Talk:Edessa

Comments

Sanliurfa first city-state to adopt Christianity as state religion ca AD 200?

According to Britannica, anyway; but there's no mention of it in the article? The article states that the Christian faith was embraced by Abgar IX, which would match the c 200 date. That would predate Armenia. --Psm 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Added some references to this effect, although the edit has nothing to do with Armenia. Syriac church was known to be first, and Osroene was independent kingdom which adopted Christianity about 200+ years after the temporary conquest by Tigranes the Great, who ruled Before Christian Era. Under Abgar IX, Osroene was in between Parthia and Roman Empire, and fell under the latter later. Atabek (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Abgar may have been the first king to convert to Christianity, but Armenia was the first to make it its official religion. This is a well known fact supported by countless of sources.

By the way, regarding the first churches: the Armenian church was established in the 1st c AD directly by Jesus' apostles Thadeus and Bartolomeus. Jesus even personally communicated with the king of Armenia: they exchanged letters.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenia adopted Christianity in 301A.D. The topic of this article is Edessa, so assume good faith and stop disputing referencing with original research. There are already several references brought which confirm the fact that Christianity was adopted in Edessa/Osroene by early 200s. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Osroene may have had the first Christian king, but Armenia was the first Christian state. This is stated by overwhelming literature. So, stop violating AGF and stop your disruptive behavior.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quibble. Deleting fully-referenced text simply because it doesn't suit one's indoctrination is vandalism. An edit summary of "npov" [sic] does not justify vandalism and is misleading in this case. Find something useful to do. --Wetman (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring it despite the fact that countless number of sources affirm that Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as the state religion is a violation of Wikipedia's rule on undue weight of sources. Furthermore, the source was published in 1905 and is bound to be filled with errors given the amount of time that has lapsed in recent years of scholarship. Here are about 25 sources countering and stating the complete opposite of Atabek's ill-intentioned edits:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Atabek's poorly sourced and intentionally deceiving edits, it seems, have spread to some of Wikipedia' articles. Please study these sources, read Wikipedia's rule on undue weight, and if you're still unconvinced, I can show you about 100 more sources affirming Armenia's distinction of being the first Christian state. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The three deleted references were: Cheetham, Samuel (1905). A History of the Christian Church During the First Six Centuries. Macmillan and Co, 58; Lockyer, Herbert (1988). All the Apostles of the Bible. Zondervan, 260., and Adshead, Samuel Adrian Miles (2000). China in World History. Macmillan, 27. I don't know who this "Atabek" hobbyist is. On the whole, any rixe over which was "first", on such slender historical evidence either way, will be unenlightening. --Wetman (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quibble. Deleting fully-referenced text simply because it doesn't suit one's indoctrination is vandalism. An edit summary of "npov" [sic] does not justify vandalism and is misleading in this case. Find something useful to do. Wetman 23:25, 17 March 2008

The above is an example of WP:AGF violation, breach of civiliy rules, and a personal attack. Assuming that another editor is "indoctrinated" (!) and "vandalizes" based on such "indoctrination" shows serious lack of knowledge of Wikipedia rules on your part. Please familirize yourself with those policies, as well as with the sources provided by Marshall.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It would not hurt for MarshallBagramyan and TigranTheGreat to assume some good faith before calling my edits "ill-intentioned" or "intentionally deceiving". Apart from violating AGF, those kind of comments may be deemed as simply incivil as well. As far as sources go, if all, this article is Edessa, Mesopotamia, I am not sure why it has to become a place for pushing Armenian POV by TigranTheGreat and MarshallBagramyan, while the page in its title and essence has very little to do with Armenia or its history. Moreover, if some sources (mostly Armenian or those referencing them) claim that Tiridates III was converted to Christian religion by Gregory the Illuminator in 301 A.D. NOTE: according to legend, I am not sure why Abgar VIII (the Great) factual conversion by 201 A.D. (as confirmed by several presented sources AND HIS VISIT TO ROME!) should be mixed with legend about conversion of Abgar V by St. Addai and deemed as invalid. Atabek (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And also, may I know how did MarshallBagramyan and TigranTheGreat end up in this article, which they never edited before for 5 YEARS since the start of the article? They only showed up to revert after I edited it, in fact with Tigran reverting me within first 12 hours after my first-ever edit of this article. This is quite indicative of an organized wikistalking at least by TigranTheGreat. I request that he assumes good faith and stops stalking my edits. Atabek (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Atabek claims that he added a 2000 source. But the source claims:

"But Abgar the great is is remembered not so much for his lavishness or even his ambitious building programme, as for his reputed conversion to Christianity in about 200. If true, this make the Kingdom the world's first Christian state".

Atabek is intentionally falsifying sources. His other source is from 1905. And then there is another source which is a hagiography of saints and contains legends. There are dozens of sources, provided above, that state there is no proof Abgar the Great accepted Christianity.

For example: http://books.google.com/books?id=aepYpUVf9OkC&pg=PA162&dq=attractive+though+this+second+approach&lr=&sig=bAWJkgR9o9tRub2OAuudKLPtG6Y

The Cambridge History of Early Christian literature (page 162):

"Modern scholars have taken basically two very different approaches to this legend (which obviously reflects the general search for apostolic origins, characteristics of the fourth century), Some would dismiss it totally, while others prefer to see it as a retrojection into the first century of the conversion of the local king at the end of the second century. In other words Abgar (V) the Black of the legend in fact represents Abgar (VIII) the Great (c. 177-212), contemporary of Badaisan. Attractive though this second approach might seem, there are serious objections to it, and the various small supportive evidence that Abgar (VIII) the Great became Christian disappears on closer examination."

So the Abgar legend which was written at least in the fourth century is not accepted by scholars. The legend talks about a Christian King Abgar who converted to Christianity in the first century. But the legend was not seen correct by scholars, so some scholars tried to say perhaps it was Abgar (VIII). But that interpretation is still based on this Abgar legend. The Cambridge history of Christianity is clear that there are no evidence that Abgar VIII which Atabek identified as Abgar the IX violating WP:OR, adopted Christianity. VartanM (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, you cannot accuse me of OR, as I did provide references for every single line that I added in both articles. So assume good faith, and remind yourself that you ended up on this talk page because of a) Wikistalking; b) Edit warring and POV pushing trying to prove that Armenians were first Christian nation (as if it matters so much). Again, the claim that you believe in is also based on a legend of Gregory Illuminator curing king Tiridates III, which is similar to the case of Addai and Abgar, albeit was a century later. So I am not sure which legend is true or false, that's up to scholars (preferably neutral ones as in case of Osroene) to decide, but the fact is that Osroene accepted Christianity by the end of 2nd century A.D., the fact that you cannot deny so far. Atabek (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat for those that are having hard time in distinguishing the difference between academic sources and some 1905 source.

"Attractive though this second approach might seem, there are serious objections to it, and the various small supportive evidence that Abgar (VIII) the Great became Christian disappears on closer examination"

The whole story about king Abgar becoming a Christian is based on the Abgar legend. That is why the Cambridge history of Christianity states: "Modern scholars have taken basically two very different approaches to this legend (which obviously reflects the general search for apostolic origins, characteristics of the fourth century), Some would dismiss it totally, while others prefer to see it as a retrojection into the first century of the conversion of the local king at the end of the second century. In other words Abgar (V) the Black of the legend in fact represents Abgar (VIII) the Great (c. 177-212), contemporary of Badaisan. Attractive though this second approach might seem, there are serious objections to it, and the various small supportive evidence that Abgar (VIII) the Great became Christian disappears on closer examination"

There is no evidence that Abgar the Great (177-212) converted to Christianity as the source mentions. So stop the WP:OR. VartanM (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to refute that either or to affirm that Armenian story of acceptance is more reliable, as it's also based on legend. So instead of plain removal of scholarly sources, a more constructive approach would be adding Armenian references, saying that alternative view also does exist. There is nothing wrong with that, instead of trying to erase references, and thus history. Atabek (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've protected the page. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Category updates

{{editprotected}} Could an administrator remove the (redundant) parent categories "Anatolia" and "Ancient Near East"? Thanks Sumerophile (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, also reduced to semi-protection. Happy‑melon 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't match with this time frame - help?

The article, as it stands today, in the opening paragraph in "History", says "lasted nearly four centuries (c.132 BC to 214). Either four centuries is wrong, or one or more of the dates is wrong. If anyone knows, please help.

Osbaldistone (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's 315 years...maybe not "nearly" 4 centuries but "over three centuries" would work. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Association of Edessa/Urfa with Abraham's birthplace

In my opinion, a likely candidate for Abraham's birthplace is Urfa, AKA Edessa, which is regarded in Islamic tradition as the birthplace of Abraham. Such a tradition is not a recent invention, but stemmed from ancient Syriac Christian tradition linked to the city, which in turn must have come from the very ancient Jewish community there (one of the ancient Greek names for the town listed in the Greek language page for 'Edessa' was Αντιόχεια της Ιουδαίας , i.e. Antioch of the Jews.) In fact, one of the earliest known Hellenistic Greek names of the city, was Ορρα (transliterated ORRA, Romanized form Orrha). A link to Abraham cannot be made with certainty, but it is the certainty with which sholars identify Sumerian "Ur" with Biblical Ur of the Chaldees (Ur Kasdim) when not a shred of evidence exists to justify such a link that ought to raise eyebrows. The obsessive and repeated attempts by archeologists, historians, and scholars to force an identification of Ur Kasdim with Sumerian "Ur" have proven groundless, and none of the aforementioned seems to have the courage to simply admit that the link is tenuous at best. The following are worth bearing in mind: 1. Sumerian "Ur" is a pure misnomer. Such a name is not attested. In Sumerian cuneiform, it is called "Urima", and in Accadian "Uriwa", and the root of both names URI, is demonstrably of different form and roots from the Hebraic name Ur. 2. The "Chaldees" is not the name of a country in the Bible, but of a tribe, Chaldeans. They are depicted in later books of the Bible as conquerors from outside lower Mesopotamia who conquered the area and took control of Babylon. However, there is no mention of the Chaldeans as a tribe anywhere in the Pentateuch, only the refererence to "Ur Kasdim". The name Kasdim may be ethymologically related to a relative of Abraham, Kesed, who, together with Aram, are descendants of Abraham's brother Nahor based in the vicinity of Harran, in Upper Mesopotamia. This region, known in Genesis as Aram Naharaim, is very clearly and repeatedly referred to as the place of origin of the Hebrew patriarchs, NOT Sumeria (which is referred to in Genesis as the 'Plain of Shinar'). There is no mention of Chaldeans active in this region until the late Israelite monarchy, more than 1000 years later, and their is no precedent in the Pentateuch for an anachronism on a scale of this magnitude. After the Exodus from Egypt, in Deuteronomy 26, the Hebrews are asked to recite a passage to recall their patrimony: "A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous." It is clear that the association of their patrimony was with rustic pastoralism, and not with the settled urbanised city life characteristic of the bustling urban metropolis and port city of Sumerian "Ur". The lifestyles of the early patriarchs simply cannot be tallied with those of the cityfolk of the Sumerian metropoli. It is evident from the Biblical narratives that the patrimony of the Hebrews is placed in the vicinity of Harran. During the Middle Ages, this region (Aram Naharaim, Upper Mesopotamia) was known as the "al-Jazirah" and was one of the preferred areas of settlement of the semi-nomadic Turcomans. The lifestyle they were accustomed to was comprised of seminomadic pastoralism, herding, and grazing, something which the marshes and canals of Babylonia were ill-suited to. Such a lifestyle recalls the early pre-Israelite Hebrews in particular and the early Aramaean tribes in general, and the area around Edessa and Harran, not Sumer, would have been highly condusive to such a lifestyle in the age of the Patriarchs. --Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.182.201 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Edessa

Edessa, Mesopotamia → Edessa – A previous inconclusive discussion had taken place at Talk:Edessa regarding the notability of the Greek town. A quick look at books shows that book titles over "Mesopotamian Edessa" simply call it "Edessa" while those concerned with the Greek one use the name "Macedonian Edessa".relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC) --Rafy talk 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- I had never heard of the modest-sized Greek town. This is a city. It is a pity that this article says so little about its modern status - or is it somewhere else under a Turkish name? If so, a much better link is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The modern city has its article at Şanlıurfa.--Rafy talk 02:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This page got 3,772 page views in the last month, compared to 1,746 for the Greek city. Kauffner (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting comment What do you propose to do with the disambiguation page Edessa and would this be considered the primary topic? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We can move the dab page to Edessa (disambiguation). This would be the primary topic but of course we can place a note at the top wit a link to the modern Greek town.--Rafy talk 20:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an appropriate solution, but we do not need a hatnote for the Greek twon on a dabpage. A dabpage where there is a main article is slightly differnet in form from one without. The Greek town should probably be the first (or second) item on the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)