![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Terms for Syriac Christians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Terms for Syriac Christians at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Syriac flag was copied or moved into Names of Syriac Christians with this edit on 00:10, 1 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
One point that most people seem to ignore is that the "Syriac" Christians of the near east may well not be members of the same ethnic group, but rather closely related ethnic groups. Generally, it is accepted that "Syriac Christians" are SEMITIC, PRE ARAB and PRE ISLAMIC indigenies of what are now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, South and south east Turkey and northwestern Iran. I cant imagine people have much dispute about this point surely?
Accepting the above to be the case, it then comes down to who these people are.
It is entirely natural and logical that people who are clearly of Pre Arab and Pre Islamic populations in these regions identify with the pre Arab and pre Islamic past of these regions.
I suggest that these peoples are RELATED BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE.
MESOPOTAMIA -ASSYRIANS, an area roughly encompassing modern Iraq, a section of north eastern Syria and south eastern Turkey. The natives of this area were Sumerians and Akkadians, later infused with Amorites. The Sumerians seem to have been absorbed into the Akkadian population. After this came Arameans, who also intermixed with the native Akkadian population. By the late 6th Century BC Mesopotamian independence was over. HOWEVER, the native Mesopotamians were very clearly NOT wiped out or removed. There is no impirical historical evidence whatsoever to suggest this, let alone proof. In fact both Assyria and Babylon existed as provinces until the 7th Century AD. Essentially, people who were extant at the close of the 6th century BC were still extant at the time of the Arab Islamic conquest. These people were indigenous Mesopotamians to all intents and purposes. Those that rejected the process of Arabization and Islamification of the region are what we call the modern Assyrians, or if you like Chaldo-Assyrians or even Chaldeans (though the latter was originally a purely theological term). Certainly, they are not PURE anything, in the same way no people are ethnically pure. But they ARE the last in the line of the family tree of pre Arab Mesopotamia, and as a result have every right to call themselves Assyrians, because they are indeed Mesopotamians. The "Burden of Proof" must in fairness be on those denying Assyrian/Mesopotamian ancestry, and as yet there is no proof that the populace was destroyed or removed.
SYRIA -ARAMEANS - Essentially modern Syria and south central Turkey. The north east of the country seems to have been Mesopotamia, the rest was essentially Aram in Pre Hellenic times. The populace was predominantly but not exclusively Aramean. There were a number of Neo Hittite groups, and later, Pre Islamic Arabs in the region. Those people who rejected Arabisation and Islamification in this region have every right to A) Regard themselves as Aramean and B) Refuse to identify as Assyrians or Mesopotamians, as they are not from Mesopotamia. The term "Syriac" is a little more complicated, because like it or not, MAINSTREAM opinion among scholars does support the view that this term is a Hellenic/Greek corruption of the term "Assyrian". The area known as Syria was not known as such at all before the Greek Conquests, and it was not known as such by its people.
LEBANON -PHOENICIANS - Pretty much the same as the above two. The area of Lebanon and the Meditteranean coast of Syria was home to the Canaanite/Phoenician Civilisation. Those who existed before the Arab-Islamic conquest will naturally identify with the Pre Arab- Pre Islamic history and people of the region. Of Course Greeks and Romans as well as Arameans settled there also, but as I said, no one is pure anything.
I think the above makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. In addition it could help resolve this ridiculous situation where some Assyrianists and Arameanists claim that every Semitic Christian in the near east is an Assyrian or Aramean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 ( talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"SYRIA -ARAMEANS - Essentially modern Syria and south central Turkey. The north east of the country seems to have been Mesopotamia, the rest was essentially Aram in Pre Hellenic times. The populace was predominantly but not exclusively Aramean. There were a number of Neo Hittite groups, and later, Pre Islamic Arabs in the region. Those people who rejected Arabisation and Islamification in this region have every right to A) Regard themselves as Aramean and B) Refuse to identify as Assyrians or Mesopotamians, as they are not from Mesopotamia. The term "Syriac" is a little more complicated, because like it or not, MAINSTREAM opinion among scholars does support the view that this term is a Hellenic/Greek corruption of the term "Assyrian". The area known as Syria was not known as such at all before the Greek Conquests, and it was not known as such by its people."
The Northeast was Mesopotamia yes, but what you fail to mention is that the Arameans were present in Mesopotamia and this region was called Paddan Aram/ Aram-Naharaim. So The Northeast of Syria and South eastern Turkey could very well be Aramean. SuryanAntiochia ( talk) 03:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be called Syriac naming dispute? After all, they don't agree on the Assyrian part, but all agree on the Syriac, or Syrian name. Funkynusayri 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
'"None of us dispute that we are Suraya/Suroyo."
Exactly, and that's my point, if all factions agree on this, then "Syriac" would fit better for use in the article title. That "Assyrian" is a more probable name than for example "Aramean" doesn't change the fact that the most neutral, NPOV name we should use on Wikipedia articles would be "Syriac". The "Assyrian" name can always be mentioned in articles, but it isn't appropriate in articles like this one, which is about the naming dispute itself. Taking sides on Wikipedia is highly dis encouraged even though the side is more "realistic".
"What do you suggest then?"
I already mentioned that in the first post: the most neutral, and universally agreed upon name, "Syriac". Just like "native Americans" seems to be the most neutral term for Amerindians, thus used in the article name.
Seems like this was the earlier, and quite appropriate, name of the article: "Names of Syriac Christians" Funkynusayri 06:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Blatant nonsense, Elias, and you know it. See [2], where you can see that some Aramaean and Assyrian groups have agreed on a common name Syriac. Try to get it into your brain that Assyrians are merely a faction of the Suryoye people, and do not represent a majority, as far as I know. You try to portray me as if I claim that all Syriac Orthodox believe themselves to be Aramaeans, which is also nonsense. Even though I am personally convinced of the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs (at least the ones from Tur Abdin), I am very well aware that many Suryoye consider themselves Assyrians. The only "proof" you have come up with so far, is the etymological connection between the names Syriac and Assyrian, which is, as I've pointed out before, acknowledged by Nöldeke and considered likely by Joseph, both of whom however add that the etymological connection between the two names is not enough reason to suggest a connection between the two peoples, but stress the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs/Syrians instead. The other "proof" you've presented are articles by Assyriologists, Parpola in particular, whose article is disputed to say the least, and I'd say even shaky. So it's clear that "Assyrian" (as well as "Aramaean") are disputed terms when it comes to referring to the Suryoye/Suryāye as a whole. It is European Syriacs themselves, both Aramaean, Assyrian, and Chaldaean, who seem to have agreed on a common denominator "Syriac". -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Assyrian name dispute" is a horrible choice. It isn't even beyond reproach grammatically. The scope of this article should be to explain all issues relating to names of Syriac Christians, regardless of whether they are disputed. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that the MAJORITY opinion of modern scholars is that the term Syrian is a Hellenic derivation of the term Assyrian. Of course it is possible that it is from "Hurri", but that is NOT mainstream opinion. Prior to the Hellenic period, the term Syria was not used at all, the region of modern Syria was called Aram. In contrast the term Assyria was used to describe, well....Assyria, right up until the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Furthermore, people such as the Armenians continued to use the term Assouri right up until the present day. I do fail to see why there is what borders on an obsession with denying an Assyrian heritage to Assyrians among some people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 ( talk) 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
WestAssyrian ( talk · contribs) has been removing information that says there are followers of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Catholic Church and the Maronite Church. Here are sources that proves that there are some followers in the different churches that advocates an Aramean identity. [4] & [5] Newadvent Encyclopedia, the source says that the Maronites are of Syrian (Syriac) race and that "The Syrians are direct descendants of the ancient Arameans.". [6] Maronite Heritage, Aramaic/Syriac Maronites are mentioned several times & from the same site "The Aramean Syrian Maronites of Syria joined the Canaanite Phoenician Maronites of Lebanon and the Mardaites in Lebanon." [7]. [8] Official site of the Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese, "Throughout history the Syriac people have been known as the "Arameans"...". [9] Official web site for the Syriac Catholic Youth Club, again, "Throughout history the Syriac people have been known as the "Arameans"...". Also in almost all of the Maronite sites they are speaking of Syriac-Maronites (e.g. [10], [11], etc.). The TriZ ( talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There are Libanese from the Maronite Church that consider themselve as Western Assyrians as well. Middle East expert Walid Phares speaking at the 70th Assyrian Convention, on the topic of Assyrians in post-Saddam Iraq, began his talk by asking why he as a Lebanese Maronite ought to be speaking on the political future of Assyrians in Iraq, answering his own question with "because we are one people. We believe we are the Western Assyrians and you are the Eastern Assyrians. [12] -- WestAssyrian ( talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
there is a difference between "identity" and "descent". I am directly descended from the Urnfield people, but I am rather far from embracing an "Urnfield identity". We should note that a common term in German is Aramäer, but I am not aware that the corresponding "Aramaean" has any currency in English. -- dab (𒁳) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The Genetic of the Libanese people have shown a link between modern Lebanese Christians and the ancient Phoenicians [ [13]] Thats my point that we cant say that Maronites are Arameans or Assyrians but there are some of the Libanes-Maronite people that consider themselve as Assyrians or Arameans -- WestAssyrian ( talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have shown you that the Libanes people DNA shows us a Phoenician heritage. And I have shown you that there are Maronites that consider themselve as Assyrians (It dosent matter how many people I show you, its about if there are some people that consider themselve as Assyrians). AINA is a sourced material homepage. Should I only use your hompages? I dont insist on putting Assyrian in front of Aramean, It have been like that from the first time. So the change you did putting Aramean in front of Assyrian shows us that you only cares about putting aramean infront of assyrian and nothing else. -- WestAssyrian ( talk) 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
We cant go after alphabetical order. Then we must change every sentence and word in every article after alphabetical order this is impossible, this kind of edit have been made only by you so dont say that it have been made by multiple editors. Let it be like it was before there is no wrong with that. If you look at "Syriac national identities" it describes the Assyrian identity first and so on. My point is there is no need to change such things in the article. -- WestAssyrian ( talk) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because it was like that before, doesn't mean it was better, writing a wikipedia article is an ongoing process. So we can indeed divide the different terms in alphabetical order, simply for the reason of some sort of structure. I will also remove the two quotes you added, we could go on and on and filling the whole article with such quotes, I could for example quote Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, the current Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, whom advocates an Aramean identity. Also Mar Raphael I Bidawid is already mentioned in the article. The TriZ ( talk) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not revert sourced material. stop changing everything in your way! -- WestAssyrian ( talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
[14], I think this source proves that there are Maronites that consider themselves either Arab or Syriacs (with an Aramean identtity). The TriZ ( talk) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is an original research written by somebody who does not understand what the paper of John Joseph says. His paper pretty much settles the dispute should someone UNDERSTAND what is says, not just refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 ( talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems bizarre to me that the section 'History' does not mention the fact that, between the sixth and nineteenth centuries, most Syriac Christians defined themselves by a religious rather than by a national identity. They called themselves, and were called by others, Nestorians, Jacobites and Maronites (and later on Chaldeans and Syrian Catholics). Nor, of course, was their 'national' identity Assyrian. They called themselves, and were called by others, Suraye, Syrians. All serious scholars agree that the 'Assyrian' identity was invented in the nineteenth century, and it seems pointless to read back this identity into earlier periods when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.
Djwilms ( talk) 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Your comments show nothing but complete incompetence. First you state “They called themselves, and were called by others, Nestorians.” This is utter rubbish; Nestorian/s has always been a pejorative term utilized by outsiders such as foolhardy Anglo-Saxshits like yourself to incorrectly identify the members of the Church of the East. You incompetently state “Nor, of course, was their 'national' identity Assyrian.” Under what authority do you state this? Do you think just because you wrote some stupid overpriced book on the Church of the East that gives you the sole authority to deny the national cultural identity of an ancient community which has been persecuted since the fall of Nineveh. You are no different than Saddam’s regime which sought to deny this minorities cultural, religious, and ethnical right during his Arabization policies. You make me sick. Your last comment alone shows the bigotry and high level of ignorance you portray. Who are the “most scholars” you are referring to? Are they world renowned Assyriolgoists such as H.W.F. Saggs, Robert D. Biggs, Simo Parpola, Iranologist Richard Nelson Fyre, or esteemed Geneticist Cavalli-Sforza who stated “T]he Assyrians are a fairly homogeneous group of people, believed to originate from the land of old Assyria in northern Iraq", and "they are Christians and are bona fide descendants of their namesakes."[ This list of influential individuals is but a fraction of scholars who reject your outdated, identity denying, incompetent British stance. I would dedicate an entire article to prove your foolhardy comments obsolete but after reading disturbing comments such as this [15] or supporting a banned wiki user here [16] you’re unreachable. You incompetently state “Assyrian identity is a modern construct, dating no further back than the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century. The claim of descent from the ancient Assyrians is as preposterous as the claim that the Church of the East was a fifth patriarchate, ranking alongside Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople.” The only preposterous thing is your continual denial. You have no authority or any right to deny the ethnic heritage of a people as you have done multiple times during your anti-Assyrian rampage here on Wikipedia. At the same time stop advertising your damn book everywhere. It is getting really annoying. Due to a time restraint I will leave you as is because your diluted mind is already made up on his topic. May your body be infested with larva. I hope everyone who continues to make outrageous comments such as yourself in the acadmic field be stripped of all your so called prestige and be put in the same camp as holocaust deniers. 69.3.27.154 ( talk) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The term Syrian and Syriac are derived from Assyrian anyway! Historically, they mean one and the same thing. In addition, the term Assyrian, in its many variants, has been used consistently throughout the ages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 ( talk) 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The burden of proof must lie with those wishing to deny Assyrian ethnic, cultural and national identity. That is to say people such as Djwilms must provide proof or at least strong evidence to support the wholesale destruction, elimination or deportation of the indigenous pre Arab peoples of Mesopotamia. The fact is that there is no such proof, therefore those denying a link between the modern Assyrians and the ancient Pre Arab population of Assyria/Mesopotamia do not really have any argument bar saying "i dont believe it!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 ( talk) 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This article gives a monopoly to crazies! Why is it allowed? Doesn't somebody change it in a more scientific direction? Or does somebody just change it back to the ludicruous set of myths? Eleanor1944 ( talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
"The burden of proof must lie with those wishing to deny Assyrian ethnic, cultural and national identity. That is to say people such as Djwilms must provide proof or at least strong evidence to support the wholesale destruction, elimination or deportation of the indigenous pre Arab peoples of Mesopotamia. The fact is that there is no such proof, therefore those denying a link between the modern Assyrians and the ancient Pre Arab population of Assyria/Mesopotamia do not really have any argument bar saying "i dont believe it!" "
No, the burden of proof must lie on those who want to FORCIBLY assert their views on others. EVERY page discussing the names of Syria and Syriac Christians is so slanted towards the Assyrianists. For example why must you add on the Name of Syria page that "Tvedtnes' explanation was rejected as unlikely by Frye in 1992." or that "The Luwian inscription reads su-ra/i whereas the Phoenician translation reads ʾšr, i.e. ašur, which according to Rollinger (2006) "settles the problem once and for all"."? Well of course a competing anthropologist and historian will want to further their own personal interests by making their own theories seem legitimate, so why the hell is it on there? Hmmmm? These quotes contribute nothing to the argument at all. They are simply there to sway the reader to the Assyrianist ideology which is not Wikipedia's job. SuryanAntiochia ( talk) 04:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
But the fact is that academic opinion does strongly accept that Syria and Syriac meant Assyrian originally, and only meant that until the Greeks started calling Levantines Syrians/Syriacs as well in the 3rd century BC. Because you dont like that fact, it doesnt make it untrue! Also, the article does mention that a minority of scholars disagree with that opoinion, and that not all Syriac Christians are Assyrians. As for these Nestorian, Jacobite, Chaldean names, they are theological and religious names only. The racial names are Assyrian, Aramean and Syrian-Syriac. It looks very clear that Assyrian is the oldest of these names, and that Assyrians=North Mesopotamians, Arameans=The Levantines and Syria = Assyria for about 500 years, but since the 3rd century BC Syria has = both Assyria and Aramea. So Syrian nowadays does not really mean anything in a racial sense at all, not unless you take it in its original form = Assyrian. Syriac Christianity is just a religious term again, it encompasses many peoples from many different lands who are not all of the same race, language, history, geography or culture. We need to separate the religious terms from the ethnic terms.
I think that deniers will find that there is plenty of evidence of the continuity of the name Assyria and Assyrian, after all, today's northern Iraq, north eastern Syria and south eastern Turkey was Still known as Assyria right up until the 7th century AD. There are plenty of references supporting this fact, both from classical era writers and modern historians. Equally, it is known that an Assyrian national cultural and polytheist religious revival existed between the 2nd century BC and 4th century AD, actually co-existing with the early Christian period for a few hundred years.
Another important point is that we now know that the Name of Syria is etymologically identical, synonymous and derivative from Assyria, therefore Syria, Syriac and East Syrian clearly refer to Assyria and the Assyrians, and are historically, ethnically and geographically accurate appellations when applied to the Assyrians, as they certainly mean one and the same thing. Conversely, the appellation is a historically much later misnomer when applied to Levantine Semites, who historically inhabited a land called Aramea and Eber Nari and were of largely Aramean and Phoenician stock, and certainly not Assyrians or by definition, Syrians. Again, this is all very well documented and easily referenced and not really up for debate.
So, in terms of original historical and geographic meaning, the names Syrian, Syriac and East Syrian are actually accurate when describing Assyrians but actually completely inaccurate when describing Arameans of The Levant and Transjordan.
Nestorian and Chaldean are known without a shadow of a doubt to be only far later arriving Doctrinal appellations, referring to Church denominations, and have not a single shred of ethnic implication or relevance. We know that Nestorian as a religious appellation emerged at the very earliest in the late 5th or early 6th century AD, and while it originally referred only to followers of Nestorius, it later became a loose and generic term to describe pretty much all Eastern Rite Christians, not just in Assyria, but as far afield as India, China, Mongolia, Central Asia, Yemen and Cyprus. Yes, the Assyrians (including members of the Chaldean Catholic Church oddly enough) did use the term Nestorian to describe themselves in a religious sense, but ethnically, they regarded themselves as Assyrians, and so too did their neighbours. As explained, the term Syrian was also used by them, simply because when applied to Assyrians, it meant exactly the same thing as Assyrians, and had done so since at least the 8th century BC. And of course the Syriac language and Syriac script both evolved in Achaemenid Assyria during the 5th century BC. So, all this rather reinforces Assyrian heritage as opposed to refuting it. Once more, well documented.
Chaldean is even more recent. It was a generic term used by The Vatican to describe Eastern Rite Christians who converted to Catholicism. It first emerged in the first half of the 15th century AD, and importantly not to describe Assyrians or Mesopotamians, but to describe Greeks who converted to the Catholic faith! It was also misapplied to Chaldia on the Black Sea by the Vatican and Rome, and has even been applied to Christians in India. Interestingly enough, even the utterly incorrect appellation to Assyrian converts was a later addition, these converts were first dubbed as members of The Church of Assyria and Mosul, and its founding leader as Patriarch of the East Syrians. There is not a shred of evidence of the people of Assyria or northern Mesopotamia (nor their immediate neighbours) describing themselves as Chaldean at any point before this, and even after this it is accepted by almost everybody to be a relatively recent and solely theological term with a long history of misuse by the Roman Catholic Church.
Jacobite is yet another generic catch all - it has been used to describe Scottish Catholics in the west, and Assyrians in the East, and again interestingly, a 15th century Pope used the term alongside Assyrian when discussing the Assyrian Christians in north western Iran. Yet again, well documented.
We must really look to two things with these discussions; the first being the Etymology of Syria and what ethnic meaning, implications and accuracy derivatives of this term has on different groups of Syriac Christians, and the second, the separation of theological appellations from ethnic designations, because the two are not compatible or necessarily relevant. They are separate issues and the former muddies the latter, and there are some who deliberately seek to foster this muddying.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Chaldean Flag.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
I've merged the article, Syriac flag, here as no one has yet put forward any opposition in the years since the merger was proposed. Claret Ash 13:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Walid Phares sees himself as Aramean and not Assyrian. You can ask him yourself. 79.182.32.38 ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Terms for Syriac Christians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Frye":
And the ancient Assyrian empire, was the first real, empire in history. What do I mean, it had many different peoples included in the empire, all speaking Aramaic, and becoming what may be called, "Assyrian citizens." That was the first time in history, that we have this. For example, Elamite musicians, were brought to Nineveh, and they were 'made Assyrians' which means, that Assyria, was more than a small country, it was the empire, the whole Fertile Crescent.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Please someone put a comma between Jordan and Palestine it's killing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 ( talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The Phoenician nationalism is mostly seen among the Maronite population and not with other groups in Lebanon as this article implies. I'm not implying that every Maronite calls himself a Phoenician but it mostly comes from their group. This should be changed.
From what I know only the Lebanese with Arab nationalistic views oppose any connections between present day Lebanese and the ancient Phoenicians. But the rest of the population accepts the connections between present day Lebanese and the ancient Phoenicians which are also DNA based. MyNewAccountName ( talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Attar-Aram syria: Anything under "Assyrian identity" that is not dealing with Assyrian identity? I can not see any irrelevant general Assyrian history there. And why are you reverting with that ridiculous comment. And the flag got its own article now, just like the Assyrian flag, why are you adding that section again? Shmayo ( talk) 22:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
All identity sections deals with the history of respective. It's just your personal opinion that they just should tell about the situation today. Still, why would anything in the Assyrian identity section justify your revert? Shmayo ( talk) 23:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
See this is what I mean. Did I add that to this article? That doesn't justify your revert. You clearly do not support what you reverted yourself. Shmayo ( talk) 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that deniers will find that there is plenty of evidence of the continuity of the name Assyria and Assyrian, after all, today's northern Iraq, north eastern Syria and south eastern Turkey was Still known as Assyria right up until the 7th century AD. There are plenty of references supporting this fact, both from classical era writers and modern historians. Equally, it is known that an Assyrian national cultural and polytheist religious revival existed between the 2nd century BC and 4th century AD, actually co-existing with the early Christian period for a few hundred years.
Another important point is that we now know that the Name of Syria is etymologically identical, synonymous and derivative from Assyria, therefore Syria, Syriac and East Syrian clearly refer to Assyria and the Assyrians, and are historically, ethnically and geographically accurate appellations when applied to the Assyrians, as they certainly mean one and the same thing. Conversely, the appellation is a historically much later misnomer when applied to Levantine Semites, who historically inhabited a land called Aramea and Eber Nari and were of largely Aramean and Phoenician stock, and certainly not Assyrians or even by definition, Syrians. Again, this is all very well documented and easily referenced and not really up for debate.
So, in terms of original historical and geographic meaning, the names Syrian, Syriac and East Syrian are actually accurate when describing Assyrians but actually completely inaccurate when describing Arameans of The Levant and Transjordan.
In summary the Neo-Aramaic speaking Syriac Christians of northern Iraq, south east Turkey, north east Syria and north west Iran are better described as Assyrians; all these areas were a part of Assyria until the 7th century AD, again, plenty of references to prove this. Those from the rest of Syria and south central Turkey and perhaps even Jordan, Israel and Lebanon are best described as Arameans, really because we know now that Syria and Syriac derive from Assurayu and Assyria etymologically, historically and geographically.
We must really look to two things with these discussions; the first being the Name of Syria and Etymology of Syria and what ethnic meaning, implications and accuracy derivatives of this term has on different groups of Syriac Christians, and the second, the separation of theological appellations from ethnic designations, because the two are not compatible or necessarily relevant. They are separate issues and the former muddies the latter, and there are some who deliberately seek to foster this muddying. Syriac Christian is a generic and sweeping term blanketing more than one ethnic, historical and geographical people, Syrian and Syriac historically mean Assyria and Assyrian, whereas Assyrian and Aramean are true ethnic designations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 ( talk) 10:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Palestine)) to ((State of Palestine|Palestine)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by For 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Terms for Syriac Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This article, in its present scope, deals (primarily) with terminology related to the Syriac ethnicity and adjacent subjects, and only secondary to the subject expressed by the title ( Terms for Syriac Christians). From the methodological point of view, there should be two articles:
In fact, the second subject is quite simple, and it can be elaborated as a section of the article on Syriac Christianity, since Syriac Christians rightly points on that article. Sorabino ( talk) 03:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove https://web.archive.org/web/20000816221217/http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm from the list of further reading. I have pointed out before (see Special:Diff/1023305928) that friesian.com is the personal website of a former community college philosophy professor – hence not a reliable source on subjects other than philosophy – who is prone to going off on political tangents, and sometimes outright ranting, on pages that are ostensibly about history or philosophy. 67.170.60.91 ( talk) 06:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add a part about the Aramean identity on this page. The part about the Aramean identity is very short and lacks a lot of information. An example is that the Aramean identity is mainly held also by Syriac Catholic Christians. It also not true that the Aramean identity is held by 'some adherents' of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The Aramean identity is held by most of the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Church. 93.238.93.119 ( talk) 14:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)