Talk:Osroene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Osroene Etymology

I forgot to sign in before adding the section on etymology, so I'm just letting everyone know it was my addition.Šarukinu 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article considers Arabs and Arameans as Assyrian a claim totally absurd. Brusk u Trishka 21:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Their was no Arabic language in Northern Mesopotamia in the second century. It is wishful thinking and impossible for this kingdom to be considered arab. Chaldean 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Britannica says it was ruled under numerous Arab dynasties before Islamic conquest. Brusk u Trishka 00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Post it here before you edit the page. Show me your sources PLEASE. Chaldean 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Under various Arab dynasties, it became a centre of reaction against Hellenism and the headquarters of Chaldean Syriac literature and learning. It fell to the Muslims in 638. [1] Brusk u Trishka 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Under various Arab dynasties, it became a centre of reaction against Hellenism and the headquarters of Chaldean Syriac literature and learning. It fell to the Muslims in 638. - When did the Arabs started to control it? After 638? After 300? Osroene was abolished long before the Arab expansion into Mesopotamia. Chaldean 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Arabs were ruling Osroene long time before the Muslim expansion during Parthian period. An Arab sheikh from Osroene helped the Parthians defeat Crassus in 53 BC[2].

Catholic Encyclopedia gives a more clear image of the history of Osroene and it mentions Pr-Islamic Arabs ruling the region. Axtually I'm not intersted in this article; sorry! Brusk u Trishka 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I knowledge that in the classical period Eddesa was the most important concentration of Syriacs. Brusk u Trishka 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some evidence that an Arab sheikh was appointed to govern Osrhoene in Seleucid times and that the Osrhoenian royal family were descended from that line. This seems to have happened in a number of Seleucid provinces, while Adiabene's royal family appears quite Hellenised. — Gareth Hughes 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a compromise can be reached by saying that it was a Syriac-speaking region with Arab rulers. Nevertheless, I have not been able to find neutral sources on the Assyrian character of the kingdom though. By the way aina.com, a partisan assyrian website, is not neutral. I searched books.google and scholar.google and other repositories, but I was not able to locate any Assyrian word in academic documents about Osroene. My own feeling though is that the name should be related to the ancient assyrians, but there is no relaible source confirming this.Heja Helweda 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the province is a hellenized form of the Iranian (male) name Xosrow. That Arab sheikh had an Iranic name and the province has been named after him.

by the way aina is not neutral!). by the way, aina did not write that article, but an respectable Assyriologist did! Chaldean 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Has been published in a scholarly journal? If yes then it OK, if not then it can not reliable.Heja Helweda 21:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a search and you will find an Assyrian identity of Osroene. Exmaples:

" the name of Osroene from Syriac 'Azruina" - The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion by Edward Lipinski [[3]]

Other examples: [[4]] [[5]] Also search by spelling Osroene differently and with Syriac/Syrian. Chaldean 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, its not like this guy is a nobody. He has over 300 of his work be published [[6]] Chaldean 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I say he is not academic? I said his paper that you referred to is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover this source [7] talks about Edessa and says that ancient Assyrians once controlled it, but it does not say that Osroene was Assyrian. There is several centuries between Assyria and Osroene. The second one is also very vague, I could not see where it says that Osoroene was Assyrian.Heja Helweda 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is no. The article in question (Parpola) was not published in any journal, let alone an academic, peer-reviewed one. Check the website of the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies and this will be confirmed. They have their Tables of Contents online so it is easy to check. Ordtoy (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is several centuries between Assyria and Osroene - no their isn't. See Assyria (Persian province) Chaldean 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another interesting paper as well [[8]] - Syriac Literature. Not Arabic. More: "The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene" [[9]] This right here also verifies the language of the kingdom: [[10]] Kingdom being Assyrian descent: [[11]]. "Osrhoene means Assyrian and is only another way of spelling Assyrian" - The Revival of Spiritual Healing The Revival of Spiritual Healing - Page 217 by Barsom J. Kashish - Biography & Autobiography - 2002 [[12]]Chaldean 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica/Arabs

The 1911 Britannica only mentions Arabs in Osroene and there is nothing about Assyrians in its article on Osroene[13]: About 130 B.C. Edessa was occupied by a nomadic Arabic tribe, the Orrhoei (Plin. v. 85; vi. 25, 117, 129), who founded a small state ruled by their chieftains with the title of kings.Heja Helweda 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all the sources I have brought to the table because of one source? Um No. Chaldean 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, occupied can mean Arab rulers were occupying the Syriac speaking people of Osroene. Chaldean

Your source was not published in any academic journal. Moreover, the etymology of the name comes from Orrhoi name of a nomadic Arab tribe. Britannica definitely is more reliable.Heja Helweda 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Source? Did eye skipped the 10 sources I provide that proved the Syriac heritage of the kingdom? Of course they all were published. Wake up. Chaldean 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced material. Your Britannica source does not indicate Arab identity of the kingdom. Your misinterpreting the source once again. Chaldean 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the Pliny's source? According to him, the inhabitants were ethnic Arabs.Heja Helweda 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is ONE source. I have given you tens of source contracting him. Are we going to change Bardaisan ethnicity out of nowhere? You say they might have spoke Syriac but they were still Arabs. This doesn't make any sense. You are an Arab if you use the Arabic language. Chaldean 23:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What if one speaks Aramaic? Is he Aramaean or Assyrian?

Thats like asking if one speaks Farsi, is he a Farsian or Persian? Aramaic was and still to this day is the language of the Assyrian nation. Chaldean 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a cute answer! I think its like asking if one speaks Swedish, is he a Swede or a German.

I am sorry that one source is more reliable than modern nationalist sources. That's like citing Turkish writers that claim Sumer was Turkic!!! Modern sources are acceptable only when they agree with the older ones not the other way around! Definitely Pliny lived close to that period and his knowledge about Osroene is more relaible than other theories by modern writers. Also notice that they did not speak Syriac as a mother tongue, it was used for religious purposes. Just like how north Europeans (like British) for many centuries used Latin but their native tongue was something else.Heja Helweda 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

they did not speak Syriac as a mother tongue - Cite it multiple times. it was used for religious purposes - what on earth are you talking about. Christianity is not like Islam. Chaldean 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Christianity. I suggest to take a look at History of Christianity in Western Europe for a better understanding of the subject. Up to Renaissance, all European catholic nations used Latin for religious ceremonies, and Bible(New Testament) was in Latin/Greek, but after Martin Luther and beginning of Protestantism in early 16th century, Germans and British started to translate Bible into their native tongue. That was a very controversial move at the time and was not endorsed by the Vatican. So up to 16th century, Latin was used in northern Europe for religious prayers,etc. but it was not the mother tongue of Northern Europeans. So using a language for religion does not automatically mean that it is mother tongue.Heja Helweda 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And this relates to Aramaic how :? Chaldean 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is clear: Germans using Latin for religious stuff and Arabs using Aramaic.Heja Helweda 03:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad analogy. Are you insinuating that we are Arabs now or what? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In one word Osroene were Arabs who used Aramaic. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. No sources. Sorry. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All neutal sources back the point that Osroene was Arab. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I still see no sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic background

I have included both Arab and Assyrian in the first paragraph. In fact there is no ancient source about Assyrian character of Osroene. According to Pliny, the inhabitants were ethnic Arabs. So this must be mentioned in the beginning. Moreover the idea of Assyrian background is a modern theory by some contemporary scholars, and is not attested by ancient sources. I think this is fair compromise to include both views (ancient/modern).Heja Helweda 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not presented sources. All you have done is made a lot of statements. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll add a neutality tag to the article. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some references on establishment of Christianity in Osroene. Atabek (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged some text to remove duplicates, will work on it more this week. If there are any inputs, please, discuss them here so as to help make this article better. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "rearrangement" basically removed the mention of Armenia from the lead as well as the crucial role that Armenia played in Osroene's history. I have restored the previous text. Instead of making major changes, please discuss them here first.

There are 1000000 sources stating that Armenia was the first Christian state. 1-2 books stating otherwise cannot be given the same weight. Osroene may have had the first Christian king, but the Armenia was the first to make it its official religion. Please refrain from inaccurate edits, and please respect the first Christian nation.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A nation can be defined in many ways, such as a people. Tourskin (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tigran, there is no need for exaggerations or invented figures such as "1000000 sources" above. This article is about Osroene, which was the kingdom which adopted Christianity in 201 A.D. Several references confirm that, so what's your basis for removal of valid and strong references? To deny Syriac church that they were first Christians, when they were? Atabek (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to request that you provide information which denies that Osroene adopted Christianity by 201 A.D. If you're unable to produce the evidence, the edit with references must be restored, or administrative attention must be brought to their removal. Atabek (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Any one of the 1000000 sources worldwide that state that Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity automatically refutes the claim that Osroene adopted it before Armenia. The king of Osroene became Christian. That doesn't mean the kingdom itself become one.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, the King is the soveriegn and decides the state religion. Tourskin (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The 100,000 sources you speak of is meaningless. Having an army of incorrect articles does not mean one is right. There reason why you think there is so much support out there for Armenia is because no one has even heard of Osroene. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, your full revert was not all assessed, while it being the first Christian state can be debated, the rest, like cutting the lead was a bad edit. First, the main section of the article being called History is senseless, it is a historical state of course it is about history. Atabek has unjustifiably cut the lead of most of the information contained there. Atabek's goal actually was to find a reason to remove Armenia from that same lead, and in the process removed information under the pretext of redundancy, which obviously is illogical as the lead is supposed to give an overall picture of the subject covered. Every lead can be under this pretext sliced or removed all together.

As for the first Christian state Armenia is the first Christian State and first Christian nation, while it could be debated that Osroene was the first Christian state. Osroene has no continuity, that's the distinction. Furthermore, the information of official adoptation is an opinion with not much substantiation, there is no documentation that Osroene had an official religion. An official implemented Christianity didn't really appear until the fourth century. And it did first in Armenia. [14] But the concept of Christianity as official religion pretty much spread in the fourth century where many nations will officially declare being Christian. There is probably a good way to word this to make it less controversial, but Atabek's edit for the most part was bad. VartanM (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on all points then. Tourskin (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No you don't stand corrected because VartanM is substantiating his POV by original research and only one source [15] which stands against multiplicity of sources on that page. How can you dispute the dates, when Armenian church history starts in 301A.D. and Syriac church existed since 100s. How can Armenia be the "first Christian state", when Abgar IX, the king of Osroene, accepted Christianity by 200, while Gregory the Illuminator was born (!) in 257 A.D. and king Tiridates III of Armenia whom he converted ruled between 286 and 330A.D.? Atabek (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added another reference that confirms even the predecessor of Abgar IX -- Abgar V, who was converted to Christianity by Addai, one of the 72 disciples. Atabek (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Abgar legend is not factual it is a legend. For exemple: "There is therefore no justification for postulating, on the basis of the Abgar legend, a Christian King Abgar, whether Abgar V or Abgar VIII the Great (177-212).." (pg 496) [16]. Second just do a google book for Abgar legend. [17] Note it is a legend. Also on Osroene, Atabek is putting non-scholarly sources without bringing the actual quotes and references. First thing that should be ascertained is the 1905 source. [18] Note on pg 58. There is nothing about a Christian state, it talks about Osroene being under the Roman empire. The King who allegedly converted to Christianity. The article states: "One of its kings, Abgar Bar Manu, does seem to have been converted to Christianity" . Atabek's book is from 1905! And it says "Does seem", being uncertain. But later research as in the first book invalidates him. The other book Atabek brought to justify a Christian state:"All the Apostles of the Bible. Zondervan... " First of all, just any book can not be quoted in Wikipedia. For something such as this we can't use a book for a general audience. Also pg 260 is not available via google books. And the book seems to be a hagiographic story of saints rather than a criticial history book. This should place Atabek within the administrators radar.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And to add more on what Eupator has written. Even if some of it was true, there is a distinction between the religion of the King or Emperor, and the official religion of the people (nation, state or whatever), like I said above. Here another source making the distinction: Armenia was the first country which embraced Christianity as the religion of the king, the nobles, and the people. [19] p. 318. The concept of official Christian religion for an empire or a nation didn't appear until the fourth century.VartanM (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's of course true. I'm not opposed to any mention of speculation regarding Osroene's Christian status per see. I just think we should use a source that is not intended for a general audience but a peer reviewed journal or book written by a scholar who specializes in this specific topic.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Brittanica article clearly puts this question to rest:"...in early Christian times, a popular myth that Jesus had an exchange of letters with King Abgar V Ukkama of Osroene, whose capital was Edessa, a Mesopotamian city on the northern fringe of the Syrian plateau. According to the legend, the king, afflicted with leprosy, had heard of Jesus' miracles and wrote to Jesus acknowledging his divine mission, asking to be cured, and inviting him to come to..."[www.britannica.com/eb/topic-1212/Abgar-legend]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The legend was regarding King Abgar V Ukama, however, the acceptance of Christianity by King Abgar IX in early 200s is a fact affirmed by the references brought. And there is no need to "rewrite" article removing large body of references in the article again and again. Gregory the Illuminator was born in 257 A.D., 57 years after Abgar IX's acceptance of Christianity. So I am not sure what this POV is supposed to lead to, but the truth is there already in many useful references. Atabek (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And Eupator, the reference to Adolph von Harrack is available here as well as here, both in full text, and in second case is exactly the reference that I used from Google Books. So now that I brought two full-text PDF sources for you, I think it would be appropriate for you to apologize for assuming bad faith with your "This should place Atabek within the administrators radar" and actually restore the edits that you just removed. Else, I will seek administrator, since I am "under radar", to review your disruption. Atabek (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are doing exactly what you did on the Church of Kish article or elsewhere. The legend is not only about Jesus letter, but the conversion itself, as it was thought the person who is claimed to have converted the king, it was also through him the letters were exchanged. Steven K. Ross writes: There is, then, no compelling reason to believe that royal Edessa was ever 'officially' Christian, or even that Christians were in the majority there before the fourth century.' About Abgar VIII, it can only be said that he tolerated the new religion. [20] The work also says that there is no coin, nothing from the area attesting to it. While in Armenia there were coins with Christian symbols on them.

The Abgar legend has been interpreted many times. The historical kernel within the story is believed to be that Christianity was adopted as the state religion under King Abgar VIII the Great (177-212); this was then conflated with the historically unsubstantiated Abgar V (13-50). That Abgar VIII was the first Christian king of Edessa cannot be verified. This missionary account is definitly historical fiction. Easebius of Caesarea provided the first version of this story around 303 or 312; before, it was unknown. The Chronicle of Edessa, a reliable source, says nothing about an apostle Addai, the correspondance with Jesus, or Abgar's conversion. [21]

The Vatican has the most impressive libraries on Christian manuscripts and scriptures and they officially recognize Armenia as the first Christian nation. Popes years after years have made remarks about this. [22]

Besides, the claim of state for the period where the place was under Roman/Parthian control does not make much sense, the king was a Vassal king of Parthians afteral, so even there, it being more of a province than a state by itself should suffice to dismiss the claim of first Christian State. And you having found the work itself on the internet does not address Eupator's reply. VartanM (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, you are questioning the legend about Abgar V, we are talking about Abgar VIII (the Great, or sometimes called Abgar IX), who did adopt Christianity and traveled to Rome. There is no reference that you can bring denying that fact so far. And as Tourskin indicated, conversion of King, just like in case of Armenia, is essentially considered the conversion of state. In fact, even before Abgar VIII becoming Christian, Osroene was predominantly Christian already. Again this was 100 years before similar events in Armenia, so I am not quite sure what's your objective here. Atabek (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously not reading what I am writing or either don't know what you are talking about. Go back and reread the references I have provided, which by quality are clearly above those you have provided. Mine were from historians, yours were mostly religious works or mostly outdated. Britannica and all peer reviewed credible reference publications I have checked so far shed doubts about what you are pushing here. Even the sources which are used in our side of Wikipedia doubt it. Iranica: com/newsite/ articles/ v1f2/v1f2a146. html It cannot be proved that Abgar the Great adopted Christianity; but his friend Bardaisáan was a heterodox Christian, and there was a church at Edessa in 201.

The context of the legend is highlighted here, so as Segal's Edessa here and here

The claim of first Christian State has been dismissed long ago, the Archaeological Institute of America in 1948 publication of Archaeology (p.151) claimed: Recent study has shown the Abgar legend to be no more than a pious fraud, ...

Lapham even goes further by writing: Without wishing to anticipate that discussion, however, we might just observe here that while we may want to agree with the majority of scholars that the legend, in its present form, bears all the hallmarks of later invention, designed to give apostolic origins to the Edessan Church, ... [23]. G. J. Reinink and Alexander Cornelis relate to the evolution of the versions with the claim of conversion only appearing much later (in 1234 actually), but interestingly enough, your pushing of this version is quite ironic as the same who were proponent of what you are pushing claim that the Abgarid kings to be of Armenian descent. Part of this also covered in G. J. Reinink and Alexander Cornelis work which is partly accessible thru google book. [24]

While Ute Possekel gives a prior date like several others, the date he provides is not earlier than the fourth century. In the fourth century, the Abgar legend originated in Edessa to substantiate the claim of an apostolic foundation of the church of Edessa. [25]

The claim is based on a legend, they switched kings later to fit the dates, but most reject any official conversion and nearly all later published works doubt it or at least admit it that it can not be documented. Your claim of a conversion of a state considering the skepticism of historians amount to minority position pushing. As for your claim that Osroene was predominantly Christian again shows that either you do not even read what I write or quote, or the most logical explanation by now, is that you refuse to even consider what others write. VartanM (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the references provided on the page already confirm that Abgarids were of Arab, Aramaic some other claim Jewish (in either case Semitic) origin, so they could not have been Armenian descent. There is a book reference on Abgars available on Google Books page 91, the book was published in 2000. Read entire page 91, to see how and when Abgar VIII (not V who was in the legend), accepted Christianity and visited Rome. And by the way, the story of Gregory the Illuminator converting king Tiridates III of Armenia is also based on a legend. So I don't see why you question one legend but not the other. In any case, Abgar VIII case is not based on legend, it's a historical fact confirmed by references. Atabek (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You just again misrepresented what an author is saying. Check p. 95 third paragraph, he makes it clear that he does not know if it is true. Tiridates III conversion is confirmed by foreign reports of the time, by the coins of the Kingdom which included Christian symbols. I have no intention continuing with this further. I will just sit and watch how you are given carte blanche to continue disrupting. VartanM (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is disruptive in researching references and incorporating them into articles, exactly as reflected in books. So assume good faith. The conversion of Edessa confirmed by many references already provided, in fact, since you referred to page 95 of the reference I provided above, here is the quote from that same page 95: "Thus, it is Abgar the Great who lays claim to being the world's first Christian monarch and Edessa the first Christian state. More than anything else, a major precedent had been set for the conversion of Rome itself". Moreover, I guess I don't have to prove that Syriac Orthodox Church was one of the first Churches in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, set by Apostle St. Peter in 34 A.D. Of course, Armenian Church was also one of the oldest Churches, but the facts of Osroene and its conversion under Abgars are undeniable some 100 years prior to Armenia. By the way, the main reference provided to Armenia being the first Christian state at Armenian Apostolic Church article comes from Richard Hovanissian, thus it's obviously a non-neutral POV.

The main point being misinterpreted by you, I guess, is that it's actually irrelevant in context of Osroene, whether Armenia claimed to be first Christian state or not. Yes, Osroene was first, so what? How does that add or take away weight on any other Armenia-related topic? I don't see the point for your argument or grievances emanating in this regard. Atabek (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You do see what is disruptive in your edits, page 95 makes it clear that it can not be affirmed if it is true or not. Lay claims are a watered down wording which makes of the statement no more than claims. Your claims of undeniability are OR and have been shown to be your pursuit to push your POV and your deliberate non-consideration of the materials others have provide. Here are some of the materials, on Armenia, and unlike the few you can find from your side, which even your sources (the recent ones) don't provide as established. The wordings are stronger, the materials more notable and by their numbers on the several times more than you could ever provide.

About AD 300, Tiridates III adopted Christianity as the religion of his kingdom, making Armenia the first Christian state. Christianization led to the ... Academic American Encyclopedia, Grolier Incorporated - Reference - 1986 – p. 172

301 Armenia first Christian nation ... Great Religions of the World, National Geographic Book Service, p. 414

... and Armenia, too, would become a Christian state at about the same time (and perhaps before the Edict of Milan, thus becoming the first Christian state) ... Zoroastrianism in Armenia by James R. Russell (1987), p. 114

... for having established the first Christian state belongs to the Armenians., The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica(ed.), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago University of, Encyclopaedia Britannica Staff (1974) p. 139

This makes Armenia the first country to have recognised Christianity ... The Christian Orient, British Library, p. 59

In the fourth century, Armenia became the first Christian state ... Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East by Reeva S. Simon, Philip Mattar, Richard W. Bulliet - Middle East – 1996 p. 1115

Almost certainly, Armenia was the first state anywhere to establish Christianity as an official faith, which it did around the year 300. ... The Next Christendom The Coming of Global Christianity, Philip Jenkins (2002) p. 18

Armenia thus became the world's first Christian nation, a major breakthrough for those early believers, and a source of continuing pride to Armenians today. ... Gale Encyclopedia of Multicultural America by Rudolph J. Vecoli, Judy Galens, Anna Jean Sheets, Robyn V. Young, 1995

Armenia was the first nation w hich embraced Christianity, ... History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon - History - 2004 p. 287

Since I will be wasting space here, I will only post the links for the rest. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. - Fedayee (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the crucial role of Armenia in the lead should not be removed.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter, the reference are obviously wrong because there are many other, actually expert, references citing Osroene as the first Christian state. And the fact is that Osroene was the first Christian kingdom because its kings adopted Christianity prior to Armenia. Now, there is one way out of deadlock is to take out your POV out of this article to Armenia-related articles, rather than disputing the references related to Osroene. Atabek (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It does matter. You're arguing against something which is irrefutable; the first thing historians ever do mention about Armenia is that it was the first state to adopt Christianity. Your hopeless crusade arguing otherwise reeks of malfeasance on your part. In any case, they just decisively debunked your pathetic attempts to pass off this legend as a fact. Now please, stop disrupting and distorting this article with your pseudohistory and go play around on the Wikipedia sandbox or edit the grammar of some other articles. It's been established by now that you don't a give hoot about what's true and what's false when it comes to these articles. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What does all that have to do with Osroene article. I would imagine this information, OR and POV would be relevant in Armenia article not here. And I am not quite clear why multitude of other references, not specifically related to Christianity, but diretly related to Osroene as well as general grammar improvements are being reverted by TigranTheGreat, inserting Armenian POV, without any justification. What does this topic have to do with Armenia?I don't think the one sentence justification he provided above saying: "the crucial role of Armenia in the lead should not be removed", are sufficient for major revert that he has done, so he technically violated his parole.

MarshallBagramyan, please, assume good faith. I don't believe your comment: "Now please, stop disrupting and distorting this article with your pseudohistory and go play around on the Wikipedia sandbox or edit the grammar of some other articles" is quite in line with being civil or in good faith, not mentioning your lack of authority to make such proposals. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with Armenia with A)it being a vassal of the Armenian Empire and B)you trying to insert the false and discredited notion that Osroene predated Armenia in becoming the first state to adopt Christianity.

Atabek, are you still under the illusion that we are to maintain good faith in the face of your dishonest, provocative and farcical edits? You have stopped at nothing to belittle Armenia's history, whether in being the Armenian Genocide or Karabakh or Osroene, so contain your astonishment a tad bit and understand that is you who is under the burden of maintaining civility and good faith. Tigran just showed you 25 sources to disprove your spurious claims and yet you waived them without so much as considering the immense imbalance it places against your weakly supported claims. I'm done arguing here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You're not helping the Assyrian argument for being the first Christian nation. You clearly have a plain anti-Armenian agenda and have only disputed their historical claims. Assyrians do not deny the obvious fact that Armenian became Christian in c300 AD. We argue that because our King became Christian first, so too did the state. The Head of state dictates the state religion. It does not matter if this state is a vassal state or not. The Assyrian people are a nation, whether they a country or not or a vassal state or not is not a valid argument however. Tourskin (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, like I wrote above, this could be debated and we can discuss about it. You are a good faith editor and we can come up with consensus wordings. The Edessa Church is probably the first church, in the form that it was not a temple converted to follow Christian rituals, but was newly constructed with Christian symbols etc. Atabek's POV pushing is in the line to make the Church of Kish the first Church. [50] If you read this POV pushing article, you will see it is claimed to have been build in the first century. You will see the article is sources from the Russian Orthodox eparcy and Bishop from Baku (Azerbaijan), and is not recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. The other source is from Azerbaijan International.

The Church of Kish Armenian scriptures were erased, and the Georgian altar was replaced to pass it as a Caucasian Albanian Church and being by the date the earliest Church predating Edessa. The claim of course is a fabrication, a fringe theory maintained by some Azerbaijani intellectuals and pushed by users like Atabek on Wikipedia.

The aim is to make the Church of Kish the first Christian Church, and give emphasis on the Caucasian Albanians, which the Azerbaijani's consider as their partly ancestors. Then to relay the claim of first Christian nation to Osroene rather than Armenia. Atabek is engaged in a professional historical revisionism, his edits are bad faithed. I am aware that the Assyrian people are a nation, they were one of the first Christian communities, Armenians themselves when converted used Syriac as language for the prayers. It was Syriac/Aramaic which was used by the first Christians during those years. The distinction here reside with nation represented by the State. Assyrians were not only associated with Osroene, while Armenians were at that time associated with Armenia itself. Making of Armenia[ns] as the first official Christian States. Given the uses of Syriac/Aramaic and the Eddessa Church, I don't think the Assyrians shy away, actually the relation of Armenians and Assyrians was more complementary than anything else. Anyway, we could discuss this either in your talkpage or mine, as the noise level due to Atabek's disruptions is high here. Regards. VartanM (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, there are many edits with Armenian POV pushing on a number of topics that I disagree with. This does not establish a reason for me to personally attack you or other contributors, calling them immature or dishonest as you and VartanM do. Tigran showing 25 sources with POV based on Armenian sources does not disprove another 25 sources presented from neutral sources citing Osroene as a first Christian kingdom. And there was no such thing as "Armenian Empire", except the expansion of Kingdom of Armenia during the reign of Tigranes the Great (from 83 BCE to 69 BCE), that's the period when Osroene was under Armenian domination, and that was 69 years BEFORE the birth of Jesus. When it accepted Christianity under Abgar the Great in 201 AD, Osroene was an independent kingdom which later fell under Roman Empire. The facts are there, Armenia accepted in 301 A.D., Osroene in 201 A.D., so which source calls which first is a matter for mathematicians and scholars. Our part is only to provide sources. Atabek (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am really disappointed how you guys have made this the latest battleground for Armenian-Azeri wiki conflict. Can we first all agree to have concent from everyone before making drastic edits to the page and starting on a revert war again? Chaldean (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I second thart motion. VartanM, thanks for the compliments. However, I am unable to makeany serious effort here for discussion as I am on wikibreak due to exams. Chaldean can speak on my behalf. Tourskin (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, that request should be rather addressed to VartanM, TigranTheGreat and few others. They have all appeared here, wikistalking me, after I started editing Osroene article and contributing, NOTE, neutral sources, improving grammar, and haven't removed but actually added more references to Armenian connection as well. As I said before, I see the attempt by VartanM, TigranTheGreat or some anon socks reverting to their versions to stalk me in articles and prevent me from contributing references from various sources to articles absolutely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan as simply unacceptable and disruptive. Atabek (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Chaldean's request is actually directed against you. Neither I or Vartan have made unilateral changes without discussions. You came in, failed to consult with anyone, and made sweeping changes. Namely, you completely removed mention of Armenia from the lead (despite Armenia's pivotal role in the history of this kingdom). And you decided to make it clear that Armenia is somehow no longer the first Christian state. Such sweeping changes require consultation. You shouldn't be surprised that you were reverted. You should be surprised you weren't reverted sooner.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tigran, I prefer to carry out discussion on substance rather than on claims which have nothing to do with a subject. Armenia's pivotal role for the period of 30-40 years under Tigran the Great and some 50-100 years BEFORE the birth of Jesus, has no relevance to the subject you're disputing. There are claims that Armenia was first Christian state (mostly emanating from Armenian sources, I may add), and that's fine. There are other claims from mostly independent and unbiased sources that Osroene/Edessa was the first Christian state. I think you should spend your time presenting your view and references in Armenia-related references, and it's up to reader to make decision as to which one was first. There is no point of purging out some references in favor of one POV, as that's simply not neutral.

I would like also to ask Eupator to provide some substance to his arguments before inserting POV tag. It should be kept for now, until he comes up with a valid REASON to remove many existing references. Atabek (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Endless OR by Atabek

On other article 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) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Abgar VIII (the Great) also known as Abgar IX accepted Christianity by 201 A.D. The legend was about Abgar V, who was claimed to be converted by Thaddeus of Edessa. Abgar VIII could not have been converted by Thaddeus in 201, and Thaddeus (Addai) was a Christ disciple.

Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page. But let me remind you that Gregory Illuminator's conversion of Tiridates III is based on legend as well, so I am not sure what gives you confidence to challenge scholarly references and choose one legend over the other. Please, assume good faith and discuss your edits in future. Atabek (talk) 18:28, 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) 01:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid the POV-pushing reverts by Atabek. Whether Abgar of 1st c AD is Armenian or Syriac, or whether he has anything to do with Abgar 8th, is matter of dispute and mythology. The undisputed fact is that Armenia was the first Christian state.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a 3rd point of view can be used. Chaldean (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. I still fail to see why Tigran is pushing Armenian POV, when Abgar had nothing to do with Armenia. Tiridates acceptance of Christianity in Armenia was also a legend, so there is no reason why one legend is more important than the other, while several authors confirm the fact of Abgar VIII's acceptance of Christianity by 201. I am ready to present more references to my edit, than dozens already presented in my version. But the information is already out, and it won't be possible to hide facts by historical fabrications, POV pushing/edit warring this time. Atabek (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all would like to know why you keep pushing pro-Azeri POV, and continuing your disruptive behavior despite numerous sources which have debunked you. We would like to know why you fail to understand that a king's conversion doesn't mean the state's conversion (e.g. emperor Constantine), that the overwhelming majority of sources state that Armenia was the first Christian state, and that you will not get what you want just by pushing your POV.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)