Theodosius' Creed

Vox Day has a bone to pick with the current mainstream Creed. His site "Infogalactic" offers a comparison.

I recite the Creed every weekend, and I am in whole agreement with Chalcedon's corrections to Ephesus where the Father and the Son relate. But I do not understand the Trinity. So where's an argument for or against, I need to look into that. (And I leave aside entirely Muh Scriptral Authoriteh.)

As background, what we're now calling "the Nicene Creed" was absent from the Nicaea consensus 325 AD. The bulk of the longer creed went unnoticed in mainstream Christendom up to Chalcedon. Emperor Marcian's bishops claimed they had found this longer version, and duly brought that to Chalcedon.

Before we go "LOL, Donation of Constantine amirite" keep in mind that opponents to Chalcedon still exist... and they hold to the longer version too. This is an indication that even if the longer creed wasn't in canonical use, and even if it wasn't Nicene; it had likely gone out into the world several generations prior. There is no reason to libel Marcian as a liar. Marcian had found a genuine document in the Theodosian archives. Vox Day concedes that this creed was known to Theodosius in 381 AD. [UPDATE 4/1/2021: But hold on...] In context the Empire was working to reëstablish the Church after two generations of Eunomian "Arianism", whose emperors had failed spectacularly on the field at Edirne.

It is possible that the Empire gave the longer creed sanction as an end-run around legacy Eunomian bishops. There was something of an interregnum AD 408-25, when Theodosius II was still a minor and the western half wasn't under Constantinopolitan control. This also may go to explain how Theodosius II's synods at Ephesus felt the need to reinforce the shorter and truly-Nicene creed. The longer creed might have been a target.

I agree with Vox Day that it is Not A Good Look for the Church (any Church) to retroject modern solutions upon ancient contexts. But to be fair to that first Theodosius and the Chalcedonians, those men in antiquity may not have intended to do that. So let us see if they were right to switch creeds. Let's go back to their comparison.

The first plus/minus transposes God as "maker of heaven and earth" to the forefront. Later is added that Jesus came "from heaven". The longer Creed by "heaven" intends "the Throne Over The Waters" - to which seat, the longer Creed further adds, Jesus shall ascend. The plus about "before all aeons" might do for time what "heaven" does for space.

That Jesus issued forth before / outside the alamûn is, also, John 1. That Jesus now sits at His Father's right hand comes from the Synoptics; here is, I think, absolute justice tempered with mercy. The longer Creed insists on Jesus' death and burial, where the shorter one allowed for a direct Ascension from the cross (Philippians? Egerton?). The longer creed does better at flagging "heaven" as metaphor, generally.

(Meanwhile the longer creed does better at placing this Christ within human history, naming Mary and Pilate - this is an Eastern Roman gospel. 4/1/21: But Theodosius I had done this already.)

The longer Creed's metaphor is still a bit clumsy. [UPDATE 2/4/22: purqan > sotería.] If there's no formal jubilee, Jesus sits at God's right hand to do... what exactly? before coming back down here to judge (again?). The shorter Creed doesn't have that redundancy. Its Jesus is to descend from Heaven at the End Of Days, and shall hold court then and, implicitly, here. The short version is close to Islamic views of Jesus except for tawlîd and hypostasis.

I think where nonTrinitarian Christians have a problem is in the role of the Spirit, here. The original Creed doesn't talk of the Spirit much, except to nod that It exists. The Gospels had warned against blaspheming It, whatever It is. The long version expounds for some length on that "whatever". In the process, the long version supports the Church as apostolic. By asserting the Church as an eternal human institution (the only one, at that), and further by tagging Pilate as overseer over the Cross: the long Creed leaves open the question of the Empire.

If we don't own a Church independent and transcendent over Caesars, we live in Heraclius' Empire still. Which Empire corrupted Christendom and failed, after some ephemeral success, to defend her Christians.

So there you go. Despite whatever imperfections and confusions may exist in the longer Creed, to the point it doesn't argue Trinitarianism to our satisfaction; the longer Creed is the Creed.

UPDATE 4/1/2021: Compare the AD 390s Latin creeds. Vox Day was being too generous. I no longer hold Theodosius responsible except for the addition of the Virgin Mary.