I’ve refreshed my study on the development of the aqeedah schools and have found that there are indeed errors in my previous posts.
In a nutshell I have come across:
Source dogma was non-existent since faith was equated to obedience to the prophet (SAW).
Khawarij were first breakaway on dogma
Muta’zili and Najdis came from them
Kalam started - dialectic between Sunnis and Muta’zili
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (RA) rejected Qur’an creation theory, when Muta’zilis were dominating
Imam Abu Hanifah wrote most text on beliefs
Imam At-Tahawi and Imam Maturidi developed two creedal formulas independently.
Imam Al-'Ashari broke away from Muta’zili and developed creedal formula similar to Maturidi
Imam At-Tahawi got widest acceptance due to being simplest and avoided refuting dogmatic positions. (Note: Widest acceptance does not mean MOST acceptance)
Early Hanafis were Tahawi
Later Hanafis became Maturidi in general, some became 'Ashari
The current Athari aqeedah utilises Tahawi as a basis, but includes some speculative discourse and identifies disagreements with other dogmas.
Hence if you believe that At-Tahawiyya is the Athari/Salafi aqeedah then it is the first. But my argument stemmed from the fact that theology was not required for the Salaf and hence any dogma or creedal formula must only have been created to counter the breakaways.
Somewhere in the equation were the literalists who rejected all forms of reason who were the opposites to the Muta’zilis. The Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jammah consisted of people from the schools of these three creedal formuals. (Maturidi, 'Ashari & Tahawi)
The Salafi/Athari aqeedah in this regard is taken from the refutations of those early scholars who rejected and documented their rejections against the Khawarij and the Muta’zili. But I still hold, that the current athari formula had not been developed until many years after Imam At-Tahawi.