Talk:Abgar V

message: This article needs to be combined with Abgar.  Please see my message on its talk page. -- isis 16:50 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
----
[Copied from Abgar]
This article needs to be combined with Abgarus of Edessa.  As a matter of NPOV, I think we should quote the letters and describe who thinks/thought it authentic and who does/did not. -- isis 16:48 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Merge done. - Hephaestos 04:29 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
----
I've been caught in this same web, but i've merged my new article with this one and shall now make redirects. I removed this: (Ukkama or Uchomo, "the black") I removed this appositive, since all the kings at Edessa were named Abgar it cannot be relevant.Wetman 21:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely like merging Louis with Louis XIV of France, for the reasons explained above and in the first sentence of the article Abgar. There are historical Abgars in addition to the fairytale one. --Wetman 14:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most famous king of Edessa was Abgar V Ukkāmâ. The title Abgarus should definitely be done away with. I imagine the Latin case ending comes from EB1911. Therefore, I think that the article on this king should be at Abgar Ukkama — we can do without the diacritics (unless you know Syriac they don't mean very much), and we can do without the regnal number because it's a later addition (the surname identifies which Abgar is meant) and does not appear in the texts on Abgar Ukkama. Then we should have a disambiguation page at Abgar, which links to the notable bearers of the name, and directs the reader to Osroene for the list of rulers. Whatever happens, let's be clear that Abgaus is a bad title for any of these articles. --Gareth Hughes 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Article Name

message: === Assyrian, Syriac or Syrian ===
Ok, this problem has come up again. Arameanists claim the right thing would be "Syriac" because that is the modern way to say it ... Assyrianists say that the correct way to say it is "Assyrian" because "Syrian" = "Assyrian" so he is Assyrian ... The third and most neutral of the three is "Syrian" which is what he was identified as at the time ... both sides would agree that he is Syrian because Syriacs say that Syrian is exact same thing as Syriac, and Assyrians also say that Syrian is Assyrian too ... both win! Malik Danno (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: Ok, this problem has come up again. Arameanists claim the right thing would be "Syriac" because that is the modern way to say it ... Assyrianists say that the correct way to say it is "Assyrian" because "Syrian" = "Assyrian" so he is Assyrian ... The third and most neutral of the three is "Syrian" which is what he was identified as at the time ... both sides would agree that he is Syrian because Syriacs say that Syrian is exact same thing as Syriac, and Assyrians also say that Syrian is Assyrian too ... both win! Malik Danno (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian, Syriac or Syrian 

message: Abgar was an Aramean (Syriac) King and NOT "Assyrian"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abgar was a Aramean King 

message: Since he was a ruler of Osroene which was established by The Nabataeans\Arabs\Arameans, and since it's natives were described as Arabs by Pliny the Elder , shouldn't the article at least mention his Nabataeans\Arab lineage other than just describing him as an Armenian??
Ahmed Hallak (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article mention the he was of Nabataean\Arab lineage??? 

message: Good source on Abgar's (uncertain) ethnicity:
* 
I haven't figured out how and where to include this in the article text, so I haven't done anything for now. Frankly, I'm not sure it's important enough to be necessary to include. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The paragraph commencing "After the ascension of God" needs attention. I don't know enough about the topic to do it justice, or I'd fix it myself; nevertheless, the text is of exceedingly poor quality. Will someone please rewrite it or delete it? Kay Dekker (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text not up to article standard - rewrite/delete? 

message: The Shrout of Turin has nothing in common with the image of Jesus in the Abgar story.  The shroud is supposed to be an image of the whole body of Jesus imprinted on his shroud after his death.  It has nothing to do with Jesus making an image of his face while still alive.  The comparison should be deleted. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shroud of Turin? 

message: This article violates NPOV throughout.  The Armenian Christians don't think this is a legendary character yet the first section is the "Legend of King Abgar" which shows a bias against the view that these are historical accounts. It may be that this should be in a separate page about Historicity of Eastern Orthodoxy but the article begins as a factual one stating that King Abgar is a historical figure and should stick to that.
There are numerous expressions of opinion throughout the article with no references which need to be deleted or referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdenedwithtruth (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: agreed, I should have asked first.  I think that in English the phrase "also known as" implies a different name, not just a variant in the spelling.  Abgar and Apkar are the same name, just spelt differently according to the transliteration.  So I think it is misleading to say "also known as St Apkar" instead of "also spelt Apkar". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I should have asked first 

message: The article tells us about how the letters were treated as authentic by early Christians but does not explain how and when they came to be regarded as fake. This seems like a serious omission. Tigerboy1966  05:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correspondence 

message: I'm not sure where and how to include this in the article, but I believe the main sources on Abgar's conversion are:
* Eusebius "Church History" 1.13 (Greek)
* Labubna "Teaching of Addai" (Syriac) Published in G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, Now First Edited in a Complete Form in the Original Syriac, Trübner & Co., London 1876. and also in G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations, 16, Early Christian Literature Series, 4) Scholars Press, Chico/CA 1981.
* "Itinerarium Egeriae" (Latin)
Does anyone else think this list should be included? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abgar V. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Griffith.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010054056/http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/1/1.php to http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/1/1.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monastery of the Syrians (Wādī al-Naṭrūn, Egypt), 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Saint categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Representations & Meanings of Name