This presentation unfolds the pivotal role of the Coptic tradition in preserving and reinterpreting the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds.
Studying the history of the Ancient Church, it is crucial to consider the so-called “minor” Oriental tradition. Regarding the Council of Nicaea (325), the Coptic tradition provides a privileged perspective. The Coptic Church perceives itself as the direct heir of the council’s prominent figures, namely Bishops Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria. Due to this significant theological and doctrinal heritage, Coptic manuscripts preserve both authentic Nicene documents and pseudo-epigraphic texts related to the council. The Nicene Creed and its counterpart, the Creed of Constantinople, serve as central case studies for the history of Christianity and the Late Antique transmission of texts within material culture.
From this perspective, the transmission of the Nicene (N) and Nicene-Constantinopolitan (C) Creeds within the Coptic tradition has received limited scholarly attention. A systematic analysis of the textual attestations of these creeds and their placement in Coptic manuscripts remains a desideratum. Wolfram Kinzig’s recent work, A History of Early Christian Creeds, offers some insights into the reception of N and C in Egypt, including a Greek retroversion of two Coptic manuscript attestations. However, a comprehensive review of sources and a coherent study of their production and circulation contexts are still lacking. The significance of non-Greek and non-Latin traditions in reconstructing the redactional history of N and C, as well as their diffusion in the Mediterranean world and beyond, was first emphasized by Giuseppe Luigi Dossetti. His Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli sought to establish the critical edition of these creeds and highlight the importance of textual variants. Dossetti recognized the need to examine Eastern traditions to identify authoritative and ancient witnesses capable of shedding light on the transmission of these conciliar symbols, particularly N, within the earliest canonical collection, the Corpus Canonum, known as the Antiochene Collection.
Eugène Revillout devoted several studies to the Coptic fragments identified by Georg Zoëga (Catalogus codicum Copticorum, 1810), particularly the Didascalia Patrum Nicaenorum, preserved also in the Egyptian Museum of Turin. Revillout proposed that these texts were related not to the Council of Nicaea but to the Council of Alexandria (362), convened by Athanasius. He suggested that the Alexandrian synod had compiled tous les fragments of Nicaea, previously neglected due to opposition from anti-Nicene factions. Revillout later connected this recovery effort to the rise of Emperor Julian and the theological struggle between Nicene and anti-Nicene groups.
The reconstruction of CLM 359 was significantly advanced by Walter Ewing Crum, who in 1915 incorporated additional folios from the Bibliothèque nationale de France, revealing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (C) alongside the council of Ephesus’ horos on Cyprus’ autocephaly. Further folios were later identified at the Institut français d’archéologie orientale in Cairo. Beyond CLM 359, other Coptic manuscripts, such as CMCL MONB.EP/CLM 367, preserve Nicene Creed versions within Ephesian conciliar acts. The liturgical transmission of N and C in Coptic prayer books was later examined by Hans Quecke (1970) and, more recently, by Ágnes T. Mihálykó, who analyzed Christian liturgical papyri, identifying relevant Eucharistic attestations.
Within the Clavis Coptica, N and C are cataloged as cc0955 and cc0958, respectively. Tito Orlandi identified three Nicene-related document collections: Collectio Nicaena A (cc0554), Collectio Nicaena B (cc0555), and Collectio Nicaena C (cc0969), distinguished by their manuscript arrangements. In nearly all cases, N occupies a central position.
In CLM 359, C appears once, placed after the canons of Constantinople and preceding the Ephesian decree on Cyprus’ autocephaly. This placement indicates that the corpus had already expanded beyond Meletius’ version of the Corpus Canonum. Notably, while C is included in its Chalcedonian version, no canons from the Council of Chalcedon are present, and the manuscript also contains explicit anti-Chalcedonian texts. This paper will conduct an in-depth analysis of the major textual variants in the Coptic versions, comparing them with the Greek textus receptus of N and C. The Coptic transmission of these texts, embedded within canonical and monastic contexts, displays a remarkable textual plasticity. While doctrinal content remains stable, lexical adjustments and omissions suggest intentional theological refinements. The presence of additional clauses, textual rearrangements, and terminological shifts underscores the dynamic nature of creedal transmission in late antique and medieval Egypt.
This contribution examines the Coptic tradition’s preservation and reinterpretation of the Nicene (N) and Nicene-Constantinopolitan (C) Creeds, uncovering textual plasticity within doctrinal stability. Through interdisciplinary analysis of manuscripts like CLM 359, it traces creedal transmission from canonical collections to liturgical codices, revealing lexical adaptations and contextual theological refinements. By integrating non-Greek/Latin sources, the study highlights how Coptic scribes negotiated Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian influences, maintaining at center the “true” Nicene faith. The research underscores the dynamic interplay of culture, authority, and theology in late antique Egypt, challenging narratives of Nicene legacy and exploring the impact of other literary traditions.