possit
adpraehendere quomodo ingenitus deus pater efficitur unigeniti filii. Est namque ita
aeterna ac sempiterna generatio, sicut splendor generatur ex luce. Non enim per adoptionem spiritus filius fit extrinsecus, sed natura filius est (De Principiis 1:2:4
(Gorgemanns/Karpp, p. 130)).
ix T ouata; TOUartp6; EtvatO-6vui6v. o68tv
To, "n; iovoytvou;waxp&
narpk6'voelv6Uropr&XXt
elvat. Edy&pxai aXXowap&
lx OeoU8ta ToUX6you Xt TO6
xxtaI&TCL)v
yap T&Ov
7Capanwap6;,&XX'
X
TiCv Cap&a
ixttrTo
Ext Arv iiTapitv, ro(,aic; TOUFILovoytvo{
rCarp6
7taTpo;S
OVi,
o xoX)Cv OVTcov
T6 Eivt (In Joh. frag. 9 (GCS 10, p. 490:20-24)).
IXO6VTwv
3
Opitz, Urk. 4b, p. 9.
32 Kat et xuptov 'Itaoiv XptLo6v, rob utov auroo, r6v It auxourtp6 anvrwv Txv altvcov
v X6Tov ... (quoted here according to Kelly, op.cit., 189).
yTyevvillrivo
33 Text
according to Kelly, op.cit., 289.
Athanasius quoting Arian exegesis of Only-begotten, De Decr. 7:11: OuxtoW
voiCotiEV
xrouo RAovoYTev
xal S&a
orLtA6vo;jidv
aulxr u6o , 6vou
XIyTOeLat,
Tbvui6v7XiovgXtlvxap&r&&XXa
To uo5 Ix'iaRr...
TO Oiou8t&a
ToU0Oo5TyTOvt, &o8'alXXa
Ca i&v rapa&
Basil of Caesarea quoting the anhomoian Eunomius (Adv. Eun. 11:21, PG 29:617):
MovoTEvS... xapa
PI6vou ytwrvvit xat xtclOtLC...
Basil's answer, ibid., (PG 29:616): Movoytv/TyTapoux 6 txap&a
I6vouYEv6Oievo,&aX'6 povo?
ytVVT0t9e, iv T xoOtvf
XplJat CpoaaroptuPtaL.
On the Arian exegesis of monogenes, cf. esp. Hofrichter, op.cit., 142-144. Following
Bocklen (57ff), Hofrichter argues that the Arian exegesis coincides with the original
Johannine meaning of the term. His arguments-like those of Bocklen-do hardly warrant this conclusion.
Cf. Basil's retort in the preceding Note. Athanasius has the following to say on the
35
true meaning of monogenes:
'O T&pTOLtovOyvi;, o6x 5VTOv&XXcov&8EX()cv, 9OVOyTtvtIrtv .... MovoYtvE; iv 8&atv ix
rlarpoSTyivvrav... (Or. Contra Arianos 11:62 (PG 26,277/289)).
36
Opitz, Urk. 4b. (The numbers in parenthesis in the table refer to page and line in
Opitz).
37
Opitz, Urk. 14, p. 21.
3" Loofs, 'Der authentische Sinn...' (cf. Note 13), 14f; idem, 'Das Nicanum' (cf. Note
8), 78f.
39 Opitz, Urk. 22, p. 46, lines 2f.
40
Theognostus of Alexandria (250-80) in the second Book of his Hypotyposes, as quoted
r( lawtv6ttupcOt9aa
i1 ro uio oiu(a otiSIix ^1 O5vT(ov
by Athanasius, De Decr. 25:2: o6x R(wOjv
x T; TOi aXp6o ooaCa;C u Co;trooy(ox6 TX&1r6auTa(lIa...
txttCaonX,&XX&
EX
41 This was pointed out already by Schwarz, op.cit. (Note 9), 134/147/154f. "Die

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

54

OSKAR SKARSAUNE

Glaubensformel ist im Wesentlichen eine Paraphrase von Alexanders Tomos..." (154). It

was demonstrated in great detail by E. Seeberg, op.cit. (Note 12), 120-150.
42
Cf. esp. Schwarz, op.cit., 146-154.
4
I have traced the links between the formula of Antioch and 'Proto-N' in an earlier
article of mine, cf. Note 18.
44
Constantine, according to Eusebius (Opitz Urk. 22, p. 44:4-7):
'Oj.oo6aLto:
7OW ...
... L xaraTZ& (:V ) ,L&T6cov
OUt' ouv xa1a& BlotaPpat OT'r xOar&
x
Ex 'OUCa:p6o;

a i&7t'tOTlo

UtsTrolwVat'

lTqae
yTp 8uvaoaotTV auXovxax voepavxac
&aJLaTrov (uotv a(oiaTox6v TIt7:&oSj Yri(acaaoct,

ot
xoa a&topplToLt X,6yotc
eiOts
ta &otaura voe6v.
nTpooixetv

Alexander (Urk. 14, p. 27:4-7):

OUXlx TO0U
I OWTo, aXX' Ex TOU0..=XTap6S,
YevvTlO6vna

ou xaroara< trSv coJ)latzv6tAolot6LtrlcaI

TactTolaLtqYTact;lx 8taotp,actva7:oppo(tac;...
aXX' appl:rcoc xxa avex8tTli6lo)x;...
45
46
47

48

Cf. the quotes given in Note 30.

Cf. Note 12 above.
De fid. 3:15:125-quoted here according to Kelly, op.cit., 253.
Kelly, ibid.

Postboks 27 Bekkelaget, 0137 Oslo 1

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:03:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions