Talk:Nicene Creed/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nicene Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153144/http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/liturgics_averky_e.htm to http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/liturgics_averky_e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153144/http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/liturgics_averky_e.htm to http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/liturgics_averky_e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509041038/http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/ordination-bishop-gr.asp to http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/ordination-bishop-gr.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623001926/http://www.stmarysnova.org/documents/church-mission to http://www.stmarysnova.org/documents/church-mission
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029234314/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/councils-and-creeds to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/councils-and-creeds

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Greek diacritics in article source text
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
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)

Elimination of actual wordings of 325 and 381
Elimination of the actual wordings of 325 and 381 requires prior consensus. The reason given for eliminating was: "This is English Wikipedia, made for English language speakers, thus Greek text is completely useless." English-speakers don't have to be so arrogant. Many of them recognize that to get to the roots of certain questions, as for instance in Sacred Scripture, it is necessary to consult the original languages. The variations in English translations of the 325 and 381 texts are sufficient indication of the usefulness of being able to check the original texts. (Of course, if the community agrees with the eliminator, that settles the matter. But I think they should be consulted first.) Athmharbh (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicene Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126005944/http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id18.html to http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id18.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

yes liturgical but also a thing
I get the sense from the beginning of the article that the liturgical use of the Creed has taken over. I hope someone who knows can expand the section on "views of the importance". What evangelicals? Are there any member churches of the World Council of Churches that reject it? Is the Creed used as a litmus test for "Christianity"? (leaving out eg JWs, LDS, World Wide Church of Gods, etc.)--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Armenian text
I notice that the Armenian text says "who for us humanity" where the Greek says "for us humans", which used to be translated commonly in English as "for us men", and still is in the official RC English version. So does the Armenian intend to say anything different from the Greek? I mention this because clearly the Armenian text has differences - anti-Appolinarian, eg - and it would be useful to have a few words about which differences are significant, and which might be artefacts of a bad translation into English.

And are any other versions significant? Coptic? Syriac? Why does the author of this article specify only Greek, Latin, and Armenian? is this original research? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Armenian text is significant not because of differences in the overtones of Armenian, Greek and English terms for the same reality (the word that in the English translation in the article appears as "humanity" appears in this other English translation as "men"), but because of its substantial variations from the original text, like the Latin liturgical text's additions Deum de Deo and Filioque. For instance, the second line in the Armenian text is more like the 325 text than the 381 text. The third line adds "in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible". The fifth line, "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance", is entirely an addition. And so on.  The liturgical texts of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches are, on the contrary, even closer to the text of the 381 council than is the Greek liturgical text in that it does not alter "We believe" to "I believe". Bealtainemí (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)