Talk:Nicene Creed

Here is the basic article on the Nicaene Creed. It was written from scratch using accessible and credible sources. Thomas Simmons 15:08 14 March 2007 (EPT)

Non-editors cannot nominate articles for approval. See CZ:Approval Process. --Larry Sanger 00:16, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

I have gotten the roles of author and editor reversed. Larry Sanger has pointed out that as an author, I can not nominate this for approval. I would appreciate it if an editor would take a look at this and help establish approved status. Thomas Simmons 16:40, 16 March 2007 (EPT)

Shouldn't this live at Nicene Creed? I don't usually take Google searches as indicative of very much, but "Nicaene Creed" gets a total of 44 hits, while "Nicene Creed" gets 524,000. The other spelling seems extremely rare, even in credible sources. --Larry Sanger 20:01, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Both I guess. The church documents and literature I consult for this uses the Nicaene spelling. If it is commonly spelled th other way, the two spellings should be referred to given that a number of sources will index 'Nicaene' but not 'Nicene'. How should this be entered in the opening? Thomas Simmons 16:24 16 March 2007 (EPT)

I'll demonstrate--I'll move the article to Nicene Creed. --Larry Sanger 21:59, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

CZ POLICY

There have been massive deletions of text brought here by other authors. Much of what has been used to replace the deletions consistute origial work given that they are unsourced. These actions are in violation of CZ policy. These actions have been reported to the CZ constabulary. Please discuss changes to other authors' contributions and adhere to CZ policies for credibilty and scholarship.Thomas Simmons 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The additions made by Peter Jackson ( 00:30, 25 November 2008 Peter Jackson) that were used to replace a large deletion have been repositioned in the subcategory Versions Currently In Use. You will notice that in keeping with CZ policy, the deletions that were never discussed here have been replaced and the additions were NOT deleted but have been maintained in the text. It would be in keeping with CZ policy if these additions were to be given a source since there is no means of establishing authenticity without them and the subsection text could be construed as original work which is not in keeping with CZ policy. Such large scale deletions and unsourced additions place a great burden on the authors here who strive to maintain CZ standards of authenticity. Please be considerate and provide sources for your work.Thomas Simmons 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Here is the excerpt from the article CZ: Mechanics

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Article_Mechanics#Citations

See Help:Citation style for details.

We expect citations in about the same quantity as in academic encyclopedias. Citations are not usually needed for information that is common knowledge among experts. But the following categories of claims generally do need citation:

direct quotations

claims with unique sources (such as survey results, or the finding of a particular paper)

implausible-sounding but well-established claims

claims central to the article

Always give an online link for any reference, at least to the abstract (via, for example, a PubMed reference.)

Rather than use several references in a single sentence it is better to include several sources in one citation.

You will notice that this is keeping with the primary statement about how the articles are to be presented

"Citizendium aims to build a body of articles that cover, at a general level, every aspect of their topics. Their purpose is to introduce the topic in an accessible way that is at the same time authoritative. An article is not a mere summary or list of information, but a connected piece of prose, meant to be read all the way through. Articles must be selective and simplified in the information they present, but this does not mean that they need be brief; they should say what they need to as clearly as possible, in a concise and interesting way."

Accessible and authoritative. Citations provide the authority of the statements made here. They also make, and this is crucial, the sources accessible. Without sources there is no way a reader can access the original information and verify accuracy or authority.

Thomas Simmons 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation etc.

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Article_Mechanics#Grammar.2C_spelling.2C_punctuation.2C_and_usage

Strunk and White's Elements of Style is very useful; the first edition is available here.

For American English, please consult The Chicago Manual of Style for matters of formatting, punctuation, etc. and Garner's Dictionary of American English Usage for issues of usage.

For British English, consult Fowler's Modern English Usage.

Thomas Simmons 23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for Ancient Christianity

The standard for years was the Erdman (sp?) collection. It has now been digitialised and is all in public domain. Calvin College in Grand Rapids MI has placed this all on the web here. Memberships is free to everyone. Thomas Simmons 14:41, 2 March, 2007 (EPT)

Sounds great. This can and will happen more and more, with more public domain sources. --Larry Sanger 21:59, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Schism

Hi folks. Edgar's insertion "and the addition of the three words "and the son" was responsible for the breaking off of the Eastern part of the Catholic church. " needs some good solid historical sources to back this up. It might be that there are some articulate scholars who have taken issue with this and would be a good source for such an assertion. Anyone have any support for this?--Thomas Simmons 10:22, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

This question is one of the timeless debates in church history. To be sure, the Filioque was the central doctrinal difference between the churches in the East and West. Whether you believe that the doctrinal difference was the central cause of the Schism depends on who you ask. I will keep my eyes open for discussions of the point... Brian P. Long 21:47, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Subordinationism = Arianism?

Hey-- I expanded the History section a little bit. I also thought it was a little weird to talk about modern subordinationist Christology as 'Arianism'-- I generally think of Arianism as the historical phenomenon, and modern theology as 'subordinationist theology' or something similar. As always, if there are contemporary/recent theologians who do subscribe to 'Arianism', I am open to correction. Thanks, Brian P. Long 22:24, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi Brian, The inserted text " Even more radically, he claimed that the creation of the Son happened after the beginning of time (one of the Arianist jingles was "there was a time when He was not.") For historical reasons, this was deemed ‘heresy’ and the position is known as Arianism. Arianism persisted through much of the fourth century, but suffered a decisive setback with the ascension of the emperor Theodosius I. Despite this, some later thinkers and theologians have returned to subordinationist Christology."

needs sources. Have you got anything you could drop in here. It is not covered by the citation I provided in the text that follows and thus might give the impression that it is referenced. The reference to subordinationism theology is also rather vague. Are you planning to expound in a separate article?--Thomas Simmons 11:52, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Hey Thom-- a good general work on Arianism and late paganism is 'A Chronicle of the Last Pagans' by Chuvin, or the Frank C. Trombley's 'Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529', if we need references for this article. However, I'm not convinced that we do; much of this is common knowledge for people who work on this, and covered under the general policy that "citations are not needed for information that is common knowledge among experts" (cf. CZ:Article Mechanics). It wouldn't hurt to add the Chuvin and Trombley books to the biblio, though, if you feel compelled to.

Do you have any more specific commentary on the content, specifically about subordinationism and latter-day use of "Arianism"? Thanks, Brian P. Long 19:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Common knowledge? Can't agree. I would need a good survey to accept that. Common knowledge invariably reads 'anecdotal'. Got to have specific references. Ask the average person about Arianism and they will give you a blank look. People who read in this area may look here to see if we are accurately representing legitimate scholarship, but an encyclopedia is not a source for the scholars in any area. Furthermore, the citation I gave does not cover this and thus the added information clearly gives the impression that the source does when in fact it does not. Got to have a source. The operative word in the quoted article mechanics is not 'needed'. [1] The article is not written for experts and the sources do need to be made available. --Thomas Simmons 09:59, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Citing Sources

We are getting some interesting comments in the text. However, the contributors are hampering the development by leaving out specific sources. Citations are imperative if the article is to have credibility. Personally I would love to see these reversions restored WITH good source work provided.--Thomas Simmons 16:51, 28 June 2008 (CDT)

Advanced subpage?

Hey all--

Excitingly, I think we may finally have a justification for a non-science and math Advanced subpage. Upon reflection I think it would be very helpful if this page were to have the text of the Nicene Creed at all of the stages of its development in the original languages and with translations. This way, interested readers can look at the texts in the original and their translations, which, for some readers at least, might help them to understand some of the issues involved. I don't have all of the texts at hand; if anyone else does, please put them up. Otherwise, I will try to pull them together.

Thanks, Brian P. Long 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, only make sure you're really asking for advanced pages as opposed to catalogues. If you're writing a specific analysis/discussion of the issues using advanced concepts, or a specialised article, then yes. If however you're merely putting up version X, version Y and version Z, I would think you would use the Catalog tab. Aleta Curry 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see how this pans out too. Sounds like a good idea. Chris Day 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Churches

What are Orthodox Catholic churches? And isn't non-denominational church a contradiction in terms? Peter Jackson 16:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of (usually) little churches use the title 'Orthodox Catholic' Sort of a catch all for 'one-true-catholic-and-apostolic' churches unaffiliated with Rome or Canterbury or Constantinople, as I understand it.

No, 'non-denominational church' isn't a contradiction in terms.

Aleta Curry 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the reader be expected to understand all that? Peter Jackson 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

It's obviously biased to give only a minority version. I've made the necessary changes to give a conspectus of different versions: not many are needed. There may be other ways of doing this, of course, but don't revert to the biased version. Peter Jackson 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can support that, for what it's worth. --Larry Sanger 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit:

"The final version adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381, is considered by some to be a revision of the version adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 from which its appellation is derived."

is simply misleading. Some refers to what and how many? That the Roman Catholic church agrees that the existing version was made from the original in not in dispute. That the Eastern Orthodox Church has shown as much is not in dispute. So now we are into hundreds of millions over nearly 17 centuries. Sources for the original wording have been cited. The edit simply ignores the facts. It is known by most, not believed by some, to be a version derived from the first version. This is a case where most scholars are not in disagreement. Why the edit? It is certainly not unbiased.Thomas Simmons 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see on checking that the situation is even more uncertain than I thought:

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 4, p 143: "Until modern times, it was traditionally assumed that the so-called Nicene Creed was the creed promulgated by the Council of Nicaea ... as revised by the Council of Constantinople ... Especially since the researches of Eduard Schwartz ... the tradition has been generally abandoned, but much scholarly disagreement remains. Perhaps tradition does right in linking the Nicene Creed with the Council of Constantinople; hence modern scholarship designates it "the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" ... But it does not seem to have been a mere revision of the creed promulgated at Nicaea ... rather, the two creeds must be said to belong to a common Eastern type ..."

Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, 2000, p 145: "Our Nicene Creed, though not the actual creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea, belongs to the same family of creeds ... Its precise origin is obscure. The Council of Chalcedon ... refers to it as the creed of the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople ... though its exact relation to that council is not clear. Like the creed of the Council of Nicaea therefore, it is a development of a typical baptismal creed of the eastern church ..."

Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity, 2005, p 301: "... creed passed by the ... Council of Nicaea ... Some of its contents were later incorporated into another creed asociated with the second ecumenical council ..."

Perhaps you can think of a suitable in the light of this. Peter Jackson 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Errors

These changes are not based here on historical sources. The original which dates back quite some time as stated in the unedited text have been reproduced from ancient authorities. Imposing them here as if they are the given form is to misconstrue the Original as has been cited. If these variations are used in other places they need to be specifically cited.

To wit:

I/We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,

(God of God,)

I/We confess one baptism for the remission of sins;

I/We look for the resurrection of the dead,

The plural "We" was used in the original formulation by the Council, but the singular "I" is usual in liturgical use.

I would agree that is used in some Protestant congregations but have only heard it used in a few situations and it is not written down as such in my experience. I have not seen it in the symbol as it is written. What are the sources for this?

The phrase "God of God" was not in the Council's original text, but was added from the Council of Nicaea's creed, and is regularly included in the liturgy in both Eastern and Western churches.

The parenthetical phrasing (God of God) placed in this edit is without source. It was most certainly in the ancient forms and not phrased parenthetically. If it is taken from the liturgies of other sources those sources need to be cited.

The edit needs to be reverted until these sources are delineated or the edited version should presented as a separate text within the article with sources and explanation as to who uses them as such. Historical credibility is paramount and it must be demonstrated by citing sources. The APA or the MLA styles are appropriate. Thomas Simmons 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the text given is in use by any church anywhere. It would make more sense to start with the original text and then go on to discuss variations. -Derek Hodges 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which text, the one in which the additions were given? I have never seen it written I/We either but the remainder of the text is consistent with many versions--with lexical variations that reflect changes in the English language. I have sourced quite a few versions in English and the originals in the Greek, and later translations in Latin and Russian.Thomas Simmons 07:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, despite your English name, I often find your English hard to follow, so please understand if my remarks don't necessarily seem to be replying to what you were intending to say.

The form "I/We" and the use of brackets were simply convenient devices to cover different versions without writing them all out in full. The differences were explained in the text following. To repeat the substance:

1. the council used "we", but normal liturgical use is "I"
2. the phrase "God from God" was not in the council's text (see Denzinger, & the page preceding 1 of the refs I gave above)
3. filioque has of course been endlessly discussed elsewhere

As I said in my original comment above, this isn't the only way of doing it. I've no objection to giving the original text 1st & then footnoting the variations as Derek suggests, assuming there is agreement among scholars on what the original text was. If, on the other hand, there are scholars who disagree with the 2 sources I cited just now, then we obviously can't use that approach. In that case, the only single version we could give would have to be the majority, ie Western, version. I think I prefer my conspectus approach, but I'm not insisting on that. Peter Jackson 11:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To amplify the citations above:

1. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 38th edn, 1999, pages 83-5, gives Greek & Latin texts with German translations of both. It lists a number of textual editions, which I can give details of if necessary. The Greek is the Council's original text. The Latin is the standard liturgical text. They differ in the 3 points I mentioned:
   1. Greek is plural, Latin is singular
   2. Latin includes deum de deo, Greek omits theon ek theou
   3. Latin includes filioque, Greek omits
2. Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity, page 300, gives the original conciliar text in English; again, plural, and without "God from God" or filioque.

Another you might find particularly interesting: "The Second Ecumenical Council and its Credo", by Prof. Ioannis Karmiris of Athens [presumably University], in La Signification et l'actualité du IIe concile oecuménique pour le monde chrétien d'aujourd'hui, published by Editions du Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarchat Oecuménique, Chambesy-Genève, 1982, pages 195f: "... the Council ... omitted the Nicaean [196] phrase "God of God" as superfluous, seeing there was the phrase "very God of very God"."

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

I thought it was very mild, actually, but never mind. Here's my signature to the undeleted portion, for ID purposes. Peter Jackson 11:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nestorians?

Do they need to be mentioned? The Arian "heresy" (the Son was inferior and was created as opposed to 'begotten') gets a prominent position in the history section, but the Nestorian ideas (Jesus united two natures, human & divine, as opposed to being divinity incarnate) is not mentioned. Nestorian Christianity was important in Asia. e,g. Marco Polo mentions it as well established in several Persian & Chinese cities. Sandy Harris 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The creed was directed against the Arian & Apollinarian heresies. Nestorianism came later, & the definitions of the Council of Ephesus were the response. The surviving so-called Nestorian churches object to the name. Peter Jackson 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Muddle & bias

Now we have a minority version, followed by a conspectus of 3 versions including that. This is both muddled & biased. On investigation I find there are actually 7 different versions in current liturgical use, so I don't think e want to write them all out in full, while a conspectus would be very confusing. Therefore I think the sensible procedure is to give the majority version clause by clause with notes of differences. Peter Jackson 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Source: Norman, Handbook to the Christian Liturgy, pp 201ff. Peter Jackson 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done that. There may of course be errors in the source I used. They can be checked against published liturgies. Peter Jackson 11:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An alternative might be to try to write them out interlinearly. That would enable the reader without too much difficulty to read any one version straight through, as well as compare them point by point. On the other hand, it would take up more space and might be hard to format. Peter Jackson 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clear, the massive rewrites taking place are not being discussed, they are excluding factual and well sourced information and as such can constitute a break with CZ policies on collegiality. If this continues, the lack of reasoned discussion and wholesale deletions of the work of other authors, we will simply have to call in the Constabulary to deal with the issues. Please refrain from destroying the contributions of other authors--it violates CZ policy. Please refrain from placing original work here--if there is a source it must be noted: CZ does not allow authors to publish original works here. Thomas Simmons 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)