Jump to content

Talk:Isaac the Syrian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup

[edit]

This article lacks citations and also treats unverifiable "facts" as truth. It is also clear that it was written by someone who has not studied Isaac extensively. When I get the chance, I'll edit/rewrite the article.Grailknighthero (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added or Bahrain to a possible location of birth. For more information, see Hansbury, Mary. St. Isaac of Nineveh on the Ascetical Life. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989.

Bet Qatraye is a region which includes Bahrain, Qatar, and portions of Eastern Arabia.Grailknighthero (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Can anybody confirm whether or not this guy was sainted? Some of the google hits call him "St. Isaac of Nineveh", but Brittanica refers to him as Isaac of Nineveh. Given the sources, I deferred to Britannica when I wrote this stub, but it really isn't my area of expertise. --Scimitar parley 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him "Isaac of Nineveh" where he was bishop for some months. An inappropriate descriptor. Everyone else calls him Isaac the Syrian don't they? --Wetman 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is not an inappropriate descriptor. Not everyone calls him by Isaac the Syrian. It is common among scholarly circles to call him Isaac of Nineveh because he was bishop of Nineveh. One is named after their bishopric. Grailknighthero (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


He appears to be an Orthodox saint. Check out the skete's website at [1]. Carolynparrishfan 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

St. Isaac THE SYRIAN is venerated in all Eastern Orthodox Churches. We never refer to him as "of Nineveh" - Also, there is no source provided, nor none I can find in any materials related to this saint which even remotely suggest that he was Nestorian, so unless you can source it, that language that weasel-words him in to "maybe" "possibly" being nestorian should be removed. A Nestorian wouldn't be venerated by all The Orthodox (& Roman Catholic) churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.138.62 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are wrong when you say that the Orthodox never refer to him as "of Nineveh." True, in the Calendar of Saints he is listed as Isaac the Syrian and he is usually called Isaac the Syrian in other places, but some Orthodox scholars acknowledge that He is also called "of Nineveh." Proof? See above, Mary Hansbury's book is published by SVS Press. Yes, Nestorian should be removed because Isaac and the Church of the East were not Nestorian. As Sebastian Brock suggests, the Church of the East should be labeled as "Theodoran." But there is one chapter within the Second Part, Chapter 11, in which Isaac's Christology is definitely expressed in Theodoran/East Syrian terms. But as far as I know, this is the ONLY chapter within Part I and II in which Isaac's Christology is not compatible with Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology.Grailknighthero (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain and Qatar

[edit]

I've removed a bunch of Bahrain and Qatar cats. Being possibly born in that region more that a thousand years ago doesn't imply that he can be considered Bahraini. --Rafy talk 08:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Isaac was Bahrani is as anachronic as claiming that Jesus was Palestinian of that Muhammad was Saudi. Please Ashraf discus you're rationale before including the cat.--Rafy talk 11:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death

[edit]

As of now, Isaac's exact date of birth and death are unknown. His birth place is known, but I could find only two references stating his date of birth - one states it as 613, and the other states it as 640. I am in a conundrum as to which of them should be included, or if any of them should be included at all. Furthermore, his date of death seems to be a wild guess - but I was able to find multiple (at least 3) notable sources stating his date of death as 700, so it seems to be a generally accepted date.

On another note, his place of death appears to somewhere in Iran. The Quotable Saint and The Encyclopedia of Christian Literature - Volume 2 states it as Rabban Shabur. This makes me wonder why it is currently listed as Nineveh. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isaac of Nineveh → Isaac the Syrian – While Isaac is known with both the titles "of Nineveh" and "the Syrian", he is better known as "The Syrian" both in old and modern times. There is no one place I can cite for this, but any small amount of research into him will make this obvious. Swehlam (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  –Zfish118⋉talk 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Asia has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article name

[edit]

I've missed the name change conversation, but it'll be worth bearing in mind should it come up for discussion again that (a) Isaac is more commonly referred to as 'Isaac of Nineveh' than 'Isaac the Syrian' in academic literature, especially in the literature on him that's begun to proliferate since the 1980s (e.g. books by Sebastian Brock (1995 and 2022), Sabino Chialà (2002, in Italian), Patrik Hagman (2010), Nestor Kavvadas (2015, in German), Jason Scully (2017), Benedict Vesa (2018), and Valentina Duca (2023); counterexamples such as Hilarion Alfeyev (2015, ed.) and Mary Hansbury (2016) are overall fewer); and (b) 'Isaac the Syrian' is more ambiguous than 'Isaac of Nineveh', since there are at least two other Isaacs who are sometimes referred to as 'Isaac the Syrian', namely Isaac of Antioch (e.g. by Brian Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (1991) p. 174) and Isaac of Spoleto. 131.111.5.135 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use 'Directions on Spiritual Training' as a source

[edit]

I've just removed from the article some assertions based on excerpts from a text called 'Directions on Spiritual Training'. This text, while ostensibly by Isaac, is not a legitimate primary source by scholarly standards; it is in fact an English translation of a Russian collection of texts supposedly by Isaac whose provenance is unclear. References should be restricted to English editions of the 'First Part' (Wensinck or Miller), 'Second Part' (Brock), 'Third Part' (Hansbury), and possibly 'Fifth Part' (Chialà). 86.21.160.162 (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canonization in The Catholic Church

[edit]

The article cited never says he is canonized by the Catholic Church, the author simply calls him a saint to be eccumenical rather than being honest about the Catholic Church's position The best sources for canonizations are the Catholic Martyrologies and sources saying someone has been formally canonized. This is a reccuring problem I've seen here where people are incorrectly cited as having been canonized in the Catholic Church. 2600:1702:CC7:1A20:C8F0:95D7:5A11:1B3B (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What were the details of his teachings?

[edit]

This article goes into great detail about the extant manuscripts, but very little detail as to his actual teachings and what was unique about them. Jimhoward72 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veneration in the Oriental Church

[edit]

Issac might not have been venerated in the Oriental Church, The name "Isaac the Syrian" was historically associated with two different Isaacs, an Isaac of Nineveh from the 7th Century. And an Isaac of Antioch from the 5th Century. Isaac of Nineveh is not venerated, he was ACoE and was part of the Nestorian camp, and was a big proponent of doctrine such universalism among other things. He is only venerated in the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. But not Oriental Orthodox. GaelCaitliceach☦ (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Veneration in the Oriental Orthodox Communion

[edit]

Is Isaac of Nineveh venerated or not in the Oriental Orthodox Church Communion? Logosx127 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • YES. Sources:
    • Brock, Sebastian P. (2006). The Wisdom of St. Isaac of Nineveh. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. p. xii says: Isaac is honored as a saint not only in the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, but also in the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church (feast 28 Tubah), and the wider Eastern Orthodox communion. Note that Sebastian Brock is scholar and church historian and also a member of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. Both the Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are major Oriental Orthodox Churches.
    • Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum< Rajan, K. M.>(2003). Martyrs, Saints & Prelates of the Syriac Orthodox Church. gbooks pp. 214–216. There is a dedicated article on Isaac of Nineveh in this book. Note that 'Ignatius Aphrem I' was supreme head of the SOC until death.
    Logosx127 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something the 2006 version of Brock's translations doesn't appear to have that excerpt, at least as the version on the internet archive has it. He does describe a first edition published with a different and shorter introduction previously, is it possible you're reading from a different edition (or a different work), and if so can you provide the details?

Regarding Martyrs, Saints & Prelates, that seems to be a work by K. Mani Rajan the first volume of which was published in 2007 (here's the one volume version published in 2017 which I assume is what you're citing since the page ref matches). It describes him as a saint and gives his feast day (May 13, different from what's currently on the page - does anybody know what the source for September 23 is?), but it's perhaps also noteworthy that Brock's preface to the book says: "It is particularly pleasing that the choice of saints for inclusion is ecumenical in character: not only are saints from all the different Syriac churches included, but also some who are primarily known just from the Greek or the Latin tradition."

It does cite a work by Barsoum published in 2003 (though not in that section) which is an English translation of The Scattered Pearls, but on his veneration that text only says according to Paul Bedjan that Isaac of Nineveh was 'regarded as a saint' by some early scholars who had revised his work (pp.140) (and continues "One of our monks, carried too far in his illusions about this book, even went to the extent of distorting its translation to make it sound “orthodox”").

So Barsoum doesn't seem to have regarded him as a saint himself. Brock may have said he was venerated as such but I don't currently have that reference and the introduction in subsequent editions of that work omits this claim. Rajan does describe him as a saint, though I'm unsure how widely that's accepted. I'm not sure I'm convinced but perhaps if I can verify the Brock quote it may change my mind. Chaste Krassley (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]

Regarding the first of the above mentioned quotations, I couldn't find a precise online link to substantiate the claim. The second work is indeed one by Syriac Orthodox priest Mani Rajan and definitely not by Ignatius Aphrem I. Due to a misunderstanding, I got the author's name wrong, which is a big mistake. However I bely M Rajan is a trustworthy source. The other relevant online citations that I could find is: Studies in Syriac Spirituality (1988). Brock, SP. The Syrian Church Series. here Jacob Vellian (Ed.) vol. 13. p 101: Here, then, is a writer who cut across all the ecclesiastical boundaries of the Christian East a Nestorian who was real and appreciated just as much by the other orthodox traditions. Greek Chalcedonian and Syrian non-Chalcedonian. and p.115: The writings of this priest monk of the Church of the East have thus successfully crossed many ecclesiastical boundaries, and it is remarkable that today they are proving far more influential in the Orthodox Church, the various western Churches and the Coptic Orthodox Church, than in his own Church of the East. Logosx127 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for a link, I asked for an accurate citation. Where did you get the quote? Chaste Krassley (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "List of Saints" here published by the Syriac Orthodox Archdiocese of Western United States of America lists Isaac the Syrian as a saint. Logosx127 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The year given indicates this would be referring to Isaac of Antioch (possibly an amalgam of two or three different figures according to Barsoum and Rajan, but none of them Isaac of Nineveh). Though I don't think I would consider that a satisfactory source for something contentious, does it give you any pause at all that a source you are here attempting to rely on in fact omits Isaac of Nineveh from their list of saints? Or that a figure whose authority you seem to have held in high regard in determining this matter when you believed it to be in your favour, Barsoum, does not regard him as orthodox, much less a saint? Chaste Krassley (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was only now that I noticed that the year of death was added in brackets next to each name on that list. Of course, your argument is correct. Meanwhile, Barsoum definitely calls him a Nestorian. So the only source that definitely supports the veneration is Rajan. Meanwhile Brock calls him 'influential' and 'appreciated' in the SOC and COC more 'than in his own Church of the East'. Logosx127 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Rajan is deserving of inclusion, though there's still a question of how it is presented. Brock made some interesting comments in an interview in 2024 about Pope Francis adding Isaac to the Roman martyrology. He mentions that Isaac's veneration being formally acknowledged is relatively recent in any tradition, so it's entirely possible he's been quietly acknowledged since Barsoum's time, though Brock doesn't mention it. It seems possible to me also that Isaac is venerated specifically in the JSCC or among St Thomas Christians across communions given Rajan's position and that the first edition of Brock's translations was published in Kottayam, though that's just a hunch. At the very least given his comments on the Coptic Church's position I think we should be more specific than simply to say Isaac is venerated in the Oriental Orthodox tradition. Would you be fine with specifying the Syriac Orthodox Church specifically and/or with attribution to Rajan? We could include reference to Brock about the influence of Isaac in the revival of the Coptic monastic tradition also. Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That would be flawless. I cannot agree more. Logosx127 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made some edits accordingly. If you find anything objectionable let me know, otherwise we can probably close the RFC. Chaste Krassley (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
His influence in the revival of Coptic Orthodox monasticism should also be included in the body but not necessarily in the lead. But for now, the current form will suffice. The RFC can be closed at this stage. Logosx127 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding, I stepped away a bit after making the edits. I did add a statement about this in the body (in the section "Veneration" which I renamed to "Veneration and legacy" to encompass this) attributed to Brock. I'll remove the RFC tag, though I'll also note given it's only been the two of us in this discussion I don't think we've formed a particularly robust consensus so the issue may well be raised again by other editors. Chaste Krassley (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_the_Syrian&oldid=1333130752"