Dating the Conversion: Sources in Conflict
A textbook editor receives three draft paragraphs on the Christianization of Armenia and must reconcile them. Paragraph A says the conversion occurred in 301 CE and cites a later Armenian historian's narrative of a king's illness and a missionary's imprisonment. Paragraph B says the decisive turn was the council held at Valarshapat, dated by some scholars to 314, and cites a Greek church historian. Paragraph C says 'Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity' and gives no date. A reviewer flags that the 301 date depends on a later source's chronology and that some scholars shift the conversion or its formalization by a few years. The editor wants a single defensible paragraph.
1. Explain why the three paragraphs conflict, and identify the kind of source problem at issue in each.
Read the worked answer
Paragraph A - narrative source, retrospective. The dramatic conversion story (royal illness, missionary's imprisonment) comes from a historian writing well after the events. It is theologically shaped and its chronology is reconstructed, which is why the 301 figure is traditional rather than securely fixed. Treat 301 as the conventional date, not an archival fact.
Paragraph B - institutional marker, external source. A council at Valarshapat dated c. 314 marks the institutionalization of a church hierarchy (bishops, canons), which is a different event from a royal conversion. A Greek ecclesiastical historian reporting it reflects outside recognition. Conversion (a ruler's allegiance) and organization (a church structure) need not share a date.
Paragraph C - a claim with no evidentiary anchor. 'First state to adopt' is a priority claim; priority depends entirely on which event and which date you accept, so stating it dateless hides the problem rather than solving it.
Core issue: the sources answer different questions (personal conversion vs. institutional establishment vs. international priority) and are of different types and remove from events.
2. Write the reconciled paragraph, and state the one hedge the editor should refuse to cut.
Read the worked answer
Reconciled paragraph: 'Armenian tradition places the conversion of the royal court in the early 4th century, conventionally 301 CE, on the testimony of a later Armenian historian whose chronology is debated. A church council at Valarshapat, dated by some scholars to c. 314, marks the consolidation of an organized hierarchy. The two dates need not conflict: they may mark a ruler's allegiance and the building of institutions respectively. Armenia's claim to be the earliest Christian kingdom rests on accepting the earlier date and on defining "adoption" as the sovereign's conversion.'
Hedge that must stay: the phrase 'on the testimony of a later historian whose chronology is debated.' Cutting it would present a traditional date as a documentary certainty and would erase the distinction between conversion and institutionalization - the exact confusion the editor was asked to fix. Everything else can be tightened; this clause cannot.