Talk:Apostles' Creed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

16 April. The article is well structured if I may say so, but in many instances throughout, some genius started jamming on his/her keyboard, obscuring words both in the Creed and in context. It's ridiculous. I suggest the article be locked after the nonsense is undone. I am very new to the editing community but will personally see about fixing this myself. Obviously I leave it to the community to decide what's best as far as locking goes. Lahs0n (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The way the introduction is written, it implies this creed does not appear "often" in, say, Catholic masses or the Lutheran litrugy. Is this correct? If it's peculiar to the Anglican communion, I wasn't aware of that. Jwrosenzweig 20:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Years ago, it played a central part in my Lutheran catechism, which was I think at least based on Martin Luther's catechism. This was in an LCA (Lutheran Church of America) church in the Midwest of the United States. The Apostle's Creed was recited nearly every Sunday; it was on page 85 in the Lutheran Book of Worship. Occasionally our church would substitute the Nicene Creed. As far as the Catholic Mass goes, I think they normally, if not exclusively, use the Nicene Creed instead. Again I can't be very sure, but I think the Apostle's Creed is widely used in a number of different Protestant denominations, not just in the Lutheran and Anglican churches. Wesley 04:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, Wesley. :-) Is the sentence "The Apostles' Creed is widely used by a number of Protestant denominations for both services and theological education, most visibly by the Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian churches" the right tone for this article? If not, how could it be improved? Obviously something needs to replace the current Anglican-centric sentence. Jwrosenzweig 15:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. At the very least, it will be better than what's there now (first criteria), and if it's still not quite right, hopefully someone else will come along and improve it further. That's the beauty of the wiki. Wesley 16:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Wesley -- I've put it in. On a humorous note, I happened to check the page history: the sentence I objected to was, in fact, written by me. :-) I have no idea what I was thinking, and feel very amused at the whole situation. Sorry. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have tried to edit the page to make it way more NPOV. The opening paragraph contains a much more comprehensive list of ecclesial communities which make use of the creed and makes note of the common derivation of their tradition. All western liturgical denominations make persistent use of the creed as far as I know, because it is part of the ritual of Baptism. There is not reason to make this protestant-centric. A note has been placed under a section on liturgical use that Catholics use this creed specifically for liturgies with children. Also, canonical sources have been cited for the text of the creed and translations. The Latin text which appeared before my edit ommited Credo in Spiritum... on for no apparent reason, so it has been added. Also, the article previously implied that the plurality of the creed as expressed in the Mass is the Catholic version, which as evidenced by the Catechism, its not. The creed is expressed in the first person plural in the context of the liturgy only, presumably as an emphasis on community arising from the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Note that the ICEL and Vox Clara are working on new liturgical translations now of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal (2000), and the last draft which was publicly available (was being the operative word in that phrase - in the interest of secrecy, all drafts are no longer available), the translators appear to have revereted to the singularity expressed in the Latin.
Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly addresses this issue (no. 167): "I believe" (Apostles' Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. "We believe" (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers. "I believe" is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both "I believe" and "We believe".--Mm35173 18:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of Creed

The last paragraph indicates that the Nicene Creed was formulated *after* the Apostles' Creed. Isn't the truth the other way around? I was always under the impression that the Apostles' Creed was formulated sometime between AD 700 and 900. Can we get a date on this page? BeakerK44 01:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have provided some minimal informantion on this subject.--Mm35173 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant + possibly incorrect

  1. User:Noitall, your inclusion of the entire creed as used in Methodist churches is redundant. The only important difference is the exclusion of "he descended into hell". Please support the removal of redundant material.
  2. What are your sources for writing: " It has been noted that had the Apostles' Creed been in existance prior to the Council of Nicea, the Council would likely have been unnecessary." This is not correct if what you mean is that it settles the Trinitarian doctrine, and orthodox Christology. There is nothing in the Apostles' Creed to which non-trinitarians could not apply, except, "I believe in ... the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints ...". Is the latter what you mean? Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I included what JimWae said to me on this subject on the talk page of Jesus:

As you likely are aware, the creeds were likely written in response to heresies. It took a while for a hierarchy to emerge that could command other teachings (even Gnosticism) as heresy - and parts seem to be about heresies later than Gnosticism - if it had been in place earlier, there'd have been more clarity of doctrine to preclude such heresies & there'd have been less disagreement over the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the virgin birth. It is, I suppose, compatible with pre-Nicene teachings, but...
The 390 year regards a written form and comes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed#Origin_of_the_Creed
Early fragments of creeds have been discovered which declare simply:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh."
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm
The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
It's also unclear whether it was a precursor to other creeds, a later simplification for children, or something that grew up alongside the others. The Nicene Creed is too complex for kids or those "just learning". Anyway, dating it - even as "likely" - is probably an inconclusive task.

--JimWae 06:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Once again, I do not see the relevance of your remarks, to the question asked of you. Your source remarks, "it is, I suppose, compatible with pre-Nicene teachings". If it is consistent with teachings prior to Nicea, how could an earlier date make Nicea unnecessary? You have misunderstood the remark. Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your responses are only seconds after I put anything up. You have no time to read and consider. That is why I have to make the same arguments multiple times in multiple ways. I bolded the relevant sections. (btw, as you probably know by know, I have no problem with you editing my edits as long as you get the ideas right). Conclusion: If no heresies prior to the Council of Nicea, then no need for the Council of Nicea. Jim didn't need to beat me over the head with it -- I carefully considered his analysis and found it sound. --Noitall 03:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
What you write does not support what you are reading. Your quote speculates that if the Apostle's creed would have been in place earlier, in its modern form, it would have provided clarity against the Gnostic heresiesm. And, he speculates, perhaps it would have helped to give earlier clarity to some of the more divisive issues, including the Nicean controversy Mkmcconn (Talk) \
However, tt does not provide much clarity with regard to the issues of Nicea - centrally, the pre-existence of Christ, and subordinationist views of eternal generation. There is nothing remarkable about it in that regard; it simply repeats biblical material. An Arian could agree with it. That's what Jim is saying when you quote him, "it is, I suppose, compatible with pre-Nicene teachings". Mkmcconn (Talk) \
If you want to change your edit to say that the creed would have been useful to contradict Gnosticism, then that's up to you. But since it does not touch on the issues of controversy at Nicea, your edit is not supportable, " It has been noted that had the Apostles' Creed been in existance prior to the Council of Nicea, the Council would likely have been unnecessary." This is not what is noted; it is what you are reading into it. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
No disrespect intended to JimWae but, why are we quoting Wikipedians as though they are sources, anyway? Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You make the simple so difficult. The Apostle's Creed is very similar to the Nicene Creed, but shorter. If the Apostle's Creed had been around and agreed to by all, there would have been no need to have the big meeting simply to come up the a slightly different Creed, the Nicene Creed. And you mistake my edit (again), the edit begins by stating it could be earlier, but it is more likely later (change the words "more likely" if you wish). Finally, sigh, I would never cite JimWae as a source. I cite him because many of these arguments have been discussed on these pages before and he provided good analysis and sources the first time around. --Noitall 04:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The reason you repeat yourself is because, you cannot believe that you are wrong. Let go of that. It doesn't matter; let's work on getting it right, now.
Accuracy is difficult, yes. There is nothing "slightly different" between the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene! They have different issues at stake, and they have served a different purpose, historically.
A reminder: I am asking you for support of the edit which reads: " It has been noted that had the Apostles' Creed been in existance prior to the Council of Nicea, the Council would likely have been unnecessary." You quoted JimWae in support of the edit, but his quote does not provide the support you are looking for. Please work with me. So far you have not supported your edit. It is inaccurate, and it should be corrected. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "They have different issues at stake, and they have served a different purpose, historically" -- not necessarily true. We don't know for certain which came first, the chicken or the egg. And they are both very very similar. Is your argument that they are unrelated? I don't see where you are going with it.
  • I have supported my edit with all the logical conclusions that can be derived from the evidence. You can change it to make it more clear, but it is a reasonable and logical assessment. --Noitall 04:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The two creeds deal with different issues. If the Apostles' Creed had preceded Nicea, it would have fit in rather unremarkably along with other views that were rejected by Nicea. Because the Apostles' Creed does not refute Arianism, it is not supportable, reasonable, or logical to assert that it "likely would have made Nicea unnecessary" if it had been written earlier.
For example, Christadelphians, an anti-Nicean group, says "The beliefs and practices of the Christadelphians can be traced from the New Testament to the earliest Christians of the 1st and 2nd Centuries in documents such as the Epistle of Clement, The Didache and The Apostles' Creed." They interpret the Apostles' creed in a unitarian, rather than a trinitarian fashion. This is an example of how unreasonable it is to state that the Apostles creed most likely would have made Nicea unnecessary (which is intended to exclude a non-trinitarian interpretation). Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
They got together to combat a whole range of heretical beliefs and practices, Arianism being only one of them. Maybe they would still have gotten together, but it would not have been such a big deal if they already had agreed to much of the fundamental beliefs. Hey, it's a reasonable hypothosis, not a conclusion. If I had that much vision and knowledge about what happened at the beginning Christianity, I wouldn't be typing away arguing with you on Wiki. --Noitall 05:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I have tried earnestly to appeal to you. Let others judge whether I've been unreasonable. Your unlikely speculation, that Nicea might have been unnecessary if the Apostles Creed had been written earlier, does not belong. I have removed it. I have also removed the unnecessary duplication of the Creed as used in Methodism. The only substantial difference between the two versions is noted with a bullet. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
YOu aren't judge and jury and are entirely unreasonable. Once again, again and again I have made my own edits acceptable to your (usually misguided) POV. I will temporarily accept the issue on the Council on Nicea and if Jim Wey thinks it could be edited and improved, then I will accept his opinion, NOT your continuing POV pushing (and this in the face of my acting with ALL reason and consideration towards your continuing efforts). As for the Methodist citation, I changed it specifically to be acceptable to your issue. Don't blank without reason. --Noitall 13:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is beyond belief. Every minutiae needs to be debated with you endlessly, or you revert and call people names. Please note item 1, in the opening of this section. I did provide you with my reason for removing the redundant material. You did not comment, and as it would be absurd to include every variant from the back of every hymnal or service book, the duplicated quote should not have been kept. Please do not call me a troll, when I have worked so hard at discussing things with you - quite out of proportion to the issues. Personal attacks like this are not looked on favorably. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Please explain why a second, complete, English translation of the Creed, with only barely perceptible differences from the other, is needed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In all this, we shouldn't forget that the Emperor called the Council of Nicaea, and the Great Council conceived its main charter to be, to say what the Church's belief always had been, not to come up with new doctrines, or even (although this inevitably happened) with new wordings for the old doctrines — one theory being that if the Church had the same doctrines in England and Persia and Africa and Greece, the only historically adequate explanation would be that those doctrines had come down from the Apostles. Frjwoolley 15:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think Irenaeus put forth that theory, among others. One of the problems or tasks of the Nicene Council was to come up with a creed that said what the Church's belief had always been, but said it so explicitly that the Arians couldn't agree with it while redefining or reinterpreting its words. This is what the Arians did with all the Bible references that declare the Trinity, and the eternity of Jesus. So for the purpose of refuting the Arians conclusively, to the point that even the Arians would admit they couldn't endorse it, the Nicene Creed's explicit language was necessary; both the Bible alone and the Apostle's Creed were inadequate for this purpose. Noitall, I believe this is why Mkmcconn says that the Apostle's Creed would not have made the Council of Nicaea unnecessary. He's quite right. Wesley 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • To Wesley and Frjwoolley, excellent analysis and rationale, which I except. (I think Noital means "accept" here. JHCC (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC))
  • To Mkmcconn (Talk): It is you who insist on deleting me. I have barely even changed any of your extensive edits. Thus the burden is on you, not on me, to prove your issue. As to the Methodism argument, I have several comments:
  1. I changed it since your original comment and you made no attempt at looking at it.
  2. Even if you looked at it, your edits and intentional POV just shows your ignorance of things Christian
  3. I even provided sources that show its history and extensive use.
  4. Contrary to what you say, the differences are extensive, to quote from the link that I provided, "Perhaps the most vital element of sound in poetry is rhythm. Often the rhythm of each line is arranged in a particular meter. Different types of meter played key roles in Classical, Early European, Eastern and Modern poetry. In the case of free verse, the rhythm of lines is often organised into looser units of cadence. Alliteration played a key role in structuring early Germanic and English forms of poetry (called alliterative verse), akin to the role of rhyme in later European poetry. The alliterative patterns of early Germanic poetry and the rhyme schemes of Modern European poetry alike both include meter as a key part of their structure, which determines when the listener expects instances of rhyme or alliteration to occur. In this sense, both alliteration and rhyme, when used in poetic structures, help to emphasise and define a rhythmic pattern. By contrast, the chief device of Biblical poetry in ancient Hebrew was parallelism, a rhetorical structure in which successive lines reflected each other in grammatical structure, sound structure, notional content, or all three; a verse form that lent itself to antiphonal or call-and-response performance. In addition to the forms of rhyme, alliteration and rhythm that structure much poetry, sound plays a more subtle role in even free verse poetry in creating pleasing, varied patterns and emphasising or sometimes even illustrating semantic elements of the poem. Devices such as alliteration, assonance, consonance, dissonance and internal rhyme are among the ways poets use sound. Euphony refers to the musical, flowing quality of words arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way.
  5. If you think something is redundant, do not remove the most used, best written, most poetic version, remove one of the other versions.
  6. The fact that you are even on this page, when you were not on this page before, deleting my edits shows you are trolling because I oppose your POV on Abrahamic religions and Christianity
  7. The fact that you have made no attempt to edit any other editor or any other part of the article shows you are trolling and attempting to target me not improve the article

--Noitall 17:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Nicene Creed, so called, is more accurately known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", since it is based on the formulations of both the First Nicene and First Constantinopolitan Councils. Although I Nicea was a signal victory against the Arians, the debate over the divinity of the Son continued and expanded into the debate over the divinity of the Holy Spirit, thus necessitating an additional council to help clear things up. An excellent book about the second ecumenical council is Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography by John Anthony McGuckin (ISBN 0-88141-222-8), which gives an excellent summary of the events leading up to and surrounding the council, seen through the perspective of the life of one of the most important theologians of the period. JHCC (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

See also The Road to Nicaea, a description of the First Ecumenical Council, also by Fr McGuckin. JHCC (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, I am on this page because the page is on my watchlist. Please stop accusing me of misbehavior. I am innocent. I am trying to work with you. If you prefer the Methodist version to the Ecumenical one, please replace the Ecumenical version. The differences (except for the infero line) are inconsequential to me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Rather than have the entire Methodist text in the article, could we have the Ecumenical translation (since this is not restricted to a single denomination) and then, in the Methodist section, the differences between the ELLC and the Methodist translations with a link to the Methodist text (like this one)? Thus:

===[[Methodism]]===
The United Methodists commonly incorporate the Apostles' Creed into their worship services. . The translation most often used, which many favor as especially poetically elegant, is #881 of the United Methodist Hymnal [1].
Traditional use of this creed includes the words "He descended into hell" just after "was crucified, dead, and buried." However, in most Methodist denominations, including the United Methodist Church, this reference is omitted.

These two links:

would probably be better in a United Methodist Hymnal article, along with the reference to John Wesley. Currently, it rather looks like this translation was by Wesley. JHCC (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I hope you are able to succeed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for requesting my opinion JHCC. I try not to do anything on a reactionary basis, so I have been thinking the issue over. On the one hand, it is not a bad proposal. On the other, the Methodist hymnal and the version used are broadly used across Protestant religions and, in fact, used outside of Protestantism. I believe the version cited is the most widely used single version. Also, there is some benefit to having the words, cadence and hymnotic appeal of the Methodist version. It is sort of the equivalent of maintaining the words of the King James bible even though there are many other versions. I would be interested in your thoughts. --Noitall 20:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
If you can provide evidence of the claim that it is more commonly used than the other, then I can't see why it shouldn't replace the modern translation. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
That works for me too. However, whatever translation we use should contain the "He descended into hell" wording, and then we can note thereafter that Methodists (and others?) sometimes omit that wording. JHCC (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm down wit dat. KHM03 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A little research: The following sources [2][3][4] provide some information:

  1. the Eighteenth Century that saw the real beginning of the modern notion of congregational hymn-singing
  2. usage of hymnals really took off in 1737 with publication of John Wesley's first hymn book.
  3. The Methodist movement made great use of hymn-singing
  4. The Methodists, with their preponderance of Wesleyan hymns, were known to have a greater variety of meters than other denominations
  5. In America the Methodist Pocket Hymnal was the most popular hymnal although it coexisted with the Large Hymn Book which was based on Wesley's hymn book.
  6. Importance of Apostles' Creed to John Wesley [5] from one of his sermons published in 1872: This is a point that deserves to be deeply considered. If you ask, What can reason do in religion? I answer, It can do exceeding much, both with regard to the foundation of it, and the superstructure. The foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God. It is built upon the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles! And how is it possible without it to understand the essential truths contained therein? a beautiful summary of which we have in that which is called the Apostles' Creed. Is it not reason (assisted by the Holy Ghost) which enables us to understand what the Holy Scriptures declare concerning the being and attributes of God? -- concerning his eternity and immensity; his power, wisdom, and holiness? It is by reason that God enables us in some measure to comprehend his method of dealing with the children of men; the nature of his various dispensations, of the old and new covenant, of the law and the gospel. It is by this we understand (his Spirit opening and enlightening the eyes of our understanding) what that repentance is, not to be repented of; what is that faith whereby we are saved; what is the nature and the condition of justification; what are the immediate and what the subsequent fruits of it. By reason we learn what is that new birth, without which we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and what that holiness is without which no man shall see the Lord. By the due use of reason we come to know what are the tempers implied in inward holiness; and what it is to be outwardly holy -- holy in all manner of conversation: In other words, what is the mind that was in Christ; and what it is to walk as Christ walked.
  7. [6] In 1784 he prepared The Sunday Service of the Methodists, and felt no qualms in announcing in the preface that he had omitted "many Psalms . . ..as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation." From this volume he omitted also the eight Articles challenged in 1744, except that on baptism, which was abridged, and Article 16, whose title was changed from "Of sin after baptism" to "Of sin after justification." In 1784 he also went on to omit a further nine. 35 The pruned and revised Articles which Wesley bequeathed to American Methodism tell us a number of things about his theology as a whole. He omitted nothing from the Apostles Creed except Christ's conjectural descent into Hell (Art.3), a point which still distinguishes Methodist usage from that of other Churches. He omitted also beliefs or practices peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church, and even to the Church of England, such as the reference to the Homilies. His revisions to the Articles seemed to imply "a doctrinally liberal iconoclast [with] a somewhat low view of church, ministry, and sacraments."
  8. [7]From the time of Augustine to the Reformation, the doctrines of chiliasm were given but little prominence. The Apostles' Creed - an early document, but dating in its unchanged form from c. 390; the Nicene Creed as revised at Constantinople (381); and the Athanasian Creed (c. 449) to which an anathema is attached, were the accepted standards of the Church.

--Noitall 02:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

As a separate issue, not necessarily for this page, but possibly for other related pages, see [8]: From this time forth the Nicene Symbol may be considered the accredited expression of the faith of the church. Subsequent modifications have never revoked its essential elements, and the ascendency of Arianism at a subsequent period was violent and temporary. The Ecumenic Council, held at Constantinople, in the year of our Lord 381, confirmed and established the Nicene Creed, adding to it a section affirming the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, which had been denied by Macedonius and his followers. --Noitall 03:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

JHCC asked me to weigh in on this, but I've been on break for several days. Since I'm not particularly up on Methodism, I don't really have an opinion. As most who know me are aware, my particular area is Roman Catholicism, and in my experience, the Apostles Creed is usually relegated to secondary status in the RCC in favor of the Nicene Creed. As far as I'm concerned JHCC's proposal makes sense and unless someone raises legit concerns, it should be implemented straight away. -- Essjay · Talk 12:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Proposal

I also hail from a Roman Catholic background, and I'm sorry that this has gotten so out of hand. The Latin definitely has to stay because it is the Apostles' Creed. The modern ecumenical translation needs to stay because the typical reader of the English-lanuguage Wikipedia does not read Latin. Its purpose is to inform the reader of the typically accepted meaning of the Latin Creed in English diction.

I authored the bit about the questioning form of the creed used in the Catholic Rite of Baptism. I now think it, and the nitpicky stuff about variations in liturgical use among denominations needs to be restructured. Here's how I propose we do this:

1. The section titled Variations in Liturgical Use should be renamed Use and Variations and should have two subsections. One subsection should explain the contexts in which the creed is used: personal prayer (a note should be made about the Rosary), ecclesial liturgies derived from the Latin Mass, and the various rrites of baptism used in Western Christianity. Another subsection should cover theological differences in the creed which are manifested in different dictions, notably the treatment of infernos, including the Methodist treatment.

2. There should be a new subsection under History titled Translations. This section should address the variety of translations which have occurred in the various denominations, including the Greek text, Cranmer's (Anglican), the Methodist one, the ELLC text, and any other noteworthy translations. The notes on each translation should include notable qualities of each, including that the Methodist translation and Cranmer's translation are considered by some to be "poetic".

3. This article should not be a collection of translations of the creed. Period. I have counted no less than 9 translations from various sources thus far. We should have objective criteria for which one(s) we include here. The Latin should be included for the above-mentioned reason. There needs to be an English translation included for understanding; IMHO the ELLC text wins right now becuase it is written in clear prose and is literal. If we were going to include more, which I don't think we need to, the Greek text is probably the most important from a worldwide perspective, followed by Cranmer's (perhaps the second-most-noteable English text), followed by the translations of the Reformed traditions (Weslyan, Moravian, Baptist, etc.), simply due to the commonality of usage. We can note all of these and their qualities without including verbatim copies. --Mm35173 17:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the Latin version was an early version, but how is it "the" Creed? Was Latin the original language? If so, I accept that argument. The Wesleyan version is the next most notable, as the foundation of the Protestantism in America, the largest group of denominiations. It would probably due to have a good write-up with a citation, so I do not disagree if the original was in Latin. --Noitall 21:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The original may have been in Greek, but the earliest known record of its existence lends evidence that it was at that time in Latin form (see the Catholic Encylopedia article). I have found no statements of the Eastern churches regarding it's origin. There is little argument about it because the theological principles of the creed are easily represented in both languages, and there does not persist a theological debate about its precise diction (as there does with the NC creed).
I reject your argument about Wesleyan influence in the US. This is not a US-centric encyclopedia, nor is it a Protestant-centric encyclopedia. The largest denomination of English-speakers in the world (outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is without a doubt Anglicanism (~300 million), whose liturgy is of Cranmer's heritage (Book of Common Prayer). Also, without doubt, the ELLC text is the most used English text... considering it is used by present-day English-speaking Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and many others, including Methodists. See the Consultation on Common Texts for a list of the ecclesial communties which have signed on. --Mm35173 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the U.S. and Protestanant-centricity of my argument, and I agree with you, and that is why I am not adament about the entire issue. Some things are extremely notable, however, and that is why we should continue discussing them. --Noitall 15:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AD v CE

I think that it's been the consensus on WP, to favor BCE, CE when writing dates regarding general history. However, in articles concerned with Christian faith, shouldn't AD be standard and preferred? Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to drop dead from shock: we agree. --Noitall 02:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rites of Baptism

OK, an anonymous author decided to add an outline of the US Episcopalian Rite of Baptism and presumably accidentally subordinated the Catholic and Lutheran stuff to a sub sub section...

I renamed the section Rites of Baptism in Western Christianity and subordinated all the stuff about particular churches to it, adding an explanatory blurb.

I fear that this section is gradually going to turn into a place where everyone wants to make sure that his or her denomination gets named with all of its particular nuances pertinent to Baptism. This is not the Baptism article. A lot of the Anglican stuff was redundant to the Catholic and Lutheran stuff, mostly because the current Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran rituals are all derived from the same ancient Roman Catholic ritual.

A rite of Baptism has particular common features to all of these groups (let's call them western liturgical Christians). Intent is established (either by asking the catechumen or parents what is desired, etc). A scrutiny follows, which may or may not include the creed in its entirety. If the creed is not worded into the questions or responses, it is then recited. In all cases, the creed is a symbol of the faith into which the person is being baptized, and its profession is covenental. In some cases, sponsors (godparents) may enter into the covenent with or on behalf of the catechumen.

I do not think we need to necessarily regurgitate this sequence for every particular ritual which is derivative of the ancient Roman ritual. Maybe there needs to be a unitfied article on Western Christian ritual, but this is outside the scope of Apostles' Creed.

So, how do all of you propose we trim this section down and keep it NPOV? Inclusion of the ancient Roman liturgy in Latin is way NPOV but not very helpful to those who don't understand Latin... any thoughts? --Mm35173 16:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe - proposal to move

Why is the apostrophe not in the title of this article? Would anyone mind if I move it? --Doric Loon 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, doing it now. --Doric Loon 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Duhh, no I'm not! When I tried I found it was blocked by a redirect. We'll have to ask an administrator. --Doric Loon 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. – ABCD✉ 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

The dating issue seems weird in this article. Britannica seems to basically say that the content of the creed dates back to perhaps third century Roman baptismal creeds, but that its current form derives from France in the late 6th century. Shouldn't we state this, rather than the odd mishmash we currently have? Also, should perhaps the traditional view (that it was written by the 12 Apostles after Pentecost) be mentioned in the intro as well? john k 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The precursor Old Roman Symbol can be dated to as early as 100 CE. It does not contain the "descent into hell" but most of the other concepts are there. drboisclair 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Mishmash indeed. The lead dates it as both earlier than the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) and later. Thomasmeeks 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characterizing the Creed - "Symbol"

Do we need the term "symbol" in the description of the creed as in the current version (the final word of the sentence):

The Apostles' Creed (Latin: Symbolum Apostolorum), sometimes titled Symbol of the Apostles, is an early statement of Christian belief, creed, or "symbol."

We need to ask the question, does it contribute to readers' understanding? Thanks. --Dpr 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I too don't understand the need for "symbol". How can words be a symbol? Words can be symbolic, i.e. not liturgical, holy or meaningful in any way beyond that they symbolize what we think. But I don't think words or a creed can be a symbol. A symbol is an image, a visual representation. Using "symbolic" is to use the word as an adjective, a metaphor--Bruce Hall (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo

The Maltese version of this creed instead of he went to down to the dead, states he went down to the limbo. This is also stated in several online websites. Maltesedog 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed. Maltesedog 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what was removed. If it was the text in Maltese, I think it should indeed have been removed. This article isn't the place for a collection of translations into all the languages of the world. It is surely enough to give English translations used in several (i.e. more than just one) English-speaking countries, together with the original text in Latin (and Greek) from which these translations were made. Lima 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not text in Maltese, I am afraid. There was written that instead of he descended into hell, the Maltese version is somewhat different, by stating that "he descended into the limbo".Unsigned:Maltesedog

Wherever that statement was removed from, which is not clear to me, more important for understanding Maltesedog's complaint is the question: What is meant by "the Maltese version"? Maltesedog says it is not in the Maltese language. If it refers to the text of the Catholic Mass when celebrated in English in Malta, surely that must be the same text used by the Catholic Church in English-speaking countries in general. If a different text is used, it would seem to be an unapproved alteration (like the feminist "God's only Son" in place of "his only Son" and possibly dozens of other such alterations) and so does not deserve mention here.
In any case, if Maltesedog's mention of an alleged "Maltese version" is to be allowed in Wikipedia, Maltesedog must quote a verifiable source for it. Lima 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/prison.htm indicates that he descended into hell / into limbo are the same thing Maltesedog

but does not say that the text of the Apostles' Creed is "he descended into Limbo". Lima 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What proof can I give? Can I scan a prayer book or something? But it will be in Maltese Maltesedog 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I give up. My previous comments were based on the assumption that Maltesedog wanted something inserted in the article. In view of the contradiction between what Maltesedog said earlier ("it was not text in Maltese") and what he says now ("the text is in Maltese"), I think he only wanted to make some comment here on the Talk page. Let him make whatever comment he likes. Nobody has disputed the interpretation of "hell" in the Apostles' Creed as a a reference to the "Limbo Patrum". I suppose nobody will. I certainly will not. End. Lima 11:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You certainly do not understand. There is no contradiction. The text which was included in the article stated thated that: In the Maltese version of the Creed, limbo is used instead of hell. This was written in English. Obviously the Creed is in Maltese! There is no contradiction. Maltesedog 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin 1?

What is the purpose of using a different character set? diff Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather, what would be the purpose of using a form in use only from the eighteenth century (when /j/ and /v/ were first used to distinguish the consonants from /i/ and /u/ as vowels) until the mid-twentieth century, when the use of /j/ (though not of /v/) was dropped even from liturgical books, after having been long abandoned in non-liturgical settings (editions of classical texts; theological textbooks; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official gazette of the Holy See; etc.)?
The source quoted in the article is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in Latin). A link is given to that source. Click on it, scroll down to section 184, and you will find that the Wikipedia article gives the Latin text of the Apostles' Creed in exactly the form that the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives it. Lima 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose is that it makes the text easier for the reader to read. Also, not everyone is Catholic, so we need not use the offocial version of the Catholic Church. 68.102.26.204 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What wersion is it that you have used? Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have used the common text, which is the same in all of Christianity with accent marks and "ae" joined as one letter, as "oe" are aslo, and with "I" being "j" in certain cases and with "u" being "v" in certain cases. 68.102.26.204 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to use someone's official cited text. Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, if you read the "offocial cited text," they are the same. The only difference is some punctuation and some accent marks and some "i"s and "u"s being "j"s and "v"s. Would it be alright to keep the site but to have the more readable text? 68.102.26.204 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What 68.102.26.204 presents as "the common text, which is the same in all of Christianity" is in fact the form in which the same identical text (except for the former mistaken spelling of "caeli/cæli" as "coeli/cœli") was presented in the Roman Missal, used in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church from about 1760 to about 1960 (two centuries that ended some half a century ago). Before that, non-final /s/ was written and printed as /ſ/ (this character is not /f/), so that "incarnatus est" appeared as "incarnatus eſt". To help people with insufficient knowledge of Latin to read the text correctly aloud, the present Roman Missal does add accent marks, but only if the accent does not fall on the penultimate syllable (so, for example, it has "omnipotentem", not "omnipoténtem"); it does use the letter /v/ and prints /ae/ as a ligature, but it does not use the letter /j/. Not everyone is Catholic; not everyone uses the Roman Missal; not everyone still lives in the 1760-1960 period. Lima 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the CoE version by mistake. I only meant to change the catholic version. I haven't figured out how to revert. 89.100.4.244 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The holy Catholic Church?

I am a Lutheran, of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and in our church, we recite the Apostle's Creed about 1-2 Sundays a month, usually at baptizings. However, instead of "holy Catholic church, we have always recited that part as "holy Christian church". Should 1 type of Christianity's way of reciting the creed be significant enough to add? Thanks,

Edit: Never Mind, couldn't see it before. Man, I swear I'm going blind.--Imhungry 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Imhungry, you are not going blind. I added the Lutheran English version precisely because of your comment, for which Wikipedia should be grateful to you. Lima 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this the version of all Lutherans, or merely of the LCMS and associated churches? john k 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The custom of using "Christian" comes from the 15th century Holy Roman Empire (Germany), so I have relegated the material in the paragraph about this into a footnote on "Christian." I have also supplied the source that supplies the needed information.--Drboisclair 22:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polytonic text

I have restored the original polytonic text of the Greek version of the Apostles' Creed. The fact that, for some reason that I have not seen explained, Wikipedia has for some months ceased to display Greek polytonic characters correctly is, in my opinion, no reason to replace the correct text with an incorrect one. The now replaced text was incorrect on two counts. It was unfaithful to the cited source: when the 1921 Triglot Concordia appeared, the modern-Greek monotonic system had not yet been invented. In addition, it was inaccurate even as a monotonic transcription: several plurisyllables had no accent, and there were instances of the grave accent being used instead of the uniform accent of the monotonic (literally, "one-accent") system. Lima 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The persistence of using the polytonic template continues the unsightly boxes into the text. I have painstakingly copied the Greek characters from the source. So what if the breathing marks and the accents are not there? The basic Greek text is there. Until they correct the glitches, please leave it without the unsightly boxes.Drboisclair 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean it is the faithful reproduction of the polytonic characters found in sources that results in unsightly boxes. These boxes appear whether or not one puts these characters within the polytonic template. The polytonic template existed (exists?) precisely to avoid unsightly boxes and to ensure that the proper characters were displayed.
Does anyone know why Wikipedia has, in most articles, stopped displaying Greek properly when written polytonically (with acute, grave and circumflex accents, with rough and smooth breathings and with iota subscript)? Or rather, why Wikipedia still displays these characters properly in the article Polytonic orthography but perhaps nowhere else?
There are many Wikipedia articles with quotations from writings that, to be true to their sources, must be written polytonically. It was to ensure that those texts displayed correctly that we learned to enclose those texts within the "{{Polytonic|}}" template, which is still given at the foot of Wikipedia editing pages, but which now seems to be without any effect whatever, except, as I said, on one page.

Can we please have our polytonic display back? Lima 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no authoritative Greek text for the Apostolicum anyway, so I am simply going to delete it then. I have not found it anywhere in J.N.D. Kelly, so it is better to have it gone than in this shameful condition. The Triglotta does not have a source for this text, so it probably was conjectural anyway. There is a text for the Old Roman Symbol of the 2nd century, but since the Greek does not work for that, we may as well not take the trouble of putting such unsightly material in this article. The Greek Orthodox Church doesn't use it since they exclusively use the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum.Drboisclair 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Who can we turn to in order to get the Polytonic template to work again? Lima 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your concern with having trite with the iota subscript to distinguish it from the nominative. I think that it would be helpful to have the polytonic display back too.--Drboisclair 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnosticism ?

The article says:

The theological specifics of this creed appear to have been originally formulated as a refutation of Gnosticism, an early heresy. This can be seen in almost every phrase. etc...

This cannot be true, since the Valentinians adhered to everything of the ordinary church, but added their own mysticism, "dogmas" and practices. Being a former gnostic (small "g" for a non-personal noun), there is only one word of the Apostle's Creed that absolutely cannot fit into a gnostic world view:

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

According to any gnostic world view our souls are shed off, split off or otherwise parted from the primeval soul of God. Therefore we are all sons and daughters. One minimal modification of the Apostle's Creed to fit a gnostic world view, would be:

I believe in Jesus Christ, his first-born Son, our Lord.

Other statements of the Apostle's Creed directs against other opposing views of the main stream, f.ex.:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

is formulated against Arianism. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there different versions of Gnosticism? I am under the impression that Gnosticism is a general term that applies to a whole series of believes. This bit goes on to talk about Jesus dying on the cross, which is contrary to one Gnostic belief. I think that these sentences are good as it explains in part the purpose of a creed -- to clearly delineate what is and what is not X, and what is and what is not heresy. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Gospel of John was written to answer the teachings of Cerinthus, who denied the incarnation and the passion of Christ. The particular error that the Apostles' Creed dealt with was Docetism, which is a form of Gnosticism. I think that the statement is accurate, and ties in with the other creeds, which were composed to combat heresies.--Drboisclair (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section in Liturgical chapter - C of E use of Apostles' Creed

I've added a new section explaining that the Apostles' creed is used during Mattins and Evensong. Silas Maxfield (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church of England versions

Would someone please fix the CoE section. It indicates only one source, and this provides two versions of the Apostles' Creed, the second of which (with "sitteth") must be the older. But it does not have "Catholick". If "Catholick" is to be retained in the article, an appropriate source must be quoted. Lima (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I though some member of the Church of England would be interested enough to fix it. Now I've done it, as well as I can, myself. Lima (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Apostles' Creed originally in Greek?

Muscovite has placed in the article an unsourced claim that the original text of the Apostles' Creed was in Greek and has provided a similarly unsourced Greek text. On 17 September 2007, Drboisclair removed the Greek text (which was not then claimed to be the original, but perhaps a translation), saying that there seems to be no authoritative Greek text, since the text that the Triglotta gives is without source, "so it probably was conjectural". In addition, the sources quoted in the article say that the Apostles' Creed was based on the Old Roman Creed or Symbol, which was in Latin. Some writers posit an unknown Greek original, underlying also the Nicene Creed, for the Old Roman Creed, but none, as far as I can see, says that the Apostles' Creed was based on a Greek text rather than on the (Latin) Old Roman Creed.

Since Drboisclair's change remained unchallenged for eight months, I think Muscovite needs to support his claim (and his text) with a source, before inserting it. Am I wrong? Lima (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)