Talk:Nicene Creed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Texts / Catholicism / Eastern / Lutheranism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Top-importance).

Other ancient liturgical versions[edit]

On reading this section again, it struck me as odd that there is mention of the filioque here. First, it is not really ancient (which is the subject of the section), but more Middle Ages. Second, it did not stem from language that originated at any of the ancient ecumenical councils. "Filioque" has always been controversial, and continues to be so. Indeed, this is pointed up again by the small edits made in late July regarding current (and changing?) liturgical application in Roman Catholic churches of eastern orientation, which in itself is an outgrowth of that controversy (how "eastern" to be, sans filioque, as opposed to "western", having it present, and what does that mean to those churches).

Contrast the difference in nature of these matters to that of the question of translations that produce "I believe" or "We believe", which is material that belongs solidly to this section.

As an eastern orthodox, I hesistate to touch "filioque" myself, lest I change something in the text that others find meaningful, however benign it might seem to me. But it does strike me as appropriate that the content be moved, perhaps to the "Filioque Controversy" section. Does that seem controversial to anyone? Evenssteven (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is the problem of "How ancient is ancient?" According to the article - I haven't checked sources - Filioque was in use from the sixth century. Surely that's ancient enough. For all I know (although I doubt it), it might even be more ancient than the inclusion of Deum de Deo in the Latin version - a phrase absent in the Greek Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly called the Nicene Creed, though present in the original 325 Nicene Creed. And what do we know about when exactly Πιστεύω (and Credo) began to be used in the Divine Liturgy in place of Πιστεύομεν (and Credimus)? Was that so much more ancient? I don't see how anyone can remove Filioque from the report about the Latin text. After all, Filioque has to be mentioned immediately after the lead of the article, where an explanation is given of the different senses in which the name "Nicene Creed" is used. Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think filioque originated in sixth-century Spain, but it didn't gain a lot of currency immediately. The momentum really shifted around the time of Charlemagne, who pressured Rome for its inclusion. The main point is, the Roman Empire had ceased to exist some centuries before that. While the Byzantine Empire emerged in the east, the rise of Islam also changed the political (and military) situation throughout the Mediterranean. By that point, the "ancient" order (politically) was gone, and a new era had begun, call it what you will. But the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed was fully formed before that era (though not by a lot of time). Filioque arose in the new era, and in the extreme regions of the old Roman Empire then gone for over a hundred years.
I don't know about the dating of credimus, but the two things are simply far different in context. It's not just a matter of dates or age. And the significance of filioque to Latin text is precisely that it was Latin, not Greek, west, not east, and that it led (in part) to the Great Schism. And now we're talking about the controversy, and a context that continues very much alive today. Hence, it's not really so ancient after all. And I'm back to my original point. Evenssteven (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. The section I'm referring to is "Other ancient liturgical versions", not "Ancient liturgical versions". Your comment makes more sense to me when I read the second section, but that's not where I'm making my point. Are we on the same track now? Evenssteven (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I was about to claim that the "Filioque controversy" section was overreaching in its claim of early acceptance of the phrase in Latin churches, but I find that the Filioque article itself is full of western scholastic references claiming the same. It is not the same story I get from eastern references. What can I say? More controversy, differing opinions even among reputable scholars. But the east/west division of these claims quite clearly point to a connection with the schism. I would prefer all these materials to reflect at least a mention that there is not a uniform agreement among scholars. But I am unable personally to pursue a course to press for that, so I'll just leave the comment here. My original point here about where the material belongs remains, though, as it does not depend on the dating. Evenssteven (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the connection between the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the filoque? EoinRiedy (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is explained in the main article Filioque#Catholicism. Any more information should be added there, not here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Credo (card game) belong in the "See Also" section of this article?[edit]

There has been an editing war over this matter. I just now reverted to the pre-war status and am putting it here for discussion. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the content of the linked Wikipedia article, I would say that it is extremely relevant and certainly meets criteria for inclusion here. Elizium23 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I must disagree. The game is not WP:RS. Its characterization (on the front cover) as a game of "dueling dogmas" is itself a misrepresentation of the facts of the Nicene Council. The Council decided very quickly that Arian claims did not represent the faith of the church. The bulk of discussion, resulting in the creed, was how to formulate the faith in such a way as to make it clear that Arian theology did not fit. That was an arduous task for all involved. Historical documentation shows that the context included Constantine's concerns about the civil unrest in the Empire that had preceded the council. People had died, churches had been destroyed, and there had been violence in the streets. To place this matter within the context of fun and games cannot promote understanding of the history, and to base the game on a historically false premise is misleading. Again, the game cannot purport to be a WP:RS, and hence is an unfit teacher of the creed and its history. The article is designed to inform readers about the creed and its actual context. The two are incompatible. Evensteven (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that you (Evensteven?) have not checked any of the external links at Credo (card game), and I'm confident that you have not played it. It was, and arguably still remains, a relevant tool to teach what happened at Council of Nicaea and/or the first ecumenical council, and how today's Nicene Creed came to be. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's a reasonable distillation of the history of the event(s) leading up to today's Nicene Creed.

On another issue, I seriously doubt that the phrase "editing war" is correct. I asked the relevant persons to explain their actions. Until the move here, I've mostly not received an answer. Labeling my edit as Vandalism smacks of disrespect and and maybe libel. Disagree with me, that's fair; calling my action Vandalism, that is NOT.

LP-mn (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please look on User talk:Lipsio#Marking edits as vandalism where I have already apologized to you, User:LP-mn, for my misuse of the term "vandalism". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
LP-mn, what you suspect or are confident in (about me) are not relevant. The reference in the Credo (card game) article has the context right: it's a playable game, entertainment, not a teaching tool. I've given my reasons as to why it is not a "reasonable distillation" of history, based on WP:RS whose research underlies both the First Council of Nicea and Nicene Creed articles, among others. I did not call your original addition "vandalism", nor have I said "edit war". But when you twice try to insist on it over the top of reversions by two editors, and that without discussion, you are reaching for that category. I am glad that you are here now. Please read some more of the scholarly history even WP can point you to before venturing opinions based on no WP:RS. You have to make a case for those opinions, supported by recognized authorities. Refusal to do that puts you in a weak position and makes it more likely that your edits will come to be viewed as vandalism. Evensteven (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria for "See also" is not WP:RS but much lower. It is a list of related Wikipedia articles. I cannot see how it would be argued that the card game is unrelated to the Nicene Creed. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that's a point. I see "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" in that policy. But I had seen (and removed) an unsupported statement in the Credo (card game) article that made the "reasonable distillation of history" claim that I have objected to. Just because something has a historical setting does not make it a learning tool. A game is certainly related "tangentially related", but as long as it's presented as entertainment and it is not suggested as a way of learning anything about history, then I would have no objection to its placement in "See also". BTW, I have seen no supporting WP:RS in the game article that suggests "learning about actual history", and doubt they could be accepted as WP:RS on that point if they did. They are WP:RS only when it comes to games. Overreaching statements in the game article would not be good there in the first place, but a "See Also" means those statements would affect the see-also article as well. But on that cautionary basis, it gets a pass from me. Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC) added edit with strikeout above Evensteven (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I've read the descriptions of the game in the links given. In the game, the winning dogmas are not at all necessarily those expressed in the Nicene Creed. Indeed, I imagine, without having played it, that the game would never end with all articles as in the Nicene Creed. If the game is added to the article on the Nicene Creed, it should perhaps be added also to those on Manichaeism ("I believe in two gods, one good, one evil"), Arianism, Homoiousianism, Antidicomarianism, etc., etc. If there is one Wikipedia article to which it should be added, it is that on the Council of Nicaea, where the discussion took place, not to the article on what was the council's actual historical decision. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we should not include the link in those other articles, unless it goes against WP:COMMONSENSE or editorial judgement, or the See Also list is already too long. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Methinks it belongs, if anywhere, in a section on literary and cultural references. If there were a work of historical fiction on the Council, or if there were notes of references in literature, that's where I would expect to find those; this is what I see in other Wikipedia articles with such references. Perhaps such a section should be started and eventually, I'm guessing, other items would find their way there.
No matter where this may end up, however, I must agree with Esoglou that it belongs in First Council of Nicaea and not here. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Nicely put. Evensteven (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There was another attempt today to add claims of accurate historicity to the Credo (card game) article, backed up by five game reviews, none WP:RS with regards to history (as you might suspect). But one reviewer at least familiar with some of the history even said it missed the point of the council. I took out the historicity claim that was added to the article, and left the references to the reviews as being fine for opinions on playability. But if this article is linked to a section of any of the history articles, we are going to need to monitor it for making unwarranted historical claims. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This game belongs on the history pages in the same way that Risk (game) belongs on the World War I article... ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much my own opinion too. Evensteven (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected what appears to be a typo, John 15:16 to John 15:26.[edit]

The article referred to John 15:16 – which by all appearances has little to nothing to do with the article topic, and was a typo or mistake – which I have changed to John 15:26 which clearly does refer to the article topic. The Greek texts of both:

[Jhn 15:26 KJV] 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
"Textus Receptus" of 15:26 Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ
"GNT Morph" of 15:26 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ
[Jhn 15:16 KJV] 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
"Textus Receptus" of 15:16 οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν
"GNT Morph" of 15:16 οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν

—SOURCES: AND Misty MH (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Minor formatting Misty MH (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) KJV & SOURCES: Misty MH (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Greek diacritics in article source text[edit]

This recent edit overturned the immediately prior removal of a diacritical mark in the original Greek, which is certainly a nit in itself. But after investigating (for my own educational benefit), there may be a principle involved that it could be useful to resolve for any article that quotes a Greek original written in ancient times, Koine or not.

Notes for the uninitiated: This is a matter of Greek orthography (writing) only, not a matter of language versions. It affects the notational markings that indicate pronunciation only, not textual meanings. The differences arise because of changes of notation between the earlier polytonic orthography and the simpler, more modern monotonic orthography which has come to be adopted officially in secular use. The polytonic system represents in its diacritical symbols a method of pronouncing Greek as it was spoken in ancient times, including the way Koine Greek was pronounced at the time. This writing system was not itself ancient, but had been pretty fully developed by around 1000 AD and continued as standard formal Greek writing usage until the 1800s or so. It is still used by the Greek Orthodox Church (which also uses the original Koine Greek language of its worship services), and a few other groups who have their own reasons. Those diacritics may have some historical or scholarly value also, as they do represent more fully in notation the ancient language as it was spoken then, but otherwise it seems to have a more purely aesthetic value for some. The modern monotonic system represents the simplified modern pronunciation of Greek and is also clearly oriented to modern forms of the language (although Koine Greek can still be understood perfectly well when notated in and spoken with modern pronunciation).

The edit above mentioned thus preserves the earlier style of writing with its indications of the ancient style of pronunciation, for a text that is clearly ancient. That is also in keeping with the Greek Church, which preserves its use in the same way into the modern day. While the Church may have multiple reasons (I don't know), I can understand a desire to preserve the connection of the ancient language to its ancient pronunciation and to its standard written presentation until relatively recent times, and also recognize its scholarly value. So I'm fine with the edit, and with similar future edits in this article and all over Christianity articles that similarly present ancient Greek text. But I have no axe to grind about it. I just want to ask if everyone would prefer to establish this approach as a WP norm that we apply all over, or if we would wish to establish the monotonic system as a norm instead, or if we would wish not to establish a norm at all. The last option leaves open the question about which edit here was correct, for the original removal of the diacritic was simply the text's presentation in the monotonic system. If we decide on a norm, then such edits will not be "uncertain", as JudeccaXIII himself allowed in the edit summary. Comments? Evensteven (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of quoting a Greek phrase in an article of this kind is not to indicate how a modern Greek would say it, any more than the purpose of quoting a Latin phrase is to indicate how a modern Roman would say it (i.e., in Italian). The monotonic orthography is a modern invention that has not yet chalked up even half a century of official use. It was not used by the authors quoted. Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

English style[edit]

No objections to editing/reversing, but I did look around for some marker or indication of what English style is used for this article, and found none. If there is a consensus here, wouldn't it be good to leave a message to that effect at the top of the article (as comment text, of course)? Evensteven (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In this revision on 17 October 2004 American English was already used. WP:RETAIN says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." No consensus here is necessary to retain American English. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
True. So I see you've supplied the marker I was looking for: thanks. I couldn't recall what the magic spell was. :) Evensteven (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)