Talk:Abgar V

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abgar V article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Saints Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Syriac Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

(Moved from Doug Weller's talk page)

After investigating NearEast's two sources that appears reliable and not outdated for the Abgar being "Parthian Arsacid king of Armenia" claim, this is what I found really troubling; in his sources "Treasures from the Ark: 1700 Years of Armenian Christian Art p. 224", and "Rome in the East - Warwick Ball" is the following:

• '"Movses Khorenatsi in his history of the Armenians regards Abgar as king of Armenia and Edessa." (accessible source[1])
• "At this time, Osrhoene was still a part of Armenia, but after Abgar I's death the kingdom of Edessa (called Armenia by Moses Khorenats'i) was divided into two, perhaps as a result of Armenia's defeat"' (Here the referenced page[2])

There's no mention of any ethnic background ascribed to Abgar or the royal family of Edessa in both sources, only geographical designations which the editor added his own interpretation of the sources. Two remaining sources of the claim are left, but they were written in the 19th century, thus outdated. I truly have my doubts on the book of the bee source that call Abgar V Aramaean, unfortunately I couldn't find accessible source, perhaps you could help @Kansas Bear:? --- Nabataeus (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for Abgar VIII calling him the "Aramean philosopher". --The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, page 162. So far, nothing on Abgar V. All statement(s) concerning ethnicity should not be in the lead and should be moved to the body of the article. Also, we should move this discussion to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found that also when I was assessing NearEast's sources. I removed the ethnicities from the lead to the body of the article as you said(this version [3]) but I was reverted.Nabataeus (talk)05:10, 4 July 2018‎

I did find this,

---

Regarding Abgar being referred to as Armenian, this is evident in the many sources I have added. Regarding whether he is referred to as Parthian, the "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature Vol. 1" dated 1885 only reiterates what Moses was stating. There are further volumes of this publication, by the same author, it is a valid source. This is what it states,

"Moses of Chorene traces his descent (Abgar Ucomo "The Black") from the Parthian King Arsaces."

^[1] Volume 2 of The Asiatic Journal states,

"The letter purports to be written by "Abgar, toparch of Edessa," in Syria. In his history, he is described as King of Lower Armenia, of which Nisbis was the capital: Edessa was included in his dominions."

^[2] Regarding the Book of the Bee, this is what the entire paragraph states,

"Touching the writing which was written in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and set over Christ's head, there was no Aramean written upon the tablet, for the Arameans or Syrians had no part in (The shedding of) Christ's blood, but only the Greeks and Hebrews and Romans; Herod the Greek and caiaphas the Hebrew and Pilate the Roman. Hence when Abgar the Aramean king of Mesopotamia heard (of it), he was wroth against the Hebrews and sought to destroy them."

This Abgar, in later paragraphs is referred to as the King who received the word of the Disciple Addai (Thaddeus), and not Abgar VIII. NearEast (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation, Muriel Debié, Church History and Religious Culture,Vol. 89, No. 1/3, Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East (2009), page 100; "Its seems clear that the ethnic origins of the Abgarid dynasty played no part in Syrian "ethnogenesis". The royal family were thought to have been of Arab descent, but Jacob of Edessa(and consequently Michael the Great and the Chronicle of the year 1234) adds that the people who had settled in Edessa before its Macedonian refoundation were of Armenian stock. As Lucas Van Rompay concludes "as far as the ethnic descent of the Abgarid kings is concerned, we cannot ascertain whether they were Arabs(as some of the names may indicate), Aramean, Parthian, or Armenian." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been of various stock indeed, mostly Arabised according to Warwick Ball. We could reflect what reliable sources state or to save the trouble and avoid mentioning his ethnicity. Nabataeus (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could simply show each sourced ethnicity and then have what Lucas Van Rompay states, "we cannot ascertain whether they were Arabs, Aramean, Parthian, or Armenian." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we have a problem, the sources of NearEast two of them in fact are his personal analysis and interpretation and the other two as you said are outdated. Only the book of the bee is left which I couldn't assess at the moment, and considering the above examples I am fairly suspicious for legitimate reasons. Nabataeus (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an invite on both NearEast and Farawahar's talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The The book of the bee, Ernest A. Wallis Budge, page 99, but outdated(1886). --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nothing is "of my own personal analysis and interpretation", and the other two aren't outdated as I've reiterated in the first reply above. The sources only reference Moses of Chorene, and there are newer volumes and editions of that source. NearEast (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Kansas Bear: Yes it appears so. After further digging on Abgar V and the Abgarids this what I should highlight: Oxford, Cambridge, Britannica, and Iranica designate the Abgarids as an Arab dynasty. Iranica especially touch both the divergence in names and to some extent the Armenian writers perspective, and to quote:

• "The term "Abgar dynasty" is justified by the frequency of the name Abgar among the kings and by the special importance of the Abgar of the first and second centuries A.D. Armenian writers claim the rulers of Edessa as the Armenian successors of Abgar, son Arsam who transferred his capital to Edessa from Metsbin. There is little onomastic support for this theory. Some of the names are Iranian, others Arab (including Abgar itself; Moses of Xorene's Armenian etymology as awagayr, "great man", is improbable). But most striking are the names terminating in -u; theses are undoubtedly Nabatean. Many of the dynasty were therefore ethnically Arab, speaking a form of Aramaic."

Considering Abgar being Arabic name, the statement of Irfan Shahid is noteworthy: "In this period, Arabic names could have been assumed only by Arabs, unlike the Islamic period when, with the prestige of Arabic names, non-Arabs assumed such Arabic- (and Islamic-) sounding names that it is impossible to argue from the assumption of an Arabic name to the Arab nationality or origin of its holder."

However I propose we use Iranica in the body of the article for the opposite claim, in the lines of: Armenian writers claim that the rulers of Edessa as the Armenian successor of Abgar, however there's little onomastic support for this theory. The dynasty had Iranian, Armenian, and Arab names. And judging by the terminating in -u which is undoubtedly Nabatean, many of the dynasty were therefore ethnically Arab. Unless @NearEast: could share non-outdated sources. Nabataeus (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear NearEast and Farawahar's perspective on this issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already pinged NearEast, plus your notification. We have clear WP:OR and WP:AGE MATTERS but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt to provide reliable sources for his argument without projecting his personal analysis into the article. As for Farawahar she have this tendency to stay inactive for week then rise from the dead when I am in dispute, it doesn't matter if my dispute with the user is for legitimate reasons or not, literally WP:HOUND. It is frustrating and annoying If she continued I will take certain user's advice and report her to the admins. Nabataeus (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, what I posted on Doug Weller's talk page,

• "The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, page 162."

Is about Bardaisan not Abgar VIII. I must have been getting tired last night. Sorry about that. Ugh. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Iranica only speculates a possible Arab origin. Iranica is another encyclopedia, if that information was added to Wikipedia in and of it self it would be Original Research. There is nothing wrong with the current edition, and remains valid. NearEast (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Iranica only speculates a possible Arab origin. Iranica is another encyclopedia, if that information was added to Wikipedia in and of it self it would be Original Research."

Wrong.

• Per Iranica, "Many of the dynasty were therefore ethnically Arab, speaking a form of Aramaic (like the rulers of Hatra, Singara, and Mesene at this time)."

Clearly what you deem as Wikipedia:OR is not original research.

• "There is nothing wrong with the current edition, and remains valid."

Actually, that is what we are here to discuss. The ethnicity of Abgar does not belong in the lead and should be in the body of the article and judging from Lucas Van Rompay's statement, "we cannot ascertain whether they were Arabs, Aramean, Parthian, or Armenian.", there is no reason for using outdated 19th century sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also please keep your posts in one area and not split up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica concludes that Abgar is Arabic based on the following, "But most striking are the names terminating in -u; these are undoubtedly Nabatean. Many of the dynasty were therefore ethnically Arab, speaking a form of Aramaic (like the rulers of Hatra, Singara, and Mesene at this time)." There is no supporting source for that claim on Iranica.

Overall, the information should be added to the Life section. If anyone thinks otherwise let me know here. NearEast (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica is written by handful of prominent historians who assess primary sources and the current available data, it is not in any way or form edited by inexperienced online users. Your opinion doesn't matter, neither mine. You've done exactly the same with minor rewording on the Cambridge ancient history statement, you altered it from the original remark stated by the author (The Abgarids are of Arab origin) to "Arabic is one of the supposed origin of the dynasty".

Other than that, your three sources are 19th century outdated materials and ought to be removed. The other two are not outdated as you said indeed, however when accessing the referenced page of both sources "Treasures from the Ark: 1700 Years of Armenian Christian Art p. 224", and "Rome in the East - Warwick Ball" this is what appears:

• "Movses Khorenatsi in his history of the Armenians regards Abgar as king of Armenia and Edessa." (accessible source[4])
• "At this time, Osrhoene was still a part of Armenia, but after Abgar I's death the kingdom of Edessa (called Armenia by Moses Khorenats'i) was divided into two, perhaps as a result of Armenia's defeat" (Here the referenced page[5])

Where does it state that Abgar was of "Parthian Arsacid origin"? Nabataeus (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

That is what Moses of Chorene states, the source isn't outdated. That was volume one of many volumes, that publication is still relevant in many succeeding volumes. This is what I stated above... There are modern reprints, with new editors under many ISBNs, for example: 978-1376812176

"Regarding Abgar being referred to as Armenian, this is evident in the many sources I have added. Regarding whether he is referred to as Parthian, the "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature Vol. 1" dated 1885 only reiterates what Moses was stating. There are further volumes of this publication, by the same author, it is a valid source. This is what it states,

"Moses of Chorene traces his descent (Abgar Ucomo "The Black") from the Parthian King Arsaces."

Regarding why it is "supposed" I affirmed that on my Talk page. (Regarding Cambridge Ancient History) ::It's that the claim itself isn't corroborated. That statement alone cannot be interpreted any other way, it would be deceptive, especially when there is no page number specified. There is no inherent authority in a claim, and without any context as to how that conclusion was claimed, it can only be referred to as "supposed". Read Iranica, look for references, and there are none for that particular claim. Even at the academic level (in the context of Iranica), the understanding that Abgar is arabic is corroborated as possible in name alone. There is no definitive substantiation for that claim, no evidence that directly corroborates Abgar as Arabic, so it must be stated as "supposed". It's a speculation even in the context of the source. NearEast (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Even at the academic level (in the context of Iranica), the understanding that Abgar is arabic is corroborated as possible in name alone. There is no definitive substantiation for that claim, no evidence that directly corroborates Abgar as Arabic, so it must be stated as "supposed"."

First off you have not proven that. Only Iranica makes mention concerning their names and then that is the statement made by an academic. Your interpretation is invalid.

Second, if you are going to make statements like, "There is no definitive substantiation for that claim[Arab ethnicity]..", I would suggest doing better research.

• Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt,Page 383 , David Frankfurter - 1998;"Edessa, the principal holy city of Oriens Christianus for the Semites of the region, owes its emergence as such to the Arab dynasty of the Abgarids."
• Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs, page 47, Irfan Shahid - 1984, "But what was not so ephemeral and insignificant was the contribution of a provincial dynasty, that of the Arab Abgarids of Edessa."
• The Persian Presence in the Islamic World - Page 19, Richard G. Hovannisian, ‎Georges Sabagh - 1998, [Edessa]It was ruled from 32 BCE to 242 CE by the Arab Abgar dynasty...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

You can add those sources to accompany the Arab reference, but you must understand that even academically it is officially a hypothesis. I have changed the wording of the sentence to this,

"Arabic, is hypothesized as a possible etymological origin for the Abgarid dynasty."

The Parthian Armenian and the Aramean reference are both valid, and remain. NearEast (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This what I found on Moses of chorene claim:

• Moses' use of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (EH) is somewhat more complex. Instead of a straightforward use of a historical source for background information or to add a picturesque detail, Moses instead intertwines fact and fiction. Eusebius bears witness that in the Edessene archives are to be found all the acts of the early Armenian kings; these had been transferred from Nisibis and Sinope. This is entirely Moses' own invention based on the reference in EH I 13 to the archives in Edessa from which Eusebius claims to have taken the story of Abgar's correspondence with Jesus. Since Moses has made Abgar an Armenian king, it was not difficult for him to push the fraud a little further and claim that the archives contained Armenian material. ([6])

Therefore it should be contextualized as Moses own invention. And oh NearEast, you literally didn't change the formation, you just put words in the ancient Cambridge history mouth, you clearly didn't read WP:OR. It is not how it is done, you can't manipulate the source statement to downplay its assertion.

@Kansas Bear:, notice Tacitus claim that Abgar V was king of the Arabs, NearEast provided a source that deals with 1 to 6 Tacitus annals, and questions the authenticity of Laurentianus Mediceus, per the source "The text of Annals 1-6 is preserved in one ms. only, Laurentianus Mediceus plut. 68.1 (= M), written probably at Fulda in the mid-ninth century. It contains corrections by the original scribe and by a later medieval hand..." Which Abgar V wasn't from those parts, but it didn't stop NearEast from rendering it as pseudo-Tacitus. If that is not original research I am not sure which is. Nabataeus (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Parthian Armenian and the Aramean reference are both valid, and remain."

Unless NearEast can provide modern sources indicating Aramean ethnicity then those outdated sources will not be used. Per, Wikipedia:AGEMATTERS, "Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." I have found no modern sources to support the Aramean ethnicities.

As for Armenian, we can cite R. Thomson's statement of Moses' inventing Abgar's ethnicity. Hovanissian has made a similar statement;

• Armenian Van/Vaspurakan - Page 68, Richard G. Hovannisian - 2000 - "Movses Khorenatsi, however, had made Abgar of Edessa an Armenian king and identified his entourage in the traditional story as Armenian nobles."

As for Arab ethnicity, unless the word "hypothetical" is stated by the academic source, we should not make that statement. We already have a journal source with Lucas Van Rompay's statement regarding any ethnicity attributed to the Abgarid dynasty.

So should we give NearEast a few days to find a modern source for Aramean, then move forward? Thoughts Nabataeus?--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Those sources are valid because they are the original texts of the mentioned authors, the second one is recent. Also, the reason why it is a hypothesis, is because it is an comparison of the possible etymological origin of Abgar. You need to understand the context of the claim as well, regarding Iranica and Cambridge Ancient History, there are no pages cited that corroborate the claim, so therefore within the context of the page number, it stands as "supposed" and "hypothesized". Per the verifiability policy, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." Also previously, [[WP:OR] regarding the Cambridge Ancient History, in corroborating "SHULITA D'ARB" instead of supporting evidence from Cambridge Ancient History or Iranica itself. The Aramean references are valid, one is a translated version of the author himself, the other is a translation of the homily of the author himself. Stop entertaining bias and removing Aramean, Armenian, or Parthian, these sources are valid. NearEast (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kansas Bear, sorry for the delay responding and thank you for inviting me to this thread. I reverted Nabataeus because he removed a significant amount of content from the article and was engaged in an edit war (his usual strategy). I did this in order to fuel the discussion on the talk page and apparently this worked. I agree with removing the ethnicity of this king from the lead of the article since it’s quite disputed. Here is a source stating that Abgar V was “definitely” the son of the Parthian king Phraates IV and goes even further by identifying him with Phraates V (son of Phraates IV): [7]. @Nabataeus::it’s quite amusing that an editor like you, who goes all around removing “unsourced Iranian ethnicities” is threatening me with a report. If this is what you want, then don’t hesitate anymore, go ahead and report me. Moreover, i would like to underline that i don’t remember the last time Nabataeus removed an “unsourced Arab ethnicity” while he zealously removes other (and especially Iranian) ethinicities as much as possible, laughable. Also Nabataeus, For your information, Wikipedia has no deadline and the fact that i edit wikipedia ocasionally because i’m quite busy in real life is clearly not your business. @Kansas Bear:: thanks, take care.—>Farawahar (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, i’ve just seen a thread about this on Doug Weller’s talk page and i agree with Kansas Bear’s remark to Nabataeus about the lack of discussion here on the talk page.—>Farawahar (talk)

Yes, we should give him few days so he could gather his thought and provide sources for the Aramaean claim. Nabataeus (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Farawahar, really? You use the fringe theorist Ralph Ellis and his outrageous book as a source? Oh please Farawahar, when I see a wrong info, rest assured that I will correct it even if it is on the Arab side([8]). I dont follow you, neither engage with you in a dispute outside my knowledge, in the other hand you follow me to the administrators notice board when you're not part of the dispute just to manipulate the readers opinion, likewise in extremely low profiled articles such as Umayya ibn Abd Shams. I could swear that you have not even the slightest acquaintance of that historical figure but you jumped instantly to revert me! Stop following me. Nabataeus (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let us all refrain from accusations. Farawahar, do you have Ralph Ellis' qualifications? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a description (though the title of the book is self-explanatory);

"Ralph Ellis has been researching biblical and Egyptian history for more than 30 years. Being independent from theological and educational establishments allows Ralph to tread where others do not dare, and it is through this independence that Ralph has discovered so many new biblical and historical truths." Nabataeus (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: here is an article about Ellis:[9], but i confess that i do not know if he can be considered reliable for Wikipedia requirements. However, there are already numerous other sources for the Parthian lineage of Abgar V in the article, even if as you said above, some are outdated.

@Nabataeus::Come on, if you think my behavior is harassment then move forward and report me instead of babbling, i don’t want to miss a good occasion for a good laugh.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources are outdated, and the other two doesn't ascribe any ethnic origin to Abgar as illustrated above. Moses of chorene did indeed however write that Abgar was of Armenian stock. Nabataeus (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, continuing on the matter of the presented sources, NearEast added a reference of recent date (2002) that support the Aramaean claim, however it is in non-English and unintelligible so I can't read it.. @Kansas Bear: Thoughts? Nabataeus (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NearEast: Could you please present your sources on the talk page instead of adding them to the article while there is an active discussion about this point here ? Thank you very much.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in mention is from the translation of St. James's Homily,

"The darkness of the world and the blackness of Abgar, the Aramaean's son, the world of darkness became light through Abgar in Christ."

Also elswhere in the Homily, in reference to Urhai(Urfa) he states,

"The daughter of the Arameans, albeit aloof, heard his lore"

NearEast (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This my problem (your personal analysis of sources). Aramaean son could be paternal or maternal, also the daughter of the Arameans? (why plural? where's Abgar in this equation?) Moreover we are not supposed to use primary sources for that exact reason, neither did I see that Abgar was called "Aramaean" as you claimed. You have an observable tendency to project your own analysis into the articles. Nabataeus (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabataeus It's right above that quote, it directly mentions Abgar as Ucomo (The black). The other quote I just added to the talk page. I'm not projecting anything but the correct pages. P.S. I also replied above, where I was pinged. (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added correct indent for better readability for NearEast’s comment.—>Farawahar (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Aramaean's son is ambiguous, even so by its avoidance of calling Abgar an Aramaean king, or Aramaean ruler. What does it signify? the Abgarids were in predominant Aramaic cultural and ethnic environment; so aside from your claim, two possibilities are left: either Abgar mother was Aramaean, or Abgar as a king was the land/nation's son, which, judging by the Oxford handbook of late antiquity, seems the trend of Syriac writers to have a strong sense of territoriality. And in fact it has the tone of it. That being said, "The daughter of the Arameans, albeit aloof, heard his lore" is not related to Abgar, I only found it in Aramaean nationalistic site that cite indiscriminate historical references for the Aramaeans. I am not sure how did you reach that conclusion or what are we supposed to extract from that quote? Nabataeus (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you are referring to is separate from the Abgar quote. That quote is referring to the city, Urhai or Urfa as the daughter of the Arameans.

The Abgar quote is this...

The quote in mention is from the translation of St. James's Homily,

"The darkness of the world and the blackness of Abgar, the Aramaean's son, the world of darkness became light through Abgar in Christ."

Again, this quote is separate, and expresses a clear lineal link between Abgar and Aramean. All those references regarding Abgar being Arabic are all apart of what is referred to as a thesis statement, the substantiation of which can only be attributed to the mid-nineteenth century Tacitus text. The sources themselves don't corroborate their claim, at least in the pages of what has been cited. Therefore that thesis statement, remains officially a hypothesis, until it can be corroborated with the correct page numbers.

Regarding Iranica, to assess that Abgar is Arabic, it states that some names end in -u and then associates them with Nabatean. There is no citation on Iranica for that specific claim, as they do with other claims where you can see they have parentheses. So therefore, the official understanding is that it is a hypothesis. I've looked into the Arabic claim, and none of it is corrborated. Some claim the mid-nineteenth century Tacitus text of Abgar being an Arab sheikh as evidence. Tacitus himself is discredited by Jerome^[1], and that document is a product of the mid-nineteenth century. That is why it will remain a "hypothesis", because there isn't much to corroborate it in the first place, other than speculation. As is written above, it has been admitted that it isn't enough to outright claim Abgar as Arabic, but it is worthy of mention. Academically, the entire Arabic argument can only be referred to as a hypothesis, or a "thesis statement". @Farawahar? I'm ending this here, I've explained quite thoroughly as to why the Arabic reference is referred to as a Hypothesis. Also on my talk page. It is included based on the dates of the authorship; Parthian Arscaid Armenian, then Aramean, and Arabic/Tacitus last. NearEast (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tacitus himself is discredited by Jerome"

Actually, this is the correct way to write a citation, Did Tacitus in the Annals Traduce the Character of Tiberius?, Edwin P. Bowen, The Classical Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 21 (Apr. 5, 1913), page 162., and it makes no mention of Abgar. More Wikipedia:OR.

• "Academically, the entire Arabic argument can only be referred to as a hypothesis, or a "thesis statement"."

You have not proven that at all. This again is just your opinion.

• "I'm ending this here, I've explained quite thoroughly as to why the Arabic reference is referred to as a Hypothesis."

No, all you have done is shown your personal opinion. Unless you have a source stating "hypothesis", that word can not be included. Feel free to ask an Admin about Wikipedia:RS and source misrepresentation.

Since NearEast has decided to opt out, @Nabataeus:, @Farawahar:, what are your thoughts on this:

• "According to Movses Khorenatsi, Abgar was Armenian. Yet both Robert W.Thomson and Richard G. Hovannisian state Abgar's Armenian ethnicity was invented by Khorenatsi. Saint James of Serug and Solomon Bishop of Basra, mention Abgar as Aramean. While most modern academics present the Abgarid dynasty as an Arab dynasty. Consequently, Lucas Van Rompay, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, states that, "as far as the ethnic descent of the Abgarid kings is concerned, we cannot ascertain whether they were Arabs(as some of the names may indicate), Aramean, Parthian, or Armenian"."

All of this with the proper sourcing, of course. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. But before Moses, you should start in chronological manner that: "Tacitus, near contemporary source, referred to Abgar V as "king of the Arabs.." ([10]) And no, NearEast provide no source for it being pseudo-Tacitus either, he interpret small forged portion of the annals as being related to Abgar which is not the case. Moreover, there's no proof that Saint James called Abgar as an Aramaean, in fact considering "Daughter of the Arameans" was meant for the city of Edessa itself as said by NearEast, the Aramaean's son should be treated similarly. There is a high chance that it was a figurative expression, rather than being in biological manner. Even if we said it was the latter for the sake of the argument, is it maternal or paternal? Also do you think we should use outdated source? Other than that I agree entirely. Nabataeus (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add also that Movses mentions Abgar as Parthian Arscaid. In the Arabic reference, mention that it is the etymology of Abgar in question.

"According to Movses Khorenatsi, Abgar was of the Parthian Arscaid dynasty of Armenia. Some academics, such as Robert W.Thomson and Richard G. Hovannisian state Abgar's Armenian ethnicity was invented by Khorenatsi. Saint James of Serug and Solomon Bishop of Basra, mention Abgar as Aramean. Most modern academics equate the etymological origin, of the Abgarid dynasty, as Arab in origin.. Consequently, Lucas Van Rompay, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, states that, "as far as the ethnic descent of the Abgarid kings is concerned, we cannot ascertain whether they were Arabs(as some of the names may indicate), Aramean, Parthian, or Armenian"." NearEast (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, although etymology played its part, primary historical sources played a significant role. Even archaeological records Sumatar Harabesi. You can't simply downplay the assertion and insert your opinions. Also, could you direct me where Moses called Abgar a Parthian Arsacid? Give the direct quote. Thank you.Nabataeus (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology played the only part in the cited sources. Sumatar Harabesi has nothing to do with Abgar V, that would be Original Research, unless it is in the source. Just add your sources and page numbers. If the source states that then add it, if not then don't. You can remove etymology only with the correct context, if not we must assume that the Cambridge Ancient History and Iranica assertion of etymology. NearEast (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking about the dynasty, which Abgar is part of. Anyhow, could you direct me where Moses called Abgar a Parthian Arsacid? Give the direct quote. Nabataeus (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I stated above...

That is what Moses of Chorene states, the source isn't outdated. That was volume one, that publication is still relevant in many succeeding volumes. There are modern reprints, with new editors under many ISBNs, for example: 978-1376812176. That is the latest ISBN for this publication, it is still in circulation.

"Regarding Abgar being referred to as Parthian, the "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature Vol. 1" dated 1885 only reiterates what Moses was stating. There are further volumes of this publication, by the same author, it is a valid source. This is what it states,

"Moses of Chorene traces his descent (Abgar Ucomo "The Black") from the Parthian King Arsaces."

NearEast (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being relevant in succeeding volumes doesn't matter, many Encyclopaedias make use of their older publications and correct outdated infos or exclude it. If you have the new editions please cite it let's see what it contains. In fact, the modern source I have explicitly state that Moses link Abgar with fictitious character called Arsham who was described by Moses as Tigranes the Great nephew. Thus from the Artaxiad dynasty. Anyhow, whether to use Parthian or Armenian is Kansas call. Oh, I almost forgot, Kansas, you should add Abgar being an Arabic name if you edited the page. It is quite relevant. Nabataeus (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Would you edit the page or should I do it instead? Nabataeus (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was waiting for Farawahar's response. Was there a modern source for Parthian? I did not happen to see it. If you and NearEast are in consensus, feel free to make the modification. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the problem. Me and NearEast are in dispute, he project his own interpretation and downplay the other source's assertions. There's no modern source for Parthian neither the Aramaean claim. So shrug.. Nabataeus (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear, Nabataeus, Farawahar

According to Dr. Agop Jack Hacikyan, in the The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the oral tradition to the Golden Age, states,

"chapter thirteen of Eusebius, you will find confirmation that the archives of Edessa contain the history of all the achievements and deeds of our first kings, all the way down to Abgar, and from Abgar down to Yeravand.⁷² I believe documents are still preserved in that city."

^[1]

Regarding the Aramean claim, The St. James reference is based on a "reliable secondary source", and the "tertiary and primary" source is the Book of the Bee, which is according to the document itself. According to WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY

This is all I found regarding where the Parthian understanding is emanating from. The Arscaid dynasty was an independent kingdom within the Parthian empire, The parthian reference mentioned was probably a general reference to what Dr. Hacikyan mentions above.

According to the Arscaid page, it wasn't until AD 62 when Tiridates I secured Arsacid dynasty of Parthia rule in Armenia. Nabataeus I don't see anything on the WP:NOR page about academic sources needing to be of this century? Can you point that out? The Parthian reference would, according to WP:PRIMARY, be regarded as a "reliable secondary source", of a tertiary or primary source. I'm also adding the Eusebius reference, of Dr. Hacikyan, mentioned above.

• "According to Dr. Agop Jack Hacikyan, in the The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the oral tradition to the Golden Age, states,"

I am truly baffled at your ability to twist the sources and extract conclusions not stated neither implied by the author. That quote from Moses himself who "claimed" to be using Eusebius book, and not according to "Dr. Agop Jack Hacikyan". "Moses's use of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History is somewhat more complex. Instead of a straightforward use of a historical source for background information or to add a picturesque detail, Moses instead intertwines fact and fiction." R. Thomson. Another WP:OR, do not add anything to the article where an active discussion on the nature of your sources exist.

• "Regarding the Aramean claim, The St. James reference is based on a "reliable secondary source", and the "tertiary and primary" source is the Book of the Bee, which is according to the document itself. According to WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY"

St. James, from your source, didn't say he was "Aramaean" and I quote myself; there's no proof that Saint James called Abgar as an Aramaean, in fact considering "Daughter of the Arameans" was meant for the city of Edessa itself as said by NearEast, the Aramaean's son should be treated similarly. There is a high chance that it was a figurative expression, rather than being in biological manner. Even if we said it was the latter for the sake of the argument, is it maternal or paternal?. As for the book of the bee it is outdated.

"I don't see anything on the WP:NOR page about academic sources needing to be of this century? Can you point that out?"

Your original research is definitely not the only troubling thing, your outdated sources are additional problem. Read WP:AGE MATTERS. ---- Nabataeus (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hacikyan also states,

"The Armenian Arsacid kings were considered second in rank to the Parthian monarchs."

^[2]

Dr. Hacikyan then states in the footnote,

"There has never been an Armenian king by the name of Arsham. In the Armenian translation of Eusebius that is Khorenatsi's source, King Abgar, who is known for having written a letter to Christ, is mentioned as Abgar Arjama, this must have led Khorenatsi to believe that Arjam or Arsham was Abgar's father. This king is known, however, as Abgar Ukamma, which means Abgar the black or dark-skinned. Korenatsi knows that Abgar's father is also called Manov, but he assumes he had two names."

^[3]

Based on this I am reverting Nabataeus's revert. NearEast (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Aramean reference states this on page 546, about Abgar specifically,

"The darkness of the world and the blackness of Abgar, the Aramean's son, the world of darkness became light through Abgar in Christ."

There is explicit link between Abgar, and being referred to as the "Son of an Aramean". This reference is a secondary source, and is in compliance with WP:PRIMARY.

on page 549 is the Urhoy reference. The two quotes are separate.

The Book of the Bee is a primary source reference, and is in compliance with WP:PRIMARY. NearEast (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually any sources from 19th century are unnecessary. Bring a 20th century source. Also, Farawahar asked you to stop editing while the discussion was in progress. Check with Doug Weller if you think your 19th century sources should be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully it doesn't state that in WP:AGEMATTERS. In fact, In WP:PRIMARY it allows me to use 19th century sources. The etymological hypothesis, of a possible Arabic reference, has nothing to do with the traditions that refer to Abgar as Aramean and Armenian. That is why it is referenced chronologically. NearEast (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does that correlate with Eusebius calling Abgar an Armenian? The source is directly from Moses who allegedly claimed to be using Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Not that it was stated by Eusebius. Nabataeus (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

In accordance with Wikipedia's rules (WP:NPOV,WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:OR) and @Kansas Bear: proposal, I modified the article to reflect that. Three things were removed;

• 1- The remark of "king of the Arabs" being pseudo-Tacitus, which is not the case, as the source state that Laurentianus Mediceus was forged in the mid-ninth century and passed as the wisdom of the ancients. Not the annals that include Abgar.
• 2- Removed 19th century outdated sources, unless you could provide reliable sources you shouldn't restore it.
• 3- Removed "Arabic is hypothesized as a possible etymological origin for the Abgarid". More insertion of personal opinions and original research.

If you want to make sure concerning point two, go to WP:RSN and ask if it is okay to use 19th source for disputed matter, other than that have a nice day. Nabataeus (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV,WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:OR, WP:RSN) nothing states anything about 19th or 20th century primary texts, my sources are valid academic sources. Primary texts can be explicitly included according to WP:PRIMARY. It is a pseudo-Tacitus because the annals are apart of the Laurentianus Mediceus, and that is where the "king of the arabs" is alleged. It isn't my personal opinion because it is officially recognized as a hypothesis. Even that scholar making that claim can only call it a hypothesis, that is what it is officially called. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis What you have cited only assumes Abgar as Arabic, because you need to also cite the reasoning. With no reasoning, it can only be referred to as a hypothesis. Referring to that statement any other way would be deceptive, because you haven't provided reasoning, so it is a hypothesis. My sources regarding Aramean and Armenian claims are based on primary and secondary sources, according to WP:PRIMARY. Dr. Hacikyan speaks highly of Khorenatsi, your bias regarding Khorenatsi is "Wikipedia:Cherry Picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cherrypicking). Here is what Dr. Hacikyan states,

"Armenian oral literature was not confined to epics; as a number of ancient writers testify, it was very rich literature, and diversified in genre. In his History of the Armenians⁹ Movses Khorenatsi (i.e., Moses of Khoren, fifty century A.D.), who was the father of Armenian history and one of the first Armenian writers known to Western scholars, uses several terms to designate the ancient stories and legends about Armenian heroes. The one he uses most frequently is zruyts,¹⁰ old and unwritten stories, to which he attaches a high degree of credibility. Less credible are what he terms araspels, or legends, which, he admits, sometimes confirm historial events, as in the case of the death of Shamiram,¹¹, and at other times are inappropriate and exaggerated, as in the story of Tork Angegh.¹² Legends, however, possess allegorical meanings, and sometimes represent the truth in their own fashion."

Here Dr. Hacikyan states that Khorenatsi himself was critical of the sources he used.

I don't need to go to WP:RSN because you and KansasBear are fabricating rules. Nothing on those pages states that I can't use 19th or 20th century sources, and in fact WP:PRIMARY allows me to use primary sources, such as The Book of the Bee. Stop vandalizing and reverting my edit. I have added that it cannot be ascertained as Aramean, Armenian, or Arabic.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia states referring to The History of Armenia,

"The work seems to be on the whole reliable".

^[1] NearEast (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "WP:NPOV,WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:OR, WP:RSN) nothing states anything about 19th or 20th century primary texts, my sources are valid academic sources. Primary texts can be explicitly included according to WP:PRIMARY."

It is applied to all fields, including history. 19th sources are way outdated, if their claim is not wrong, you would have no problem finding it in any decades of old publications. And the usage of primary sources are discouraged, not if that matters, since most of your sources are 19th century secondary materials you confused it with primary references.

Again, it doesn't state that in the language of any of these pages, WP:NPOV,WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:OR, WP:RSN. Neither does it mention 19th century sources, or anything regarding it needing to be of this century. It states Secondary, tertiary, and primary sources may be added, and I have two more sources that esteem The History of Armenia, added above. NearEast (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a pseudo-Tacitus because the annals are apart of the Laurentianus Mediceus, and that is where the "king of the arabs" is alleged."

No it is not, "Arabum Acbarus advenerat", how Tacitus called Abgar, was in Annalium ab Excessu Divi Augusti Libri, annals 12.([11]). Not in the Laurentianus Mediceus. Another WP:OR.

The Annalium ab Excessu Divi Augusti Libri is not the oldest version of the Annals. Again, read the last source, the oldest copy of the Annals that are attributed to Tacitus (Fifteen-hundreds) are in the Codex Laurentianus Mediceus. NearEast (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "It isn't my personal opinion because it is officially recognized as a hypothesis. Even that scholar making that claim can only call it a hypothesis, that is what it is officially called. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis What you have cited only assumes Abgar as Arabic, because you need to also cite the reasoning. With no reasoning, it can only be referred to as a hypothesis. Referring to that statement any other way would be deceptive, because you haven't provided reasoning, so it is a hypothesis. My sources regarding Aramean and Armenian claims are based on primary and secondary sources, according to WP:PRIMARY."

As said by me and Kansas countless times, that's your opinion, it doesn't matter.

• "I don't need to go to WP:RSN because you and KansasBear are fabricating rules."

Yes of course! Nabataeus (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have stated on WP:NPOV,WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:OR, WP:RSN substantiates the removal of Saint James and Solomon, Bishop of Basra sources. No "Yes of course!" at all, but bias, unsubstantiated, and uncorroborated. My sources are primary records, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, referenced here on this encyclopedia as such. Stop removing, and then referenced bogus rules.

Your mixing traditional primary texts (My sources), with pseudepigraphical latin texts (renaissance Tacitus)^[2] including the etymological Arabic hypothesis, because it is referenced with no citation for reasoning of. The new explanation, by Nabataeus, is blatantly bias, mixing two different categories of study, and then wholly removing my Aramean reference, then expressing bias by comparing. We can only list all of the claims, not get into biases regarding which one is the definite claim. The Arabic reference, even in an academic environment, is at best a hypothesis, because reasoning is not cited. NearEast (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Stop removing, and then referenced bogus rules."

As said by me and Kansas, removing 19th century sources for suspicious reasons, is legitimate. WP:AGEMATTERS: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. "it is not bogus rules".

• "Your mixing traditional primary texts (My sources), with pseudepigraphical latin texts (renaissance Tacitus)"

The source you used for the pseudo-Tacitus is the following: The text of Annals 1-6 is preserved in one ms. only, Laurentianus Mediceus plut. 68.1 (= M), written probably at Fulda in the mid-ninth century.. Abgar is not from those parts, he was, as stated by the source above, from the 12 annals. Unless you could prove the 12 annals as being "forged", this would not be included. Again, WP:OR.

• "including the etymological Arabic hypothesis, because it is referenced with no citation for reasoning of."

The sources doesn't state it is based on etymological "hypothesis", your determination to downplay the assertions of the sources would not work, we should reflect what the source state and avoid inserting opinions and personal beliefs. Nabataeus (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay responding. @Kansas Bear:, @Nabataeus: : i can’t found any Wiki rule saying « don’t use 19th century sources ». Abgar V lived 20 centuries ago, therefore, one could say that a 19th century source is quite recent for this matter. More, few months ago, i checked the Hookah article. In the lead of this article, numerous 19th century sources are used. After trying to remove them, i took that to the ANI, but no admin supported my demand of removal. We’re discussing the ethnicity of Abgar V, WP:AGEMATTERS is used mainly for scientific issues, which is not the case here.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully. WP:AGEMATTERS: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." And the hookah issue was about your advice to remove many sources for arbitrary reasons, the date of other sources was of minor concern. Nabataeus (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should also read carefully WP:AGEMATTERS AND my above comment. I said that Abgar V lived 20 centuries ago and therefore a 19th century source is not that old. As to the hookah article, this is not the place to discuss about it, but your comment about my « arbitrary reasons » is quite irrelevant.—>Farawahar (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. We can't use an outdated source when better sources are available. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This academia.edu paper titled "Cataloguing the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Monastery of the Syrians: A Preliminary Report" and published in Studia Patristica 90 (2018), 179–85, states that "the second oldest extant copy of that work...behind only acopy preserved at Mount Sinai, probably dated to the late twelfth century CE(although this dating is not without considerable complication)." (p. 182)

It is most likely the unique bilingual Coptic-Arabic manuscript existing in the world of "the early Christian correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar" (abstrct). Possibly, it concerns with some answer written by the hand of the Lord or dictated by Him to third party persons.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Habibicb: So, the standard procedure is to use contemporary categories to name saints. Therefore, the Syrian Orthodox and the Armenian Apostolic categories are also disallowed here, as he lived and died before any schism took place to produce those separate Churches. There are special categories for early Christian saints and it is fine to put him in those non-sectarian ones. Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Elizium23:, it`s ok, I agree you, but this wasn't ever the point. I deleted your contribution only because I wanted to discuss here this point: if we rule Abgar V out, we shoud do the same with Frumentius and Tiridates III, and perhaps with Olga and Pulcheria, and of course with emperor (Justinian I) who was never considered as a saint by the Catholic Church. As for David, Hezekiah and Josiah, the three of them were biblical kings, so their inclusion here is even more anachronistic. I honestly consider if all of them shoud be in this page. But if we are understanding that all af them are included in Catholic lists of saints, then we have to include Abgar V. That is the point.--Habibicb (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone needs to systematically go through such categories and remove the pre-schism saints. Of course, Justinian I is venerated as a saint by Eastern Catholics (especially of the Byzantine Rite) but that still does not make him eligible for the category in question. Elizium23 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These really need to be sourced, and oughtn't come from individual speculation. For example, for the Arabic version we're told that it's أَبْجَر ٱلْخَامِس أُوكَامَا أبجر الخامس عكامة—two names, no separation indicated; I suspect it's true that both occur in the historical record. That much really isn't a problem. But then associating that name with the عكام entry in Almaany is a problem, & for multiple reasons, the most important of which is that the form عكّامة actually does not appear in Almaany. In all of the classic dictionaries at The Arabic Lexicon, عكامة only appears as one of two plurals of عكّام: a saddle-bag loader. I can't figure out which entry at Almaany the meaning 'big and portly' is meant to translate. All of this stuff really needs a source. Pathawi (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]