Talk:Babai the Great

Assyrian

It is a modern innovation to call the millet of the ancient Church of the East the Assyrians; it is an even more recent usage to call one of the fragments in its current schism the Assyrian Church of the East; it has no more claim to Babai than the other fragments.

This indiscriminate collection of search engine results cannot change that; that each sect claims the ancient saints is neither novel nor informative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Im not really sure what you're getting at. Babai is early church father who built the foundational pillars of the Assyrian Church of the East as it is clearly stated by the sources I have provided. The ancient church of the east you are referring to above came into exisitence in 1968 due to reformations. The Chaldean Catholic Church came into official existence in 1553 when the Assyrian Church of the East split with former, causing the the name to be changed to Chaldean to differentiate the cannonical connection with the papacy of Rome. The Assyrian Church of the East along with the Syriac Churches have been in continuous existence sense the the time of the Apostle Thomas. How in any way is that modern? You label my sources as indiscriminate is that because they do not match you views? I have many more if you are interested. I do not doubt that both churches claim him, if you feel it neccessary add chaldean catholic church as well, however that would be redundant as it separated from the Assyrian Church of the East. As far as this case goes, I will cease for the time being as I am needed elsewhere.Ninevite (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly like claiming St. Augustine was a German Lutheran; I'm sure there are plenty of websites where that connexion is made too; some of those who would say so would claim that the modern Catholic came into existence some time in the Middle Ages as a heresy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as an open minded person, I understand your concerns. In regards to the religious bodies, I have discussed above; I have a question for you. You say, “those who would say so would claim that the modern Catholic came into existence sometime in the Middle Ages as a heresy." No one is stating that the bodies of the Ancient Church of the East as well as the Chaldean Catholic Church are heretical. I am just referring to their historical schism (split) from the ACOE in 15th, 16th, and 20th centuries. These two bodies once belonged to a monolithic religious bevy that dominated Asia. I went ahead and I added Chaldean Catholic Church to show that this other congregation venerates this religious historical figure as well. By adding the Chaldean Catholic Church to the articles first sentence, this has clarified his historical importance for the both congregations. What are your suggestions for improving this article? Best Regards Ninevite (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Assyrian used for the Church of the East or its members any time before 1800? (I would expect the first usage to be around the Ottoman elections of 1876, but 1800 will do.) If not, the article shouldn't use it either; we're not here to decide which of the three modern denominations has best claim to Babai. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That name was used well before the Ottoman era. This has nothing to do with "claim" as you consistently state. This is a matter of facts, as this historical figure created the Christological pillars of the Assyrian Church of the East as well as beocming one of it's early patriarchs. Ninevite (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for what? The name of the church or Babai? Ninevite (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the use of Assyrian for the Church of the East or its communicants before 1800. I will be moderately, but less, impressed, by usage before the triumph of the principle of nationality around 1859. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as English sources go here are just a few attesting to the churchs name dating back to it's christological foundation. I have dozens of sources in Assyrian Aramaic as well but unless you can read that language it's pointless to post those here since this is an english encylopedia. Just for a side note the church has been incorectly named the nestorian church by ignorant westerners in some cases. Despite that usage Nestorian has also been used interchangeably with Assyrian, with the former vaguely signifing the churchs relations with Nestorius and the latter attesting to the ethnical makeup of the congregation. I hope some of these sources shed some light on your concerns, I have many more if need be a good portion of which are in my native langauge as well. : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Ninevite (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• You appear not to have understood the question. The first link here is to a book from 2007, the second from 2002 (as is the third; the same book, I believe); the fourth from 1998.... None of them claim to be anything other than anachronistic; none of them cite pre-1800 sources (only one cites sources at all; the others are tertiary sources at best). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I do not propose to say Nestorian; but I think it unclear and unjustified to say Assyrian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

When you write a book about the History of the church and get it published, I'll take a look at it, until then your claims are groundless. Tertiary sources are based off of secondary sources which are based off of primary sources. If you want primary sources attesting to the churchs name then I strongly suggest learning Assyrian, to read documents that are hundreds of years old, that are stored in Vaults, and libraries around the world. You claim "None of them claim to be anything other than anachronistic." Is that your conclusion, well thats fine but it does'nt really prove anything other than your consistent ranting over the name of the church. These are scholarly sources from Oxford, Cambridge, and other world renowned authorties on the subject matter.

• Heres some some documents from the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, it translates several historical documents from aramiac into English, attesting to the name. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
• As far as this case goes, I will cease from any further disscussion as it seems to get nowhere. Ninevite (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Few, even of these, discuss Christians; the only substance would appear to be the claims that Tatian and Qardagh are of Assyrian descent; that's not the same as claiming it for the whole body of believers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I know where you're going with this. The Journal of Austrailian Assyrian Academic Society has most primary documents dating as far back Mor Michael the Syrian in Assyrian; attesting to the name of the church such as this link provides on the final page of the document [14]. I will go ahead and remove Babai was born to an wealthy assyrian family and leave it at Babai was born to wealthy family to keep things more neutral. As far as as the first sentence goes there is absolutely no reason to remove his role in the churchs history.

one of many ancient quotes:

• Under Pope Julius III (1549-55), certain of the Nestorian Chaldeans refused to obey the ‘Patriarch at Babylon’ and came into communion

with the Catholic Church. The Pope appointed for them, as they petitioned, a patriarch they had chosen named Simeon Sulaka, a monk of the Order of S. Pacomius. Sulaka went back to his people with the pallium of a patriarch and the title of “Patriarch of the Eastern Assyrians.” Ninevite (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Very in-perspective work here

I copywrote much of the page, but still believe it is very in-perspective. Who is a Catholicos? What exactly is the background story surrounding Mesopotamia and its Nestorian population?

--Screwball23 talk 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian-Turkish writers

He was neither. The Turks were riding ponies on the steppes of Mongolia at the time. The Assyrian empire was long dead. Stick to the things that he was. Don't try to put him in modern clothes that would have been alien to him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

I would like to suggest a name change for this article. Babai the Monk is more neutral. Any other suggestions? F.Tromble (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. The only hit on Google for "Babai the Monk" was this article after you altered it. There were many hits for "Babai the Great". We do not invent new names for people on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)