This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
The running text from the century-old Catholic Encyclopedia says the patriarch at the time of the fall of Antioch was "Christian" while the list below states that it was Opizzo. Was that his episcopal name? or someone's just wrong? — LlywelynII 07:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a typo I suppose. His name was definitely Opizo - he's fairly well known, he was actually one of Pope Innocent IV's many nephews. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you've already written a lengthy article about Opizzo Fieschi :) I think the confusion in the Catholic Encyclopdia stems from Eubel's Hierarchica catholica, which mentions a "Christianus" following Opizzo. But this cites a letter of Alexander IV to the patriarch, which doesn't mention him by name but does mention "Christians", so perhaps Eubel misread it. Eubel also cites a letter from Urban IV, but that one doesn't actually name the patriarch either. Since there are no other letters appointing a new patriarch, we can probably assume that Opizzo was patriarch until 1268. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also Hamilton's Latin Church in the Crusader States (p. 232), which mentions that Claude Cahen already proved that the supposed "Elias" and "Christian" after Opizo are due to misunderstanding of the sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, Hamilton cites Cahen's, Syrie du Nord, which explains why there were no patriarchs of Antioch named Elias and Christian - you can read it here, paragraphs 5 and 6, or about p. 662 in the actual book. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]