"Credo" (I believe) is a major part of every Church service in traditional Christianity. One of the first parts of the service is the recitation of one or more "creeds"; basic beliefs of the Church, formulated mostly in the fourth century. The worshiper must recite, and subscribe to, these basic tenets. In Islam as well, there is the "Shohada", the declared belief that there is no deity but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger. In fact, conversion to Islam only involves the recitation of the seven words of the Shohada before witnesses. We search in vain for a Jewish equivalent to either of these. Although some basic ideology is present in both the Tanach and the Talmud, is not systematized in either work. Yes, certain Talmudic rabbis put forth some ideas that are "bedrock", but even most of these are challenged by other Talmudic rabbis. With the exception of the existence of G-d, no other Jewish idea (that I can think of) has gone unchallenged within Judaism. Classical Judaism refrains from conceptualizing and fixing dogma. In Leviticus 19 and 20, we have a parshah named "Kedoshim" (Holy). It opens "Be Holy, for I, the L-rd you G-d, am Holy". We would expect an explanation defining "Holiness". We do not find it. Instead, we meet a list of observances, that go from "Love thy neighbor", all the way to a prohibition of cross dressing. The message is "we don't define holiness. The way of life of the Torah will teach you what holiness is all about. Keep these rules. Make them part of your life. Words are cheap".It is only after the rise of the Karaite heresy in the seventh century, that Judaism had to define itself, in order to defend itself. Rabbis penned works of philosophy, theology, and apologetic, in order to defend the faith. Some limited their sources to Tanach and Talmud. Many relied more on Greek philosophy, which was widely accepted in intellectual circles, in order to defend the Torah. Here we are faced with an unanswerable dilemma. Often, these works take an Aristotelian (more rarely Platonic) interpretation of the Torah, and come to far reaching conclusions that are incompatible with the simple meaning of Scripture, or the express views of Talmudic rabbis. Did the authors of these works really mean what they wrote, or were they being less than candid in order to save Judaism from strange views, whether Karaite, Islamic or Christian? I have in my possession a book written by a contemporary rabbi, based on the idea that the Big Bang theory justified the Biblical narrative of Creation. His ideas are quite brilliant, actually. However, one of my daughters in law had that rabbi as a High School teacher. In class, he lectured extensively against his own words, urging simple faith, without recourse, or even reference, to science. Tempers will flare when we bring this discussion to RAMBAM. In his legal work, he rarely says anything contrary to Biblical and rabbinic theology. His philosophical work, on the other hand, is replete with statements that contradict both Scripture and rabbinics, to the extent that one seventeenth century rabbi refused to beleive that the same man had authored both books, declaring the philosophical one to be a forgery. In his legal works, he outlines "Thirteen Principles of Faith". These are somewhat curious, as they contain elements not mentioned in earlier sources, and therefore could hardly be considered to be our Credo. However, in his philosophical work, he demonstrates that he, himself, found some of these principles, shall we say, other than bedrock. Was he being untruthful in his legal works, in order to win the hearts and minds of the masses, or was he fooling the non believers, by using their own heresy or secularism, against them? For example, his legal code goes into great detail on how the sacrifices are to be performed; even how may Priests carry various limbs onto the altar. In his commentary to the Mishnah, he blasts those who doubt that sacrifices will return., In his philosophical "Guide", he says that G-d does not desire sacrifice, and the Torah only included it as a concession to the norms of the day. (This, despite the fact that two thirds of the laws of the Torah relate to sacrifice). In any case, before the Shabbatean debacle of 1666, philosophy was the province of an intellectual elite. Most Jews either performed the mitzvot simply, or else delved into the mysteries of the Kabbalah (which I contend were the original, albeit not widely known, tenets of Judaism). When many communities jettisoned Kabbalah after 1666, they turned to philosophy. The prose exposition of RAMBAM's thirteen principles is printed in most prayer books, although I have never witnessed their public recitation. The poetic form of the thirteen principles, "Yigdal", is sung in many communities, but few realize that this was meant as a Credo rather than just a hymn. Judaism, then, is not committed to a Credo, but rather to a way of life, connecting us with G-d. There may be many approaches, all valid. (Another reason I dislike ArtScroll, which paints a very narrow view of matters that are vaster than the sea). I find greatest meaning in the understanding of the Kabbalists and the Hasidic Masters, especially Rabbi Nachman. Others may find inspiration elsewhere. That is fine, and as it should be. In the words of the Talmud "every river takes its own course".