Talk:List of maphrians: Difference between revisions

Lists List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

• Catholicos B.ThomasI.jpg

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

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

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

• As stated in the article itself, and supported by reliable sources, the title Maphrian only came into use in c. 1100,^[1] hence why incumbents are grouped under the original title of Grand Metropolitan of the East from 559 to 1075, following the list provided by Wilmshurst.^[2] Historians, such as Kiraz, as you provided, write that Marutha of Tikrit was the first to hold the title Maphrian as per Bar Hebraeus' anachronistic use of the title, which is no longer supported by other scholars, as I have demonstrated.^[3] I would like to point out that Kiraz was already referenced in the article beforehand.
• Syriac Orthodox literature, as reflected by
  Ignatius Jacob III, regards the maphrian as the former head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, which it regards as the legitimate continuation of the original Church of the East. It is not our place to make a judgement as to whether it is legitimate or not, we simply need to reflect their official position. They count a number of the early heads of the Church of the East in their numeration of the maphrians, and this must be reflected in the article.^[4]

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover your edit is absolutely contradictory. One of the sources ^[5] says the following:

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

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

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

Ignatius Jacob III,^[6] whose reliability is not in question, and cannot be dismissed purely because he was Syriac Orthodox. The term "church in Sassanid Persia" is not more accurate when one considers that the Sasanian Empire

collapsed in 651, whereas the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East persisted until 1859, well over a millennium afterwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Br Ibrahim john, please note my compromise edit.

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

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

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

Mugsalot, please refrain from biased partisan edits.

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

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

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

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

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