Talk:List of maphrians

Date discrepancy

Hello, can anyone explain the difrency of 1 year between some reign on the list visible here [1] and the ones for the Maphrians in the articke?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Catholicos B.ThomasI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Maphrianate of the East is not a successor of the Church of the East

Mugsalot, The Maphrianate of the East was just a section of the Syriac Orthodox Church established in 628. Its history starts with the Miaphysite mission by Jacob Baradaeus during 559. Since the Maphrianate of the East was not a part of the hierarchy of the Church of the East at any point of history and since the fact that it always followed the Syro-Antiochene Rite of liturgy, it cannot be considered a successor to the Church of the East. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, I reverted your edits for the following reasons:

• As stated in the article itself, and supported by reliable sources, the title Maphrian only came into use in c. 1100, hence why incumbents are grouped under the original title of Grand Metropolitan of the East from 559 to 1075, following the list provided by Wilmshurst. Historians, such as Kiraz, as you provided, write that Marutha of Tikrit was the first to hold the title Maphrian as per Bar Hebraeus' anachronistic use of the title, which is no longer supported by other scholars, as I have demonstrated. I would like to point out that Kiraz was already referenced in the article beforehand.
• Syriac Orthodox literature, as reflected by Ignatius Aphrem I & Ignatius Jacob III, regards the maphrian as the former head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, which it regards as the legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East. It is not our place to make a judgement as to whether it is legitimate or not, we simply need to reflect their official position. They count a number of the early heads of the Church of the East in their numeration of the maphrians, and this must be reflected in the article.

Please refrain from changing the article without discussion first in future. Mugsalot (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, I have removed some of your edits due to factual inconsistencies.

First of all, I would like to get clarified about what you really mean by Syriac Orthodox Church of the East. Did such a Church ever exist? And tell me why you are going on removing 'Church in Sassanid Persia', which is more accurate.

Are you trying to say that 'Syriac Orthodox Church of the East' is more accurate term than 'Church in Sassanid Persia'?

Secondly, I would like to know, how list of Patriarchs of the Church of the East turns into list of maphrians. Is there a neutral source other than the partisan sources from Syriac Orthodox apologetics? At least explain how you can connect both these lists. Did the patriarchs of the Church of the East ever held that they belonged to a Church called "Syriac Orthodox Church of the East"? The "Church of the East" is the body that was constituted autocephalous and fully independent at the Synods of 410 and 424. And further more, what about the Rite, hierarchy? Did any bishop from the Church of the East join the so called 'Syriac Orthodox Church of the East'?

Moreover your edit is absolutely contradictory. One of the sources says the following:

1. Maphrianate of Tagrit, also known as the Maphrianate of the East. It was established in the 7th cent. in order to give the Miaphysite Syr. Orth. a hierarchy structure in the Persian empire. The first Maphrian (though the title was fixed at an unknown date later) was Marutha of Tagrit, from 628–49, who was consecrated by Patr. Athanasios Gamolo. So please refrain from doing contradictory and biased apologetical edits.

Br Ibrahim john (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, please refrain from removing sources and sourced content before discussion. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, the term Syriac Orthodox Church of the East is used by Ignatius Jacob III, whose reliability is not in question, and cannot be dismissed purely because he was Syriac Orthodox. The term "church in Sassanid Persia" is not more accurate when one considers that the Sasanian Empire collapsed in 651, whereas the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East persisted until 1859, well over a millennium afterwards.

I would like you to understand that it is not our role to discuss the legitimacy of the Syriac Orthodox claims to be the legitimate continuation of the Church of the East, it is simply to provide that information in an unbiased manner. The Syriac Orthodox recognise a number of early patriarchs of the Church of the East to be legitimate in their eyes, hence why Ahudemmeh is counted as the 23rd Grand Metropolitan of the East. This is identical practice to how Maronites recognise a number of patriarchs of Antioch prior to their split from the Greek Orthodox, and similarly how the Greek Orthodox consider a number of patriarchs of Antioch as legitimate prior to their split from the Syriac Orthodox. I did not include the early patriarchs of the Church of the East that the Syriac Orthodox consider legitimate as I deemed it superfluous, but I did ensure that we reflect the Syriac Orthodox claim of their legitimacy to prevent a bias.

Kiraz explicitly states the title maphrian was fixed later, and as per Wilmshurst and Takahashi, who I have both referenced, John IV was the first to use the title maphrian in c. 1100, hence why his predecessors held the title of Grand Metropolitan of the East. The issue stems from the historian Bar Hebraeus' use of the title maphrian anachronistically to refer to Marutha of Tikrit, which has since been rejected by scholars, as I have pointed out.

I would appreciate it if you understood that I am not aiming to defend the legitimacy of the Syriac Orthodox, I am simply aiming to portray their claims in an unbiased manner. Mugsalot (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, Your explanation remains insufficient to justify your views because you are just upholding a biased way of observation. Ignatius Jacob III is not a reliable historian, but Professor Sebastian Brock is.

///1. Maphrianate of Tagrit, also known as the Maphrianate of the East. It was established in the 7th cent. in order to give the Miaphysite Syr. Orth. a hierarchy structure in the Persian empire. The first Maphrian (though the title was fixed at an unknown date later) was Marutha of Tagrit, from 628–49, who was consecrated by Patr. Athanasios Gamolo. The Maphrian, when consecrated by the Patr. of Antioch, had autonomy and was the sole ruler of the Syr. Orth. churches in Persia. //
I have not argued that Marutha of Tikrit was called Maphrian. He was then called Catholicos. This is what that is enshrined in the view of historians. The Maphrianate of the East was established in the Seventh century. However, the term 'Maphrian' and 'Maphrianate' is relatively new, and it had a developmental history prior to the formal establishment in 628, during reign of Khosrow II.

It is clearly said that the Maphrianate of the East, although the term Maphrian came into use very long after it, was established in the 7th century. Moreover, no secular historian has ever spoken of something like Syriac Orthodox Church of the East. Ignatius Jacob III alone cannot be considered a source as the rest of the historians are contradicting many of his views. He just wants to uphold his Church claims and jurisdiction and that is okay being a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch.
Now about the successorship, I am not here to decide anyone's legitimacy and I am not a member of any of these Churches. However, by the Church of the East, historians generally mean the East Syriac Church alone. There were various Catholicates in Persia governed by Greek Orthodox as well as Syriac Orthodox, and there was a community which had ties with the Armenian Catholicisate also. Those can undoubtedly be considered as successors of Persian Christianity. However, they are not successors to the East Syriac Church. If you want to portray Syriac Orthodox claims in an unbiased manner, you should first consider refraining from performing partisan edits. You can say that 'Syriac Orthodox claims so and so.., but you cannot dismiss the historical study of Kiraz which is edited by a number of eminent personalities in the domain like Professor Sebastian Brock. You have to understand the fact that the records by Ignatius Jacob III is not impartial. They can be held as claims, but not as assertions.

Now about 'Sassanid Persia', the Maphrianate of the East was established to form a hierarchy in the Sassanid Empire. So it is the most historical and consistent term. There can be political developments that took place later on. For example, the current Patriarchal Archdiocese of Syriac Orthodox Church is Damascus, but it was historically located in Antioch governing the Archdiocese of Antioch. That does not mean that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch became Patriarchate of Damascus. Do you believe in the contrary? The historical circumstance is what that has to be taken into consideration, not the later political changes and so on. Now you might think why is not Syriac Orthodox Church of the East acceptable. One reason is that most of the historians do not such terms like Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, Greek Orthodox Church of the East etc. But the major reason is that, the Maphrianate of the East did not have authority over the remaining East in Syriac Orthodox Church. That is, Syriac Orthodox Church in many regions of Central Asia were still administered by the Patriarchate of Antioch itself. That is, the authority of the Maphrianate was constituted to be the structure in the Sassanian Empire only. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, please note my compromise edit.

• My edit that the title was "Maphrian of the East...and also known as the Catholicos of the East" is supported by Kiraz.
• My edit that "According to tradition, the Church of the East was established by Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century AD" is referenced, and does not need to be removed.
• For your edit "Following the Chalcedonian schism", I added "[christological differences] that arose as a result of the Council of Chalcedon of 451".
• You are copying copyrighted content directly from Kiraz; "the first Maphrian was Marutha of Tagrit, who was consecrated by Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Patriarch Athanasios Gamolo", for which I have reported you.
• Your referencing is poor; you repeatedly copy and paste the reference to George A. Kiraz , “Maphrian,” in Maphrian, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay despite that source already having been referenced with the proper formatting in the article.
• Most importantly, I added a note that Marutha of Tikrit is counted as the first maphrian.

Marutha of Tikrit is named as the first maphrian, as per Bar Hebraeus' Ecclesiastical History, and this is supported by a number of scholars, such as George Kiraz, whereas Michael the Syrian's Chronicle gives John IV Saliba as the first maphrian, which is supported by scholars including David Wilmshurst and Hidemi Takahashi.

• Your dismissal of the reliability of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I because of their faith reflects pure prejudice on your part and wholly ignores their usefulness as sources on their own churches of which they were heads.
• You have referenced only Kiraz. In Wilmshurst's list of maphrians in The Syriac World, he gives all incumbents from Ahudemmeh up to and not including John IV as Grand Metropolitans of the East, hence why I have done the same. Takahashi similarly names John IV as the first maphrian. Ignatius Jacob III also points out that the title maphrian is first used to refer to this office in the reign of John IV in Michael the Syrian's Chronicle. These sources are all referenced in the article.
• The Syriac Orthodox Church asserts that the Maphrianate of the East, also known as the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, is the direct, legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East. I am not asserting a bias in presenting its own claims. It is not our place to judge this claim, as you have consistently done. Mugsalot (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, please refrain from biased partisan edits.

• ///According to tradition, the Church of the East was established by Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century AD" is referenced, and does not need to be removed.///
  It was removed because the Church of the East is not related to the Syriac Orthodox Maphrianate of the East.
• ///the first Maphrian was Marutha of Tagrit, who was consecrated by Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Patriarch Athanasios Gamolo"///
  This is not copied from Kiraz. Kiraz himself has copied this from other sources including Bar Hebraeus.
• ///Your referencing is poor; you repeatedly copy and paste the reference to George A. Kiraz , “Maphrian,” in Maphrian, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay despite that source already having been referenced with the proper formatting in the article.///
  Yes I know that. However you were still reverting those.
• ///Most importantly, I added a note that Marutha of Tikrit is counted as the first maphrian.///
  It is not enough. The content should be directly given in the article.
• ///Your dismissal of the reliability of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I because of their faith reflects pure prejudice on your part and wholly ignores their usefulness as sources on their own churches of which they were heads.///
  I have never dismissed their reliability. However, their opinions can only be considered as claims. They are not independent historians for sure.
• ///You have referenced only Kiraz. In Wilmshurst's list of maphrians in The Syriac World, he gives all incumbents from Ahudemmeh up to and not including John IV as Grand Metropolitans of the East, hence why I have done the same. Takahashi similarly names John IV as the first maphrian.///
  Wrong. I have referenced Casiday and Haar Romeny also. You have removed those references also.
• ///Takahashi similarly names John IV as the first maphrian. Ignatius Jacob III also points out that the title maphrian is first used to refer to this office in the reign of John IV in Michael the Syrian's Chronicle. These sources are all referenced in the article.///
  I have not contradicted on those. I had accepted that. And none of my edits contradicts that.
• ///The Syriac Orthodox Church asserts that the Maphrianate of the East, also known as the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, is the direct, legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East. I am not asserting a bias in presenting its own claims. It is not our place to judge this claim, as you have consistently done.///
  that is just a bare claim. Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople claims continuity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate however it is not recognised. Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches all claim continuity of the Great Church, however they are held as claims only. Similarly the claim of Syriac Orthodox Church can only be considered as a claim, much weaker than the above.

You are constantly removing sources and sourced content to maintain your biased manipulation. Remember, Wikipedia is not the official website of Syriac Orthodox Church. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, your references to The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East make no mention of Marutha of Tikrit at all and do not support the content you have added [2] [3]. You have contradicted the sources I have provided as Wilmshurst, Takahashi, Ignatius Jacob III, and Ignatius Aphrem I all regard John IV as the first maphrian and all his predecessors as Grand Metropolitan of the East. As I have proven, the Syriac Orthodox consider the Maphrianate of the East to be the legitimate continuation of the Church of the East, I am not biased in putting their claims on Wikipedia. I am not portraying it as a fact, I am portraying it as a claim. Mugsalot (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, I am surprised to see you replying. Until now you were busy with your unilateral misuse of reverting rights with biased partisan sources. Happy that you have now slightly changed your attitude and replied in the discussion.
If you are portraying the Syriac Orthodox claim, then you should explicitly mention the term 'claim'. Now about the sources you have mentioned. None of those contradict the content I have added.

• First of all George A. Kiraz, Sebastian P. Brock and Aaron M. Butts are credible historians.
• Secondly, I have not said that Marutha of Tikrit was called Maphrian. He was recognised as Catholicos of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Sassanid Empire by Emperor Khosrow II. The title Maphrian came into use much later. But the authority had been inaugurated in 628.
• Thirdly, the interpretations of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I can only be considered claims. They are not independent and neutral in this matter. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, your edit explicitly states Marutha was the first maphrian twice. Neither The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East support the sentence "The first Maphrian was Marutha of Tagrit, from 628–649. He was consecrated by Patriarch Athanasios Gamolo in 628 during the reign of Sassanian Emperor Khosrow II, who favoured the Syriac Orthodox due to influence of his queen consort Shirin and court physician Gabriel of Sinjar". Even if it was sourced, it does not need to be here on the list.

As per the source I have provided, the Syriac Orthodox claimed to have 102 incumbents as per the numeration in my original edit, not your fictitious numeration. The 102 incumbents include patriarchs, such as Thomas the Apostle and his successors, hence why I have included the list of patriarchs of the Church of the East in the list.

They always claimed to have the title of Catholicos, it was not a new innovation after 628/629 as you have argued. The list in The Syriac World by Wilmshurst (2019) gives all incumbents from Ahudemmeh up to and not including John IV as Grand Metropolitans of the East. Kiraz simply mentions that maphrian is synonymous with catholicos and does not support your rearrangement of the incumbents from Marutha of Tikrit onwards as Catholicoi of the East. My edit simply reflects his reliable list.

It is purely your own personal argument that the Syriac Orthodox Maphrianate of the East was unrelated to the original Church of the East. From the inception of the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, it has claimed to be the legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East, identical to how the Maronites, Melkites, Jacobites, and Catholics claim to be the legitimate continuation of the original Church of Antioch. It is not biased to simply offer their claims in an unbiased manner. By refusing to portray their claims you are showing your own bias. I am not Syriac Orthodox with zero relation to any of this. I am simply providing the information as I have read it in the sources. Mugsalot (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Reflist
References

Mugsalot, In this article, the version given by Kiraz and Brock can only be considered correct. Or else you should bring someone's reference who can be considered equally credible and neutral. Bar Hebraeus' record is also important since he himself was an incumbent of the position. Neither the sources nor the content added by myself denies the fact that the title Maphrianate came into use in the 1100s. However, it is clear that it was in 628 that the structure actually got established. And it was under Athanasius Gamolo and Khasrow II. The Patriarchate of Antioch started to be called Patriarchate only after the Council of Chalcedon. But that does not mean the structure did not exist prior to 451. In the case of Maphrianate, it was 628. Now about the claim of succeeding the Church of the East is not clear by evidences. It can be considered as a vague claim only. Legally, the structure of Maphrianate took birth only in 628. It can trace back history to Ahudemmeh also. But Ahudemmeh did not have the authority of a Maphrian.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, Kiraz is not the sole author on this subject? I have already noted in the article that Bar Hebraeus notes Marutha as the first maphrian. Your reference to The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East do not reference Marutha of Tikrit at all. The Syriac Orthodox Church of the East was established as a separate church in 559, as I have demonstrated in the article. You are speaking completely without any references whatsoever. Kiraz is your only relevant source and it does not support the content you have added. Please look at Wilmshurst's list of incumbents. You are being disruptive. Mugsalot (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have already told you, Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I are not neutral and independent historians. Their arguments can be considered as claims only. They can support existing sources however, but such credible sources in their version does not exist. They can claim themselves to be successors of each and everyone. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is not concerning the so called 'Syriac Orthodox Church of the East' however. This is for the Maphrianate. Did you get that? Br Ibrahim john (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, please discuss on the talk page instead of restoring your poor edit. I have referenced Wilmshurst and Takahashi. Your reference to The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East do not reference Marutha of Tikrit at all. You are now refusing to adequately explain your edits without labelling sources as unreliable. Mugsalot (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are purely distorted and biased. And you do not teach me how to edit. First get off with your partisanship. Does the Syriac Orthodox Church pay you? Br Ibrahim john (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you were here to discuss at first, you should have accommodated my edits too. But you did not. You have a partisan policy. But I cannot agree into it. I can only take a strict stand in this case of severe manipulation. My reference to The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations: The Christian Communities of the Middle East is clearly given to explain the support that the Syriac Orthodox received from the Sassanid Empire and why. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Came here to offer a third opinion and hopefully resolve the dispute. After looking over the discussion it appears that Br Ibrahim john's position is clearly backed by WP:RS. In addition, the Syriac Orthodox Church emerged separately from the Church of the East, so it would be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim to assert that this Syriac Orthodox office succeeds the Church of the East in any way, and would need to be based on especially strong sources—which Mugsalot has not provided. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, please note Br Ibrahim john's duplication of the sentence that Marutha of Tikrit was the first maphrian in the article.

Br Ibrahim john also references The Orthodox Christian World and Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East, neither of which support the content he has added or make any mention of the content he has added [4] [5].

Br Ibrahim john insists on his own version of a list in which the incumbents following Marutha of Tikrit are "Catholicoi of the East", whereas I insist on following the list as asserted by Wilmshurst in The Syriac World, as I have referenced in the article, whereby all incumbents prior to John IV are Grand Metropolitans.

Br Ibrahim john has a single relevant source, Kiraz, which he has used unjustifiably to assert his own version of the article. It does not support his list of "Catholicoi of the East" separate from the Grand Metropolitans of the East prior to 1075. It is a source I had already referenced before Br Ibrahim john began editing the article. It is biased to assert the dyophysite church is traditional whilst the other is not. It is biased to make a judgement on the Syriac Orthodox claim to be the legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East as Br Ibrahim john has done. Buidhe, please note that we are discussing the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, not the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch.

I have compromised and added an explicit statement that the Church of the East split due to christological issues stemming from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which Br Ibrahim john had originally added. I further compromised in explicitly stating in a note by Marutha of Tikrit in the list, with references, that this issue stems from the fact that Bar Hebraeus calls him the first maphrian, whereas Michael the Syrian calls John IV as the first maphrian, which is shared by a number of scholars who I have referenced.

There is no bias in using the Syriac Orthodox numeration of their own incumbents. Every schismatic church claims its prior incumbents prior to its schism as their own bishops. The Melkites, Copts, and Catholics all claim a number of early bishops in their numeration of their bishops of Alexandria, whilst the Melkites, Maronites, Jacobites, and Catholics do the same for the bishops of Antioch. The Syriac Orthodox claim to have had 102 incumbents of this office, both as Grand Metropolitan of the East and Maphrian, and you are asserting a bias in rejecting that numeration and asserting your own belief that they are wrong to have that numeration. I purposefully avoided a bias in giving the names of the early bishops that the Syriac Orthodox consider legitimate prior to 559, in contrast to the Maronite list that includes all incumbents prior to its schism, similarly to the Copts include the early bishops prior to their schism.

I would prefer not to be accused of being paid by this church or having any relation to them merely because I am interested in providing the information I have found in the sources. Mugsalot (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, Hi, Mugsalot. I don't see any evidence that you're being paid by any organization to edit this article, and I agree that you shouldn't be accused of paid editing without evidence.

Regarding the article, I think we have to be careful to distinguish between Syriac Orthodox claims and what's accepted in independent sources. Perhaps some way to compromise would be mention in the article what the Syriac Orthodox Church claims, and also what independent sources have to say. There are practically no references to a "Syriac Orthodox Church of the East" on Google Scholar[6] making me wonder doubt that such a church existed.

The article already says something that's contradicted in the reliable source's I've examined: that CotE was founded by Thomas the Apostle. David Gaunt says something else: In 410, the Christians in Persia proclaimed their independence from the patriarch of Antioch and the emperor in Constantinople at a time when war was raging between Byzantium and Persia. The church leadership of the Christians in Persia needed to adopt an independent position in relation to the Byzantine Church if it was to win greater acceptance from the Persian rulers. Thereafter, it became known as the Church of the East. This church has also been known under the name East Syrian Church, in contrast to the West Syrian Church, which grew inside the Byzantine Empire.[7]

Overall, I think this article would be greatly improved by greater clarification between accepted historical facts and truth claims of religions. (t · c) buidhe 12:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mugsalot has been previously accused of partisan edits in matters related to Assyrian nationality and Syriac Orthodoxy. I cannot agree with the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, claims of succeeding the historical Church of the East, pre-existence of the Maphrianate before 628 etc. These claims are absolutely against the historical records. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, this article is neither about the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch nor the so called 'Syriac Orthodox Church of the East'. This article is exclusively about the Maphrianate and its list of incumbents. No historian validates the history of the Maphrianate before 628. The user Mugsalot seems to have inherited some sort of inborn enemity towards the version given by George A. Kiraz and Sebastian Brock. Some historians say that the Maphrianate was established in 628, while some others say it was in 1100s. However, a deduction can easily be made. The structure was established in 628 and it got the name 'Maphrian' in the 1100s. Hence George A. Kiraz's opinion is most prominent and trustworthy. The user is trying to overrule all these historical facts with partisan sources such as Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I whose records can only be considered claims. Now about another accusation from the user's part- I am not here to legitimise anyone. I know a fact: the pre-Chalcedonian Church of the East was following the Theological School of Edessa, Catechetical School of Antioch and the School of Nisibis, that were undoubtedly Dyophysite. And about the Liturgical Rite, the Church of the East is called the East Syriac Church. It is actually the user who seems to be biased over this. And finally, David Gaunt's opinion has no significance in this article, and there are a number of refutations for it from modern scholastic circles mainly because of its pro-Roman Imperial ecclesiastical approach (Church history based on the the three petrine see principle). Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept @Buidhe:'s assessment of this dispute and I suggest to the other parties that we move forward with his or her suggestions. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot:, Please provide reliable and neutral sources before removing sourced content. I think you have read the opinions of other editors. Moreover, I suggest you to first discuss your future edits and your compromise, if any, here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot, it is much appreciated if you could look into the discussion and the opinion of other editors involved. Logosx127 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Logosx127: Please see my compromise edit. I have removed the numeration. I have added the catholicoi of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Please can we discuss any further thoughts here. Mugsalot (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mugsalot, Frankly speaking, I am not satisfied with that compromise formula. There is still a lot of discrepancies. We have already had a long debate over the entire issue and a consensus was formed based on majority opinion. What needs to be done is to restore as per the existing consensus. Logosx127 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancies such as? Mugsalot (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Listing of the post-1975 catholicoi of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) who explicitly repudiate the status of maphrian, structural anomalies including the classification of Augen I with the earlier incumbents considering the fact that he was consecrated by a reigning patriarch, claim of succession over the Patriarch of the Church of the East, inclusion of pov content not seen anywhere in the sources, obvious discrepancy by disregarding the chief source (Wilmshurst's list) are some of these from my quick revision. Content removal of over thousand bytes is yet another issue I am very concerned about. Logosx127 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Logosx127: the claim of succession from the Church of the East is sourced. I removed the numeration. The original list I created followed Wilmshurst's list precisely? I can remove the pre-1964 and post-1975 catholicoi. Most of your edit consisted of content that did not need to be included in a list. Mugsalot (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Where does the Wilmshurst's lust say that the maphrianate list was continuation of the CoE patriarchal list? Again the pre-1964 catholicoi were indeed titled Maphrians but the post-1975 catholicoi of MOSC explicitly repudiated the position. It should be discussed between editors involved about what should be included and what should not be, the article author does not have any sort of copyright or ownership over the article.Hence these are not s Logosx127 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The maphrianate claimed to be the continuation of the Church of the East as per Weltecke (2016), Wood (2013), Wood (2021), and Barsoum (2009) all sourced in the article. Mugsalot (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Barsoum? Does not qualify WP:RS. The other ones are not the chief sources. The article itself says that list is based on Wilmshurst's. The maphrianate may or may not claim continuation but whether its incumbents were historically the continuation of the CoE patriarchs is the question. Logosx127 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does Barsoum not count as a reliable source? Weltecke (2016), Wood (2013) and Wood (2021) are all reliable sources. Just because the list is based on Wilmshurst (2019) that does not exclude other sources? It's not your place to judge whether they're historically the continuation or not. They claim to be. The claim is noted. We are not supposed to deem it correct or incorrect. Mugsalot (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Logosx127 your edit did not follow Wilmshurst's list. He does not include the catholicoi from 1912–1964 as you did. If you remove the pre-559 grand metropolitans you are in effect making a judgement that claim is incorrect which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Reliable sources attest it is the church's position. The Church of Rome claims to have been founded by Saint Peter, it's not your place to judge whether it is factually correct that he was the first Pope. Mugsalot (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If it is just a claim then why are you listing it as if it is an established fact? You can say that they claim so and so but you just cannot say that it is true here in the article without ample RS. If you do not have anything from the Wilmshurst's source to substantiate the claim, then either you remove it as the chief source or abide by it. Barsoum is simply not RS because it's the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem I Barsoum. The other sources also explicitly say that it is a claim and have not presented it as an established fact. But here presented in a hagiographic manner. And what about the remaining ones, especially Kiraz bethmardutho? None of these sources which can be held RS consider the maphrianate as a successor to CoE, atmost what they do is that they note the maphrianate's claim as a claim.Logosx127 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that a claim is correct is also not the job of an encyclopaedia. The case of the Pope of Rome is a totally different scenario where there's no competition on the title and literally most of the sources back the list. But here we don't find a single piece of RS saying the maphrianate was indeed a successor to the CoE. Kiraz says it was established in 628, which is historically correct, neither Kiraz nor Wilmshurst draws a relationship of Maphrianate with the CoE and the remaining sources give it as claim only. Logosx127 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically there is no point in discussing this between us two any further. What has to be done is to abide by the consensus. The consensus is the only hope of compromise and aggreement here. Logosx127 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Or you get blocked again for being a sockpuppet? The discussion does not end simply because one additional user chimes in to agree with you. So you acknowledge that you were wrong to add catholicoi in 1912–1964 as they're not in Wilmshurst's list? He doesn't start his list in 628 either. He's not the only reliable source. Scholars differ. Such is the nature of academia which you seem to fail to grasp. Mugsalot (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

What you claim here is simply original research. None of the RS provided in the article list the patriarchs of the CoE in Maphrian's list. About the other question, that is the catholicoi in 1912 and 1964, these are from Kiraz's article. However about the before 559 section, there is no RS saying supportive. You do not need to be very anxious of getting me blocked, so that pov over pov can be piled up, hope you haven't seen the removal of you entry for investigation. Logosx127 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you recognise the consensus? What's the point in discussing with you if you are not ready to abide by the consensus! That's just going to be a waste of time for me otherwise you must be ready to abide by the consensus that is formed out of the discussions. That's exactly the reason I have asked administrator intervention into this matter. Logosx127 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

August 2021

Br Ibrahim john, I removed certain content for the following reasons.

• It is explicitly stated that numeration follows church tradition. You claimed it is "Against the scholarly accepted version", however you have provided no sources to prove that. I have added Wood, Phillip John (2021). "Miaphysites in Iraq during the Last Great War of Antiquity (c. 604–28) and its Aftermath". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History: 1–18., in which it is acknowledged further that the Maphrianate claimed to be the successor of the Church of the East. I have amended the wording in the introduction to reflect that it is merely a claim.
• It is already in a note that there is disagreement amongst scholars as to who first held the title of Maphrian. However, it is acknowledged the Maphrianate emerged from the ecclesiastical organisation founded by Ahudemmeh. Your addition to the introduction is thus superfluous.

I hope you can appreciate I have compromised significantly and there is considerable difference from my original wording of the introduction. I would like there to be a joint resolution to this issue without accusations. Mugsalot (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: It is a matter of fact that there are different versions. Then why can't we mention all those? Why should we be pre-occupied with the Syriac Orthodox POV version alone? Let's make this article neutral. It is better to include every scholarly opinion. Founding by Saint Thomas the apostle is not explicitly connected with the Maphrianate of the East in any of the sources. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Although there are some variations in you latest edits compared to the previous POV version, it doesn't seem to be some sort of compromise. However, since the content seems to be sourced (?) I can accommodate that. However, the claim of continuation of the Church of the East is still merely a claim. It certainly needs to be mentioned, but that doesn't mean that the Bar Hebraeus' version shouldn't be. Moreover, most of the scholars support the latter. The continuation theory is not supported by Wood, he's just leaving it as it is. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, it is not a matter of fact, you must provide evidence for your argument. I would be grateful if you could provide another list of maphrians as I can only find the list provided in the Syriac World by Wilmshurst, as noted in the bibliography.

I removed the content that mentioned that the Church of the East was founded by Thomas the Apostle.

In regard to the first incumbent to hold the title maphrian. You have only added Kiraz as a reference to support your argument that Marutha of Tikrit was the first maphrian. It is acknowledged in a note by Marutha of Tikrit in the list that he is considered the first maphrian by Kiraz. It is also acknowledged that a number of scholars, including David Wilmshurst and Hidemi Takahashi, argue that Marutha was not the first maphrian. You are simply repeating content by adding it to the introduction and presenting that information in a confusing way if there are two succeeding sentences, one which says Marutha was the first maphrian and the second sentence says that John IV was the first maphrian.

It's not our place to say whether the claim that the maphrianate succeeded the Church of the East is right or not, I'm simply portraying that claim and I provided a caveat that explained the list numeration follows the Syriac Orthodox Church's position. Mugsalot (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. Let me ask you. Who has counted Ahudemmeh as a Maphrian? Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How can we portray the POV as a unanimous or generally recognised opinion when there are multiple varying opinions? Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have never argued Ahudemmeh was the first maphrian. Please read the article closely. I provided evidence in the article that John IV is considered the first maphrian and noted that Kiraz argues Marutha of Tikrit was the fisrt maphrian. Mugsalot (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind you, this article is basically about Maphrians. You claim to have brought evidence that John IV is the first Maphrian. However, Kiraz's version that is based on Bar Hebraeus' chronicles has equal footing. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: Your argument: "Marutha being listed as the first Maphrian doesn't contradict Ahudemmeh being counted as a Syriac Orthodox Grand Metropolitan" is correct. But Kiraz gives a seventh century date for the establishment of the Maphrianate. It contradicts the 'Church of the East continuation theory'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: You are continuously removing sourced content and you are not explaining the reason for it. According to Kiraz version, the Maphrianate is established in the Seventh century. However according to your Syriac Orthodox POV, it is continuation of the Church of the East. This is nothing but contradiction. Again, the numeration has to be neutrally sourced. If you are taking the Syriac World, then you have to use the numeration that it gives.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, I have amended the introduction to be more coherent and explain the disagreement amongst scholars as to who is the first maphrian. I have restored the numeration followed by the Syriac Orthodox Church as there is no POV in providing Syriac Orthodox beliefs in the correct context with the appropriate explanation. Mugsalot (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please use the numeration according to 'The Syriac World'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, I reverted some of your edit as it seemed incoherent to sources. However, now I think it should be entirely reverted. Kiraz version explicitly mentions that Maphrianate was established in 7th century. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can you add the original content provided in the Syriac World with regards to the numeration of the list of Maphrians? Is it sure that Ahudemmeh is the 23rd According to the book Syriac World?Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, I have restored the introduction as it is incoherent to have one sentence declare there is disagreement amongst scholars as to who is the first Maphrian then in the next sentence it is stated that John IV is the first Maphrian. I changed the wording with the intention of giving Kiraz's argument that Marutha of Tikrit is the first Maphrian equal weight to the claim that John IV is the first Maphrian so I expect that issue to be resolved.

The list in the Syriac World does not provide numeration. However, Syriac Orthodox sources do. Mugsalot (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, If the list is based on the Syriac World, then the numeration must follow it's version. If it doesn't provide numeration, the list should be the basis of numeration. You cannot mix oil with water. No mixing of POV with WP:RS. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot The article 'Maphrian' by George A. Kiraz says: Maphrianate of Tagrit, also known as the Maphrianate of the East. It was established in the 7th cent. in order to give the Miaphysite Syr. Orth. a hierarchy structure in the Persian empire. The first Maphrian (though the title was fixed at an unknown date later) was Marutha of Tagrit, from 628–49, who was consecrated by Patr. Athanasios Gamolo. This fully contradicts the Syriac Orthodox POV version. So that will be added.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You do realise that Kiraz argues the Maphrianate was established in the seventh century is because he follows Bar Hebraeus' history, not Michael the Syrian's history, which is explained in the sentence "Sources disagree on the first to use the title of maphrian as Michael the Syrian's Chronicle gives John IV Saliba, who is believed to have adopted it in c. 1100, whereas Bar Hebraeus' Ecclesiastical History names Marutha of Tikrit as the first". You are simply misunderstanding the context of Kiraz's position as you have not bothered to read anything else whatsoever and thus I will remove the superfluous sentence you added. Mugsalot (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, Kiraz's version is quite clear. Your argument on that is baseless. Kiraz explicitly and doubtlessly states that the Maphrianate was established in the Seventh century. Who was the first to use the title Maphrian is a separate issue. Kiraz makes it clear and states that Marutha of Tikrit was the first incumbent but the title 'Maphrian' was first applied to John IV. Hence there is no ambiguity regarding the source. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, Kiraz argues that the maphrianate was established in the 7th century as he argues Marutha of Tikrit was the first maphrian as he follows Bar Hebraeus' Ecclesiastical History. The introduction does not state the maphrianate was established in the 6th century with the ordination of Ahudemmeh, it states it originates in the church that Ahudemmeh founded. Thus there is no contradiction between what you have added and the first sentence and your addition is superfluous. Mugsalot (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, the words of the source are crystal clear and there is no scope for your misinterpretations. The source unambiguously states that the Maphrianate was established in the seventh century. You are promoting the Syriac Orthodox POV which claims that the Maphrianate is a continuation of the Church of the East. However, Kiraz's version clearly makes it clear that it's not. The question of who is the first or who got the title first is a separate issue as I've already mentioned before. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, please refrain from making accusations of POV or asserting your own interpretation of the validity of Syriac Orthodox beliefs. The issue of the date of the establishment of the maphrianate is identical to the issue of the identity of the first maphrian, but you have mistakenly separated the two assertions, hence why I added the sentence clarifying the difference in scholarly arguments as to who the first maphrian was.

Buidhe, feel free to add any comments or thoughts as I'm not disagreeing with Br Ibrahim john in regard to content, but the presentation of the content as I have no issue with Kiraz or his assertion that Marutha of Tikrit was the first maphrian. Br Ibrahim john seems to have misunderstood the source and refuses to do any other reading on the subject. Mugsalot (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, I haven't accused you of anything. The Syriac Orthodox version that states the Maphrianate is a continuation of the Church of the East is partisan POV. It is not supported by historians. George A. Kiraz is a Syriac Orthodox. However, even he rebukes the POV and unambiguously states that the Maphrianate is established in the seventh century. And don't try to mix this matter with the issue of who's the first incumbent and when the title was applied. These are different issues. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, you have repeatedly accused me of a pro-Syriac Orthodox bias, see your previous reply above for the most recent accusation. This is such a silly disagreement. Kiraz states the maphrianate was established in the 7th century with Marutha of Tikrit as its first maphrian. Other scholars state the maphrianate was established in the 11th century with John IV as its first maphrian. However, the sources agree that the maphrianate succeeded an original miaphysite church that Ahudemmeh had started in the 6th century. There is no contradiction at all. Mugsalot (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No. None of the reliable sources say that the Maphrianate was established in 11th century. Of course, there are sources which say that first Maphrian was John IV. But that doesn't mean the Maphrianate got established at the same date. I've already mentioned that both are two different matters. None of reliable sources consider the Maphrianate as a continuation of the Church of the East. It's because there hasn't been a split in the Church of the East. The Syriac Orthodox version is nothing but partisan POV literally devoid of historical support and hence it's partisan POV. You are repeatedly trying to endorse it. It doesn't matter for me. So I am not accusing you of anything such as partisanship. However I can't agree with your unilateral replacing of reliably sourced content with POV versions and church claims. Kiraz's version is unambiguous in its content. Clearly it states the Maphrianate was established in the seventh century. Hence it will be mentioned in the lead (not as a hidden note). Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, how would you know what reliable sources say when you have evidently only read Kiraz's article? I have not argued the maphrianate was a continuation of the Church of the East, I have provided reliable sources that state that the Syriac Orthodox believed that the maphrianate was the continuation of the Church of the East. How can you say you are not accusing me of partisanship and state that I am endorsing Syriac Orthodox beliefs in the same breath? You have previously accused me of being paid by them. I haven't replaced reliable content, I was the one who first added Kiraz to the article? Mugsalot (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the reliable sources say that the Maphrianate was established in 11th century. If any do say the contrary, it should be also added. Of course, there are some sources which say that first Maphrian was John IV. But that doesn't mean the Maphrianate got established at the same date. I've already mentioned that both are two different matters. None of reliable sources consider the Maphrianate as a continuation of the Church of the East. Kiraz's version is unambiguous in its content. Clearly it states the Maphrianate was established in the seventh century. Hence it will be mentioned in the lead. To add, I would like to request you to do not drag this debate into personal. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2022

@Mugsalot: The information I have added is actually supported by sources. However, the version that you have restored seems to be original research and is a likely violation of WP:NPOV. The sources does not support the numeration. For example,

• in Wilmshurst's list the first incumbent is Ahudemmeh. It does not say anything about a pre-559 existence of the office or about being a continuation of the list of East Syriac Patriarchs.
• Barsoum source possibly does not qualify WP:RS, since the author was a patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
• At the same time, the Barsoum source does not say that Ahudemmeh was the 23rd in the list. It simply says that there were 102 maphriyonos from Thomas to Behnam IV. But that list does not say who else succeeded and preceded Thomas and Behnam IV respectively.
• The content you have restored is also inconsistent to the Barsoum source since the numbering given is 80 for maphriyonos starting from Ahudemmeh upto Behnam IV in your version, while it is actually 81 in the Barsoum source.
• About Abraham I, Barsoum source say that he is also called Abraham II, but the source does not draw Abraham I of Kashkar into the picture.

I think it is better if we just stick to Wilmshurst's list. Logosx127 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)